STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
November 18, 2025
Appeal
A
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24- 2113 FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE,
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Continue to conduct the Public Hearing that was opened at the October 28, 2025 Council meeting, including receiving an updated staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan for an existing single-family dwelling and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15304 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-2113 FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4),” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 24-2113; and
3. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Class 4 – Minor Alterations to Land)
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy (“Applicant”),1 of 1813 Temple Hills Drive (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-2113 to for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan associated with an existing single-family dwelling, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B) (1)(q) 2 (the “project”).
On February 13, 2025 the Design Review Board (“Board”) adopted Resolution No. 24-2113 conditionally approving DR 23-2114, by a 5-0 vote, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the 1 The Project’s representative is Steve Kawaratani, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 The City of Laguna Beach (“City”) has adopted a View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. (LBMC Chapter 12.16). It allows a property owner to establish a protected or preserved view by filing for a record of views within the City. The City may issue a view restoration order and require restoration action upon determination of a significant view impairment. Vegetation that is approved through the design review process and in which vegetation height limits are established pursuant to the design review process are exempt from the City’s View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. (LBMC Section 12.16.080(e).) Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15304 (the “Project” or “Board Approval”). (The February 13, 2025 Board Staff Report, Resolution No. 24-2113, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 3-8, respectively.) On April 3, 2025,5 Rhett and Sherry Schiffman (the “Appellants”), the neighboring property owners of 1843 Temple Hills Drive, filed a notice of appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”). (Attachment 2.) The Appellant contends that the conduct and deliberations of the Board during the February 13, 2025 hearing were “highly irregular in many ways,” citing eight contentions. To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Board’s public hearing; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the October 28, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 9). The public hearing was thereafter continued to November 18, 2025 in order to allow the Appellants and Applicant additional time to come to an agreement on the matter.
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all design review permit decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution of denial. (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.”6 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.” 5 Upon receipt of the appeal, the City informed the Appellants that the appeal was not timely under LBMC Section 25.05.070.
The Appellants then filed a Verified Petition For Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief challenging, among other things, the City’s determination that their appeal was untimely. After discussions with the Applicant, it was agreed to that in exchange for the Appellants dismissing the lawsuit, the Applicant would agree to this appeal before the City Council on the merits.
6 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
B. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(a) provides:
If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence.
There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-2113, the City Council is limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board and cannot reweigh the evidence or exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence.9 In other words, this is de novo review but not a de novo hearing. There is a presumption that the Board’s decision was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion, and the Appellant has the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., making it more likely than not).
If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.
Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 24-2113 subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 10 in such event, remand is not required.
C. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24-2113, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15304;
9 Attached to this staff report is the evidence presented at the March 13, 2025, public hearing discussed below. For reference, this includes the Board Staff Report [Attachment 3] and Board Resolution [Attachment 4], Plans [Attachment 5], Public Comments [Attachment 6], Minutes (Attachment 7), and Transcript [Attachment 8]. 10 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the DRB or Planning Commission for further consideration.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24-2113, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15304, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board’s decision and denying 24-2113, with findings in support of overturning the decision and denial; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding 24-2113 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
DISCUSSION
A. FEBRUARY 13, 2025 Design Review Board Hearing
1. Staff Presentation
City staff presented an overview of the Project and staff’s recommendations in the staff report, and noted that staff had received view equity concerns from an adjacent neighbor located at 1843 Temple Hills Drive.
2. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
During the Board members’ review of the project, the Board members toured the Property and met with the Applicant, Project representative, and neighbors. Specifically, the Board members made the following ex parte disclosures:
Commenter Summary of Comment Minutes
Page Nos.
Board Member
Coveny
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.
Board Member
Gibbs
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.
Board Member
Thalman
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.
Board Member
Weil
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.
Board Chair
Gannon
Emailed the Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy).
p. 7 of 19.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
4. Applicant Presentation
During the Applicant presentation, Steve Kawaratani spoke on behalf of the Applicant. His presentation is summarized below.
Applicant Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Steve
Kawaratani
(Applicant)
Noted that the two Ficus trees and one Pittosporum Silver Sheen tree were not on the previously approved landscape plan for the Property, and that he was requesting that they be approved. Mr. Kawaratani noted that a survey done for the property showed that the two Ficus trees were on the other side of a previously existing wood fence. This fence had been considered the property line, but it was in fact located on the Applicant’s property. The revised landscape plan showed this area and the two Ficus trees to remain, and he asked the Board that the Ficus trees be allowed to grow up to 25 feet in height and pruned twice a year, and for the Silver Sheen to be allowed a maximum height of 20 feet.
p. 1-2 of 21
[Kawaratani]
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Rhett
Schiffman
Stated that he had filed a code enforcement complaint regarding overgrown vegetation at the project location that threatened his home during storms, and that the existing Ficus trees that were limited to 20 feet were nearly 40 feet tall at the time. He indicated that two unpermitted Ficus trees and one overgrown Evergreen Ash were the primary reasons for this hearing. He indicated that these trees adversely impacted a view corridor at both the upper and lower levels of his home, affecting both ocean and Catalina Island views. He requested that the Board limit the height and width of the Ficus trees such that they do not go beyond his upper deck, and that the Pittosporums and Evergreen Ash be limited to below his hedge.
p. 2-4 of 21
[Rhett
Shiffman]
Sherry
Schiffman
Stated that the Project affects their view and did not think their neighbor's privacy is an issue.
p. 5 of 21
[Sherry
Schiffman]
Spencer Harris Expressed support for the Project. p. 5-6 of 21.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Commenter Summary of Comment
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Vella Reddy Stated that the tree height and view concerns by the Schiffmans’ dated back to 2010 and was the subject of a lawsuit which has since been dismissed. The trees have since been pruned and they would like to keep the trees at a height that will preserve their privacy. p. 7 of 21
[Vella Reddy]
Steve
Kawaratani
Stated the owners want to ensure the neighbors maintain their views, but that they also want to maintain their privacy. He would like the height of only three trees to be modified to ensure that his clients do not lose their privacy and that they do not continue to have issues with code enforcement.
p. 7 of 21
[Kawaratani]
7. Board Questions and Staff Responses
During Board deliberations, the Board asked questions and staff provided responses, as reflected in the table below:
Commenter Discussion
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Board Member
Gibbs
Asked if the proposed landscape changes summarized on page six of the staff report were different from what was being discussed. Staff stated that the summary in the staff report compares the prior Board-approved plan to the changes that were being requested as part of this Project. p. 10 of 21
[Gibbs]
Board Member
Gibbs
Asked if the current application was for existing trees that do not appear on the previously approved plans. Staff concurred. p. 14 of 21.
Board Members
Thalman and
Weil
Asked for clarification of the trees/hedge height. Staff stated the Brazilian pepper hedge was to be maintained at 15 feet and the remaining 16 trees be 20 feet or less.
p. 14-16 of
21. Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
8. Board Deliberations
Topic Discussion
Related
Finding
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Height of trees
Weil stated that heights could be thought of in
terms of “zones” across different portions of the
rear yard, with view corridors provided across the
lower portion of the lot with vegetation
maintained closer to 20 feet to open up the view,
whereas the vegetation heights would need to
consider the Applicant’s privacy for landscaping
situated between the two properties. Gibbs
agreed, noting that the zones are “kind of built in
because the backyard gradually goes down.
So…making height limits on those Ficus will do
the graduation.” Board member Gibbs stated that
the Appellant has “an expansive view.”
Privacy and
View Equity
p. 14-15 of 21.
[Weil, Gibbs]
View Corridor
Weil stated the main concern is privacy and view
corridors. He would like the board to collaborate
and determine in the interest of all parties the trees
height and maintenance. Chair Gannon and Mr.
Gibbs agreed.
Privacy and
View Equity
p. 14-15 of 21
[Weil, Gibbs,
Gannon]
The Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2113 approving the Project, subject to the following three Project-specific conditions:
1. The height of the landscaping would be consistent with the heights indicated on page six of the staff report.
2. The three Ficus trees (Weeping Figs) were allowed to be a minimum height of 20 feet and maximum of 25 feet.
3. The three Ficus trees were required to be maintained twice a year in April and October.
RESPONSE TO APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). The City Council is tasked with evaluating the issues raised in the Appeal, as to whether the Board abused its discretion in approving the Project (as explained in the Standard of Review section). Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and the staff response.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
1. “This was a CE-Mandated Board meeting after the Applicants received a notice of violation for among other things, creating a public nuisance, and three subsequent citations for continuous violations and failure to pay a fine. The findings included plant debris, rodents’ nests, several trees above the height limits, 8 or 9 trees not on the approved landscape plan with at least three of them considered a fire hazard. These trees severely impacted the Schiffmans’ ocean and Catalina views. Most of the violations have since been addressed by Code Enforcement, but the DRB was to address 2 remaining illegal Ficuses that were planted in a view corridor to Catalina on the original landscape plans where only ground cover was meant to be.”
Staff response:
As noted on page three in the staff report prepared for the February 13, 2025 Design Review Board meeting (Attachment 3), the modification to the previously approved landscape plan was a result of a code enforcement case on the property. Staff recommended approval, however it was also noted on page one of the report that staff recommended that the “Board deliberate on the view equity and landscaping criteria and consider additional conditions of approval to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive.” The Applicant was required to submit a Design Review application for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section
25.05.040(B)(1)(q), and receive approval from the Board in order to resolve the pending Code Enforcement case. The Applicants did submit their project and received the required approval for the modifications to their approved landscape plan as of February 13, 2025, when the Board voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the project. The Board specifically considered view equity for the project and concluded view equity was met.
There is substantial evidence supporting the Board Approval of DR 24-2113, based on the evidence presented, including the staff report and presentation. Regarding the View Equity criterion, the Board Approval, as documented in Resolution No. 25-2113, gave due consideration to the proposed vegetation heights to ensure that view equity was met. Moreover, in its conditional approval of the Project, the Board properly considered the Appellant’s views across the Applicant’s property when it determined to condition three Ficus trees on the Property to a minimum height of 20 feet and a maximum height of 25 feet. Board member Weil noted that the vegetation heights could be thought of in terms of “zones” across different portions of the rear yard, with view corridors provided across the lower portion of the lot with vegetation maintained closure to 20 feet to open up the view, whereas the vegetation heights would need to consider the Applicant’s privacy for landscaping situated between the two properties. (Attachment 8 [February 13, 2025 Board Transcript], Weil, p. 14 of 21.) Board member Gibbs concurred, and noted that the zones are “kind of built in because the backyard gradually goes down. So…making height limits on those Ficus will do the graduation.” (Attachment 8 [February 13, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 15 of 21.) In the context of creating view corridors and addressing privacy concerns, Board member Gibbs stated that the Appellant has “an expansive view.” Although the three Ficus trees were not on the previously approved landscape plan, the Board granted design review approval for a modified landscape plan, in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q). The Board found that the vegetation heights achieved view equity, and this decision was based on the topographic conditions of the Property, and balanced consideration for the Applicant’s privacy and the Appellant’s views.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
2. “The scheduled DRB hearing on the Applicants’ project was conducted on February 13, 2025; however, the DRB failed to issue its Decision or to give the Appellants notice of this Decision until March 25, 2025. Attached as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Decision and the email from the City’s Staff dated March 25th.” Staff response:
The Board voted 5-0 at the February 13, 2025 public hearing to conditionally approve DR 24-2113 for modifications to the landscape plan. The Appellants were in attendance and provided comments during the public comment period of the hearing, and would have been aware that the Project had received conditional approval at the conclusion of the hearing. Board Member Gibbs, the maker of the motion to grant DR 24- 2113 and which carried by a 5-0 vote, read into the record certain additional conditions of approval. (Attachment 8 [February 13, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 20 of 21.) These conditions were correctly incorporated into the Board’s Resolution No. 24-2113, which was subsequently signed by the Board chair, Jessica Gannon, and Interim Planning Manager Jim Campbell. The City does not provide additional notice to neighbors regarding either approval or denial of any matter before the Board. Further, any assertion that the DRB’s decision is decision is not final until the resolution is executed by pertinent DRB members or staff is not supported by law – the decision is final when the DRB publicly deliberates, makes a motion, and votes on an item.
3. “Applicants’ advocate and agent at the hearing, Mr. Steve Kawaratani, testified that he provided ex-parte assistance to the staff member assigned to this project (Garrett Wank) who used Mr. Kawaratani’s input in order to prepare his Staff Report and that he also held exparte meetings with Board members. Further, as a review of the video of the February 13 hearing reveals, both City staff and the DRB members deferred to Mr. Kawaratani to provide them with key “facts” on which they relied to recommend and approve the project. However, many of the key facts provided to the DRB and City staff by Mr. Kawaratani were misstatements of the facts. Among other misrepresentations, Mr. Kawaratani testified that the Schiffmans (appellants) themselves planted the two “illegal” trees that was the basis for this meeting. This is not so, as photographic evidence reveals. Mr. Kawaratani also testified that the Appellants harassed the Applicants by complaining to Code Enforcement that their plantings violated the 2012 approved landscaping plans. The Appellants did not harass Applicants; they merely reported the code violations. These statements were false and highly prejudicial.”
Staff response:
Mr. Kawaratani, acting in his capacity as the Applicant’s representative for the landscape plan, was in communication with staff in regards to the project scope and details during the entitlement process. These conversations are necessary and routine for all projects that are submitted for the City’s review, and are intended to ensure that staff has a clear and complete understanding of the application. Staff will then prepare an independent analysis of the application and present a recommendation to the Board, based on staff’s review of the information and on the basis of the required findings for approval or denial. These communications do not constitute “ex-parte” communications, as staff does not make any decisions on any Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
project before the Board. Staff is regularly in contact with both project applicants as well as project proponents/opponents. This accessibility by staff is in no way inappropriate.
Prior to opening the hearing, all Board members disclosed all communications they had with Applicants and the Appellant in relation to the Project, as noted in the minutes (Attachment 7). After staff presented the Project, including a recommendation that the Board to consider view equity considerations and consider additional conditions of approval to address the concerns raised by the Schiffmans, the Board opened the public hearing, at which time Mr. Kawaratani provided additional comments. He noted that the two Ficus trees and one Pittosporum Silver Sheen tree were not on the previously approved landscape plan for the property, and that he was requesting that they be approved. Mr. Kawaratani noted that a survey was done for the property showed that the two Ficus trees were on the other side of a previously existing wood fence.
This fence had been considered the property line, but it was in fact located on the Applicant’s property. The revised landscape plan showed this area and the two Ficus trees to remain, and he asked the Board that the Ficus trees be allowed to grow up to 25 feet in height and pruned twice a year, and for the Silver Sheen to be allowed a maximum of 20 feet in height. The Board then opened the hearing to public comment during which Rhett Schiffman who resides at 1843 Temple Hills Drive spoke first. He noted that the trees were well above 40 feet in height and that they had spoken with Code Enforcement. He stated that the two Ficus trees were planted directly in a view corridor of Catalina Island and that there were seven other trees not on the approved landscape plan which had since been removed. Chairperson Gannon asked Mr. Schiffman if they had planted the two Ficus trees and Mr. Schiffman stated they had not planted those trees. The Applicants were provided three minutes for rebuttal of public comments. The Board asked a few questions of the Applicant and staff regarding the history of the project, but the Board did not consider whether the Applicant or Appellant had planted the trees in their deliberation on the project, nor does the record indicate that the code enforcement history influenced the outcome of the hearing. Further, attempting to police or correct any alleged misstatement by the applicant (or any public testimony for that matter) is not a priority of the DRB. The DRB considers the entirety of the record and exercises its discretion in reviewing each project individually. The record does not indicate that any allegations of harassment were considered in the decision-making process. The Board’s deliberations focused on the relevant design review criteria, and specifically view equity and privacy. To best satisfy both of these criteria, the Board granted a conditional approval, restricting the maximum height of the existing Ficus trees while also setting a minimum height for these same trees in order to provide privacy between the Applicant and Appellant.
4. “Although Mr. Wank and his manager, Amber Dobson, had committed to the Schiffmans that they would conduct a site visit to verify the accuracy of the landscape plan, this never happened (apparently believing he could rely on Mr. Kawaratani’s input). The landscape plan remains inaccurate.
Despite the complexity of this case and repeated misrepresentations on the revised landscape plan by Mr. Steve Kawaratani, to the Appellant’s knowledge, the City’s arborist (or other independent landscape expert) was not consulted as part of the staff’s investigation, and, apparently, he did not visit the site or provide input to the Staff Report as to whether the Applicants’ requests were necessary or would achieve their stated goals and what would be the impact on the Schiffmans. The landscape plan remains inaccurate to this day with other illegal tress on the property not capture on the plan.” Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
Staff response:
It is unknown whether Garrett Wank or Amber Dobson conducted a site visit. However, City staff did communicate with Code Enforcement staff, and staff was aware of the existing site conditions. The City Arborist does not review private development applications as part of his responsibilities. The February 13, 2025 staff report (Attachment 3) noted that all relevant design review criteria were considered in staff’s recommendation to the Board for the Project. The Appeal does not identify how the landscape plan may be inaccurate, nor was such information provided by the Appellant to the Board for their consideration.
5. “The DRB’s decision in this matter approved a significant modification to a 2012 landscape plan that was part of a major remodel of 1813 Temple Hills Drive. At the 2012 hearing (minutes attached as Exhibit “2” at pp, 5-7) the DRB made certain aspects of the 2012 landscaping plan conditions to the approval of the larger project. This 2012 approved landscaping plan was relied upon by the neighbors of 1813 Temple Hills Drive, including the Appellants for about 12 years.”
Staff response:
Although a design review-approved landscape plan cannot be modified by an Applicant unilaterally, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code allows an Applicant to request changes. Modifications to a previously approved landscape plan can be requested upon submitting a Design Review application, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q). These plans require review and approval by the Board, unless the landscape modifications qualify for a design review exemption. The Applicant submitted their application to modify the previously approved landscape plan and approved heights for the proposed trees on September 14, 2023.
These plans were cleared by City staff and presented to the Board at the February 13, 2025 public hearing.
The Board voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the Project and adopted Resolution No. 24-2113 (Attachment 4). The additional conditions took into account the testimony provide by the Applicant and Appellant and considered both privacy and view equity for the affected properties. These additional conditions were in response to the testimony provided by the Applicants and the Appellants at the February 13, 2025 Board hearing.
6. “Much of the February 2025 hearing was spent discussing the fact that the Appellants had made complaints to Laguna Beach Code Enforcement because, in their view, the vegetation on the Applicants’ property violated the terms of the 2012 DRB approval of the landscape plans. In fact, in response to the complaints made by the Appellants, Code Enforcement appropriately investigated and appropriately issues 3 citations. Below are portions of the Code Enforcement’s April 9, 2025 communications with Applicants. …
Instead of correcting the cited vegetation, Applicants asked the DRB to intervene and then successfully obtained a retroactive approval of an amended landscape plan. To make matters worse, the hearing transcript makes it clear that some of the DRB members were hostile towards the Appellants for having exercised their right to report the code violations, Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
apparently under the false premise that they were responsible for planting the illegal Ficuses in the first place.”
Staff response:
The Applicant was allowed to request modification to their previously approved landscape plan, consistent with City procedures. In accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q), the Applicant availed themselves of the ability to modify a prior approval through the review and approval of the Board. The Applicant followed the required procedures to modify their 2012 Board-approved landscape plan for their Property. The Board found that the requested changes, as conditioned, satisfied the design review criteria.
The fact that the Board had once before approved a landscape plan for the Property is not synonymous with the position that this landscape plan can never be modified; the Board will consider the merits, weigh the evidence, and render a decision based on the required findings for approval or denial for every application presented to the Board. The Appellant has not cited specific evidence to support a conclusion that the history of this application influenced the outcome. Based on staff’s review of the record, staff believes that the Board’s review was fair and impartial, and gave due consideration to all evidence presented.
7. “A review of the transcript of the DRB February 13 hearing reveals that the Applicants failed to provide the Board with substantial evidence to support their contention that there was good cause to approve a substantial modification of a landscaping plan that had been in place for 12 years. No evidence was produced that there was any change in circumstances that justified the DRB’s decision in this matter. But most egregiously, they approved a change that unnecessarily and severely obstructs the Schiffmans’ view of Catalina from the entire upper floor.”
Staff response:
The Applicant submitted the proposed modifications to their landscape plan to the City for review on September 14, 2023. City staff reviewed those plans in accordance with the relevant Design Review criteria and provided the required analysis in the staff report (Attachment 3) to support the Project as proposed. The Board took into consideration staff’s analysis, testimony provided by the Applicant, and public comments in their 5-0 vote to conditionally approve the modification to the landscape plans in the adopted Resolution (Attachment 4). As indicated above, the fact that the Board had once before approved a landscape plan for the Property is not determinative; the Board will consider the merits, weigh the evidence, and render a decision based on the required findings for approval or denial for every application presented to the Board.
As indicated in the meeting minutes, four of the five Board members also met with the Appellant prior to the hearing, providing the Appellant with an additional opportunity to express their concerns with the Project (Attachment 7). The Appellant’s arguments that there must be “good cause to approve a substantial modification of a landscaping plan” or that “[n]o evidence was produced that there was any change in circumstances” are not the pertinent standards or required findings. The Board applied the required design review criteria to the proposed modifications as explained above.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
8. “Further, a review of the video of the February 13 hearing reveals that the various members were confused about the locations, dimensions, impact on views, the species of trees involved, the status of code enforcement proceedings, and the terms and the significance of the previously approved 2012 landscape plan. Several Board members admitted at the meeting that the severe weather on the day of their site visit compromised their ability to assess the situation at the site. One Board member did not complete a site visit. Two Board members had requested additional evaluation by Planning to develop a more reasoned ruling, but were overruled.
What the DRB did approve allows for the illegal Ficuses to grow 25 feet directly into the Catalina views from the Master bedroom, Great room and upper decks. This is not reasonable, nor what they probably intended, and it certainly does not meet Architectural Guidelines.” Staff response:
The Board posed questions for the Applicant, staff, and Appellants in their deliberation of the project. These questions were answered, and the Board understood the Project, material facts, and relevant design review criteria on which to assess and conditionally approve the Project. The record demonstrates that the Board appropriately weighed the evidence and rendered a decision based on the required findings.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The appeal does not encompass the Board’s CEQA determination. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project consists of planting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover to a previously developed residential parcel. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. Design review is required for construction within an “environmentally sensitive area” due to the lot slope being greater than 30%, as defined in LBMC 25.50.040, however the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive resources such as high value habitat, rock outcroppings, watercourses, or any other sensitive resources. The site itself is not environmentally sensitive.
There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 15-26)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 27-50)
3. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 51-60)
4. Adopted Resolution Design Review 24-2113 (Pgs. 61-69)
5. Board-Approved Landscape Plans (Pgs. 70)
6. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 71-76)
7. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes (Pgs. 77-95)
8. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting Transcript (Pgs. 96-116)
9. City Council Appeal Public Hearing Notice (Pgs. 117)
10. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 118-119)
Submitted By: Matt Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff
Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney