Agenda packet — Laguna Beach City Council, January 6, 2026 (part 1 of 7)

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JANUARY 6, 2026
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 505 FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 SPECIAL MEETING
MARK ORGILL, Mayor
HALLIE JONES, Mayor Pro Tem
SUE KEMPF, Councilmember
ALEX ROUNAGHI, Councilmember
BOB WHALEN, Councilmember
DAVE KIFF, City Manager
MEGAN GARIBALDI, City Attorney
LAURA PARISI, City Treasurer
ANN MARIE McKAY, City Clerk
LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the City Council is required to disclose on the record any campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 commencing on January 1, 2025, made by the party or the party’s agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure should be made when the agenda item is called and must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution, the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made. Council Members are also required to make such disclosures and recuse themselves.

Public Participation: You may submit comments in person on any agenda item or any item not on the agenda. You may also submit written comments on any agenda item or on any item not on the agenda via mail to the City Clerk at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 or by email to [email protected]. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your written comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public meeting is scheduled. Written comments WILL NOT be read aloud during the City Council Meeting. Please note that written comments are posted on the City’s website, so do not include any personal information you do not want posted on the web. Any comments received after the deadline for submittal may not become part of the public record for that meeting. For comments submitted on a topic not on the agenda, please indicate that you would like your comments included in the official record for this meeting. 1 of 928
[email protected]. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your written comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public meeting is scheduled. Written comments WILL NOT be read aloud during the City Council Meeting. Please note that written comments are posted on the City’s website, so do not include any personal information you do not want posted on the web. Any comments received after the deadline for submittal may not become part of the public record for that meeting. For comments submitted on a topic not on the agenda, please indicate that you would like your comments included in the official record for this meeting.

Courtesy Virtual Broadcast: Please take notice that the City also plans to broadcast the meeting via the below listed mediums. These virtual broadcast mediums are also provided as a courtesy only and are not guaranteed to be technically feasible or uninterrupted. Thus, in order to guarantee livetime viewing, members of the public are encouraged to attend in person.

1. Online on the City of Laguna website: www.lagunabeachcity.net/meetings

2. Cox cable channel 852

3. Online on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQsj8cEM7IvTH6p4uf3NUzQ TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Mayor of the City of Laguna Beach has called a special meeting of the City Council to take place at 3:30 p.m. on January 6, 2026, for the purpose of discussing and taking action on the item listed on the below agenda.

No other business shall be considered at the Special Meeting except as listed below.

SPECIAL MEETING APPEAL HEARINGS
************************************************

1. ROLL CALL 3:30 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Kempf

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR APPEALS.

This section is specifically for appeals of determinations of the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board, or other Boards or Commissions. Public Hearings (Appeals) are different from other public hearings in two ways: (1) In some cases, the City Council can only consider whether a lower body abused its discretion in granting or denying a project application. In other cases, the Council can conduct the hearing “de novo,” meaning that it can consider old and new information and make a determination unbound by the lower body’s decision. The item’s staff report will clearly state which review standard applies to each appeal item; and (2) public comment generally occurs this way: Staff presents a report about the appeal, Council members ask questions about the report. Then the presiding officer opens the public hearing, inviting the person who filed the appeal (the appellant) to speak first, followed by persons supporting the appellant’s position. Then the presiding officer invites persons disagreeing with appeal to speak. When all speakers have spoken, the presiding officer invites the appellant up a second time to address any comment and to conclude their argument. Following that, the presiding officer closes the public hearing, and the Council deliberates further and ultimately votes on a motion. The City Council conducts all Public Hearings in accordance with the provisions of applicable Laguna Beach procedure and State law. The Mayor shall have discretion to establish the time allocated for persons who wish to speak, often allowing more time for the appellant and/or the applicant.

A. APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 242113 FOR

MODIFICATIONSTOAPREVIOUSLYAPPROVEDLANDSCAPEPLANFORANEXISTING 2 of 928
persons disagreeing with appeal to speak. When all speakers have spoken, the presiding officer invites the appellant up a second time to address any comment and to conclude their argument. Following that, the presiding officer closes the public hearing, and the Council deliberates further and ultimately votes on a motion. The City Council conducts all Public Hearings in accordance with the provisions of applicable Laguna Beach procedure and State law. The Mayor shall have discretion to establish the time allocated for persons who wish to speak, often allowing more time for the appellant and/or the applicant.

A. APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 242113 FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING AT 1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) Recommendations:

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 242113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan for an existing singlefamily 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 UPHOLDING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 242113 FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN EXISTING SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING AT 1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4),” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 242113 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

B. PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF A PROJECT SEEKING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 242588 AND DESIGN REVIEW 242588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT A) Recommendations:

1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Coastal Development Permit 242588 and Design Review 242588 and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Following deliberation, take action to either adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Design Review Board to deny the project (Option A), or adopt a Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of the project (Option B):
a. Option A – Uphold Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 242588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R1
(RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE AND DETERMINE THAT THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT AREDISAPPROVED”hldithDiRiBd’dilfCtl
3 of 928
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 242588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R1
(RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE AND DETERMINE THAT THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 242588 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA. b. Option B – Overturn Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 242588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R1
(RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)”, overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 242588, approving Coastal Development Permit 242588 and Design Review 242586 and finding the approval of the Project exempt from CEQA.

C. PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF A PROJECT SEEKING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 242510 AND DESIGN REVIEW 242509 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B)
Recommendations:

1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Coastal Development Permit 242510 and Design Review 242509 and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Following deliberation, take action to either adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Design Review Board to deny the project (Option A), or adopt a Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of the project (Option B):
a. Option A – Uphold Design Review Board Denial: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 242510 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B) IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 242510 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA. b. Option B – Overturn Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW 4 of 928
AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B) IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 242510 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA. b. Option B – Overturn Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 242510 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE
LOCATED AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B) AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)”, overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 242510, approving Coastal Development Permit 242510 and Design Review 242509, and finding the approval of the Project exempt from CEQA.

4. ADJOURNMENT. The Laguna Beach City Council will adjourn to its next regular or other meeting, tentatively set for:

No Meeting Scheduled
LAGUNA BEACH CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
505 FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA
CLOSED SESSION AT 4:00 P.M. AND
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT .

ADA ACCOMMODATIONS
*************************
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 4970705 (telephone) or (949) 4970771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.5
********************************************************* Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, during normal business hours. 5 of 928
COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.5
********************************************************* Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, during normal business hours. 6 of 928

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

January 6, 2026
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 UPHOLDING 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 FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4),” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 24-2113 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

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 California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15304 (the “Project” or “Board 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).) 1 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 2 of 15 ends

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 project was previously continued from the October 28, 2025 City Council meeting to the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting, then to the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting, and later to this January 6, 2026 City Council meeting.

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.) 2 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 3 of 15 ends

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:
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. 3 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 4 of 15 ends

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;

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.
4 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 5 of 15 ends

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.

3. 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]

4. 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, p. 2-4 of 21
[Rhett
Shiffman]
5 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 6 of 15 ends

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.

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.

5. 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]

6. 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. 6 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 7 of 15 ends

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. 7. 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. 7 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 8 of 15 ends

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.

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 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 8 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 9 of 15 ends

“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.

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 9 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 10 of 15 ends

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 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.

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 10 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 11 of 15 ends

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.” 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 11 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 12 of 15 ends

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, apparently under the false premise that they were responsible for planting the illegal Ficuses in the first place.”
Staff response:

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.

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) January 6, 2026

Page 13 of 15 ends

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.

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. 13 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 14 of 15 ends

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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 16-27)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 28-51)

3. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 52-61)

4. Adopted Resolution Design Review 24-2113 (Pgs. 62-70)

5. Board-Approved Landscape Plans (Pg. 71)

6. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 72-77)

7. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes (Pgs. 78-96)

8. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting Transcript (Pgs. 97-117)

9. City Council Appeal Public Hearing Notice (Pg. 118)

10. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 119-120)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
14 of 156
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) January 6, 2026

Page 15 of 15 ends

Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner Anthony Viera, Planning Manager Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
15 of 156
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING 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 LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4)
WHEREAS, the property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy (“Applicant”), of 1813 Temple Hills Drive (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan to an existing single-family residence in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section

25.05.040(B)(1)(q) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. Following the public hearing, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2113, conditionally approving the Project, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15304 (the “Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, Rhett and Sherry Schiffman (“Appellant”) of 1843 Temple Hills Drive, filed an appeal of the Board’s Approval (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the public hearing to the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting, for the purpose of allowing the applicant and appellant additional time to come to a mutual agreement on the matter; and
Attachment 1
16 16 of 156
-2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the public hearing to the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting, for the purpose of allowing the applicant and appellant additional time to come to a mutual agreement on the matter; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the public hearing to the January 6, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

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.” City Council Finds:

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 18 18 of 156
-4- Reso. #
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.

City Council Finds:

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 19 19 of 156
-5- Reso. #
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 ex-parte 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.”
City Council Finds:

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 “exparte” communications, as staff does not make any decisions on any 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 20 20 of 156
-6- Reso. #
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 21 21 of 156
-7- Reso. #
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.

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 22 22 of 156
-8- Reso. #
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.” City Council Finds:

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.
…
23 23 of 156
-9- Reso. #
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, apparently under the false premise that they were responsible for planting the illegal Ficuses in the first place.” City Council Finds:

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.” City Council Finds:
24 24 of 156
-10- Reso. #
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.

SECTION 3. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project consists of minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the project is limited to landscaping that does not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the project site is fully improved with structures, hardscape, and ornamental landscaping and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. 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 26 26 of 156
-12- Reso. #
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. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder's Office within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Resolution No. 24-2113, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.

ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on January 6, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
27 27 of 156
Attachment 2
28 28 of 156
29 29 of 156
30 30 of 156
31 31 of 156
32 32 of 156
33 33 of 156
34 34 of 156
35 35 of 156
36 36 of 156
37 37 of 156
38 38 of 156
39 39 of 156
40 40 of 156
41 41 of 156
42 42 of 156
43 43 of 156
44 44 of 156
45 45 of 156
46 46 of 156
47 47 of 156
48 48 of 156
49 49 of 156
50 50 of 156
51 51 of 156

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
February 13, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.9
Case No: Design Review 24-2113
Project Location: 1813 Temple Hills Drive | APN: 641-382-14 Applicant: Steve Kawaratani, Consultant
(949) 290-0210 | [email protected]
Property Owner: Vella Reddy
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Garrett Wank | Associate Planner
(949) 464-6626 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 24-2113 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15304.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Steve Kawaratani, is requesting Design Review 24-2113. The proposed project includes modifications to a previously approved landscape plan (the “Project”). Staff recommends approval, however staff also recommends 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.

Attachment 3
52 52 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below.

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Site Coverage 4,130 SF (35%) 2,212 SF
(18.7%)
2,212 SF
(18.7%)
Yes
Landscape Open Space 2,325 SF (25.83%) 7,175 SF
(60.8%)
7,175 SF
(60.8%)
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and two-car garage built in 1975.

On November 1, 2001, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment 01-05 to realign the property line between 1843 and 1813 Temple Hills Drive.
53 53 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 3 ends

On March 15, 2012, the Design Review Board approved Design Review 12-248 for upper level additions, elevator height, elevated decks, air conditioning, grading, landscaping, construction in an environmentally sensitive area (earthquake fault), and to maintain the nonconforming driveway grade with the conditions that: the existing Brazilian Pepper hedge in the right-of-way be maintained at 15 feet and the width not allowed to be any wider; two Eucalyptus in the side yard directly above the small deck be removed; the remaining existing 16 trees in the rear yard be maintained at 20 feet or less; the uplights be reduced from seven to four, and the architectural lighting be limited to one light per exit, two at the garage of forty watts maximum.

Code Enforcement Case 23-0067 was opened on January 31, 2023, and remains open for not adhering to the design-review-approved landscape plan and making modifications to an approved landscape plan without approval.

Proposed Project
The property is located on Temple Hills Drive in a single-family neighborhood. The Project includes modifications to a previously approved landscape plan, including new and removed trees.

The Project is exempt from the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) requirements as the scope of work consists of site improvements on a lot developed with an existing single-family residence, the lot is not within close proximity to a beach or bluff, the property is fully improved with structures, hardscape, and ornamental landscaping, and none of the exceptions apply. (See Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC)

25.07.008(A)(1)).

Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
The project does not require approval of a CDP because the proposed action is considered exempt development pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.008, Coastal Development Permits. The proposed improvements are limited to landscaping that are accessory to an existing single-family dwelling and do not include additions that would require the project to be treated as new development.

ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: Design Review.

Design Review
The following element requires Design Review: modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. (See LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q).) Design Review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes. 54 54 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 4 ends

N/A. The proposed Project is limited to landscaping and no changes are proposed to the existing pedestrian and vehicular access. The property will maintain the existing access off of Temple Hills Drive.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

N/A. The proposed Project is limited to landscaping. These improvements would have no impact on the single-family structure’s well-articulated appearance.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

N/A. The proposed Project is limited to landscaping, and no changes are proposed to the existing single-family residence.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

Yes. The subject property is located within a developed single-family neighborhood and does not maintain any significant natural features, such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, significant watercourses, or ridgelines. No grading is being proposed as part of this project. The landscape plan modifications would continue to provide for a well-vegetated rear yard with a diversity of plant species.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

Yes. The proposed project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan as evidenced in the findings below.

General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

Yes. The project, limited to landscaping and align with this policy by integrating with the existing natural topographic features. No grading or obstruction of public views would occur. 55 55 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 5 ends

LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

Yes. The project enhances the site’s visual quality through appropriate landscaping without introducing architectural changes. Public views remain unaffected as the existing Brazilian Pepper hedge obscures visibility of the proposed vegetation from Temple Hills Drive. Maximum maintained heights for all new trees are proposed to range from 15 to 20 feet high to maintain private views for neighboring properties.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

Yes. The proposed landscaping respects the site's natural features. The landscaping plan employs visually compatible elements to align with local design guidelines. The existing Brazilian Pepper hedge obscures visibility of the proposed vegetation from Temple Hills Drive, therefore no change is proposed to the existing public views.

LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

Yes. By maintaining the existing terrain and focusing solely on landscaping, the project minimizes landform alterations. There are no environmentally sensitive resources in the project area, and no grading or building modifications are proposed.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

N/A. The existing residence was constructed in 1975 and is approximately 49 years old. The structure is not listed on the City’s Historic Register and is not associated with events or persons important to local, regional, or national history. The structure also does not represent the work of a master, nor does it exhibit high artistic values. Finally, the building does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a particular type, period, region, or method of construction. The structure has been 56 56 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 6 ends

modified over the years, including kitchen additions in 1964, a garage extension in 1993, and upperlevel floor area additions and deck additions in 2012.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Yes. The subject property is located within the Rimrock (#6b) neighborhood as specified in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The neighborhood is characterized by varied streetscape planting, ranging from a rustic palette of Eucalyptus, California Sycamore, and California Pepper, to a 1960's tropical palette of Coral Trees, Giant Bird of Paradise, and palm trees.

The submitted landscape plan has been reviewed by the City’s landscaping consultant and the proposed landscaping is consistent with the City’s requirements. Maximum maintained heights for all new trees are proposed to range from 15 to 20 feet high to maintain private views for neighboring properties.

As shown in Figure 1, the proposed changes to the approved planting plan (already planted) incorporate a range of groundcover, shrubs, and trees including:
• Removal of:
o 9 Carolina Laurel Cherry shrubs
o 2 Strawberry Trees
o 17 existing trees (species not specified)
• Planting of:
o 6 Cast Iron Plants (groundcover),
o 3 Agave maintained at 4’ in height,
o 2 Phormium Hybrid Flux maintained at 4’ in height.
o 4 Eureka Lemon trees maintained at 15’ in height
o 4 Weeping Fig trees maintained at 20’ in height
o 1 Evergreen Ash tree maintained at 20’ in height
o 2 Pittosporum Silversheen trees maintained at 18’ in height As noted on the landscape plan (Attachment 2), all volunteer plants are to be removed. 57 57 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 7 ends

Figure 1: Proposed Planting Legend

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

N/A. The Applicant does not propose any new lighting as part of this application. Any future lighting will be subject to the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70).

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

Yes. The proposed landscaping modifications are consistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood. No new structures, grading, or alterations to the residence are proposed. The design complements the surrounding properties by maintaining an informal and visually appealing landscape.
58 58 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 8 ends

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

Yes. The landscape plan incorporates plantings to enhance privacy without introducing structures or hardscape elements. The existing and proposed trees will serve to create a visual barrier between the subject property and the adjacent neighbors.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

N/A. The proposed Project is limited to a new planting plan.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties. 59 59 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 9 ends

N/A. The proposed Project is limited to landscaping, and no pool, spa, or water feature is included in the application.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

Yes. The applicant proposes Weeping Fig trees at 20’ maintained height along with Evergreen Ash trees at 20’ height, existing New Zealand Christmas tree to remain at 20’ height, existing Strawberry Trees to remain at 15’ height and Pittosporum Silversheen shrubs to be raised from 12’ height to 18’ height.

The subject property is located within the Rimrock (#6b) neighborhood as specified in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The neighborhood is characterized by varied streetscape planting, ranging from a rustic palette of Eucalyptus, California Sycamore, and California Pepper, to a 1960's tropical palette of Coral Trees, Giant Bird of Paradise, and palm trees.

The proposed landscaping is designed to complement the neighborhood. Maximum maintained heights for all new trees are proposed to range from 15 to 20 feet high to maintain private views for neighboring properties.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

Yes. The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.

There are no other design guidelines that apply.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

The project is limited to landscaping modifications, which are appropriately scaled to the property and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed improvements do not include any new structures or expansions, ensuring the development remains proportional to the site.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

N/A. The project site is not located in a specific plan area and the R-1 zoning does not contain any other specific design review criteria. The project conforms to the Architectural Guidelines, including landscaping, privacy, view equity, and neighborhood compatibility as described above. 60 60 of 156
DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 10 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

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 minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the project is limited to landscaping that does not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the project site is fully improved with structures, hardscape, and ornamental landscaping and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. 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.

Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office should the Project receive final approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

If the Design Review Board determines that the project is consistent with the view equity and landscaping design review criteria, then it is recommended that the Board, by motion, adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2113 and finding said action exempt from CEQA.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Staff has received concerns regarding consistency with the design-review-approved landscape plans as well as view equity from the adjacent neighbor located at 1843 Temple Hills Drive. Specifically, the neighbor notes that the proposed tree heights at the east end of the property currently impact the viewshed of 1843 Temple Hills Drive, which abuts the project site to the east. (Attachment 3).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 24-2113
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Public Commentary
61 61 of 156
Attachment 4
62 62 of 156
63 63 of 156
64 64 of 156
65 65 of 156
66 66 of 156
67 67 of 156
68 68 of 156
69 69 of 156
70 70 of 156
unpermitted fence - (removed)
09/14/23 - REVISION
09/23
SK

PLANTING PLAN
2 2
2 AS SHOWN
1 2
FICUS BENJAMINA WEEPING FIG 20'H X 15'W
24" BOX
18'H X 10'W
2 (EX)
(DRAWN 4.12)
ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE 15'H X 15'W AS SHOWN
EXISTINGs1
15'H X 10'W 15 GAL AS SHOWN

ARB UNE
03/24/24 - REVISION

FIC BEN FICUS BENJAMINA - WEEPING FIG (EXISTING)
MAINTAINED AT A 20' HEIGHT
Pittosporum 'Silver Sheen' (Existing)
Maintained to upper roof eave +/- 18' height

CIT EUR -CITRUS

EUREKA LEMON
(EXISTING)
Ficus Benjamina (Existing)
FRA UHD FRAXINUS UHDEI EVERGREEN ASH 2O'H X 20'W
BOU SPE BOUGAINVILLEA SPEC. BOUGAINVILLEA BOUGAINVILLEA

FRUIT TREE

EUR LEM CIT LEM CITRUS 'EUREKA LEMON EUREKA LEMON

ARB UNE

PIT SIL

FIC BEN

FRA UHD
7'

MAINT SIZE

ASP PHO ASP
AGA
AGA

AGA ASP
ASP
ASP
ASP
PHO

ALL VOLUNTEER PLANTS WILL BE REMOVED
VELLA - REDDY RESIDNCE1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVELAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 09/16/24 - REVISION

PLANTING PLAN
Cleared for DRB
Signature __________ Date _____________ 09/27/2024
OX
24" BOX AS SHOWN
OX
(EX) FICUS BENJAMINA WEEPING FIG 20'H X 7'W EXISTING AS SHOWN Attachment 5
71 71 of 156
1 May 11, 2024
Hi, Garrett.

Thanks for meeting with me this past Friday and sharing the revised landscape plan for 1813 THD.

As we discussed, there are a few errors, omissions and misrepresentations still in this revised plan.

1. The two illegal Ficuses (in green circles, 1st image, below) are each represented as ~4-5ft on this plan (based on the size of the circles and the 1in to 8ft scale on the plan.) They are instead 15-20ft wide and massively block our views (2nd image, below). The green circles are also in the wrong location. The Ficuses are farther south (away from the street) than what is represented here and are directly in what used to be one of our best view corridors to Catalina Island on the originally approved landscape plan (3rd image, below). This plan, as drafted, would give the DRB a distorted and wholly inaccurate impression of the impact of these illegal trees on our pre-existing view corridor. The planting legend shows the intended mature height of these Ficuses to be limited to 20ft x15ft.

This plan does not accurately reflect this and is grossly misleading. If these illegal Ficuses are to stay, effectively permanently losing us this view corridor, forever, then we will insist that not only these Ficuses, but all the remaining trees in the backyard are limited to a height of 15ft (except as discussed, below) so that the remaining view corridors are never impacted again. Of note, the Evergreen Ash is also wrongly placed on the plan. It is instead ~5ft more into the marked view corridor (towards the left) and further reduces the view corridor from how it is depicted and was approved by the DRB (3rd image, below). Finally, if these Ficuses are to be legalized, the southern extent of the Ficuses must be limited to no farther south than this edge of our deck as depicted in the 2nd image, by the orange vertical line.

Attachment 6
72 72 of 156
2 2. According to the changes in this plan, the Vellas are also seeking to increase the size (width) of the Evergreen Ash from what was ~10ft on the originally approved plan to 20ft, which it illegally already is. [Note that the maximum approved size of the Evergreen as digitally measured on the approved landscape plan by David Latham of Planning is 9’-8 ¾, 1st image, below.] As above, this would not be acceptable to us unless: 1) the final height of this extremely fast-growing tree is limited to 15ft, consistent with their most recently trimming (2nd image, below on the right), and as originally proposed by the Vellas and some DRB members at the original DRB Evergreen Ash - 5 � further away from the
rear property, into the view corridor than
depicted here
Exis�ng
Ficus
View Corridor - There is only ground cover
on the plan
Two unapproved ficuses exactly in the
view corridor
Current Plan�ngs In View Corridor: • Evergreen Incorrectly Located on the Plan. It is 5� further into the corridor; Branches Extends Well into the View Corridor • Exis�ng Ficus Now Extends Well into View Corridor
• 2 Illegal Ficuses Placed Directly in the View Corridor Illegal Ficuses
73 73 of 156
3 meeting (3rd image, below), and 2) the other proposed restrictions in this email are adopted. Also, 3) the increased width, from 10ft to 20ft, can only extend towards the street (uphill- to the right, 2nd image below) to blend into the illegal Ficuses to form a hedge, as it currently does, and not be allowed to extend southerly into our view corridor as it did previously (2nd image on the left), significantly blocking our views of Catalina; and 4) nor can any of its branches be permitted to exceed the 15 ft height limit of the illegal Ficuses at any time so that it is maintained as a well-manicured, sloped hedge as depicted in the 4th image, below. If this is not acceptable, then I will strongly contest the legalizing of the Ficuses, as their refusal to maintain this Evergreen, even within the existing limits, has been a constant nuisance and source of stress to us, necessitating 3 citations from Code Enforcement. This is no way the height limit of the Ash can or should remain at 20ft in this location while maintaining our view equity. They have proven this convincingly over the last 4 years of this dispute.

Evergreen Ash Hedge- Before and Now A�er Most
Recent Trimming Mandated by Code Enforcement
Massive overgrowth well beyond 10� wide limit and
extending southerly into view corridor to Catalina
View corridor to ocean and Catalina restored- Current
Uphill, towards the street, is to the right in these images Well-manicured
Evergreen
74 74 of 156
4 3. The Vellas are also seeking to increase the height of the Pittosporum in their front yard to the upper roof eave of ~18ft. We would accept this if: 1) the plan stipulates that they tree can’t exceed the roof eave, as this is less ambiguous and easier for me to monitor than a height measurement, and 2) if the Pittosporum in the backyard, next to the Evergreen Ash, and also in our view corridor farther to the south, is limited to 15ft, as mentioned above, rather than the 18ft the Vellas are requesting for all Pittosporum on the planting legend. There is no privacy and shade value to this tree in that corner of their property, but it creates another opportunity for the Vellas to willfully and spitefully obstruct our views, as they have done for years.

DRB Discussion- March 15, 2012
Landscape architect did say
no new trees in backyard
and exis�ng limited to 15 �
or remove completely
Southern extent
of Illegal Ficuses
to be removed
Evergreen Ash is already ~20ft
wide and extends to the right
behind the illegal ficuses to form
a privacy hedge with the illegal
75 75 of 156
5 4. Assuming they agree to the other restrictions, the two originally approved Ficuses can be allowed a 20ft maximum height limit, rather than 15ft as indicated on the plan, provided their width is not permitted to extend beyond the rear of their house (not including the decks). This severely impacted our views, previously (image, below), so regardless of the final height (15 or 20ft), these Ficuses cannot extend beyond the rear of their house.

Their width is currently well beyond the 15ft width and are also inaccurately represented on the revised plan.

Lastly, mostly for Ross, there is still an illegal tree (1st image, below) next to the property line (orange arrow) near the Evergreen Ash (turquoise arrow) that is not on this plan. It was one of several unapproved trees, planted after the DRB meeting, along the property line that were mostly removed after you determined them to be illegal (2nd image, below).

This one remains and needs to be removed as well.
76 76 of 156
6 Finally, I can’t help but point out that since their last submission, they managed to increase the size of Evergreen Ash on the plan from 10 to 20 feet, and yet somehow overlooked correcting the size of the two illegal Ficuses, the main focus of this Enforcement action, from the ridiculously inaccurate 5ft, to the proposed 15ft- let alone their actual size. This is a flagrant underrepresentation of these trees still showing them as 5+5 or 10ft wide vs. the proposed 15+15 or 30ft widein this very same location that has been under Code Enforcement action for well over a year. You can see from the photo on page 2, these Ficuses are a huge dense hedge and pretty hard to miss. Oops… I guess? I hope this is all clear and helps your review of the landscape plan. Feel free to contact me with any questions. If you feel that a visit is in order, that’s fine, too.

But I would be grateful if they were not further rewarded for their continued careless, if not deliberately shoddy work, with yet another extended delay.

Regards,
Rhett
313-516-6924
77 77 of 156
Attachment 7
78 78 of 156
79 79 of 156
80 80 of 156
81 81 of 156
82 82 of 156
83 83 of 156

5.9 1813 Temple Hills Drive, APN 641-382-14 - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DESIGN REVIEW 24-2113 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15304] City Staff: Garrett Wank, Associate Planner at (949) 464-6626 [email protected]
Project Applicant: Steve Kawaratani, Consultant (949) 290-0210, [email protected]
The proposed project includes modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. The project is proposed as exempt development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07.

Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Coveny, Ms. Thalman and Mr. Weil visited the site with the applicant and met with neighbor Rhett Shiffman. Chair Gannon made a site visit and emailed with the applicant and attempted to visit the neighbor.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Garrett wank, summarized the staff report and recommendation to approve the project.

Board Questions: None
Chair Gannon opened public hearing.

Project Representative: Steve Kawaratani presented the project.

Public Testimony: Rhett Schiffman of 1843 Temple Hills Drive filed a code enforcement complaint regarding overgrown vegetation at the project location that threatened his home during storms. The existing Ficus trees that were limited to 20 feet were nearly 40 feet tall at present.

Sheri Schiffman of 1843 Temple Hills Drive stated the project affects their view and is concerned about the Ficus trees and does not think their neighbor's privacy is an issue.

Spencer Harris of 1765 Temple Hills Drive supports the project.

Rebuttal: The property owner stated the Schiffman' s are being unreasonable with their requests. Steve Kawaratani stated the owners want to ensure the neighbors maintain their views, but they also want to maintain their privacy. He would like the height of only three trees be modified.

Board Questions: Ms. Thalman asked if Mr. Schiffman asked them to cut the trees. The property owner stated they would cut the trees to a height that would preserve their privacy.

February 13, 2025
84 84 of 156
Mr. Weil asked if the trees' current height provided privacy. The owner stated that they do not. He was given the history of code enforcement cases/ inspections for this property.

Mr. Gibbs asked if the proposed changes were different from what was being discussed. Staff stated that there were some differences between the DRB approved landscape plan and the plan being presented now.

Steve Kawaratani compiled a list of proposed changes to the approved planting plan that includes some plants that are already in existence.

Mr. Gibbs asked if there are things on the plan that already exist that they are requesting approval for; Mr. Kawaratani agreed.

Ms. Thalman and Mr. Weil asked for clarification of the trees/hedge height. Staff stated the Brazilian pepper hedge be maintained at 15 feet and the remaining 16 trees be 20 feet or less.

Mr. Gibbs asked if the application is for existing trees but are not plants on the original approved plans; Staff agreed.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Mr. 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 concur.

Ms. Coveny thinks that serious parameters need to be given but does not think there is a view equity issue, but some cleanup would improve the property.

Ms. Thalman is supportive and ready to approve the project with the clarifications that have been made.

Chair Gannon is ready to move forward and agrees with Mr. Gibbs and is prepared to approve the project.

Mr. Gibbs also supports the project.

Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Ms. Thalman, to adopt Resolution 24-2113 approving modifications to a previously approved landscape plan and finding the approval exempt from CEQA under section 15304, with conditions restricting landscaping height as described on page 6 of the staff report and limiting three Ficus February 13, 2025
85 85 of 156
86 86 of 156
87 87 of 156
88 88 of 156
89 89 of 156
90 90 of 156
91 91 of 156
92 92 of 156
93 93 of 156
94 94 of 156
95 95 of 156
96 96 of 156

Page 1 of 21 ends

Chair Gannon:

Yes. Mr. Wank, your fabulous presentation please.

Garrett Wank:

Thank you. Good evening. Design Review Board and members of the public. Item 5.9 is a request for design review at 1813 Temple Hills Drive located in the R-1 zone. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and has a design review-approved landscape plan. The project involves modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. Proposed changes to the approved planting plan, which have already been planted, include a range of ground cover shrubs and trees, as well as modifying the proposed height and widths of existing vegetation.

Staff has received concerns regarding consistency with design review-approved landscape plans, as well as view equity from the adjacent neighbor located at 1843 Temple Hills Drive, and staff recommends that the board conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-2113 approving design review 24-2113 and finding set action exempt from CEQA. However, staff also recommends 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. That will conclude my staff summary and I'm available for any questions.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. Mr. Wank. Board, any questions to staff? No. Going around the room. Okay, you have five minutes for your presentation.

Steve Kawaratani:

Thank you Chair Gannon. Good evening Board Members, staff. My name is Steve Kawaratani and before I begin, I do want to say that I know Jim Campbell from Newport Beach and we're very lucky to have him coming in as a planning manager, and I also want to take the time to thank Wendy for being a great zoning administrator.

Let me begin. I'm here with my clients, Kavita and Matt, and could we queue up the first slide please, Garrett? So this project is a simple request. We're asking that two Ficustrees that were not on the original plan be approved. Those are depicted by the two lighter green circles at the top of the plan. And we're also asking that a Pittosporum Silver Sheen, which also was not on the original plan be approved. Could we go to the next slide please?
This is a topographic survey that was completed in 2012, and I want you to note that red line. That red line is a fence that was in existence when the survey was done. I also would like to bring your attention to the two yellow circles. Those are the two Ficus. Next slide please.

So this plan is the one that a prior board approved in 2012, and you'll note that red line is back there again.

You'll also note that there was a blank space there. The landscape architect looked at the survey, and thought that that was the property line. Because that's where the wooden fence was, so those plants were not included. Next slide please.

We are asking that the two Ficus be approved, and we're also asking that that other Ficus, which is currently limited to 20 feet, we'd like that all three trees, because they do not pose a view issue. We're asking that they be allowed to be 20 to 25 feet tall, and that they be pruned twice yearly. The reason why I am asking for this is that code enforcement has had to be summoned on multiple, multiple occasions, and at one episode that I was at, the code enforcement officer sanctioned my clients, and said that the trees were six inches too high, one leaf. So we need to put an end to this. I'm thinking that if you modify Attachment 8
97 97 of 156

Page 2 of 21 ends

the approval to 25 feet, we'll keep it between 20 and 23 feet, and we won't have to chop it down to 16 feet and then lose their privacy. So I'm asking you to indulge us on that, and then the remaining trees both upward and back around the corner will continue to be maintained at 20 feet to respect view concerns.

Next slide please.

This is a picture of the Silver Sheen. Not sure why code enforcement arbitrarily decided it could be at a specific height. It poses no view concerns to anyone, and we are asking that this tree be allowed to grow up to the bottom or the top of the lower eave. Next slide.

So again, this is what we are requesting. The two lighter green circles, there's a black circle to the left, that's the existing Ficus right now that's limited to 20 feet. We're asking that it be allowed to grow to 25 feet, no more, and that the two plants to the right be allowed to grow up to 25 feet. No more than that, and certainly we're going to keep it well below the 23 to make sure we don't run afoul of code enforcement again. And again, that darker green circle is the Pittosporum Silver Sheen, and we are requesting that it be allowed to be approximately 20 feet tall. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Does that conclude your comments? Your presentation? Okay. Would you guys like to speak? Vella:

Yes.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. You could also save it for your rebuttal if you like.

Vella:

I'll say it in rebuttal.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. At this time, any members of the public wish to speak on 1813 Temple Hills Drive, please come to the podium.

Rhett Schiffman:

Eric, do you have that slide deck? Okay. I am Rhett Schiffman. I am the immediate neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive. I think you could tell from some of the earlier comments that this has been a longstanding, somewhat contentious issue over time. We originally filed a code enforcement complaint 22 months ago regarding overgrown vegetation at 1813 Temple Hills Drive that threatened our home during storms. The existing Ficuses that were limited to 20 feet were nearly 40 feet at the time, well above our roofs, and our roofs had solar panels so we had plenty of reason to worry. There were three violations found by code enforcement when they came, including creating a public nuisance, failing to comply with approved landscaping plans. Code enforcement observed dead plant debris that appeared to be nests for rodents, several trees that had overgrown their 20 feet height limit, including an evergreen ash.

There were nine trees not on the approved landscape plan, seven of which have since been removed. And then two illegal Ficuses planted by the Vellas after the landscape approval that were planted directly in a view corridor to the ocean and Catalina Island. These illegal Ficuses and the overgrown evergreen are the primary reasons for this DRB. The Vellas have received three citations, earned three citations for failing to 98 98 of 156

Page 3 of 21 ends

maintain vegetation in compliance with the initial notice, and then figured out that how to avoid further citations was to make sure you cut your trees after code enforcement had scheduled a visit to do a compliance check.

I do want to point out on the previous slide if I can, that this is in fact the view corridor. And to be aware that those blue circles are precisely where they placed the Ficuses where there was only ground cover beforehand. So that view is all gone from our lower level and very much impacted from our upper level.

Next slide please.

Just to orient you, the view on the left is from the upper deck and allows you to see what is visible, what could be visible to the right of the eucalyptus out in the distance. But this is a incredibly valuable important view, as it shows us Catalina Island and the ocean. On the right shows you where the two illegal Ficuses are. They are right here. So you can see how much of that view is blocked.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion?
Rhett Schiffman:

Well, there's a whole lot, but let's go to the last slide.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion, your three minutes is up.

Rhett Schiffman:

Yeah.

Chair Gannon:

Please summarize your concerns.

Rhett Schiffman:

Go to the last slide please.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion.

Rhett Schiffman:

In conclusion, what I would like is for those two Ficuses to be limited by the height and the width as demonstrated here. So the Ficuses don't go beyond our upper deck. And I would like for the Pittosporums and the evergreen ash, which are limited to below our hedge now, because I believe they knew you'd be looking, they should be also maintained, not increased in size or width, but maintained at the size that they are now.

Chair Gannon:

Okay, thank you.
99 99 of 156

Page 4 of 21 ends

Rhett Schiffman:

Meaning 15 feet.

Chair Gannon:

Okay, thank you. I have a question. The plants that you consider, that you're calling illegal, didn't you plant those trees when the fence was...

Rhett Schiffman:

No, no, no.

Chair Gannon:

So the trees, once the fence was repositioned correctly, those trees, they inherited these trees that were there?
Rhett Schiffman:

No, that was, actually, unfortunately I didn't know this question was coming, but I do have photographs of their team planting thoseChair Gannon:

It's okay.

Rhett Schiffman:
... Ficuses.

Chair Gannon:

It's okay.

Rhett Schiffman:

Well, it's important.

Chair Gannon:

Well no, we have the plans of the pre-existing trees that were there prior.

Rhett Schiffman:

Well there were two pre-existing Ficuses, and then there were two new ones.

Chair Gannon:

This isn't open for discussion. Thank you.

Rhett Schiffman:

That they planted.
100
100 of 156

Page 5 of 21 ends

Chair Gannon:

Would your wife like to make comments? She has three minutes. Next speaker please.

Sherry Schiffman:

So my name is Sherry Schiffman. I live next door. I didn't prepare to speak today until I heard about this situation, because this situation has been on and on over five years. We tried to negotiate, discuss and work out with them about those trees. And this situation, this case is not about privacy, they said is the privacy. If you visit our property you can see from their front door, they just show the photo. From the street you can see their front door, front windows. From the down below Rim Rock Canyon, you can see there all the deck, and all the windows.

So face to our side is only one window of their living room, and we allowed them to let the tree, their ficus tree grow enough to protect their privacy. That is not only for them, it's also important for us too. So it's not about a privacy issue. I think 25 feet of the tree is taller than our property. So that's what I want to say. And definitely it affect our view. To them, I didn't see anything they lose. They may lose the corner of their very end of the upper deck, if you've been visiting the property, that's their privacy. So I don't think privacy is the issue at all. And we would like to work out with them to protect their privacy. So that's it.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. That was well-spoken. Thank you, for not being prepared. Any other comments? Rhett Schiffman:

Well, I just have toChair Gannon:

No, sir, you're out of order. Next speaker, please. No, sirRhett Schiffman:

I do have to just show you.

Chair Gannon:

No sir, you canRhett Schiffman:

This is their people planting those Ficuses.

Chair Gannon:

Next comment please, or next speaker please.

Spencer Harrison:

My name is Spencer Harrison.

Chair Gannon:

Hello Spencer.
101
101 of 156

Page 6 of 21 ends

Spencer Harrison:

My wife Melanie and I are the owners of 1765 Temple Hills Drive. We are two doors down from the Reddys, three doors down from the Schiffmans. We are here in support of the Reddys position in this matter. The Reddys desire to preserve privacy between their property and the Schiffmans is entirely reasonable and entirely understandable, particularly given the history of the relationships among the people in this neighborhood. In my opinion, the Schiffmans have engaged in a pattern of unreasonable behavior, with repeated attempts to use the code enforcement process to get trees cut down. In my opinion, this needs to stop. In our case, this began eight years ago during our design review process for a remodel, the Schiffmans persuaded the Board that we should cut down five palm trees on the edge of our property. The asserted reason was to preserve their view of Catalina, even though their property has 180 degree unobstructed view of the ocean. The only way you could possibly see Catalina is to go out on the deck, peer right, and confronted a whole dozens of trees that block the view of Catalina.

Nevertheless, we agreed to chop down the five palm trees. Mr. Schiffman agreed to share the cost which he never did. Fast-forward to October of 2024, my understanding is that the Schiffmans have filed a complaint with code enforcement against us, claiming that we did not remove the five trees. They're seeking the removal of three additional palm trees on our property. I won't get into the details of this at this time because we may be back in front of you in short order, but in any event, acting on the complaint, code enforcement issued a notice of violation in November. Although they've now conceded that in fact we did cut down the five trees, because I showed them the stumps.

I don't know personally whether the Schiffmans have filed complaints with code of enforcement against other neighbors, other than the Reddys and ourselves, although they certainly told my wife and they told the DRB eight years ago that they intended to do so. This is harassment, it's unacceptable, and if the Schiffmans want a view of Catalina, they should purchase a property that actually has a view of Catalina.

Accordingly, we'd ask the Board to approve the Reddys reasonable request to keep the privacy and hopefully restore some semblance of peace in this neighborhood. Thank you very much.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. Any other speakers?
Rhett Schiffman:

I feel like I should be able to respond toSpeaker 2:

No.

Chair Gannon:

You had three minutes. Our city attorney says no. Do we have question, or you get a three-minute rebuttal? Okay. No, there's no further speakers.

Vella Reddy:

Now I'll pass up a couple of...

Chair Gannon:

Yeah.
102
102 of 156

Page 7 of 21 ends

Vella Reddy:

Thank you for your time for hearing us out. I'm just going to rebut some of the points Mr. Schiffman made.

He said this dispute started 22 months ago. They sued us in 2010 about the Catalina view. And that property line that Steve mentioned, that was the purpose of the lawsuit. See, he had built the fence 15 to 20 feet inside the property line, and the part of our land that he appropriated had those trees, they existed at that time. And so that lawsuit was about controlling those trees and controlling the view, it was dismissed with prejudice on the eve of his deposition. Why was it dismissed with prejudice on the eve of his deposition? Why did he give up? Because it turns out that the previous owner and her son told us this, was approached by him while she was sick to sign a deed to hand the land over.

And when she didn't, sometime between her death and our purchase of that property, he unilaterally built the fence with those trees in that sliver of property. If you don't believe that those trees existed, look at the photos that he tried to submit to the judge when after the case was dismissed with prejudice, he tried to get the Catalina view and the judge told him, "No way, Jose." He talked about nine trees. And yeah, you know what those nine trees came up the first time I heard? He tried to make us a deal, get rid of those trees. I'll let you get a pass on those trees if you give me my Catalina view. And we told him you want a Catalina view, there's something called the View Preservation Committee. And if you want to try to get a lateral view on Catalina, go there. What did he do? He didn't go there. He came to you. He made more threats towards our tree, and we're not the only neighbors he's threatened. He's threatened all our neighbors. He is essentially trying to trade not harassing us for his view. And if you guys let him get away with this, it's not going to stop. He's going to keep harassing neighbor after neighbor after neighbor until he gets this ridiculous view. In terms of the privacy, it's very simple. We already cut this tree down and he already has a full view into our upper level.

And we did it because my response to us being out of compliance was to put all the trees in compliance.

And if this goes down, he will have access, he'll have a view towards our deck. So on substance, it's very simple. If he had a case, he'd go to the View Preservation Committee. He doesn't have a case, so he's just going to harass us until we give in. We're not willing to give in. You should not let him have his way. Thank you.

Rhett Schiffman:

View Preservation is notChair Gannon:

You're out of order. I will excuse you from this room if you do it again. I apologize. I'm sorry for speaking to you this way, but I feel like at this point, it's warranted. Okay. You have 30 more seconds. Do you have any roundabout conclusions?
Steve Kawaratani:

We don't want to turn this into a melodrama. My clients want to make sure that all neighbors have their reviews, but we're also seeking our privacy. And after meeting with the board, it became apparent to us, because code enforcement is being used as a cudgel in this case, that we need to have you modify the height on only those three trees we are requesting so we don't lose our privacy and we don't continue to have issues with code enforcement. All the other trees will remain at the specified height as approved by the Board. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. Board, do we have any questions for the applicant? 103
103 of 156

Page 8 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

I have a quick question.

Chair Gannon:

Yes.

Khristine Thalman:

Just out of curiosity, did Mr. Schiffman ever approach you to ask you to cut the trees? Vella Reddy:

He approached me to swap property. He wanted that property, right? And I told him no.

Khristine Thalman:

But before the code enforcement came about, that's what I'm trying to get to.

Vella Reddy:

No. And he has approached us to cut the trees, and our response was, "We'll cut the trees to a height that'll preserve our privacy." Which is what you're looking at now. Yes.

Khristine Thalman:

And that was according to your landscape plan?
Vella Reddy:

Yes. According to the landscape plan.

Chair Gannon:

Mr. Weil.

Louis Weil:

Does the current height protect your privacy?
Kavita Reddy:

The current height you can see from, you've been to my house. I have no property in the upper level because of the tree being too low.

Louis Weil:

No privacy.

Kavita Reddy:

No privacy there. And then I'm not sure why they're entitled to a view of Catalina from a lower level. If everybody was entitled to a view from a lower level, there would be no trees in Laguna Beach. Us and the Harrison's, we would come to you and ask you to remove all the trees from below us. So if those lower level, their complaint seems to now be about the lower level, because they have their upper level view 104
104 of 156

Page 9 of 21 ends

back, then we would lose all our privacy because our decks, our bedroom deck and our barbecue deck are below that. And if I go out there and it's any lower than that, I can see them.

Vella Reddy:

We went over and set the level.

Louis Weil:

Thank you. That answered the question. I have a couple questions for Garrett. It came up through the public commentary that obviously this is a code enforcement. Do you have a rough history for where that's kind of back and forth from what you've analyzed in preparing this project? Garrett Wank:

Yes. So there were two code cases on this property. One opened in 2014, which was related to a fence that has since been closed. This code case was opened in 2023, January of 2023. It wasn't clear within the file itself how many compliance calls there have been, but based on the documentation, it looked like there have been at least 16 inspections for compliance.

Louis Weil:

Keep going.

Garrett Wank:

And the cases remained active while they pursue this modified plan.

Louis Weil:

Is the project deemed currently in compliance?
Garrett Wank:

I'd have to confirm with Ross, the code enforcement officer, but I believe there was an inspection fairly recently, but I'd have to take a look back and see how recent that was.

Louis Weil:

And then it also came up about view preservation. Is there a view preservation on file for the neighboring property? I think it's what, 1848?
Garrett Wank:

There was a view restoration process, a view restoration order, 22-0293 was processed in 2023. So not a view preservation but view restoration.

Louis Weil:

Okay. And then the Board's authority, and maybe this is a Patrick question. Obviously this is a modification for landscape. Do we have the authority to re-prescribe the landscape conditions? Garrett Wank:

You do.
105
105 of 156

Page 10 of 21 ends

Thomas Gibbs:

Correct, yes. So that would include putting restrictions on landscaping that's not being requested be modified by this application.

Louis Weil:

Or yeah, change it.

Is that what you're asking? Patrick, is that what you were answering? Attorney Patrick Donnegan:

Correct. I mean if those are the conditions that the Board needs to make the findings, yes, that is within your purview.

Chair Gannon:

So it creates a nexus for us to override the previous Board's conditions of approval for or height limit is what you're saying?
Attorney Patrick Donnegan:

Once again, if that is what the board requires to make the required findings, yes.

Chair Gannon:

Okay, thank you.

Louis Weil:

So for privacy, so the issue really is view and privacy balancing.

Garrett Wank:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

I have a question.

Chair Gannon:

Yep, you have a question, Mr. Gibbs.

Thomas Gibbs:

Garrett, I'm a little confused and there's probably an easy answer. Just look at, you don't have to put it up. Just look at staff report, page six. Let me know when you have it. It indicates that the proposed changes are different than what's being discussed. Am I missing something? Garrett Wank:

Yes. So these are items that I identified in a direct comparison between the design review approved landscape plan and the plan being presented now. So those are itemized changes. I'd be happy to pull up the landscape plan to show those clouded as well.
106
106 of 156

Page 11 of 21 ends

Thomas Gibbs:

Right? No one's talked about these. Why don't you put that page up so the board can see it. My question to you, Steve, is when you look at this, what are these other things and are there, are they impacting privacy or view or non-controversial? Why don't you put it up on the screen, Garrett, if you could. And maybe a better way of doing it is, Steve, explain what this stuff is. Because I don't understand this. And when I went to the site, well it's the list, and the plan's the next page, but it's not really a plan, it's a list.

When I went to the property, it was all about the two Ficus and the other, the canary or the, whatever, that Silver Sheen. So what's all this?
Steve Kawaratani:

I don't know what those are, and I'm slightly nearsighted. So can I come up? Thomas Gibbs:

Well, it's talking about the removal of 17 existing trees, nine Carolina Laurel cherry shrubs, two strawberry trees, and then the planting of six cast iron plants, three agave maintained and there's more.

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay. So I did compile that list. There were a number of plants, Garrett asked me to compare the approved plan to the plan that exists today. And those are the changes. Some of those plants didn't survive after the initial planning and they weren't replaced. So I just itemized what was no longer there.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, that's the removal. And then the application is seeking the planting of all those other items, including Pittosporum and Silver Sheen. Is that because these items are already planted and you're just seeking approval of it?
Steve Kawaratani:

The Silver Sheen was already planted. The other plant did not survive. So our very astute code enforcement officer noted that the plants were different. That's why we're asking for approval. And again, the topographic survey clearly shows that those two ficus were in existence back in 2012 behind the fence that was illegally installed.

Thomas Gibbs:

I don't mean to cut you off. Okay. It has four eureka lemon trees maintained at 15 feet in height.

Steve Kawaratani:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

And four weeping fig trees maintained at 20 feet in height. And it's talking about planting of those. So what's the story on those?
Steve Kawaratani:
107
107 of 156

Page 12 of 21 ends

They're in existence right now and so they were just, I did an inventory. Again, Tom, and the blanket approval before was nothing was to exceed 20 feet in height in that location. So I carefully noted that nothing would exceed that height.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So let me kind of get to the bottom line here. This list is of things that already exist that weren't on the original landscaping plan that you're asking us to approve tonight. Is that right? Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah. Again, plants don't always survive. And so what occurs is that if plants are of similar form and size, generally the board will let it go. Garrett wanted an exact inventory what was there and I complied.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Now on the list does not include the two Ficus trees for the planting of, it's not really in the staff report talking about the Ficus, it's in the plans that you submitted. Am I missing something there? Steve Kawaratani:

I'll have to ask Garrett because our request, if you look, say a modification to a previously approved plan.

So with my presentation today, the plants that are in code enforcement are the ones that I addressed.

The other plants were not in code enforcement. So specifically, two Ficus trees that were not planted by us, we're seeking permission to retain them and the Pittosporum Silver Sheen.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Garrett, is there any reason why the Ficus aren't included on this staff report? Garrett Wank:

Yes, the weeping fig is the common name for the Ficus Benjamia.

Thomas Gibbs:

Oh.

Garrett Wank:

What'd he say?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah that's the, which one?
Garrett Wank:

The Ficus Benjamina is theThomas Gibbs:

The weeping fig, the four, trees maintained at 20 feet in height. That's referring to the two Ficus that we've been talking about and the two next to it I assume, right? 108
108 of 156

Page 13 of 21 ends

Garrett Wank:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, that clears it up. I don't have any further questions.

Khristine Thalman:

If I can follow-up on your question. So the 17 existing trees not specified, that has nothing to do with the Ficus that's currently there?
Garrett Wank:

Right.

Khristine Thalman:

But we don't know which 17 existing tree, I mean is there a way to, if I may, are Thomas Gibbs:

Those already gone Chair?
Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah, if I'm basically the prior Board approved with a blanket height of 20 feet, that was the approval that nothing was to exceed 20 feet. So it really is largely immaterial. What is there now.

Louis Weil:

Got another question.

Chair Gannon:

Mr. Weil has the floor.

Louis Weil:

Garrett, on the plans, I only see on the existing older plan, I only saw two markings for heights. Was there a specific condition that blanketed the whole landscape plan? Because the notations that I saw are just existing in the rear yard, maintained at 20 feet or less. And then the existing hedge up at the front in the right-of-way be maintained at 15 feet. Those are the only two notations. So was there a 20-foot blanket across the whole property?
Garrett Wank:

So there was a condition of approval included that the Brazilian pepper hedge be maintained at 15 feet and specified that all of the remaining 16 trees in the rear yard be at 20 feet or less.

Louis Weil:

Rear yard.
109
109 of 156

Page 14 of 21 ends

Garrett Wank:

Mm-hmm.

Louis Weil:

Okay. The eucalyptus, those were gone. I didn't see those. Okay, so the rear yard and then the front rightof-way. Okay, thank you for clarification.

Thomas Gibbs:

Let me ask Garrett, have you confirmed that the application that's being sought here is for approval of trees that are existing but are not on the original approved plans? Garrett Wank:

Yes. Yes. For ground cover shrubs and trees that are in existence now, but were not included on the original planting plan.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So it's a little broader, but I think that answers my primary question so that we can evaluate privacy and view equity. Thanks.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. Does that conclude our questions? The public hearing is now closed. We will go into board comments. Mr. Weil, would you like to have the floor?
Louis Weil:

Yeah. Obviously these code enforcement cases are always difficult, right? There's a lot of issues, a lot of heartache, a lot of conflict between neighbors. And so I view the Board's trying to, whatever's there or what's in front of us is how do we make the process go better going forward for considerations for view and privacy, which are the two matters in front of us today. I think if we get carried away with every planting on this size of lot, it'll be a very lengthy conversation. But for me it's really about these zones that are creating privacy or view corridors. And so Garrett, if you can pull up the landscape plan for me, the plantings on the side yard that are lower on the portion need to be maintained closer to that 20 feet because it does open up that view. But I think when I went there looking at the house from the neighboring house, the privacy component of that 20 feet, it obliterates the privacy of the neighbor and there really is no view to be obtained because you're just looking at the house, and/or pieces of the deck.

And I think there's room that balances this equation of view and privacy. It's not going to maintain the entire view for one perspective at any one cutting, but I think our job is to make this better. So for me, the view line, which was kind of articulated is really how do we kind of maintain an element of privacy between the edge of the corner of the house and the edge of the corner of that deck that's on this plan back at an angle that maintains a line for me where those Ficus are for them to be lower. But for the first one in greens to be kind of the start of lower, but the ones further back can go up to that 25 feet and provide more privacy. Because for me, it only blocked the elements of the house. And I think when I was standing on the deck, I'm looking right into that living room window or I'm looking right at that deck.

There was no view to be achieved by seeing those things. So I'm amenable to letting elements of this program go higher and I'd like to see the board put in our deliberation depending on how everybody else sees this, maybe zones get less, get carried away with what the trees are, but zones of where those men's 110
110 of 156

Page 15 of 21 ends

and Max's should be. As this goes forward, maybe Garrett can help us draw some squares on the plan to give that element. As far as the silver sheen in the front yard, why that was ever being noted for 18 feet or 20 feet seemed odd to me since the notations were really specific to the front and the rear, that tree could go all the way up to the roof line For my concern, it has no merit for being a code enforcement issue.

Chair Gannon:

Does that conclude your comments?
Louis Weil:

Yeah, but I'd like to hear how the rest of the Board goes and then just try to work on just a collaborative determination of where everyone's kind of seeing it so we make a clean finding going forward. Because I think it's in the interest of all parties that we have it pretty well scripted, but also giving the flexibility for the reality of trees to grow and be cut and maintained and grow and be cut and maintained.

Chair Gannon:

I concur. Mr. Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:

I agree with board member Weil, but I think the zones are kind of built in because the backyard gradually goes down. So height, making height limits on those Ficus will do the graduation. In fact, I think they're somewhat, I divided it between and I'm happy to talk. I think that the goal there is the same as I have. I think the lower level view equity is achieved. I think the privacy concerns are significant with respect to Mr. Schiffman's, lower level, the upper level. Again, he's got an expansive view.

I think view equity is probably very closely achieve, but balancing which we do with view equity, I think that the view issue, and it's really hard to tell because the trees. When it was terrible weather when I was there, but I think that a height limitation at the upper level deck of three feet above, and I was thinking this when I was on his deck, three feet, no higher than three feet above the deck. I was thinking at the deck, but I don't think that the view that you need it at the deck to achieve his view of Catalina. I think if it goes up three feet makes it simple, say no higher than three feet above his deck with respect to any trees along that side, which would be the, I think the four Ficus trees. I think that could be a more simple resolution. And when I was up there, that's what I was thinking, but I'm very interested since I'm not a plant guy.

Louis Weil:

Tom, I'm questioning. The deck or the railing height?
Thomas Gibbs:

The railing, yes.

Louis Weil:

Above the railing above the floor or the deck. Oh, that's what you're talking? Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. So the floor of the deck here, here's the railing. 111
111 of 156

Page 16 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

Which deck?
Thomas Gibbs:

The upper level deck.

Khristine Thalman:

Of whose, Mr. Schiffman?
Thomas Gibbs:

Of Mr. Schiffman.

Khristine Thalman:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

In other words, I don't know the history of the code enforcement. I saw his pictures. I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Schiffman's pictures, but I think he's got a view equity interest to not have those trees go higher than say three feet above the floor of the deck. And that's where I would cap the height. And then everything else, again, I wouldn't worry about the first floor. Not a primary area. He's got plenty of expansive view. I wouldn't worry about that. But the upper level deck, give it to three feet. That protects the privacy of the applicant, and I think accommodates the view equity interest of Mr. Schiffman.

MJ Coveny:

I'll kind of riff off of that. Thank you board member. I think that we need to give you guys some serious parameters unfortunately, but that's fine. We'll do that. I don't think there's a view equity issue, but I think there can be some cleanup in order to suffice. Hopefully making everybody get along a little better and kind of put to bed this painful experience. Because I can feel the vibe, and it's not great. So the spa on the lower level, there's a railing to the right of that. The area that's in front of the spa should be maintained to the height of that railing. So in front of the spa itself, there's a low hedge, which I believe is Mr. Schiffman's hedge.

If we could just chop off that little piece that's popping over there. This area right here? No, no. Just the area to that railing. So you've got the spa, you've got a railing. So right here, clean. So clean spa view, everything where the railing is, here, this is your lower deck. You have a lower deck railing, I assume it's 36 to 42 inches high. The Ficus can extend above the railing top, four feet.

And then the upper deck railing top, you can extend four feet. So that basically gives you privacy. Because you got a seven-foot person would have to peek over that railing. Does that make sense? Steve, you're looking around like you're freaking out.

Chair Gannon:

It doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain that again. It sounds like you're complicating it. 112
112 of 156

Page 17 of 21 ends

MJ Coveny:

No, it's not. It's super simple. It's a step-up basically. You have a spa, which right now has a hedge, which I believe is Mr. Schiffman's. on your picture right here. Hold on. Yes, that's just the Ficus. It just pops out.

This little bit just pops out. It's literally just a little chip. Steve, you're not looking at me. You're looking around for help.

Steve Kawaratani:

Are you opening the public hearing?
MJ Coveny:

No, no, I'm just saying that this doesn't seem that difficult to me. Did you guys stand on this deck? It's like there's just a little chunk that needs to go away, and then you have a railing. And that railing can have three feet above it the hedge.

Louis Weil:

I think I understand what you're talking about. So let’s… MJ Coveny:

I think we need to give them parameters. Why aren't we just going to, let's go around the horn and then have discussions.

Louis Weil:

Yeah, let's finish this and then we'll talk about those zones of where the heights.

Chair Gannon:

Ms. Coveny has the floor.

Thomas Gibbs:

Maybe the zone idea might work better.

Chair Gannon:

Ms. Coveny, does that conclude your comments?
Chair Gannon:

Again, Ms. Thalman, you have the floor.

Khristine Thalman:

I'm lost.

Louis Weil:

We need you.
113
113 of 156

Page 18 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

I'm lost. Well, tonight I was ready to approve the plan as presented tonight. I think hopefully it would address some of the issues that have gone on for a few years here with code enforcement. And it seems there's some 16 inspections that almost sounds like harassment a little bit. But based on what you've presented today and the list that Garrett has put together in the staff report, the removal and the clarification of that, I can support what you've put forward today, with those clarifications. And to MJ's point, I understand Mr. Schiffman was looking at from his lower level to remove that Ficus area. It's an L.

I gave it to Louis, but nobody seems to understand this.

Louis Weil:

This L?
Khristine Thalman:

Yeah. That's what MJ is requesting. I don't have a problem with that as long as the Reddys don't have a problem with that. But I think this needs to stop. I mean it's one of these issues where we have to, we're an arbitrating board for the most part, and I think we have to have clear definition as far as what needs to be removed, what needs to be planted as stated in the staff report and go on from there. I don't know if that helps or not.

Chair Gannon:

Hold on. I need to make my comments. Yeah, I'm ready to move forward with, because like board member Gibbs said, the downhill slope, a significant amount that it will alleviate if you cap it at 25 feet, those Ficus trees, the hillside, the steep hillside will take care of itself and provide privacy and protect views. So I can approve this project this evening.

Thomas Gibbs:

I want to say something.

Chair Gannon:

Make a comment, yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

Because I think this is going to give us a majority on it. The only thing I thinking of was a tweak, which was with respect to the upper deck. I've looked at the picture here when I was there, it was cloudy. I really couldn't tell. Looking at it, the side view from the upper deck to me is, from looking at this, I think it's adequately protected by the height proposed in the application. And I don't see any other way of working this. And as much as I tried to understand MJ's views, I don't see any value in putting any kind of height restriction impacting the lower level. With respect to the upper level, I think few equity's been achieved.

I could support the project tonight.

Chair Gannon:

Mr. Weil, please make a motion. Wait, are we still commenting? 114
114 of 156

Page 19 of 21 ends

Louis Weil:

I mean one of the things they were recommending at the beginning was to have maintain heights and stuff, flexibility and maybe some more height than what's there now in elements of that side yard. And I think I was under the impression that certain elements of that side yard don't have an impact. So if the Board will entertain, I'll try to maybe work with staff to draw a couple of these grids over the plan to just get alignment if I can have a couple of minutes.

Thomas Gibbs:

I think he's already done it in that, and I may have a question Chair for Mr. Kawaratani. As I understand it, you're asking that the height limitations proposed in the application are the height limitations that you're agreeing to. Is that right?
Steve Kawaratani:

What we are requesting after I met with a couple of your colleagues, because of all these conditions we've been facing, we're asking that solely the three Ficus, the two plus the one adjacent be allowed to grow to 25 feet. As board member Weil pointed out, those have no impact to the complainants.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I don't want argument. We've done argument. We got Steve Kawaratani:

It right.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. And you're talking about trimming just those, there's four Ficus, right? Or three? Steve Kawaratani:

There's three.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Trimming those three Ficus twice a year.

Steve Kawaratani:

Twice a year. And maintaining less than 25, but no less than 20. Everything else will remain as the prior board approved?
Thomas Gibbs:

No. Or as provided for in the application that I've just talked about.

Steve Kawaratani:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.
115
115 of 156

Page 20 of 21 ends

Steve Kawaratani:

We'll accept that.

Thomas Gibbs:

I think that will create the zones by virtue, naturally of the slope in the applicant's backyard. I think we get too complicated, Louis, although I'm happy to hear what you have to propose, but trying to do zones given the much lower heights for the other trees. And we're just talking about the three Ficus to go 20 to 25.

Louis Weil:

So yeah, maintainment of 20 and max of 25.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'm good with that. Max 25. And then all the other trees that are on the property are limited either in the original application, or in this application as set forth in staff report page six.

Louis Weil:

That makes sense. I'm good with that if you want to make that motion.

Chair Gannon:

I'm good with that too.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well before we done MJ, okay, let me make the motion. I may need my glasses on this one. Okay. I move that the Board adopt Resolution 25-2113, approving Design Review 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan and finding set action exempt from sequel under 15304 with a couple of changes. The height restrictions provided for in the application as described on page six of the staff report are part of the motion. The change would be that as to the three Ficus, sometimes known as weeping fig trees, will have a minimum height of 20 feet and a maximum height of 25 feet. And those three Ficus will be maintained as a condition of approval twice a year. Can we agree upon months? Would it be like, I don't know when the month, I'd like to get months.

Steve Kawaratani:

Why don't we say the lusty month of spring, which would be April or May, and then six months after that in the fall.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well, let's be more specific. April and then May, June, July...

Steve Kawaratani:

October.

Thomas Gibbs:

October. Is that right? Of each year. So that's my motion. 116
116 of 156

Page 21 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

I'll second it if it's clear to staff.

Garrett Wank:

That is clear.

Wendy Jung:

Board member Coveney?
MJ Coveney:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

Board member Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

Board member Weill?
Louis Weil:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

Chair proton Thalman?
Khristine Thalman:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

And Chair Gannon?
Chair Gannon:

Yes. Thank you. Motion passes.
117
117 of 156

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of approval of Design Review 24-2113, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan to an existing single-family dwelling, at 1813 Temple Hills Drive in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for modifications to landscape plans previously approved by the Design Review Board.

Applicant: Steve Kawaratani, Consultant
One party has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, October 28, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner (949) 715-0958 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in the Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone.

The project is proposed as non-appealable development. The application was filed on October 7, 202 by Steve Kawaratani and is assigned application number DR-24-2113. The application was approved by the Design Review Board. The decision by the Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2,000 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Property Posted/California Coastal Commission/Surrounding Public Agencies/Interested Persons List / Publish Date: 10/18/2025 Attachment 9
118
118 of 156
Created 12/28/20

CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF TESTIMONY FOR APPEALS

AND REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS
Purpose: The City Council is committed to assuring that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any meeting agenda item before final action on projects.

This Order of Testimony establishes the right of persons who specifically wish to speak on projects appealed to or otherwise reviewed by the City Council.

Procedures: There are three types of hearings conducted by the City Council: 1) the appellant is person opposed to the project, 2) the appellant is the applicant, and 3) the project was called up for review by a member of the City Council or the City Manager. The procedures below provide the order in which testimony is considered and the allotted time for public comment. The procedure for each hearing shall be provided as the first attachment to the agenda bill.

I. Appellant is Person Opposed to Approved Project:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The appellant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.

3. Any persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

4. The applicant has 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the appeal.

5. Any other persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

6. The appellant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.

II. Appellant is Applicant for Denied or Conditionally Approved Project:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The applicant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.

3. Any other persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

4. Any persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.

Attachment Attachment 10 16
119
119 of 156
Created 12/28/20
III. City Council or City Manager Review of Decision:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The City Manager may comment on the reason for review. City Council members will usually comment after hearing comments from the applicant and members of the public.

3. The applicant has 5 minutes to present the project.

4. Any persons in support of or in opposition to the project may speak for 3 minutes each.

5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
120
120 of 156
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Daniel Freedman
310-785-5391
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com

80122676v1
December 31, 2025

VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Letter in Support of Appeal of Design Review Modification 24-2113 City Council Hearing Date: January 6, 2026; Agenda Item: A Project Address: 1813 Temple Hills Drive
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

My office represents Dr. Rhett Schiffman, owner of 1843 Temple Hills Drive. His home is adjacent to 1813 Temple Hills, where the owners have planted and maintain a continuous, massive over-height hedge along the shared boundary, that is at issue in this appeal. Although the hedge is described in the Design Review Board ("DRB") materials as “trees” and “vegetation,” these plantings function as a single hedge—blocking light and views with a wall of growth that would not be permissible under any City standard if labeled for what it is – a hedge. In 2012, when the City initially set landscape limits for this property, the DRB discussed a 15-foot cap for all vegetation (which the applicant accepted on the record) but ultimately allowed 20 feet for discrete rear-yard trees. For hedges, however, the DRB kept a 15-foot cap to avoid view impacts on neighboring homeowners.1 However, as shown in Fig. 1, a pre-existing Evergreen Ash was deliberately misrepresented as a 10-ft wide tree on the landscape plan when it was already trained as a hedge, and it is very likely that had the DRB been aware of this, they would have kept the 15ft height limit. Shortly after that approval, the owners planted two Ficuses without permits, converting the otherwise discrete trees along the side yard into a single, continuous 20–25-foot hedge—an over-height condition that blocked Dr. Schiffman's views, violated the Municipal Code, and the DRB’s 2012 approval. This of course prompted repeated Code Enforcement inspections, notices, and citations.

In response to these ongoing code-enforcement issues, the applicant sought to modify the original DRB approval—framing the hedge as a collection of “trees." The request 1 The video recording of the DRB's March 15, 2012, consideration of the original Design Review application for the subject property is available here: Link. (See Agenda Item 6.) 121 of 156
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
December 31, 2025

Page 2 ends

80122676v1
included no basis to raise overall heights above 20 feet or to permit an over-height side-yard hedge.

Nevertheless, at the February 2025 hearing, the DRB granted a last-minute request from the podium to increase the allowed side-yard height to 25 feet—without any new visual analysis, staking, or updated findings. In fact, the record shows that this was so unusual, the Board chair asked permission of the City Attorney during the meeting if this was allowed. Under different circumstances it might have been, but here it was not. Meanwhile, planning, which concluded a 15–20-foot height limit would be necessary to maintain views, had never even considered a 25- foot limit which was ultimately approved in error. Notably, the City’s landscape consultant warned in writing that these plantings, even at 20ft, implicate hedge-height conflicts, fire-safety concerns, and sight-distance limits; yet those warnings were not included in the Staff Report, presented to the DRB or to Dr. Schiffman. And in fact, 25 ft measuring sticks showing that a 25ft height limit would exceed both the Schiffman and Vella roof heights, and is unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint. The result is a decision that did not proceed in the manner required by law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, and authorizes a hedge so large it would never be approved anywhere in the City if identified as such.

Separate from the view and hedge-height issues, the approval is procedurally in error because the City accepted and processed an incomplete and unauthorized application. The Development Review Application for DR 24‑2113, date‑stamped September 14, 2023, lists ‘Kavita Reddy’ as ‘Property Owner,’ with owner consent and agent authorization lines executed on that date, even though the City’s own code enforcement correspondence throughout 2023 and early 2024 confirms that the actual property owner is the Wyoming Trust Company, Inc./The Rideau Billings Bridge Trust. The City’s intake checklist states that incomplete application packages will not be accepted and requires the property owner’s signature on both owner lines of the application. On this record, there is no trustee‑executed consent and no trustee authorization of the agent. The City should not have accepted the filing, and the Council should vacate the approval for that reason alone or, at minimum, remand for a properly authorized, complete application.

Accordingly, the Council should first correct the City's procedural error by granting the appeal and vacating Resolution No. 24‑2113 as the product of an incomplete and unauthorized application. Any further consideration by the DRB of a renewed application should occur only after a properly authorized refiling by the record owner (the trustee) or a duly authorized agent. If the Council nevertheless elects to reach the merits now, it should treat the side‑yard plantings as the hedge they are and either (1) direct that they be addressed through the City’s hedge‑height process, or (2) modify the approval to impose a clear, enforceable 15‑foot maintained height limit within the eastern side‑yard view corridor, consistent with the 2012 record, staff’s view‑equity analysis, and City practice.

The photos below show the impact of a 20-25 foot height limit on the Schiffmans’ views. The impact on their quality of life and the value of their home would be severe as this blocks entire sunset and Catalina Island views from their upper and lower levels and decks. They also show that a 25ft height limit exceed the roof heights for the both the Schiffmans and the Vellas 122 of 156
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
December 31, 2025

Page 3 ends

80122676v1
creating an unacceptable fire safety hazard in this Very High Fire Safety Severity Zone.2If the Council declines to correct these errors and bring the approval into conformity with the City’s Design Review findings and view-equity policies, then after having now exhausted all administrative remedies, Dr. Schiffman will pursue all available legal remedies, including a petition for writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 to set aside the decision as unsupported by substantial evidence and adopted in excess of the City’s authority.

A. The City Processed an Incomplete Application Contrary to Its Own Intake Requirements and the Permit Streamlining Act.

The City’s file shows that the September 14, 2023 Development Review Application for DR 24‑2113 lists ‘Kavita Reddy’ as ‘Property Owner,’ with owner consent and agent authorization lines executed on that date. The City’s Zoning Plan Check Submittal Requirements Checklist in the same packet states that any incomplete application packages will not be accepted and requires the property owner’s signature on both owner lines. Those form requirements operationalize the City’s owner‑or‑authorized‑agent rule and exist to ensure that only a record titleholder or a person authorized by the record titleholder may invoke the City’s adjudicatory process.

At the time of filing, the City’s own code enforcement communications identified Wyoming Trust Company, Inc./The Rideau Billings Bridge Trust as the owner or responsible party for 1813 Temple Hills Drive. The City addressed its March 6, 2023 inspection notice, its April 19, 2023 follow‑up, and its August 28, 2023 final notice to the trust and trustee, and later administrative citations and invoices in September and December 2023 and February 2024 identify that same trust entity as the responsible owner. The planning file contains no trustee‑executed owner consent and no trustee‑executed authorization of the agent for the September 2023 filing.

In the face of its own owner‑of‑record communications, the City accepted and processed an application that did not carry the record owner’s consent and did not include owner authorization of the agent as required by the City’s intake forms.

Because the City’s checklist expressly forbids acceptance of incomplete application packages, and because the City’s intake forms require the record owner’s written consent and agent authorization, the DR 24‑2113 filing was incomplete when accepted. The subsequent Staff Report and hearing cannot cure the absence of owner authorization at intake, particularly where the City had already recognized a different owner of record in correspondence and citations. The Council should grant the appeal and vacate the approval on this threshold ground. If the applicant wishes to pursue relief, the proper course is to refile with trustee‑executed owner consent and 2 Moreover, without debate, the DRB approved an increase in width of the 20ft tall Evergreen Ash from 10ft to 20ft creating a more massive hedge.
123 of 156
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
December 31, 2025

Page 4 ends

80122676v1
trustee‑executed agent authorization so the City may conduct its merits review on a complete and authorized application.

B. Even setting the intake defect aside, the DRB’s 25-foot approval fails on the merits.

If the Council elects to reach the merits, the appeal must still be granted because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a 25-foot side-yard condition in this view corridor, and the DRB did not proceed in the manner required by law. City staff evaluated the application on the premise that maximum maintained heights would range from 15 to 20 feet to “maintain private views,” and the written analysis and proposed findings—Including the discussion of General Plan LU Policy 2.10 and the Design Review criteria for landscaping/view equity—rest on that range. At the February 13, 2025 hearing, however, the applicant requested from the podium that heights be increased to 25 feet along the disputed side yard.

The DRB went out of their way to grant that request on the spot, without directing any view staking or photographic study, without receiving new evidence, requiring public notice and without revising the findings to explain how an additional 5–10 feet of height could satisfy the City’s view-equity standards in a narrow side-yard corridor. Moreover, they did not verify that the key threshold for landscape approval still holds, that the plan complies with the Section 9.3 of the Design Guidelines that requires that landscaping is planted “so it does not grow into view corridors of neighboring properties.”
Compounding the evidentiary gap, the City’s landscape consultant, Richard Ramsey, had already flagged material concerns in the Landscape Plan Review Checklist:
maintaining Weeping Fig even at 20 feet may conflict with hedge-height limits; any neighbor dispute should be resolved through the hedge-height process; and elements of the plan implicated fire-safety and sight-distance constraints. None of those warnings appeared in the Staff Report, were presented to the DRB, or were addressed in the decision, and yet the Staff Report falsely claimed that even at 20ft, the plan met Design Guidelines. Approving 25 feet while relying on findings written for 15–20 feet, and while ignoring the consultant’s written cautions, is the definition of a decision that both lacks substantial evidence and fails to proceed in the manner required by law. To illustrate this point, the images below shows just how egregious a 20ft height limit is, let alone 25ft (figs. 2 & 3) and prove that the original Staff Report misled the DRB when it unequivocably stated that a 20ft height limit for the hedges would meet Design Guidelines. 3 3 The planner managing this case at that time is no longer with the City. 124 of 156
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
December 31, 2025

Page 5 ends

80122676v1
Figure 1: Evergreen Ash was trained as a hedge in 2012 but represented as a 20x10ft tree on the approved landscape plan.

Figure 2: View from Great Room Showing the Impact on Catalina Views with Poles at 25ft. The impact at 20ft is also extreme.

ergreen Ash
measures in
diameter by Planning
125 of 156
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
December 31, 2025

Page 6 ends

80122676v1
Figure 3: View from Master Bedroom Showing the Impact on Ocean and San Clemente Island Views with Poles at 25ft.

The problem is not semantic. Along the eastern lot line, the planting operates as a continuous hedge, not a few discrete, view-permeable trees. Authorizing that mass to reach 25 feet—without evidence or findings tailored to that reality—cannot be squared with the City’s viewequity policies or its ordinary treatment of hedge-like vegetation in side yards. For these independent reasons, the Council should grant the appeal and set a lawful, enforceable standard.

C. This Is a Hedge Case—Not a “Trees” Case—and the Record Shows It.

What runs along the eastern side yard at 1813 Temple Hills is not a few discrete, view-permeable trees. It is a continuous, dense planting that functions as a single hedge in a known view corridor to sunset views, the ocean and San Clemente and Catalina Islands. In fact, these hedges meet all the conditions and none of the limitations of a hedge in the municipal code4 The DRB materials repeatedly describe it as “trees” or “vegetation,” but that label does not change the reality on the ground. As verified by story and measuring poles recently erected, that at 20–25 feet, the mass reads as a massive hedge, blocks substantial views of the ocean, the sunset and Catalina and San Clemente Islands from the lower and upper floors, creates a suffocating effect in Dr.

Schiffman's backyard, and creates recurring maintenance, safety and fire problems The language matters because it drove the error. Treating a hedge-like mass as individual “trees” masked the real impact and avoided the correct legal framework. The City’s 4 §12.14.030 & §12.14.040
126 of 156
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
December 31, 2025

Page 7 ends

80122676v1
landscape consultant saw the issue, cautioning that maintaining Weeping at even 20 feet “may conflict” with hedge-height limits and that neighbor disputes “would have to be resolved” through the hedge-height process. None of that was put before the Board. In short, the approval analyzed a different project than the one the DRB authorized: findings for 15–20 foot “trees” cannot support a 25-foot hedge, and the story poles confirm the landscape consultant’s position – i.e., that even 20ft hedges would create an egregious view impairment.

D. The 2012 Record and City Practice Support a 15-Foot Cap.

The 2012 DRB record is clear. When the Board first addressed landscape heights at 1813 Temple Hills, the applicant agreed on the record to a 15-foot cap. The DRB later allowed 20 feet, but only with the understanding that the limit applied to individual rear-yard trees—not to a continuous side-yard hedge in a view corridor. In fact, the reason the DRB was leaning towards a 15-foot cap was specifically to avoid view impacts before they happened, and it is likely that had the DRB known that the Evergreen Ash was already a large hedge, they would have maintained the 15ft cap for the vegetation in the rear/side yards. In that spirit, in the same action the DRB required the Brazilian pepper hedge in the Temple Hills right-of-way to be maintained at 15 feet, memorializing its intent to cap hedges to 15 feet or below to reduce and avoid view impacts.

Crucially, it should be noted there was only ground cover approved in this view corridor on that plan where the illegal Ficuses were later planted by the Vellas, and they intended for that view corridor to be preserved.

Real-world results since 2012 illustrate why a lower height limit is necessary.

Higher limits have produced exactly what the City seeks to prevent: unmanaged growth, rushed trims before inspections, and blacked out views. By contrast, when the owners recently trimmed to a lower profile, the views returned, both yards received better sunlight, and the side yard looked cleaner and more orderly while still providing privacy. A 15-foot cap aligns with (1) the 2012 record and intent, (2) staff’s 15–20 foot analysis for view protection, and (3) a more reasonable outcome for hedge-like plantings. A 25-foot cap has no supporting analysis in the record, conflicts with the 2012 intent, and would not be endorsed if identified for what it is: an oversized side-yard hedge.

E. Requested Council Action: Vacate for an Unauthorized Filing, or Grant the Appeal and Set a Clear, Enforceable Standard.

The record presents two independent grounds for relief:

1. Procedural grounds (preferred): Grant the appeal and vacate Resolution No. 24-2113 because the City accepted and processed an incomplete, unauthorized application lacking trustee consent/authorization, contrary to its intake requirements. Direct that any renewed request be filed by the record owner (trustee) or a duly authorized agent, and processed only after a complete, properly authorized submittal.
127 of 156
Mayor Orgill and Honorable Members of the
Laguna Beach City Council
December 31, 2025

Page 8 ends

80122676v1

2. On the Merits: If the Council reaches the merits, grant the appeal because the DRB approved 25-foot side-yard heights without substantial evidence and without updated findings addressing view equity, hedge-height conflicts, fire-safety, or sight-distance. Adopt one of these practical fixes:

Option A – Treat the "vegetation" as a hedge, vacate the 25-foot allowance and direct that the side-yard planting proceed under the hedge-height process. As these two Ficuses were not authorized at all, nor was the Evergreen Ash authorized as a hedge that it was at the time of the original DRB approval, but was inappropriately approved as a hedge at the recent DRB, a hedge height procedure is consistent with LBMC §12.14.040; or
Option B – Modify the approval and impose a 15-foot maintained cap to be maintained at all times within the eastern side-yard view corridor, measured to simple reference points, consistent with the 2012 record and a request from Lillian Irish, Code Enforcement supervisor to facilitate compliance checks.

It is not reasonable or acceptable (or safe) that the DRB can approve 25ft hedges in a major view corridor, thereby creating an egregious view impairment 13 years after the original DRB approved that only ground cover be there. The record also shows that there were problematic conduct and deliberations during this review and that the City abused its discretion. Either path cures this defect, restores consistency with view-equity policy, and avoids setting a precedent for re-branding a 25-foot hedge as “vegetation.” Most importantly, it resolves a long-running neighbor problem in a manner that is fair, administrable, and aligned with Laguna Beach’s commitment to protect established private views. We appreciate the Council’s consideration and look forward to presenting the appeal at the hearing.

Very truly yours,
DANIEL FREEDMAN of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
CC: Pat Donegan, Assistant City Attorney ([email protected]) Anthony Viera, Deputy Dir. of Community Development ([email protected]) Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner ([email protected]) Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk ([email protected]) 128 of 156
Response to Staff Report
for City Council Appeal
January 6, 2026
Rhett M. Schiffman, MD MS MHSA
1843 THD
129 of 156
Appeal at a Glance: What Went Wrong & How to Fix It • Issue: DRB approved 25-ft side-yard “vegetation” at 1813 Temple Hills that functions as a continuous hedge in Dr. Schiffman’s Catalina view corridor—not discrete trees. This was deceptive, inaccurate, and in conflict with the City’s code as it relates to hedges. • Process Errors: Staff analyzed 15–20 ft to maintain private views. A proper site visit by DRB members was not possible due to severe weather. At the hearing the Board raised it to 25 ft with no new analysis, staking, or revised findings. Two board members requested additional analysis from Planning but were denied.
• Omitted, Material Evidence: The City’s landscape consultant warned that the Ficuses at 20 ft may conflict with hedge-height limits and said disputes should go to the hedge-height process; also flagged fuel-mod and sight-distance issues. These comments were not included in the Staff Report nor provided to the DRB. How or why these comments were not included in the Staff Report are not currently know.

Story poles placed since the DRB confirms that 20 or 25ft hedges would create an egregious view impairment that completely obstructs substantial sunset and Catalina Island views from upper and lower floors of the Schiffman home. • Compliance History: Multiple CE inspections, notices, and citations since 2023 showed intentional, spiteful non-compliance; record shows unpermitted Ficuses planted by the Vellas crew in 2013 within the view corridor. • Extreme Bias: The record shows that the Vellas through their agent, Steve Kawaratani, a well-connected, previous DRB member, convinced Board members during ex parte meetings before the DRB meeting that the Schiffmans planted the illegal Ficuses. The Vellas and the City had photographic documentation that this was not true and that the Vellas planted these trees. The Vellas also alleged and the transcript shows they convinced some Board members that the Schiffmans used Code Enforcement to harass the Vellas when Code Enforcement’s own log shows that 12 compliance checks were required from 2-9-23 To 5-21-23 with 10 of them still not In compliance. This could only be was intentional. This bias led the DRB to ask the Assistant City Attorney during the meeting if it was acceptable to take the most usual and vindictive step to arbitrarily increase the height limit well beyond what the Vellas and the Staff Report proposed to 25ft.

Beyond this case, the City has also reneged on it’s obligation to abate a separate view case brought by the Schiffmans against 1765 Temple Hills Dr for palm trees that are twice the approved DRB height limits in the same view corridor. There has been no response from Code Enforcement since a final notice was issued on January 6, 2025. This appears to be a pattern and practice by the City against the Schiffmans. In addition to the Vella agent being well-connected to the current DRB members and other city staff, the residents at 1813THD and 1765THD are attorneys. This may explain some of the DRB bias and the reticence of the City to meet their obligations as required by code. • Simple Fix: Consistent with existing code, treat the planting as a hedge and apply the hedge-height framework, or modify the approval to a clear 15-ft maintained cap for trees in the back/side yard with objective reference points so that compliance checks can be conducted without access to the Vella property, per the request to Planning by Lillian Irish of Code Enforcement. The Schiffmans cannot receive a fair hearing by the DRB at this time.
• Your Decision: The DRB decision was not reasonable or valid. The DRB did not proceed in the manner required by law and abused its discretion.

The 25-ft approval lacks substantial evidence. Grant the appeal and adopt one of the practical remedies above. 130 of 156
Process Errors by Planning & DRB
and
Errors and Omissions in Staff Report
131 of 156
Footnote on Page 1 of the Staff Report:

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).) Response:
• The illegal Ficuses were not on the original landscape plan nor approved at the original 2012 DRB. These Ficuses should have been considered by the View Restoration Committee or as the Landscape Consultant, Richard Ramsey, recommended, the hedge height dispute resolution process as the hedges they are.
• The comments of the landscape consultant were not included in the staff report/DRB nor provided to the Schiffmans until well after the DRB and were critical to a fair decision, especially since a proper site visit was not possible due to poor weather 132 of 156
The Illegal Ficuses and Evergreen Ash Meet All the Required Hedge Height Evaluation Criteria in the Laguna Beach Municipal Code:
§ 12.14.070 Hedge height claim evaluation criteria.

In evaluating a hedge height claim, the following criteria shall be considered:
(a) Whether or not the vegetation that is the subject of the hedge height claim meets the definition of "hedge.“ The Illegal Ficuses, Evergreen Ash and Pittosporum all meet the City’s definition of a "Hedge" § 12.14.030 Definitions.
"Hedge means generally dense vegetation so aligned as to form a physical barrier or fence.” (b) Whether or not the hedges that are the subject of the hedge height claim are located within a front, side and/or rear yard of the subject property.
• These hedges are in the side yard
(c) Whether or not the hedges that are the subject of the hedge height claim and are located within a front, side and/or rear yard of the subject property create a safety hazard and/or obstruct views from or sunlight to the property of the complainant.
(Ord. 1547 § 1, 2011)
• These hedges obstruct views from and sunlight to the property 133 of 156
These Hedges Meet None of the Hedge Height Claim Limitations:
§ 12.14.040 Hedge height claim limitations.
(a) Subject to the other provisions of this chapter, a real property owner in the city may initiate the claim resolution process as outlined in Section 12.14.060. However, a claim to remedy a safety hazard and/or obstruction of views from or sunlight to neighboring properties may only be made regarding vegetation located on real property, as defined herein, that is within one hundred feet of the complainant's real property boundary, and if a claim pertaining to the same vegetation has not been initiated and acted upon by the city against that real property by the same complainant(s) or a subsequent owner(s) of the complainant's property. • A hedge height claim has not be previously made.
(b) Requests for hedge height claim action with regard to any vegetation located on city property, including parks, and for city maintained trees may be initiated only as outlined in Section 12.04.070. • This is not city property
(c) Requests for hedge height claim action with regard to any heritage tree not maintained by the city may only be initiated as outlined in Section 12.08.070.
• These are not heritage trees
(d) Hedges and vegetation that have been authorized as part of an approved landscaping plan for which a maximum height has been established, pursuant to the design review process (Section 25.05.040), shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1547 § 1, 2011)
• The illegal Ficuses were not included or authorized in the original 2012 landscape plan. • The Evergreen Ash was deliberately misrepresentation as a tree on the original 2012 landscape plan when it was a trained as a hedge at that time (see slide 11).
134 of 156
COMMENTS (by Richard Ramsey, landscape consultant) TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND APPLICANT:

1. The applicant should be advised to consider City and County guidelines and standards for landscape maintenance in areas where fire safety is an issue.

2. The proposal to maintain the existing FICUS BENJAMINA - WEEPING FIG at a 20' height may conflict with the City hedge height limits. As such, any disputes with neighboring properties would have to be resolved in the City Hedge Height dispute resolution process, in which this review has no authority.

3. It would appear from the plan submitted that there are several elements on the property which do not conform with the City of Laguna Beach Fire Department Landscape/Fuel Modification Standards and Guidelines. However, given the scope of the proposal - Landscape Revisions only - this review does not address any inconsistencies with the Guidelines.

4. The existing Brazilian Pepper tree hedge and the existing Bougainvillea may exceed the maximum 3-foot plant height limit in the corner cutoff areas of the driveway (7-ft sight distance triangle).

Landscape Consultant Comments
• The Vella proposed plan was reviewed by the City’s landscape consultant, Richard Ramsey, but his findings were inaccurately characterized in the original Staff Report. The comments, themselves, were not included in the Staff Report. • Neither the DRB nor the appellants received the actual comments before the meeting • These comments are also not mentioned in the current staff report for this appeal • As the Schiffmans received these comments on April 1, 2025, 7 weeks after the DRB, they could not be included in the appeal brief • The original Staff Report claimed the plan was designed with view equity in mind and consistent with the city's "Design Guidelines” as required. However, Section 9.3 of the Design Guidelines says: Design with view equity in mind. It also says: Plant landscaping so it does not grow into view corridors of neighboring properties. • The landscape consultant was quite clear that the proposed Ficuses at 20ft were hedges that would likely conflict with City limits and would need to be resolved through the Hedge Height dispute resolution process. • It would have been malpractice for the DRB to approve such vegetation had they seen his comments. Perhaps that’s why they weren’t included.
• How or why the consultant’s comments were not included in the Staff Report is not know, but the planner and his Director of Community Development, David Contreras, are no longer with the City 135 of 156
At the February 13th 2025 DRB,
the Board approved a 25 ft
hedge in the Vella side yard that
completely blocks our views of
the sunset, Catalina and San
Clemente Islands
136 of 156
Where We Started:

Large Catalina And Sunset View From Upper And Lower Levels Vegetation Since
Removed
Unrelated to the
Schiffmans
137 of 156
Area in Dispute
2 Illegal
Ficuses
Evergreen
Ash
2 Illegal Ficuses Were
Planted in A View
Corridor Where There
Was Only To Be
Groundcover on the
2012 Landscape Plan
Evergreen Ash was
Limited to 20ft tall and
10ft Wide
138 of 156
ORIGINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION- April 19, 2023
RE: Property at 1813 Temple Hills Dr., Laguna Beach, CA- APN: 641-382-14 Non-Compliance to the approved Landscape Plan
REMARKS & REQUIRED ACTION{S):

1. I observed dead plant debris that appeared to be a nest for rodents or birds located within the tree. Remove the plant debris/nest from the tree. Photos enclosed.

2. I observed there were several trees that were overgrown above the height limits as noted on the approved landscape plan. Trim the existing trees located in the rear yard to the approved twenty (20) feet or less and the trees located in the front yard to twelve ( 12) and fifteen (15) feet. Photos enclosed.

3. The approved landscape plan has been altered to include unapproved plantings of two (2) additional Ficus trees, four (4) or five (5) Melaleucas trees or similar, and two (2) Acacia trees at side/rear yard of your property without Design Review approval. Photos enclosed.

4. Any changes to the approved landscape plan may or will require Design Review approval.

5. Submit plans and the required applications to the Community Development Department to obtain Planning Division's approval for an amendment to your approved landscape plan or remove the trees noted above in #3 and if any other trees from your property so it is consistent with the approved landscape plan.

We ask for your cooperation in correcting these violations by Tuesday, May 16, 2023. Please be advised that failure to correct the aforementioned violations will result in the City proceeding with further action . The City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code reserves any and all remedies it may have available, including, but not limited to, the recording of a pending action against the property, nuisance abatement, civil action, criminal prosecution or issuance of administrative citations. Failure to correct the violations by the compliance date may result in the issuance of an administrative citation, which could carry a daily fine amount of $100-$500 per day per violation.

At the Initial Site Visit in 2013, Code Enforcement Issued a Notice of Violation After Observing:
• Dead plant debris that appeared to be a nest for rodents • Several trees that had overgrown their 20ft height limits including the Evergreen Ash • There were 9 trees not on the approved landscape plan, 3 were fire-hazards; 7 of which have since been removed • 2 illegal Ficuses, that were planted by the Vellas in 2013, after the landscape plan approval, were observed directly in a view corridor to the sunset, ocean and Catalina Island
The illegal Ficuses not on the 2012 landscape plan were the primary reason for the DRB, but that was the wrong venue 139 of 156
To: Lillian Irish, Code Enforcement Supervisor
From: Ross Corona – Code Enforcement Officer
Subject Property at 1813 Temple Hills Dr
The Code Enforcement Office received a complaint on January 31, 2023, in reference to extensive approved overgrown trees and unapproved trees not on approved landscape plan and blocking views. The following is a summary of the case/history:
1/31/2023 - A new complaint was received about extensive overgrown unapproved trees not on approved landscape plan and blocking views. 2/9/2023 – A site visit with complainant revealed several vegetation. 3/5/2023 – Access letter issued/mailed to owner.
3/12/2023 – Received email from owner saying they’re out of town until 1st week of April 2023. 4/3/2023 – Site inspection with owner confirmed illegal vegetation and overgrown approved vegetation at rear yard. 4/11/2023 – Site inspection with the complainant confirmed other new illegal vegetation and new complaint of overgrown vegetation in front yard. 4/17/2023 – Site inspection with owner confirmed overgrown vegetation. 4/19/2023 – Notice of Violation issued/mailed to owners with compliance date 5/16/2023. 5/18/2023 – Site inspection with complainant revealed no trimming appeared not done. 5/30/2023 – Site inspection with the owner revealed compliance with the approved height on existing trees and removal of some illegal trees and illegal two Ficus remain. 6/21/2023 – Site inspection with owner’s agent Steve Kawaratani revealed existing Evergreen Ash Tree measured above 20 feet requirement. 6/22/2023 – Received email from agent to Planning Manager requesting a two-week extension and granted by Director. 7/6/2023 – Received email from agent requesting another extension. 7/11/2023 – Meeting with Director and Complainant about the width on existing trees. 7/26/2023 – Meeting with Director and Owner and Agent Steve to trim approved trees and legalize illegal Ficus. 8/16/2023 – Site inspection with complainant existing trees appeared overgrown and illegal Ficus remained. 8/28/2023 – Final Notice issued/mailed to owners with compliance date 9/12/2023. 9/13/2023 – Site inspection with complainant and owner’s agent revealed no compliance. 9/14/2023 – Owner’s agent submitted a new revised landscape plan. 9/18/2023 – 1st Administrative Citation issued/mailed to owner with a compliance date 10/9/2023. 10/11/2023 –Received email from owner that existing vegetation trimmed. 11/6/2023 – Site inspection revealed existing Pepper tree in right-of-way trimmed. 11/30/2023 –Site inspection with owner’s agent revealed existing vegetation in violation and new illegal Evergreen Ash sprout and illegal Ficus remained. 12/5/2023 – 2nd Administrative Citation issued/mailed to owners with a compliance date 12/19/2023 to trim existing vegetation and to submit corrections to Planner for revised landscape plan. 12/18/2023 –Received email from owner’s agent requesting a 30-day extension to trim existing vegetation. 1/25/2024 – Site inspection with owners or agent revealed compliance with trimming existing vegetation at 18 feet allowed at 20 feet and removed illegal Evergreen Ash sprout. 2/6/2024 – 3rd Administrative Citation issued/mailed to owner with a compliance date 2/22/2024 - to submit corrections to Planner for the new revised landscape plan. 2/26/2024 – No corrections to new revised landscape plan submitted to Planner. 3/7/2024 – Received payment to appeal 3rd Administrative Citation and hearing scheduled for April 22, 2024. 3/29/2024 – Corrections to new revised landscape plan submitted to Planner. 4/15/2024 – Received email from owner’s agent Steve confirming to “withdraw” from Administrative Citation hearing. 5/9/2024 – Received email from Planner corrections submitted by agent. 5/13/2024 – New complaint of new illegal tree of letter to Planner dated 5/11/2024. 5/21/2024 – Site inspection w/owners & agent and complainant revealed compliance with trimming existing trees at 18 feet allowed at 20 feet. Owner Matthew was mad and felt harassed by the complainant and requested for Supervisor’s and Director’s name. 5/22/2024 – Received email from owner Matthew requesting a meeting with Supervisor and Director.

Currently - Planner reviewing corrections to new revised landscape plan.

Respectfully submitted, Rose Corona
Continuous Violations And Failure To Comply Necessitated Multiple CE Visits. There Were 12 Site Inspections Required From 2-9-23 To 5-21-23; 10 For Visits Not In Compliance (Highlighted) ; Despite Being in Violation for Most of this Time, Only 3 Citations Issued (Underlined) Even Though Every Day a Violation Exists Should Have Been Treated a Separate and Distinct Violation §1.15.030 • There was nothing stopping the Vellas
from getting it right the first or second
time. They simply didn’t want to
• The Vellas learned that they could
avoid additional citations by waiting
for Code Enforcement to schedule a
compliance check and then trimming
their trees before the visit.
• In the future, compliance checks must
be able to be conducted without
access to the Vella property using
objective reference points easily
visible from the Schiffman property
per the request to Planning before the
DRB from Lillian Irish, Code
Enforcement supervisor. This request
was ignored.
140 of 156
The Evergreen Ash Was Misrepresented As A 10ft Wide Tree When The 2012 Landscape Plan Was Approved. It Was Already A Hedge And Much Wider. Had the Original DRB Known This, They Would Have Likely Limited It To 15ft Evergreen Ash
measures 10ft in
diameter by Planning
141 of 156
After Initial 5/24/23 Trimming, Evergreen Ash Still Had a 35ft SpanConfirmed by CE, But Measured Only 10ft on the Plan This is a Massive Hedge
X= Center of Evergreen Ash
Trunk
Evergreen
Ash
142 of 156
View From The Lower Deck At The Time Of Notice Of Violation In 2023 Shows Severe Overgrowth Of The Evergreen Ash of at Least 35ft Tall Instead of 20ft All Views of Catalina And The Sunset Were Lost From The Lower Level By These Hedges in the Side Yard
2 Illegal Ficuses
Evergreen Ash • The Green Arrow Shows
Where The Evergreen
Trunk Is And The Yellow
Arrows Its Branches
• The Red Lines Are The 2
Illegal Ficuses Where
There Should Only Be
Groundcover
143 of 156
This Is The Same Overgrown Evergreen Ash (Yellow Arrows) From Our Master Bedroom On The Upper Floor. This Is Obviously Intentional and Spiteful.

The Overgrowth Created Fire And Other Safety Issues
• The Severely Overgrown Existing
Ficus (Black Arrows)
• Illegal Ficuses Are Also Seen (Red
Line)
144 of 156
DRB Meeting February 13, 2025
• The Vellas or their agent, Steve Kawaratani, asserted that:
1) We planted the illegal Ficuses despite having received photographic confirmation in 2023 from us that the Vella crew planted these trees
And
2) That we were using Code Enforcement to harass them when in fact the Vellas were intentionally not in compliance for much of the time since the original notice of violation This appeared to carry significant weight with the DRB:
o Board Chair Gannon said, “I have a question. The plants that you consider, that you are calling illegal, didn't you plant those trees...” She would also not allow me to show that we did not plant the Ficuses.
o Kristine Thalman said, “Well, tonight I was ready to approve the plan as presented tonight. I think um hopefully it would address some of the issues that have gone on for a few years here with code enforcement, and it seems there's some 16 inspections it almost sounds like harassment a little bit. • Also, members confirmed they hadn’t been aware of the case history; the weather precluded an adequate site visit, and that there clearly wasn’t landscape expertise on that committee o Thomas Gibbs said, “I don't know the history of the code enforcement,” “it was terrible weather when I was there,” and “I’m not a plant guy”
145 of 156
DRB Meeting February 13, 2025
Despite the eventual vote, two Board members, Lewis Weil and MJ Coveny felt more work needed to be done before approving the plan. They were denied:
• Louis Weill: “So, I mean one of the things they were recommending at the beginning was to have maintain heights and stuff flexibility and maybe some more height than what's there now in elements of that side yard and I think I was under the impression that certain elements of that side yard don't have a an impact so if the board will entertain I'll try to maybe work with staff to draw a couple of these grids over the plan to just get alignment if I can have a couple of minutes…”
• MJ Coveny: “I think there can be some cleanup in order to suffice hopefully making um everybody get along a little better and kind of put to bed this painful experience um because I can feel the vibe and it's not great. So, um the spa on the lower level there's a railing to the right of that um the area that's in front of the spa should be maintained to the um height of that railing. So, in front of the spa itself there's a low hedge which I believe is Mr. Schiffman's hedge. If we could just chop off that little piece that's popping over there” 146 of 156
The Vella Crew
Planted The Two Illegal Ficuses In Nov.
2013- These Photos Were Sent To The City On January
31, 2023, As Confirmed In FOIA Records, And To The
Vellas & Their Attorney, Larry Nokes, In 2021
147 of 156
Story Poles Confirm Hedges to 20 or 25ft Will Create an Egregious View Impairment Obliterating Our Sunset, Catalina and Ocean Views 148 of 156
And San Clemente Island and All Ocean Views
149 of 156
What Are We Solving For? • Privacy at their east
windows (yellow
arrows) and the
extreme SE corner of
their middle deck (red
arrow)
• Allowing the 2 pre-
existing Ficuses to
grow back, which has
already begun, solves
all that
150 of 156
However, Neither Of Us Has Any Privacy From Rim Rock Canyon, Temple Hills Dr Or The Entire Canyon Below
(Yellow Circle Is The Small Area Of The Deck Causing This Issue) 151 of 156
There Is A Simple And Equitable Solution. The 2 Pre-existing Ficuses Are More Than Adequate To Block All Views Of The Vella Decks From Anywhere On The Schiffman Property. They Did So Before The CE-mandated Trimming To 20ft. The Newer Ficuses Are Not Necessary To Achieve Complete Privacy From The Schiffman Property
Pre-existing
Ficus
152 of 156
In 2014 Kavita Reddy
complained to the
DRB that the
construction at 1797
THD would completely
obstruct their sunset
and Catalina views
and asked that the roof
be lowered.

Why do we not get the
same consideration?
153 of 156
Conclusions
• The illegal Ficuses should never have been considered by the DRB. The Evergreen Ash and illegal Ficuses are hedges by the City’s definition. They should have been reviewed through the Hedge Height procedure as recommended by the City’s own landscape consultant as the Ficuses were not authorized by the original DRB and the Ash was deliberately mispresented as a tree in 2012 rather than the hedge that it was. • Both the February staff report and the current one overlooked essential findings from the City’s own landscape consultant that led to critical omissions in the Staff Report that the proposed 20ft height limit for the illegal Ficuses met the required guidelines. This, and the misinformation about who planted the Ficuses in the first place, led the DRB to reach flawed decisions that included recommending an even higher 25ft height limit immediately next to our upper and lower decks. In fact, the record shows, that this was so unusual, they asked permission of the Assitant City Attorney, Patrick Donnegan, during the meeting if this was allowed. This was likely done with malice because the DRB clearly believed that we planted the illegal Ficuses. • Because the original Staff Report overlooked the landscape consultants comments, the original Staff Report erroneously concluded that the proposed 20ft height limit meet the City’s Design Guidelines and ignoring the main tenet of the guidelines, “Plant landscaping so it does not grow into view corridors of neighboring properties”. • The current staff report claims, “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.”
• Because the board could not conduct an adequate site visit and were not aware of the Landscape consultant’s finding, and because the Board appeared to be biased against the appellants, the Board simply got it completely wrong that this would have an acceptable impact on our views. In fact, they went out of their way to make it worse.

The story poles show how egregiously wrong they got it. 154 of 156
Conclusions
• The current staff report also claims that:
• “The February 13, 2025 staff report noted that all relevant design review criteria were considered in staff’s recommendation to the Board for the Project.”
• How could it if the landscape consultant’s comments were not provided and a proper site visit could not be conducted because of the “terrible weather.” They had no information on the impact of a 25ft height limit. This decision was irresponsible and according to the City’s own footnote in the staff report, an abuse of discretion • The current staff report also claims:
• “These plans were cleared by City staff and presented to the Board at the February 13, 2025 public hearing.” • It is concerning that the City staff cleared these plans with such significant omissions, including the comments of the City’s own landscape consultant, and the factual errors • The planner responsible for the project is no longer with the City • The staff report further states:
• “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.” • Since the above is true, this cannot be true.
• Board member Gibbs stated he was not aware of the Code Enforcement history • Board chair Gannon did not allow the Schiffmans to show the photographic documentation of the Vella crew planting the illegal Ficuses and did not allow the Schiffmans to respond to the many false allegations 155 of 156
Conclusions • The DRB board will now be even more biased against that appellants. Referring this case back to them is unfair. The hedge height procedure avoids this.
• The Schiffmans would also accept the City Council adopting 15ft height limit to the vegetation in the Vella back/side yard to be maintained in compliance at all times, consistent with Laguna Beach Municipal Code 12.16.050(G). The original DRB was there until the last moments. Had they known the Ash was already a hedge, they would have likely limited tree heights to 15 ft. However, this would also require that objective reference points be identified so that compliance checks can be conducted without access to the Vella property, per the request to Planning by Lillian Irish of Code Enforcement 3 days before the DRB on February 10. • Additionally, it would be helpful to have a reference point from Rhett’s property that would confirm whether or not the vegetation is in violation (referencing the top of a railing, no higher than the deck floor, etc.) • The staff report must be revised to disclose these errors and omissions as currently, the City’s "decision is not supported by the findings"; and the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5) so that the City Council can make an informed decision.
• The City has mishandled not only this case, but also a Code Enforcement case against 1765THD in which a final notice was issued for 3 palm trees in the same view corridor that great exceeded the DRB approved heights. There has been no action on that case since Code Enforcement issued a final notice was issued on January 6, 2025. This appears to be a pattern and practice by the City against the Schiffmans. The residents at 1813THD and 1765THD are attorneys and the Vella agent is a previous DRB member with close ties to the DRB and other City employees. This likely explains the DRB bias toward the Schiffmans and the reticence of the City to carry out their responsibilities as required by code. • In summary, this DRB decision was not reasonable or valid. The DRB did not proceed in the manner required by law and abused its discretion.
• The impact that this irresponsible decision to allow a 25 ft hedge in our major view corridor 13 years after the original DRB only approved ground cover is devastating. It has been 3 years since a Code Enforcement claim was justifiably brought. This has had negative effects on our quality of life but also on the value of our home, with substantial loss of sunset and Catalina views for both upper and lower levels. We bought this home for these views, and we have no choice but to continue to exhaust all possible remedies to preserve them. The City should accept responsibility and just fix this. 156 of 156

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

January 6, 2026
Appeal
B
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF A PROJECT SEEKING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2588 AND DESIGN REVIEW 24-2588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY

DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE
LOCATED AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT A)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 and Design Review 24-2588 and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF

A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE AND DETERMINE THAT THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO
PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.
b. Option B – Overturn Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION

OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)”, overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 24-2588, approving Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 and Design Review 24-2586 and finding the approval of the Project exempt from CEQA.
1 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 2 of 39 ends

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1 and Attachment 3) seeks Design Review (“DR”) 24-2586 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2588 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1) and a coastal development permit is required for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.

Applicant is proceeding under Senate Bill (“SB 9”), as amended by SB 450 (collectively referred to herein as “SB 9”), which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)2 Below is a summary of the history of the applications.

On May 8, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of DR for a new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping, a CDP to construct new development, including a single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, and an REP3 to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including retaining walls to support the driveway and access to the home (the “Original Project”). After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board identified the following issues with the proposed Original Project as summarized by Chair Gibbs:
• Access: The proposed 17-foot rise in the driveway added significant mass and visual scale, which would be resolved by placing the garage at street level. This design change could also create an opportunity for a shared driveway with the adjoining property. Additionally, excavating further to accommodate a tandem garage increased the burden on the street and raised concerns under the applicable design guidelines, the Coastal Development Permit requirements, and CEQA.
• Mass and Scale: The overall massing was substantial, particularly the upper level and its broad horizontal expanse, with the greatest visual impact occurring along the Bluebird Canyon frontage.
• Privacy, Light, Glare, and Glazing: These issues required further study and refinement to ensure they were adequately mitigated and consistent with neighborhood context and design standards. The Board recommended that the Applicant coordinate directly with 1 The Project’s architect is Horst Noppenberger, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 On June 13, 2024, the Community Development Director granted administrative coastal development permit approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-0940, an urban lot split pursuant to SB 9 that subdivided an existing parcel to create two new parcels, including the Property. Final Map 24-117 was subsequently recorded with the County to effectuate the lot split. 3 REP 24-2587 was needed for the Original Project. REP 24-2587 was thereafter eliminated for the project as described in more detail below.
2 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 3 of 39 ends

neighboring property owners to collaboratively resolve outstanding issues related to privacy, lighting, and glare.
• Spa Location: The placement of the spa introduced potential noise and privacy impacts that should be evaluated and addressed.

The Board provided direction to the Applicant, and continued the project to August 14, 2025 with a 4-0 vote (Board member Bauta absent). (The May 8, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 7 through 11, respectively.) On August 14, 2025, the Board held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider a revised project.7 An Applicant-prepared summary of the changes that the Applicant elected to make are set forth below:
• To respond to concerns about project scale, reductions have been made to the habitable floor area, from 4,643.19 SF to 4,393.24 SF for a total reduction of 249.95 SF.

Additionally, the proposed lot coverage has been reduced from 29.92% to 25.88%. The floor area of the garage has also been reduced from 1,027.16 SF to 525.22 SF, a total reduction of 501.24 SF. The size of the proposed elevated decks has been reduced from 418.04 SF to 364.05 SF.
• Exterior glazing has been reduced by approximately 20%, with the specification of tinted, low-transmittance glass (Cardinal 366) to minimize glare and light pollution. Exterior lighting has been limited to the minimum levels allowed by building code. • In response to site access concerns, the Applicant retained the ascending driveway, citing site constraints and neighborhood precedents. A crib wall system is proposed to screen retaining walls with vegetation. The building articulation and massing were refined by dividing the structure into two intersecting pavilions aligned with the topography, and the single-story volume adjacent to the neighboring property was set back by five feet to reduce bulk and improve privacy.
• To mitigate concerns about setting an undesirable precedent, the applicant provided data confirming the proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 35.5% falls within the range of comparable nearby properties.
7 Relatedly, on August 12, 2025, Applicant’s separate and distinct project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, also proceeding under SB 9, was considered as an appeal by the City Council. In the appeal on 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City Council provided the following direction on 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive: (1) Consider granting a Revocable Encroachment Permit for improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting, with such improvements located closer to the Applicant’s property line to create “safe vehicular access from a ‘usable vehicular right-ofway of record’ to off-street parking facilities on the property requiring such facilities” with an expectation that the Revocable Encroachment Permit may be revoked in the future. (LBMC § 25.53.004(B); LBMC § 11.50.030.); (2) Consider a Coastal Development Permit for the revised design based on direction in Paragraph A, above, and recognition of coastal resources, including natural landforms and public views, and risk of fire hazards; and (3) Disregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.
3 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 4 of 39 ends

• Privacy is further addressed by reducing glazing and incorporating wood slat privacy screens. A geotechnical report confirming project feasibility has been submitted, along with a construction staging plan[]. A road repair bond will be posted prior to permitting. • Regarding the garage, the applicant reaffirmed the impracticality and safety risk of a streetlevel garage due to steep slopes and retaining wall requirements and provided a diagram to illustrate these constraints[]. The spa has been relocated to the rear of the property and reduced in size from 4,404 gallons to 2,104. The size of the reflecting pond has been increased from 2,070 to 2,385 gallons. Tandem parking has been eliminated, reducing excavation volume, with the parking space relocated adjacent to the garage. Street widening is proposed to improve the travel lane widths. The redesign has necessitated adjustments to planting locations to accommodate the new configuration.

In addition, although not summarized by the Applicant as a project change, the height of the structure increased three feet on the East side, one foot on the West side and the finished floor elevation increased.

Staff clarified this additional change during the staff presentation (collectively, the revisions to the Original Project will be referred to herein as the “Revised Project”).

Following the public hearing, a majority of the Board did not think the findings for approval could be made and the Board voted 5-0 to continue the Revised Project to the November 13, 2025 Board meeting. (The August 14, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 12 through 16, respectively.)
On September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff, which eliminated the need for REP 24-2587 (the “Second Revised Project”). On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application and deemed the application incomplete. While the Applicant tried to add an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) to the Second Revised Project, ultimately Applicant did not pay the fees for the required coastal development permit or consent to the processing of a variance for the ADU, as discussed in more detail below. Therefore, the Second Revised Project proceeded without an ADU.

On November 13, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Second Revised Project. The Board voted 3-1 (Board member Bauta in dissent and Board member Gannon absent) to deny the Second Revised Project on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”) (the “Board Denial”). (The November 13, 2025 Staff Report, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 17 through 20 , respectively.)
4 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 5 of 39 ends

On November 17 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Project (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 5).9 The Applicant contends that the Board abused its discretion and acted contrary to state law in denying the application for the following reasons:

1. “The Board relied on subjective standards to deny [the Second Revised Project] in violation of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. City Staff confirmed in the November 13th staff reports that the projects are consistent with all LCP policies and all applicable objective design standards. Therefore, under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the Board did not have the authority to deny the projects.”

2. “The Board improperly cited replacement of a Southern California Edison pole in front of the applicant’s property to allege a fire hazard when the applicant has no control over SCE’s replacement of the SCE pole and there is no evidence in the record that replacement of the SCE pole will cause a fire hazard.”

3. “The Board incorrectly alleged that the ‘natural profile’ of the property is a coastal resource. [The Board’s] position is inconsistent with State law and the City’s own documents. There is no public viewpoint or environmentally sensitive area on the property, as confirmed by City Staff in the November 13th staff reports.”

4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies

7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”

5. “The Board improperly excluded the Accessory Dwelling Unit that was added to Lot A on September 24th from their consideration on the CDP for Lot A. The ADU does not change any facts in the Staff Reports and does not require a variance. The applicant is specifically appealing the ADU to the City Council as part of the present 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 January 6, 2026 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 26.)
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, 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.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption 9 The Applicant has filed appeals of two Board denials for projects located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, respectively. Both projects were denied by the Board on November 13, 2025 and appealed to the City Council on November 17, 2025. Both appeals identify the same five appeal contentions, although one of the five contentions apply only to the project located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. The 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive appeal is analyzed by staff in a separate agenda report, and both appeals will be heard by the City Council at the January 6, 2026, special meeting. 5 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 6 of 39 ends

of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.11 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 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.”

1. Coastal Development Permit
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing.

Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

In its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 24-2588, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

2. 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)(b) provides:

If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented. 11 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.) 6 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 7 of 39 ends

Because the Board denied CDP 24-2588, it took no action on the application for DR 24-2586.12 Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-2586, which was not supported by four or more affirmative votes as it was
12 Section 4 of Board-Adopted Resolution No. 24-2588, provided as Attachment 4, states: “Because the Design Review Board denies Coastal Development Permit 24-2588, its consideration of the application seeking approval of Design Review 24-2586 is moot.”
7 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 7 of 39 ends

not reached by the Board at all, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal.

Nevertheless, given the lack of four affirmative votes, the City Council exercises its independent judgment on the evidence. Based on past City Council direction for the neighboring property at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, staff is recommending that in considering DR 24-2586, only the objective design review criteria be considered as well as any design review criteria that affords costal resource(s) protection that is not otherwise addressed/protected by CDP 24-2588.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has the following options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Second Board Denial, and finding that CEQA does not apply to the denial of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Attachment 1); or

2. Adopt the attached Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Second Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Second Board Denial and approving the Second Revised Project, subject to conditions of approval (Attachment 2).

DISCUSSION
The Board held three public hearings on May 8, 2025, August 14, 2025, and November 13, 2025 for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. Given that the May 8, 2025 public hearing before the Board occurred before the City Council gave direction on SB 9 projects on August 12, 2025, City staff has included transcripts for all three public hearings but only summarizes the public hearings on August 14, 2025 and November 13, 2025 below.15
A. August 14, 2025 Board Hearing

1. Staff Report
The Project is located towards the top of Bluebird Canyon along Bluebird Canyon Drive between the cross streets of Morningside Drive and Regatta Road. The project site is a steep upsloping lot. The neighborhood consists of single-family residences. City staff provided depictions of the Property and the renderings of the Revised Project:
15 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 8 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 8 of 39 ends

Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site 9 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 9 of 39 ends

Figure 2: Renderings of Revised Project

2. Staff Presentation
City staff noted that the Property was part of an urban lot split and it is surrounded by vacant lots except for one adjacent home. The project is on a steep hillside lot, featuring a unique driveway design and elements such as elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a spa, and lighting. It includes encroachments into the public right-of-way for infrastructure including the driveway, walls and stairs. There have been increases in the height of the structure since the previous hearing in addition to the changes that the Applicant noted in their summary of changes. Staff clarified how SB 450 interacts with the City’s review authority. The City fully recognizes that SB 450 applies when a project qualifies, but emphasized that SB 450 does not override the Coastal Act, which the City implements through its certified Local Coastal Program. Staff also noted that nothing in state housing laws requires the Board to approve a Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”); it remains a discretionary decision.

Staff then referenced the City Council’s August 12, 2025 action on 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, where the Council remanded the project back to the Board due to issues with the REP. The Council found that the proposed REP for 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive would violate the Municipal Code because revocation would create a non-conforming driveway condition. Staff suggested that, following the Council’s determination at the appeal hearing for the adjacent lot, the Board should treat the REP as the threshold decision for the current project.

Staff further explained that the City Council also determined that for qualifying SB 450 projects, design review discretionary criteria should not apply, because the CDP findings already protect coastal resources.

For CDP findings, the City Council directed focus on natural landforms, public views, and fire hazards. 10 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 10 of 39 ends

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board Member Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

MJ Coveny Met at the property with the Architect, Horst Noppenberger, and several of the neighbors
p. 1 of 29
Jessica Gannon Had a site visit and spoke with Horst on the phone p. 1 of 29 Tom Gibbs Had a site visit, spoke with Horst at the site visit and met with numerous neighbors who he had met with before
p. 1 of 29
Louis Weil Met with neighbors and Horst at the site p. 1 of 29 Imer Bauta Met with the same group as the other Board members. p. 1 of 29

4. Board Questions and Staff Responses
The Board had no questions for staff.

5. Applicant Presentation
The project architect, Horst Noppenberger, introduced himself and the team, acknowledging the Board and the neighbors for their extensive input and engagement. He noted that multiple neighborhood meetings helped refine the project. He then summarized the design vision: the “Kyoto House” is conceived as two simple, intersecting pavilions intended to blend into the natural terrain of Bluebird Canyon through minimalist forms and materials such as board-formed concrete, wood, and steel. Noppenberger also outlined key revisions made in response to feedback, including the removal of approximately 750 square feet of enclosed area, 250 square feet of habitable space17, and 500 square feet from the garage, which also reduces required excavation. Excavation was reduced from 1,900 to 1,550 cubic yards, and lot coverage decreased from roughly 30% to 25.8%. The home was also shifted farther from the western neighbor and the spa was relocated to lessen noise and privacy impacts.

A major change involved removing the driveway and its retaining wall from the public right-of-way. The redesigned driveway now sat fully on private property, maintaining a compliant 10% slope, and used turf block so it can remain conforming even if the City widens the street in the future. Only a small, low retaining edge remains, which could be removed without creating a non-conforming condition.

The Applicant had evaluated a three-car garage at street level, as requested by neighbors, but found that this design would require more excavation (about 650 cubic yards), created unsafe backing movements onto Bluebird Canyon Drive, and introduced tall retaining walls. An alternative downhill driveway was also studied but would require significant cuts, placing the driveway about 20 feet below existing grade, and was therefore dismissed.

3. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, eight individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
17 Notably, the Board did not direct, at the May 8, 2025 hearing, that the Applicant should reduce the habitable space but referenced mass and scale should be addressed. Rather, the Applicant voluntarily made this change to reduce the habitable space for the Revised Project.
11 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 11 of 39 ends

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Mary
Fegraus
Mary Fegraus of 1561 Morningside Drive acknowledged the improved design of the proposed house but raised concerns about its height, mass, and visibility from her property, noting that the structures, including decks and a spa, sit atop the knoll ridge and appear out of scale with the neighborhood. She expressed that the size, floor-to-lot ratio, and driveway design could set a precedent inconsistent with surrounding homes and questioned the appropriateness of the revocable encroachment permit, retaining walls, and crib wall systems. Fegraus suggested that the design would be more compatible if terraced into the hillside and highlighted potential impacts on privacy, light, noise, and sky views for nearby residents. Other major concerns included decks, gardens, and other outdoor features. She emphasized that local policies, land use regulations, open space standards, municipal codes, and the local plan continue to apply to the site.
p. 5 of 29
William
Horner
William Horner of 1565 Bluebird raised several concerns regarding the proposed project. He emphasized slope stability, noting a history of slope failure above his home, and requested reasonable guarantees, including potential indemnification, to protect the City and neighbors from geological risks. He also highlighted privacy issues, specifically unshielded glazing on a south-southwest-facing dining room wall that overlooks his bedroom and living room, suggesting replacing that section with a solid wall. Additionally, he inquired about pump placement and potential noise from the reflecting pool or any fountains. Finally, he expressed disappointment that the public did not have a formal opportunity to address CDP findings related to coastal protections and SB-450, which appear to be applied to this project.
pgs. 5 and
6 of 29
Eileen Slora Eileen Slora of 1545 Bluebird Canyon Drive expressed concern about the cantilevered dining room, approximately 360–400 square feet, noting that its glazing directly overlooks her kitchen and bedroom, and requested that it be reduced in size or the glazing be less pronounced to minimize the intrusion.
p. 6 of 29
Peter
Grohmann
Peter Grohmann, who lives across from the project at 1573 Bluebird Canyon, criticized the proposed design, noting that despite previous Board guidance to reduce mass, height and terrace the house into the hillside, the Applicant largely ignored these suggestions. He highlighted that the driveway remains atop the hill rather than a streetside garage, the square footage was minimally reduced by 250 sq. ft., and the height increased by three feet, resulting in a design incompatible with the neighborhood. He also raised concerns about the 1,550 cubic yards of excavation (~200 truckloads) impacting the fragile road, the visual prominence of the home p. 6 of 29
12 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 12 of 39 ends

on the knoll, and argued that the project is too substantial to qualify for a revocable encroachment permit, which he believes should be denied.

Harpal
Sadhal
Harpal Sadhal addressed the Board regarding the project, focusing on objective concerns. He noted that portions of the driveway and retaining walls in the public right of way may conflict with the revocable encroachment permit. Regarding the coastal development permit findings, he argued that the project violates Land Use Policy 2.1, as the house is incompatible with surrounding residences, and Policy 2.8, since the siting and overall design fail to integrate the home into the hillside, and instead dominate it. He suggested more terracing could improve integration.

Additionally, he felt the home’s siting was not modified to accommodate the garage, and better terracing or stepped walls could reduce view impacts.
p. 7 of 29
Joe Cover Joe Cover of 1536 Morningside expressed concern that the project is detrimental to the neighborhood, noting that previous Board feedback has not led to meaningful changes. He emphasized objective issues, including that the proposed home reaches a higher elevation (515 feet) than his approved project (513 feet) and that it has significantly more glazing than surrounding homes. While acknowledging the Board cannot act on purely subjective opinions, he urged members to consider objective factors and offer guidance to help make the project more compatible and acceptable for both the applicants and neighbors.
p. 7 of 29
Susan
Whitin
Susan Whitin of 1540 Bluebird Canyon raised several concerns with the project. She noted that the staff report is incomplete and omits critical changes, including a one-foot increase in finished floor elevation, a threefoot increase at the eastern roof edge, and an overall two-foot increase in building height from the street (now 52 feet). Regarding the revocable encroachment permit, she highlighted that the retaining wall in the rightof-way reaches 4.5 feet at the property line with a driveway slope up to 19%, making it unapprovable. She emphasized privacy impacts, noting the building remains largely glass and overlooks her home. Whitin asserted that the project does not comply with the Laguna-certified LCP or Land Use Policies 2.1 and 2.8, which require minimizing mass and integrating development with natural topography, unlike neighboring projects. She concluded that the second submittal still fails to meet objective standards and disregards prior Board and public input, and requested either further revisions with a third hearing or project denial.
p. 8 of 29
Pamela
Adams
Pamela Adams of Morningside Drive opposed the minor revisions to the project at 1550 Bluebird Canyon, citing multiple concerns. She noted that the house remains on the ridge rather than integrated into the hillside, and the small reductions in square footage, decks, and garage do little to address neighborhood compatibility. She criticized the monolithic design, extensive glazing, and light-colored stucco for creating glare, light intrusion, and contrast with the rustic, eclectic neighborhood character. pgs. 8 and
9 of 29
13 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 13 of 39 ends

The spa’s placement atop the knoll raised privacy and noise concerns for neighbors. Additionally, she expressed safety concerns regarding the proposed traffic and staging plan through Morningside Drive and Bluebird Canyon Drive. She urged the Board to deny the project.

Marsha
Stallworth
Marsha Stallworth, speaking on behalf of the Romitas who own the knoll above the project, expressed support for the proposed home, noting it has no impact on their property. She congratulated Horst on his award-winning design and encouraged neighborhood cooperation to find solutions that work for everyone, emphasizing the Romitas’ approval of the project. p. 9 of 29

4. Applicant Rebuttal
Chris Burt, representing the applicant, explained that the retaining walls in the right of way primarily support the proposed on-street parking, and if the City revokes the REP, no non-conformity would result.

He noted that the on-street parking requirement could potentially be waived at the Board’s discretion. Burt emphasized that the project qualifies as an SB 450 housing project, meaning it is protected under state law and complies with all objective standards, making traditional design review findings largely inapplicable.

Regarding the LCP, he clarified that the focus under SB 450 is whether the project affects coastal resources, not subjective neighborhood compatibility, and noted that the City Council concluded there are no impacts to coastal resources or views. He reiterated that any REP encroachments could be removed without creating a non-conformity. (Attachment 16 [Transcript], p. 9 of 29).

5. Board Deliberation
Board
Members
Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.

Chair
Gibbs
Chair Gibbs noted that he reviewed the City Council’s direction on the 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive project and its implications for the current project.

Regarding the REP, they emphasized that it is intended for minor structures like low fences or walkways, not large retaining walls or long driveways.

Given the potential road widening and resulting grade breaks, they concluded that the REP findings could not be made, as removal of the walls would create non-compliant conditions. On design review, they noted that for SB 9 and SB 450 projects, the City Council directed the Board not to apply neighborhood compatibility or typical design guidelines, leaving only objective considerations. For the CDP, findings must focus on coastal resources, natural landforms, public views, and fire risk. Chair Gibbs stated that criteria five (minimizing alterations to natural landforms and avoiding geological risk) and criteria six (visual compatibility with surrounding character) could not be met because the project sits atop the ridge without terracing, is large, contains significant glazing, and is out of character with the neighborhood. In summary, the REP cannot be approved due to non-compliance risks, and the CDP findings cannot be supported under criteria five and six.

Pgs. 18
through 20
of 29
Imer
Bauta
Bauta submitted that the project meets LCP standards for visual resource protection, natural landform alterations, fire hazard avoidance, ridgeline protection, and public view corridors. He highlighted that cut-and-fill volumes Pgs. 20 and
21 of 29
14 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 14 of 39 ends

are reasonable, the site is not on a ridgeline, and road access meets code requirements. Regarding the REP, he argued that the retaining walls proposed are minor and consistent with the code, and that denying the REP would unfairly penalize the applicant given the extensive design effort. He concluded that, based on these objective criteria and state law requirements, the project and REP should be supported, while typical subjective design review considerations cannot be applied.

Jessica
Gannon
Gannon expressed support for the proposed minor retaining wall, noting that similar or larger walls have been approved on adjacent lots, and agreed with potentially waiving the on-street parking requirement. She also affirmed that she could make the CDP findings as outlined in the staff report, including criterion six regarding visual compatibility, emphasizing that the small retaining wall in question is minor compared to previously approved projects.

Pgs. 21
and 22 of
29 Louis
Weil
Weil emphasized challenges with access, the REP, and massing. He agreed that the board has authority to approve appropriate components in the rightof-way but stressed the need for sufficient travel width (24 feet) for safety, fire access, and large vehicles. He noted issues with driveway grades (19% shown on plans) and walls that unnecessarily block the right-of-way, suggesting adjustments to improve accessibility and align retaining walls.

Regarding the CDP findings, he acknowledged policies 2.1 and 2.8, noting the project exceeds topography and has increased in bulk and height from prior hearings, which is inconsistent with prior guidance. He compared the project to other nearby lots, observing that the proposed height now exceeds the natural lot high point by 11–12 feet, driving mass concerns. Despite these issues, he remained open to approving the project if revisions adequately address access, bulk, and mass concerns. He criticized the project’s design for failing to follow hillside guidelines, emphasizing that “floating” pavilions above the topography are not allowed, whereas building into the hillside with balanced terraces is acceptable and aligns with prior approvals. He noted that the proposed 52-foot height and extensive, winding staircases disrupt the natural topography and site flow. While acknowledging the site is buildable, he stated more compromise is needed to align the project with natural landforms, CDP requirements, and land use policies before he could support it.

Pgs. 22
through 24
of 29
MJ
Coveny
Coveny agreed with previous board members, emphasizing that the project’s mass and scale, particularly cantilevered dining rooms, are out of character for the neighborhood and violate CDP criteria five and six. She also disagreed with waiving the public parking space, stating that a parking spot is essential given the lot size and constrained area, and concluded by concurring with prior comments on the need for reconfiguration to align with neighborhood context.

Pgs. 24
and 25 of
29 6. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to continue to the project to the November 13, 2025 Board meeting. 15 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 15 of 39 ends

B. November 13, 2025 Board Review

1. Staff Report
The staff report noted that since the Board’s direction on August 14, 2025 for this Property, the Applicant had eliminated the proposed improvements in the public right-of-way that required an REP, thereby eliminating the request for the REP, and had provided additional information demonstrating the project will be in conformance with the driveway slope requirements should the roadway be widened (the “Second Revised Project”). Staff also noted this would be the third Board hearing and therefore the Board must render a decision at this public hearing. Staff recommended that the Board approve the Project if it found sufficient facts to support the applications.

2. Staff Presentation
Staff explained that the site sits high above the street on a knoll shared with several other parcels, some entitled but undeveloped, and is surrounded by development on Bluebird Canyon Drive, Morningside Drive, and the downhill side of Bluebird Canyon. The Project included a new home with an attached twocar garage, elevated decks, water features, grading, and landscaping.

Staff advised that City Council direction, originally given in connection with the nearby 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive project, applied here as well. The Board was instructed to rely only on objective design standards for the design review portion, and for the CDP findings to tie any conclusions directly to the protection of an identifiable coastal resource, rather than general neighborhood-character concerns.

City staff explained that the Second Revised Project consists of minor grading and installation of a standard curb will occur within the public right-of-way. Staff verified compliance with driveway grades, retainingwall placement, and engineering standards. City staff also noted that the overall design, massing, and height remained largely unchanged since the previous hearing. Staff supported the Second Revised Project and recommended the Board approve the CDP and design review entitlements, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Louis Weil Spoke with Susan Whitin, Harpal, Vera, Peter, Steve Kawaratani, JB, and Rosanne.
p. 1 of 32
MJ Coveny Met with Steve Kawaratani at the site and spoke with Susan Whitin and Harpal Sadal.
p. 1 of 32
Thomas
Gibbs
Met Steve Kawaratani at the site. Spoke to Susan, Harpal, JB Horner, Peter Grumman, Vera Wilman, and Roseanne.
p. 1 of 32
Imer Bauta Spoke with the project Applicant, Susan Whitin, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 32 16 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 16 of 39 ends

Jessica
Gannon
Absent. N/A

4. Board Questions and Staff Responses
Chair Gibbs asked Assistant City Attorney, Patrick Donegan, about the City Council’s direction, particularly in light of removing certain proposed improvements from the REP area. Mr. Donegan advised the Board that reconciling State housing laws with the Coastal Act is a novel and complex issue, with no clear case law or roadmap. He noted that interpretations vary, with some guidance suggesting a coastal resource must exist, while others allow comparison to neighboring homes. He recommended that the Board identify an actual coastal resource when applying the Coastal Act. When asked, he defined coastal resources broadly, including but not limited to natural landforms, public views, fire-risk areas, ocean views, and hillsides and open space. (Attachment 20, pgs. 9 and 10 of 32).

5. Applicant Presentation
The project architect, Horst Noppenberger, briefly addressed the Board, noting that the primary revision since the last hearing was the removal of all previously proposed right-of-way improvements, eliminating the need for an REP. He added that the team has incorporated three mature palo verde trees along the downhill elevation to help soften and reduce the apparent mass of the structure. Applicant’s attorney emphasized the narrow scope of the Board’s discretion under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act.

She reiterated that the REP is no longer part of the Project and that the Design Review criteria do not apply.

That leaves only the CDP, which per City Council direction, requires identifying an explicit coastal resource to support any subjective findings.

Applicant’s attorney argued that no such resource exists: there are no public views, no natural features, no sensitive habitat, and no ridgelines, and the Second Revised Project could not affect coastal access or marine resources due to its location. Because there is no coastal resource, Applicant’s attorney stated that none of the LCP’s subjective CDP criteria can be applied. She further noted that even if a coastal resource did exist, the City failed to identify any inconsistency within the statutory deadlines, 60 days under SB 450 and 30 days under the Housing Accountability Act. Therefore, she asserted that the Board has no legal basis to find inconsistency or deny the Second Revised Project, and must approve it. Applicant’s attorney warned that a denial would violate state housing law, prompting the applicant to pursue legal remedies, and referenced the City’s costly Pearl Street settlement as a cautionary example. (Attachment 20, p. 5 and 6 of 32).

6. Public Testimony
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Harpal
Sadal
Harpal Sadal emphasized that the photos provided illustrate clear neighborhood compatibility issues under Section 2.8 of the Land Use Element. He argued that the proposed homes, standing 52 and 55 feet above street grade with large massing and elevated garage floors, are out of scale with surrounding development. He noted that the 15 “comparable” homes previously submitted by the Applicant are not valid comparisons, as p. 6 of 32
17 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 17 of 39 ends

the existing neighborhood homes have long-established, significantly lower heights. Despite the Board’s focus on coastal-resource criteria, he maintained that neighborhood compatibility remains an important and appropriate consideration.

Susan
Whitin
Susan Whitin referenced the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting, noting that the City Attorney affirmed SB 9 and SB 450 projects must comply with the objective standards of the City’s certified LCP. These include CDP findings, land-use policies, and Title 25 requirements—all of which focus on minimizing landform alteration and ensuring compatibility in height, mass, scale, and size.

She argued that objective LCP metrics demonstrate the 1550 and 1560 proposals cannot meet several required findings (CDP Finding 1, Criteria 5 and 6, Title 25 §25.05.040(H), and Land Use Policies 2.1 and 2.8). The projects substantially alter approximately 90% of both landforms, have structural height and mass incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not integrate into the terrain to reduce visual impact.

She also noted significant privacy issues stemming from the floor plans.

Ms Whitin acknowledged the owner’s right to build and stated that homes with similar specifications but different configurations could be approvable. The Board had previously provided a clear path toward compliance, but the Applicant has not made meaningful revisions. Because the LCP findings cannot be made as required under the Coastal Act, she urged the Board to deny both projects.
pgs. 6 and
7 of 32
Mary
Fegraus
Mary Fegraus, a resident of 1561 Morningside Drive, urged the Board to deny the projects. She emphasized that the LCP reflects long-standing community standards, which the projects did not meet. She stated that attempts to resolve issues with the landowner failed and argued that residents should not be pressured to compromise when the projects are incompatible with neighborhood standards.
p. 7 of 32
William
Horner
William “JB” Horner of 1565 Bluebird Canyon Drive addressed the Board to clarify earlier confusion. He acknowledged the difficulty and resulting frustration with the projects but noted that reasonable paths to approval existed. He highlighted a key trade-off between building on top of the hill versus integrating structures into the terrain, observing that rigidity in addressing this has contributed to the current situation. He urged the Board to use all available tools to ensure compliance and neighborhood compatibility, especially in light of perceived intimidation or threatening tactics.
p. 7 of 32
Eileen Slora Eileen Slora of 1545 Bluebird Canyon Drive requested that the projects be denied. She argued that the Applicant has made no good-faith effort to implement design changes recommended by the Board and neighbors. She stated that the project was incompatible with the surrounding area in terms p. 7 of 32
18 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 18 of 39 ends

of size and height, citing diagrams provided by Mr. Sadal, and that the houses did not integrate with the landform as required by the LCP.

7. Applicant Rebuttal
Applicant explained that when he purchased and subdivided the lot, the City approved the final map under SB 9, which is now protected by SB 450. He emphasized that the City had committed to following those guidelines, which limit projects to objective, not subjective, review. He argued that many current objections are largely unrelated to the Board’s decision and noted that the consistent focus in prior meetings has been on removing structures from the right-of-way. Applicant stated that the removal of proposed structures from the right-of-way had been completed for both properties. He explained that the homes are already below City height limits, averaging under 12 feet above standard grade, with peaks near 15 feet due to the slope and second floors, well within the City’s restrictions to prevent overly tall structures on hills. He emphasized that the Second Revised Project complies with all City codes, requires no variances, and that additional mitigation measures have been implemented to address neighbor concerns.

He highlighted that the site has been graded for development since the 1940s and was always intended for homes, noting previous proposed variations. He warned the Board that approval could allow for negotiation and settlement of a pending lawsuit, while denial would lead to continued litigation likely decided in his favor, resulting in significant City costs. He urged the Board to consider the consequences of an appeal to the City Council. (Attachment 20, p. 8 and 9 of 32).

The Applicant added to the rebuttal by acknowledging the complexity of the Second Revised Project and the Board’s effort to mediate, asserting that he has acted in good faith. He noted this is the Board’s last opportunity to decide before the matter proceeds to court. He compared the current Second Revised Project to previous ones, explaining that grading and height are similar or less impactful than nearby developments, with the site previously graded and no protected coastal resources present. He stressed that the Board lacks legal grounds to deny the Second Revised Project, citing staff reports and survey evidence. He warned that denial could lead to significant City liability and costs, including complications with street widening that would affect neighbors. He expressed frustration that delays have exacerbated issues, including the lawsuit, and emphasized that further design changes, such as lowering the house, are not feasible. Ultimately, he framed the situation as one of time and financial consequences escalating quickly. (Attachment 20 [1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Transcript], p. 2 and 3 of 9).

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript Page
Nos. [Commenter]
Coastal Act
requirements
Chair Gibbs emphasized the Board’s role in applying the CDP criteria, focusing on minimizing alterations to natural landforms and ensuring visual compatibility with surrounding areas. He rejected the notion that threats of litigation should influence the Board, noting that members are volunteers acting based on the rules. He explained that SB 9, SB 450, and p. 10 [Gibbs]
19 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 19 of 39 ends

ADU laws include a “carve-out” preserving the Coastal Act, requiring the board to make CDP findings.

Landform
Alteration; Visual
Compatibility.

Gibbs identified the natural landform as the relevant coastal resource. He concluded that the project fails Criteria 5 and 6:
it heavily grades the site with a long driveway and retaining walls, places the house atop the hill rather than terracing into the slope, and does not contour to the landform. He noted that visual compatibility is also lacking because the structure does not integrate with the surrounding area.
p. 11 [Gibbs]
Landform
Alteration
Board member Bauta raised concerns that minimizing
landform alteration does not mean prohibiting building but only requires fitting structures to the terrain.

Chair Gibbs responded that the project’s grading and driveway construction are excessive and contrary to minimizing
alterations. He disagreed with Board member Bauta’s
interpretation and maintained that the project does not meet the CDP criteria, highlighting repeated opportunities given to the Applicant to reduce impacts.
pgs. 11 to 15 of 32
[Bauta and Gibbs]
Coastal Act
requirements.

Chair Gibbs and Board member Bauta discussed their
differing views on how the Coastal Act’s language should be applied. Chair Gibbs emphasized that the Board’s
responsibility is to enforce minimizing landform alteration through design.
pgs. 11 to 15 of 32
[Bauta and Gibbs]
Landform
Alteration
Board members Coveny, and Bauta and Chair Gibbs debated the interpretation of “minimizing alteration of natural landforms.” Board member Bauta argued that advising the Applicant to lower the house into the hill increases grading, while Board member Coveny and Chair Gibbs countered that the issue is the overall design and placement of the house, not just grading. They emphasized that building atop the hill with large retaining walls and a steep driveway alters the natural landform more than terracing the house into the slope, which would better integrate with the terrain.

Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny maintained that the current Project significantly impacted natural landforms, while Board member Bauta expressed concern that his
colleagues’ evaluation was incorrect. All three acknowledged their differing interpretations, with no consensus reached. pgs. 15 to 18 of 32
[Coveny, Bauta,
Gibbs]
20 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 20 of 39 ends

Visual
Compatibility
Chair Gibbs continued his analysis, addressing Criteria 6 of the Coastal Development Permit review criteria, which
requires visual compatibility with surrounding areas. He stated that the current project was not visually compatible as it sat atop the hill rather than integrating with the natural landform, it stood out compared to neighboring homes, and it appeared jarring. He emphasized that terracing the building into the slope would make it more visually compatible.

Chair Gibbs also referenced relevant Land Use Element
policies (2.1, 2.8, 7.3, and 10.2), noting that the project failed to maintain neighborhood scale, integrate with topography, or preserve visual character and public views. While he
acknowledged that the City Council’s direction was unclear regarding these policies, he suggested that they should also be considered if the Project goes back to the City Council. He concluded that, based on the CDP findings for Criteria 5 and 6, he could not approve the Project.
p. 18 of 32 [Gibbs]
Objective
Standards
Board Member Imer Bauta argued that, objectively, the
Project is approvable. They noted the City Council’s remand focused on natural landforms, public views, and fire risk. He stated that public views and fire hazards were not issues, and that the Project effectively incorporated natural landforms into the design. He contended that cutting the house into the hill would increase grading and disturbance. He emphasized that this was a buildable lot in a buildable neighborhood, that the site is not a protected coastal resource, and that the Project meets objective standards under SB 450. He argued that
subjective design criteria should be set aside, and the Project should be evaluated based on its compliance with objective requirements.
p. 18 and 19 of 32
[Bauta]
Coastal Act
requirements;
Objective
Standards
Chair Gibbs and Board member Bauta debated whether the
Board is limited to objective criteria. Chair Gibbs emphasized that SB 450 includes a carve-out for the Coastal Act, and that the Board may exercise discretion in accordance with the City’s CDP review criteria, even though the criteria may be subjective. He explained that Criteria 5 and 6 involve
observable elements, like minimizing alteration of natural landforms, and are not strictly objective.

Chair Gibbs noted that if only objective criteria applied, the City Council would not have remanded the project for CDP findings. IN response, Board member Bauta argued the
remand also allowed review of the REP application which had Pgs. 19 and 20 of 32
[Gibbs, Bauta,
Coveny]
21 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 21 of 39 ends

since been removed from the Applicant’s Project. Chair Gibbs clarified that the City Council directed the Board to exercise discretion. The discussion included disagreement over what issues were raised in prior hearings, with Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny asserting that natural landforms had been a concern, contrary to Board member Bauta’s
recollection.

Coastal Act
requirements.

Board member Coveny expressed full agreement with Chair Gibbs’ analysis and findings under criteria 5 and 6, praising his detailed interpretation, effort, and legal understanding. She also thanked the community for its sustained involvement in protecting the area’s character and natural landform. Board member Coveny expressed that the Applicant had made little effort to find a balanced solution for a clearly buildable site.

While acknowledging the architect’s talent and the site’s potential, Board member Coveny supported Chair Gibbs’
analysis.
p. 21 of 32
[Coveny]
Visual
Compatibility;
Landform
Alteration;
Access; Fire
Safety.

Board member Weil expressed disappointment that the
process has not led to a workable compromise, finding a balance between Applicant goals and community character.

He noted that projects that fit in well typically involve meaningful compromise from both sides, but in this case, cooperation had been difficult.

He acknowledged that the lot is buildable and could support a large home, but the placement and height of the proposed structure created major issues. The project would rise 10–15 feet above natural grade, far more than recently approved homes nearby, and would be highly visible from the bottom of Bluebird Canyon, disrupting neighborhood character. Weil could not make key CDP findings or find General Plan
consistency, including consistency with Land Use Element policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3, and 10.2.

He also raised serious concerns about access and fire safety, noting Bluebird Canyon Drive narrows to 16–17 feet in places, below State and Cal Fire standards for two-lane roads, and that existing utility poles, hydrants, and encroachments further reduce required clearances. He concluded that these issues remained unaddressed and prevented him from supporting the Project. Weil argued that the newly installed or relocated power poles along the roadway do not meet required state firesafety standards. He noted that if a local ordinance does not Pgs. 21 and 22 of 32
(Weil)
22 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 22 of 39 ends

specify standards, the state standards apply, and those standards require adequate clear road width. Measurements show existing poles on the block provide about 24 feet of clear width, but the new poles are placed too close to the street, creating a hazard and failing to account for required road clearance for new development. Because the application does not address this safety issue, Board member Weil stated he is denying the CDP component on the basis that the Project does not meet state fire-safety standards.

9. Board Action
The Board voted 3-1 (Board member Bauta dissenting and Board member Gannon absent) to adopt Resolution No. 24-2588 denying CDP 24-2588. Because the Board denied the CDP application, its consideration of the application seeking approval of Design Review 24-2586 was moot and not reached by the Board.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Applicant submitted an Appeal of the Board Denial. (Attachment 5.) As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 24-2588, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For any consideration of DR 24-2586, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence.

Further, for DR 24-2586, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of the Appeal. Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.

1. “The Board relied on subjective standards to deny Lot A and B in violation of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. City Staff confirmed in the November 13th staff reports that the projects are consistent with all LCP policies and all applicable objective design standards. Therefore, under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the Board did not have the authority to deny the projects.” Staff’s Response
The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) CDP 24-2588 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (2) DR 24-2586 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1).

At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting on the appeal in 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City Council directed the Board to “[d]isregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.” Accordingly, in the August 14, 2025 and November 13, 2025 public 23 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 23 of 39 ends

hearings for the projects at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the Board reviewed the objective requirements in the City’s DR permit for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and the discretionary requirements of the CDP with a focus on coastal resources. Because the Board could not make all of the required CDP findings, they denied the application for CDP 24-2588 on November 13, 2025 and determined that their consideration of the application seeking approval of DR 24-2586 was moot. The City Council should consider whether the Board committed an abuse of discretion in its Board Denial.

Below is an overview of applicable state housing laws and Coastal Act carve outs and the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements.

Applicable State Housing Laws and Coastal Act Carve Outs A. HAA

1. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’19 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)

2. Application of the HAA to this Property
19 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
24 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 24 of 39 ends

Laguna Beach City CouncilJanuary 6, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
January 6, 2026