AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Ryan Gohlich, AICP, Director of Community Development Subject: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S FEBRUARY 10, 2022 DECISION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A
BASEMENT ON A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE
Attachments: 1. Continuance Request
2. Appeal Petition
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1971
4. Project Representative Meeting Date Request
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council continue the appeal hearing of the Planning Commission’s decision conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive to the second City Council meeting in August 2022.
INTRODUCTION
On February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving the construction of a single-family residence located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive.
Subsequently, Steve Mayer filed a timely appeal. On April 12, 2022, the City Council scheduled the appeal hearing for July 21, 2022, and noted at the time that the appellant may need additional time to receive and review public records related to the project. On June 9, 2022, staff received a letter from Steve Mayer, the appellant, requesting that the appeal hearing previously scheduled to be heard on June 21, 2022, be continued to a future City Council meeting (Attachment 1). The continuance is requested in order to provide the appellant more time to receive copies of public records as a part of his Public Records Act request, which was submitted to the City on April 10, 2022.
E-1
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
DISCUSSION
On February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive (Attachment 3).
On March 17, 2022, Steve Mayer filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, which requires the City Council to review the Development Plan Review (Attachment 2). On April 12, 2022, the City Council scheduled the appeal hearing for June 21, 2022. Since that time, the appellant has requested that the item be continued to a future City Council meeting to provide the appellant with more time to receive and review copies of public records that were requested.
Community Development staff has consulted with the City Clerk’s Office and it is anticipated that all responsive materials will be provided to the appellant by the first week of July. The appellant has indicated to Community Development staff that he may submit additional Public Records Act requests based on the documents he receives. Staff recommends continuing the appeal hearing to the second meeting in August 2022 in an attempt to balance the appellant’s requested time to review the responsive materials with the need to provide a timely final decision on this matter.
On July 15, 2022, the City received a request from the project representative requesting that the appeal hearing be held at the first City Council meeting in July. The request is included as Attachment 4.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City at this time since the appeal filing fee was paid.
Ryan Gohlich, AICP,
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
Continuance Request
P.O. Box 16766
Beverly Hills, California 90209
(310) 275-8423
June 8, 2022
Judy Gutierrez
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90212
RE: PL1900208
(Appeal: 331 North Oakhurst)
Dear Judy:
Please permit this letter to serve as a “follow-up” of our conversation last week.
In accordance with that discussion, we are requesting a postponement of the June 21, 2022 appeal for 331 North Oakhurst Drive (PL1900208).
The primary reason is that the City Clerk’s office remains backlogged in fulfilling California Public Records Act requests (PRA).
Last Friday, the City Clerk’s office provided more elements of our PRA, but also noted:
“I was able to complete one of the final two code enforcement cases, and the files may be downloaded from the links below.
“I have one additional case totaling 793 pages to review and the e-mails totaling approximately 3,800 files (page count unknown). Kindly let me know which you would like me to focus on next.”
As stated to Council in April, there were only a few elements of the PRA that could not be compiled within a week, if the City Clerk’s office was not unduly burdened.
In fact, the City Clerk’s office is short-staffed and has had the additional responsibility of the Tuesday’s election. The Council understood that; they chose not to change the level of priority within the City Clerk’s office with respect to the PRA for this Appeal.
Judy Gutierrez
City of Beverly Hills
June 8, 2022
The City Council meeting to set the date was on April 12th. The first set of documents was returned on May 13th, a second on May 16th, and a third on June 3rd.
We have been told there will be two additional sets of documents delivered in several weeks.
Compounding the situation is that reviewing multiple-delivered parts of a PRA can generate additional PRA requests … unless the answer is found in a subsequently delivered documents.
We have a number of additional PRA requests that we could deliver to the City Clerk’s office, but we do not want to unnecessarily burden that office if the answer is uncovered with the final delivered documents.
Last, as a separate issue, it is unrealistic to expect our neighborhood residents to wait to midnight or later when there is a hearing for a Tenant / Landlord issue (as is currently scheduled for June 21st). That occurred on April 12th, when a similar situation resulted in an agenda item regarding 1001 North Roxbury not being heard until the “Witching Hour” (after a Tenant / Landlord issue).
That concern was raised on May 10th to the City Council when the appeal date was set for 1001 North Roxbury. As you may recall, the Mayor asked whether the Oakhurst hearing date was contingent upon a satisfactory examination of the PRA. I responded affirmatively.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (310) 275-8423.
Sincerely,
Steven N. Mayer
Attachment 2
Appeal Petition
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION
APPEAL TO COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK February 23. 2022 Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, The undersigned here by appeals from the decision of Planning (Official, Board Of Commission involved) rendered on February 10, 2022 ; which decision consisted of:
The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State all grounds for appeal. Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper if necessary.) A local resident, Steve Mayer, hereby appeals the February 10, 2022 decision of the Planning Commission regarding a Development Plan Review for 331 North Oakhurst. The grounds for appeal are set forth initially in a ietter to the City Council. The Appellant reserves the right to supplement the initial letter.
The undersigned discussed the decision be appealed with:
Timmi Twav on February 22, 2022
(Department Head(s) Involved) Date
It is requested that written notice of time and place or the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:
Steve Mayer P.O. Box 16766, Beverly Hills, California 90209 Name Address
Signature of appealing party
P.O. Box 16766. Beverlv Hiiis. California 90209
Address
(310) 275-8423
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid ^ (For City Clerk's use) DATE RECEIVED 3EV GITV CLERK 2022 FEB 23 ph^:54
LOG NO. 7^2— Written Notice mailed to appellant:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development p. O. Box 16766
Beverly Hills, California 90209
(310) 275-8423
February 23,2022
City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
RE: Appeal of February 10, 2022 Planning Commission Decision of the Development Plan Review for a proposed Multi-Family Residential structure at 331 North Oakhurst
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
Please permit this correspondence to summarize some of the issues regarding the appeal of the February 10,2022 Planning Commission Decision of a proposed single unit multi-family project at 331 North Oakhurst Drive, including, but not limited to, the:
Development Plan Review
Resolution
The grounds for the Appeal include, but are not limited to:
Resident Protection Conditions Not Added To Resolution
Backdating Of Plans
Brown Act Violations
Quasi-Judicial Hearing Violations
Applicant Failure to Meet Prior to Redesign
Future Use Cannot Be Predicted
Alternatives Not Considered
Land Use Policies
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
PROJECT HISTORY
The Commission voted 5-0 to approve a 1-unit, two-story, 22'8" high building, with a subterranean garage, and a roof-top terrace.
The public has endured a tortuous process for the proposed project. As recently as a year ago the Commission voted 5-0 against the project... for scant minutes.
Previous Planning Commission actions on this project
Date
August 1, 2016
June 22,2017
August 11,2017
Action
Continued Hearing
January 12, 2017 Continued Heading
Prepare Denial Resolution
Declined to take action
on the Denial Resolution
Project Summary
3 Story
3,724 SQFT
32'2" High
2 Parking Spaces
3 Story (with Basement)
2,145 SQFT
32'2" High
3 Parking Spaces
2 Story (with Basement)
2,865 SQFT
22'2" High
2 Parking Spaces
February 22,2018 Determined there was not
sufficient support to form an
Ad Hoc Committee
July 26, 2018 Project Denied 2 Story (with Basement)
2,329 SQFT
22'2" High
3 Parking Spaces
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
March 11,2021 Voted 5-0 To Prepare
Denial Resolution.. for
Scant Minutes
February 10, 2022 Voted 5-0 To Approve
3 Story (with Garage)
2,060 SQFT
33' (with Stairwell)
4 Parking Spaces
2 Story (with Garage)
1,371 SQFT
22'8' (with Stairwell)
4 Parking Spaces
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
RESIDENT PROTECTION CONDITIONS NOT ADDED TO RESOLUTION
There were three concerns that the immediate adjacent residents expressed, and should have been added to the Resolution:
EASEMENT IMACTS - There are at least two easements on the next door neighbor's adjacent property located at 9167 West Third:
a Public Utilities Easement and a Sewer Easement.
The Public Utilities Easement, which has been found, will economically impact the next-door neighbor if the electrical components are placed underground.
The Sewer Easement, which has not been located, will
economically impact the next-door neighbor when a new sewer line is placed underground
The next-door neighbor should not be economically impacted so a developer can profit when the flip the property. A condition should have been included in the Resolution.
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATIONS - The same Applicant for 331
North Oakhurst also has developed 9171 West Third. Over what will be four years, the Applicant has committed numerous violations, only an undetermined number have been enforced.
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
Moreover there are specific construction mitigations relative to noise, dust, and vibration that the next door neighbors noted at 333 North Oakhurst and should have been incorporated into the Resolution.
ROOF TOP NOISE - There was no condition included in the Resolution to mitigate noise emanating from the roof top terrace.
Such conditions are standard in multi-family districts.
BACK DATING OF PLANS
On January 31st or February 1st, Staff discovered that the Applicant had submitted plans for parking spaces for only three vehicles; it required four parking spaces.
Staff had previously determined the "Revised Project Deemed Complete** on Januaiy 19, 2022,
Per Staff request, the Applicant submitted revised plans for five pages (A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A7.1, and A7.2) to increase the number of parking spaces from 3 to 4.
Such pages were backdated to January 19,2022, not the date of submittal that was February 1 st or 2nd.
Significantly, page TS (the first page of plans) was not revised, and continues to have the number of parking spaces as incorrect at three.
The Agenda Report notes the "Application Complete" on February 2nd.
The Agenda Report was published on February 3rd.
On February 4th, a request was made of Staff to postpone the hearing so that the Applicant could correct the submittal, so the issue could not be an issue of Appeal and/or a CEQA action.
Staff refiised.
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS.
The Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54940) has been violated by Staff and the Commission. Amongst the transgressions related only to the October 13th hearing (and not the preceding hearings):
Staff did not disseminate the information to all parties at the same time Specifically, Staff revised the Agenda Report on Febmaiy 8th, less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.
As opposed to making an Addendum as a separate exhibit, the entire Agenda report was republished. It is not certain what changes were made.
A red-line version was not provided.
In addition, the Chair closed the Public Hearing, but had not re-opened the Public Hearing.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING VIOLATIONS.
The City implemented a special procedure for the conduct of QuasiJudicial Hearings.
In essence, the public is supposed to have the last word.
That did not occur twice during the February 10th hearing.
The first was when the public was not permitted to have the final rebuttal.
The second was when the Public Hearing was closed after the Applicant's Legislative Advocate spoke, and no rebuttal was allowed.
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
APPLICANT FAILURE TO MEET PRIOR TO REDESIGN.
At the March 11,2021 meeting, Vice Chair Gordon implored the Applicant to meet prior to initiating a redesign.
Chair Gordon was emphatic about that. Instead, the Applicant went ahead with a re-desing without consulting the entire community.
The characterization that an Applicant-led, after-the-fact, "Community Meeting" is not what Chair Gordon had in mind
Also, the Agenda Report stated that the invitation was sent to "interested parties." That is also incorrect.
Last, a number of people who provided previous public testimony were not invited.
FUTURE USE CANNOT BE PREDICTED
While the Applicant submitted plans for a single-family residence, in fact, it is technically a one-unit, two-bedroom apartment house. The zoning is R-4.
The maximum number of occupants for that two-bedroom unit, per the Beverly Hills Municipal Code is six.
The number of parking permits that can be granted is three. This is in addition to the three resident parking spaces.
The Applicant stated at the March 11,2021 hearing that the intention is to be used by residents and intems. While he stated differently at the February 10th hearing, at least twice previously, he had insisted that was his goal.
Separately, it is the perfect setting for a YouTube "creator" house, not only because of the total number of potential residents, but also the maximum of parking permits and the unlimited 2-hour parking for guests.
Add-in the roof-top potential unrestricted "party zone," the attraction as a rental increases tremendously.
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
The point is, the potential future use of 331 North Oakhurst, should have been considered by the Commission and was not.
ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED
As part of the CEQA process, a ruling authority is supposed to consider alternatives, to facilitate the highest and best use of a property, for the community as a whole..
No altematives were presented by Staff.
The public presented two options: Rebuild the previous structure, boardby-board or a Mini-Park.
One Commissioner berated the public for mentioning the possibility of Mini-Park stating that the public had the opportunity to implore the City Council to purchase the property.
That Commissioner failed to recognize that option did not exist for the Council to initiate such an action as the Application was proceeding.
LAND USE POLICIES.
The General Plan and some of its Land Use Policies were not properly reviewed at the February 10th hearing.
During the March 11, 2021 hearing, the pertinent Land Use Policies cited, in rejecting a 3-story version of the same proposal, were:
LU 1.1: The Scale of the City
LU2.1: City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors LU 2.4: Architectural and Site Design
LU 2.6: City History
LU 2.7: City Gateways
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
LU 5.1: Neighborhood Conservation
LU 5.2: Infill and Replacement Housing
LU 5.5: Walkable Neighborhoods.
LU 6.3: Housing Scale and Mass.
LU 7.1: Character and Design
LU 7.2: Amenities
LU 13.10: Parks and Open Spaces
LU 14.4 New Construction of Private Buildings.
LU 14.7: Public Streetscapes
LU 18.1 Areas of Additional Development Potential.
From the standpoint of Land Use Policies, the underlying conditions were not fully considered at the February 10th hearing
For your reference, written public comment that addressed these issues is included in Exhibit A
There are many other aspects of the approval process that needed to be examined and were not during the public hearings.
Effectively, the Planning Commission lost control of a project long ago. The hiring of a new a Beverly Hills-based Legislative Advocate instilled fear of how exposed they really were.
Lopping on one story does still does not allow the project to comply with 15 Land Use policies they were charged with examining.
City Council / Mayer
February 23,2022
The last element that was not even considered were the harassing £ind abusive nature of the Applicant and his associates. An example of that is contained in Exhibit B. No response was ever heard.
The number of issues and discrepancies were just touched upon in this communication. Thus, this communication will be supplemented close to the hearing date.
Sincerely,
Steve Mayer
EXfflBIT A
EXCERPT OF PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PUBLIC WRITTEN COMMENT
REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE POLICIES TO BE EXAMINED
There are substantial differences of opinion as to the number of the General Plan Land Use policies that should be examined relative to 331 North Oakhurst.
In the Planning Commission Report it states:
"The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some policies relevant to the Planning Commission's review of the project include:"
LU 2.1. City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors.
Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces.
LU 5.1. Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City's residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City's identify, economic value, and quality of life.
LU 7.1. Character and Design. Require that new, renovated, and additions to housing be located and designed to maintain the distinguishing characteristics and qualities of the neighborhoods in which they are located, including prevailing lot sized, building form, scale, massing, relationship to street frontages, architectural design, landscaping, property setbacks, and other comparable elements.
An analysis of a close-by property by then Commissioner Craig Corman identified many more Land Use Policies that should be examined.
The full text of his comments are in Exhibit B.
Many of the Land Use Policies cited by Mr. Corman are applicable to 331 North Oakhurst:
LUl Long-term Stability. In general, each of the land use issues is directed toward the enhancement and maintenance of the long-term durability and stability of the community. A plan which would accomplish this must recognize the unique qualities of the community, and with it, the factors which enhance the uniqueness as well as the factors which jeopardize them....
LU 1.1 The Scale of the City. Although implicit in any discussion of the future of the City, the importance of scale must be underscored. As long as the City is able to regenerate itself within the general framework of the existing scale, it will offer an environment which is becoming increasingly
unique in the Westside. (Imp. 2.1, 2.2) (LU 1.4, pg LU-3) LU 2 Community Character and Quality. A built environment that is distinguished by its high level of site planning, architecture, landscape design, and sensitivity to its natural setting and history.
LU 2.1 City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors.
Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces. (Imp. 2.1, 2.2)
LU 2.4 Architectural and Site Design. Require that new
construction and renovation of existing buildings and
properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site
planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and construction practices, landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City's distinctive image and complement existing development. (Imp. 2.2,
2.3)
LU 5 Complete, Livable, and Quality Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that in the aggregate provide a variety of housing types, densities, forms and designs and a mix of uses and services that support the needs of residents.
LU 5.2 Infill and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form and scale. (Imp. 2.1,2.2)
LU 6 Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods. Maintenance of the identity, scale, and character of the distinct single-family residential neighborhoods.
LU 6.3 Housing Scale and Mass. Regulate renovations of
and additions to single-family housing to ensure that they do not adversely alter the contextual scale, mass, and
design qualities of existing structures. (Imp. 2.1,2.2) LU 7 Multi-Family Residential Neighborhoods. Multi-family residential neighborhoods providing ownership and rental units that are welldesigned, exhibit architectural characteristics and qualities representative of the City, and that provide amenities for their residents.
LU 7.1 Character and Design. Require that multi-family
dwellings and properties be designed to reflect the high level of architectural and landscape equality that
distinguishes existing neighborhoods. These may provide for:
(a) building facades and entrances that directly address the street, including the use of stoops, porches, and
recessed entries;
(b) modulation of building volume and masses,
avoiding the effect of blank continuous walls; and
(c) setback of the ground floor from the sidewalk to
provide privacy, a sense of security, and to leave
room for landscaping while being open and
contributing to a quality pedestrian environment.
(Imp. 2.1,2.2)
LU 7.2 Amenities. Encourage new multi-family development to provide amenities for residents such as on-site recreational facilities, community meeting spaces, and require useable private open space, public open space, or both. (Imp.2.2) LU 14 Environmental Sustainability and Carbon Footprint. Land uses and built urban form that are environmentally sustainable by minimizing consumption of scarce resources, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, wastes, and exposure of residents and visitors to toxics and hazards.
LU 14.4 New Construction of Private Buildings. Require that new and substantially renovated buildings be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City's sustainability programs such as the City's Green Building Ordinance or comparable criteria to reduce energy, water, and natural resource consumption, minimize construction wastes, use recycled materials, and avoid the use of toxics and
hazardous materials. (Imp. 2.4)
LU 14.7 Public Streetscapes. Design and improve public
streetscapes to enhance their attractiveness for wgdking as an alternative to automobile use and as a demonstration of the City's commitment to environmental sustainability by using techniques such as: (a) maintaining and enhancing the City's street trees and installing light-colored
hardscapes to reduce heat; (b) selecting tree and plant species and irrigation systems that minimize water
consumption; (c) exploring the use of recycled water for irrigation; (d) phasing in pedestrian-oriented energyefficient lighting that does not result in excessive glare; (e) strategically locating benches and other street furniture that is constructed of recycled materials to provide resting spots and to demonstrate the use of alternative building materials; and (f) other comparable environmentally friendly
streetscape improvements. (Imp. 3.1, 3.6)
We also believe that other Land Use Policies should be incorporated into the Commission's review:
LU 2 Community Character and Quality. A built environment that is distinguished by its high level of site planning, architecture, landscape design, and sensitivity to its natural setting and history.
LU 2.6 City History. Acknowledge the City's history of places and buildings, preserving historic sites, buildings, and districts that contribute to the City's identity while
accommodating renovations of existing buildings to
maintain their economic viability, provided the new
construction contextually "fits" and complements the site or building. (Imp. 2.2,2.3, 5.4)
LU 2.7 City Gateways. Explore opportunities for public
improvements and private development to work together to enhance the sense and quality of entry at key gateways into the City. (Imp. 2.2, 3.1)
LU 5.5 Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks, parkways, street trees, and landscaping in residential neighborhoods to promote walking as an enjoyable and healthy activity and an alternative to automobile use. (Imp. 3.1)
LU 13 Public and Quasi-Public Uses Supporting Resident Needs.
Governmental, utility, institutional, educational, recreational, cultural, religious, and social facilities and services that are located and designed to complement the City's neighborhoods, centers, and corridors.
LU 13.10 Parks and Open Spaces. Seek to expand the City's parklands, greenways, and open spaces as land becomes
available or as existing buildings are demolished. Consider altemative prototypes and standards for park development in urban areas where available land is limited. (Imp. 3.1,
6.1)
LU 18 Areas to be Considered for Changes in Use and/ or Intensity. (LU1.2,pg2)
LU 18.1 Areas of additional development potential.
Development standards should be revised, so that they are based less on absolute, universally applicable standards and more on formulae incorporating performance standards and permitting flexible solutions. Development standards for higher density structures should satisfy the individual open space, design quality and aural privacy needs of apartment dwellers as well as satisfying the community desire for a spacious and green streetscape. (LU 1.2.1, pg 2)
EXHIBIT B
EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE
AND COMMUNITY MEMBER
(AS PRESENTED AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 10,2022)
Introduction:
Herewith Is an email exchange with what was believed to be one-time representative of the Applicant.
What preceded the subject of this exchange Is that an associate (and co-owner) of the Applicant verbally accosted the next-door neighbor, complaining In an elevated manner about her opposition and how her house and car were Illegal.
This Is but one example of what the next-door neighbor has had to endure.
Sent; Thursday, August 19,2021 at 11:28 AM
From: "Steve Mayer" <[email protected]>
To:
Subject: Re: 331 n. oakhurst
Dear
Murray Fischer" <mdrre!a\vF'^eaith!ink.ne
Murray
t>
Before we address the substance of your email, we need to tackle a different problem.
Around 3 p.m. on Thursday, I was on the phone with Barbara PIzIk to discusss your email.
While Barbara and I were talking, Kamron stopped his car, got out, standing In the parkway, and started taking photos of Barbara's car at her house.
Suffice to state, I became very, very alarmed when Barbara was describing the play-by-play.
This Is what I need from you: Have Kamron provide you with all of the photos (time-stamped) taken an hour on either of 3 p.m. yesterday. Exclude all which were not of Barbara's house or car, and forward those to me.
Feel free to call me at (310) 275-8423 to discuss.
Thanks,
Steve
Sent: TiJ2S29y^AugiiSt^^02^^t^^28PM
From: VSSBSSBBBSB^BISSSBSBII^SBSBBSi
To: "'Steve Mayer'" <[email protected]>
Subject: 331 n. oakhurst
Steve, I have been working with Hamid and the owners on redesigning the building at 331 n. Oakhurst.
We have made it a two story building, redesigned the drive way and added some additional features.
In reviewing the tape you addressed certain concerns, including meeting with the neighbor. We are in the process of doing that even though she refuses to meet with Hamid. Thus we are using Judy G as our intermediary . once we hope the neighbor is happy with the changes, we plan on meeting with the other people who spoke at the meeting.
This I believe was your suggestion.
However I along with Hamid would like to meet with you prior to that meeting.
You seemed to have a number of comments , that I believe we have addressed and would like to know your feelings.
If you would like to meet please call me at 310 612 0552.
Thank you.
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1971
1 RESOLUTION NO. 1971
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT ON A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE (PL1900208)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:
Section 1. Hamid Gabbay, on behalf of the property owner, David Ramin (the “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive (the “Project”). Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3100.H, a Development Plan Review is required when a project involves an increase in height. While the reviewing authority for a project that involves an increase in height is typically the City Planning Director, the Planning Director may refer to the Planning Commission any project that the Director deems appropriate for review by the Planning Commission due to size, location, or other characteristics or impacts of the project. Accordingly, due to the unique characteristics of the site and the property’s prior review by the Planning Commission, the proposed Project was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review in accordance to BHMC §10-3-3102.
Section 2. The Project involves the construction of a new two-story singlefamily residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property. The proposed residence
2 is be 22’-8” in height and has a total above-grade floor area of approximately 1,371 square feet (SF). The proposed basement is 2,492 SF in size and will provide parking for four cars. Vehicle access to the subterranean parking garage is accessible via West Third Street by a new 14’-0” wide driveway apron. The proposed residence is rectangular in shape and will have a length (along North Oakhurst Drive) of approximately 38’-4” and a width (along West Third Street) of approximately 20’-0”. The proposed residence includes a kitchen, living room, and powder room on the first floor. The second floor includes two bedrooms, each with their own balcony, and two bathrooms. The proposed residence will provide outdoor space on the ground floor and on the rooftop. Access to the basement, first, and second floors will be provided via an interior staircase.
The proposed single-family residence complies with all minimum setback requirements and will provide a 9’-0” side setback from West Third Street, a 25’-0” front setback from North Oakhurst Drive, an 8’-0” side setback from the northern property line, and a 15’-0” rear setback from the western property line. The front yard setback area, adjacent to North Oakhurst Drive, will include one 5’-0” wide pedestrian walkway.
Section 3. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Project qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New Construction) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303 of the State
3 CEQA Guidelines. This exemption is applicable to the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds the Project exempt from further environmental review under the provisions of CEQA.
Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on January 21, 2022, to all property owners and residential occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the property, extended to the block-face. On-site posted notices were displayed on the property beginning on January 21, 2022. On February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at the meeting.
Section 5. In reviewing the request for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence with a basement, the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:
1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.
2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development in the area.
3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
4 4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Development Plan Review:
1. The Project complies with all applicable goals and policies set forth in the General Plan for residential uses located within the multi-family residential zone and land use designation. The subject property is generally consistent in height, scale, and mass with the immediate vicinity and will, therefore, be a compatible addition to the neighborhood.
Further, the Project complies with the following General Plan policies: Policy LU 2.1 (City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors), Policy LU 2.4 (Architectural and Site Design), Policy LU 5.1 (Neighborhood Conservation), Policy LU 5.2 (Infill and Replacement Housing), Policy LU 7.1 (Character and Design), and Policy H1 (Maintenance and Conservation). Lastly, the Project is not located within any specific plan areas.
2. The Project consists of the construction of a single-family residence in a multi-family residential zone (R-4). Single-family residences are an allowed use in the R-4 zone and can be developed using the multi-family development standards applicable to the site. The Project is designed to meet the development standard requirements set forth in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. The Project is consistent with the use, height, scale, and mass of other developments in the surrounding area. Specifically, on that portion of North Oakhurst Drive between West Third Street and Alden Drive, a majority of the buildings are
5 two stories in height with the exception of one five-story building located at 339 North Oakhurst Drive and one three-story building located at 9125 Alden Drive. The properties located on the east side of the 300 block of North Oakhurst Drive are developed across two jurisdictions, the City of Beverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles, and are predominately developed with buildings that range between two and four-stories in height. The existing multi-family building located to the south of the project site, across West Third Street, is seven stories in height. Further, a one- story, flat-roofed single-family residence that is 14’- 0” in height is located directly to the west (rear) of the project site. However, the proposed project would be set back a minimum distance of 15’-0” from the western (rear) property line. The existing multi-family building immediately to the north of the project site is twostories in height and the Project would be set back a minimum of 8’-0” from the north side property line. Therefore, the Project is considered to be a harmonious development that would provide additional housing opportunities within the City on a site that is otherwise vacant and would not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity.
3. The Project consists of a single-family residence in a multi- family residential zone; no commercial uses are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, there will not be any significant or adverse impacts to the residential properties in the vicinity resulting from commercial uses on the Project site.
4. The Project involves the construction of a two-bedroom single-family residence and a total of three standard size parking spaces and one compact parking space will be provided within a subterranean garage that will be accessed via a new driveway located at the rear of the Project site. A new 14’-0” wide driveway apron will be constructed off of West Third Street to provide vehicular access to the subterranean garage. The 11’-0” wide driveway ramp will be enclosed by a gate that will be open to public view and will be
6 set back a minimum of 9’-0” from the south side property line (adjacent to West Third Street). This proposed design will ensure that pedestrians are visible to drivers exiting and entering the subterranean garage. Accordingly, the Project is not anticipated to generate significant traffic beyond what is normal and customary for a single-family residence, will maintain all vehicles shielded from public view, and is designed to limit pedestrianautomobile conflicts. Therefore, the Project will not result in any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
5. The Project consists of a single-family residence that complies with all the applicable development standards set forth in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. The construction of a single-family residence on the site is a permitted use within the applicable General Plan designation. The Project is consistent with the pattern of development within the immediate vicinity in height, scale, and mass. The Project is designed to be a compatible addition to the area and, pursuant to Paragraphs 1-4 above, the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Development Plan Review, subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval is for those plans submitted to the Planning Commission on February 10, 2022, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein.
7 2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. A significant change to the approved Project shall be subject to Planning Commission review.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a construction management and parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
4. Project plans are subject to compliance with all applicable zoning regulations, except as may be expressly modified herein. Project plans shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are submitted for plan check.
5. Landscaping in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans shall be maintained for the life of the Project. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee for general consistency with the original approval.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials, and finish of the building and landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Commission.
///
///
///
8 7. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the Community Development Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.
8. The applicant shall incorporate into the project design, and maintain during the life of the project, mirrors acceptable to the Director of Community Development, to allow pedestrians and vehicles exiting the subterranean garage to see one another.
Public Works Conditions
9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid.
10. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks surrounding the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.
11. The Applicant shall remove and replace all curbs and gutters surrounding the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.
12. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Recreation and Parks Department and the City Engineer is first obtained.
9 13. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by Director of Public Works, and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Public Works.
14. The Applicant shall provide that all roof and/or surface drains discharge to the street. All curb drains installed shall be angled at 45 degrees to the curb face in the direction of the normal street drainage flow. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. No concentrated discharges onto the alley surfaces will be permitted.
15. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the subject site. No such installations will be allowed in any City rightof-way.
16. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets and alleys per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.
17. The Applicant shall make connection to the City's sanitary sewer system through the existing connections available to the subject site unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee.
18. The Applicant shall make connection to the City's water system through the existing water service connection unless otherwise approved by the City
10 Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter installation will also require approval from the City Engineer.
19. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations performed under any permits issued by the City.
20. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.
Standard Conditions
21. APPEAL. The decision of the Planning Commission regarding the Development Plan Review may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk’s office and an appeal fee is required.
22. RECORDATION. This resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving the Development Plan Review shall be null and void and of no further effect.
11 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180- day period, grant a written extension of the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state, or local law that would affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant.
23. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review: The exercise of rights granted in such approval shall be commenced within three (3) years after the adoption of such resolution unless otherwise extended in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-3-207 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
24. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in a termination of the entitlements granted herein.
25. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. //
//
//
12 Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.
Adopted: February 10, 2022
Andrew Licht
Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:
Timothea Tway, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved As To Form: Approved As To Content:
David M. Snow
Assistant City Attorney
Timothea Tway, AICP
City Planner
Community Development Department
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 1971 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on February 10, 2022, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Ross, Demeter, Ostroff, Vice Chair Hudnut, Chair Licht NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
________________________________
KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 1F8F5E9FB5674C33A96E6E2067F6BEC3 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: PC Reso 1971 - 331 N Oakhurst.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 13 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Karen Myron
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
3/1/2022 5:43:58 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Andrew Licht
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 172.90.235.66
Sent: 3/1/2022 5:46:10 PM
Viewed: 3/2/2022 10:11:38 AM
Signed: 3/2/2022 10:14:57 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
David M. Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 70.187.141.216
Sent: 3/2/2022 10:15:00 AM
Viewed: 3/2/2022 10:36:39 AM
Signed: 3/2/2022 10:51:01 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Timothea Tway
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 75.85.168.191
Sent: 3/2/2022 10:51:04 AM
Viewed: 3/2/2022 10:51:42 AM
Signed: 3/2/2022 10:51:57 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Karen Myron
[email protected]
COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,
CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 3/2/2022 10:52:01 AM
Viewed: 3/2/2022 5:17:42 PM
Signed: 3/2/2022 5:19:18 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 3/1/2022 5:46:11 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 3/2/2022 5:17:42 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 3/2/2022 5:19:18 PM
Completed Security Checked 3/2/2022 5:19:18 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Attachment 4
Project Representative Meeting Date Request
1 Judy Gutierrez
From: Murray Fischer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 5:59 PM
To: Lili Bosse; George Chavez; Ryan Gohlich; Judy Gutierrez Cc: 'Hamid Gabbay'
Subject: FW: 331 n Oakhurst
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read my email below that Hamid and I have prepared on behalf of our client. 310‐276‐3600
Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90210
This e‐mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein, and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e‐mail, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e‐mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail, and permanently delete this e‐mail, and any copies or printouts
To: 'Hamid Gabbay'
Subject: FW: 331 n Oakhurst
To Honorable Mayor Bosse , City manager Mr. Chavez , Ryan Gohlich and Judy Gutierrez This office along with the office of Hamid Gabbay the architect of this project just received a notice from Ms Gutierrez that the hearing on the appeal which was suppose to take place on June 21st has now potentially been continued until August BECAUSE the city clerk has failed to provide Mr. Mayer with the requested information he requested on the night some 2 months ago when the appeal was originally going to take place.
This project was approved unanimously by the planning commission in February of this year .
Mr. Mayer then appealed the decision, but only paid $1000 dollars of the appeal period . the Clerk then gave him 30 days to pay the balance, at or near the expiration date he paid the balance of the fee and this matter was set to be heard in April. At that time he indicated he needed to obtain information from the city clerk’s office and the council agreed to provide same on a timely basis. Now to find out that was not done and this matter needs another 2 more months to go forward is unfair and unjust.
My client has now suffered irreparable harm as the interest rates have increased substantially , the construction contract and supplies have been greatly affected and now we are asked to suffer the consequences all to our clients detriment.
We therefore ask that the Clerk supply the info forthwith and this matter be set for the first meeting of July.
While we respect the right of the appellant to have the information he requested , the failure to provide same is not my clients fault and the city should not make our client suffer.
Please set this for early July, the staff report and facts have not changed from the hearing in February. 2 All of that Material Mr. Mayer has as he appeared at the planning commission hearing and made comments and addressed his issues.
Murray D Fischer
310‐276‐3600
Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90210
This e‐mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein, and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e‐mail, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e‐mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail, and permanently delete this e‐mail, and any copies or printouts.