Beverly Hills City Council
August 23, 2022

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 23, 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 SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT ON A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 331 NORTH OAKHURST
DRIVE.

Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1971

3. February 10, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)

4. February 25, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)

5. March 11, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)

6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1852

7. July 26, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)

8. Notice of Public Hearing

9. Public Correspondence

10. Architectural Plans

RECOMMENDATION
On February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving the construction of a two-story, single-family residence on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. Subsequently, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Steve Mayer (Attachment 1). It is recommended that the City Council hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s decision (i.e., denying the appeal), which would allow the project to move forward through the City’s architectural review and building permit processes. Alternatively, the City Council may direct staff to F-1
Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

prepare a resolution overturning the Planning Commission’s approval (i.e., denying the project) or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

The City Council, as part of its de novo review, will consider not only the appeal and points raised therein, but also will conduct an independent review of whether or not the required findings can be made to approve the project.

INTRODUCTION
Project Description and Neighborhood Character
The proposed project consists of a new two-story, single-family residence with a basement located on a multi-family zoned property (multi-family zones allow for the construction of single-family homes). The proposed residence would be 22’-8” in height and would have a total above-grade floor area of approximately 1,371 square feet. The proposed basement would be 2,492 square feet in size and would provide parking for four cars. Vehicular access to the subterranean parking garage would be provided via West Third Street by a new 14’-0” wide driveway apron. The first floor of the residence would consist of a living room, kitchen, and powder room. The second floor would consist of two bedrooms, each with their own balcony, and two bathrooms. The rooftop would incorporate 200 square feet of outdoor living space and planters are proposed along the west side perimeter. Pursuant to 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 Director of Community Development, the 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. Because the Planning Commission approval was appealed, the Development Plan Review is now being considered by the City Council.

The project site is located at the northwest corner of North Oakhurst Drive and West Third Street. In 2016, the previously existing single-family residence was demolished and the project site has remained vacant since. The site is located in a multi-family residential neighborhood where multi-family residential buildings predominately range between one and two stories in height. However, the existing multi-family building located to the south of the project site, across West Third Street, is seven stories in height and the site located immediately to the west of the project site is developed with a one-story, 14-foot tall single-family residence. The majority of the multi-family residential buildings on the 300 block of North Oakhurst Drive are constructed with varied architectural styles such as Mid-Century Modern, Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian, and Federal. More detailed analysis of the project is provided in the analysis section below.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Fig.1 – Aerial View of Subject Property
Source: Google Maps
Fig. 2 – Previously Existing Single-Family Residence
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Google Maps
Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Fig. 3 – Existing Project Site
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Google Maps
Project History and Planning Commission Discussion
History of Projects Proposed at the Site
The project in question (PL1900208) was submitted to the City on May 20, 2019. Prior to the submittal of this project, the Planning Commission had previously considered a similar project proposed by the applicant team at 331 North Oakhurst Drive between 2015 and 2018 (PL1510528), however, this was a different entitlement application that was ultimately denied by the Planning Commission prior to the submittal of the application that is currently under consideration. To provide context, the following is a brief history of the proposals that have been considered by the Planning Commission at the site since 2015:
 August 11, 2016 – Planning Commission hearing on PL1510528. The Planning Commission considered a request for a Development Plan Review and nine Variances to allow the construction of a three-story, 32’-2” tall single-family residence with a basement for a total of 3,724 square feet of floor area (including the basement).
 January 12, 2017 – Planning Commission hearing on PL1510528. The Planning Commission considered a revised project including a request for a Development Plan Review and seven Variances to allow the construction of a three-story, 32’- 2” tall, single-family residence with a basement for a total of 2,145 square feet (including the basement).
 June 22, 2017 – Planning Commission hearing on PL1510528. The Planning Commission considered a further revised project including a request for a Development Plan Review and nine Variances to allow the construction of a twostory, 22’-2” tall, single-family residence with a basement for a total of 2,865 square feet of floor area (including the basement).

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

 August 10, 2017 – Planning Commission hearing on PL1510528. The Planning Commission granted a request from the applicant to redesign the project in lieu of a denial by the Commission.
 February 22, 2018 - Planning Commission hearing on PL1510528, the applicant requested an opportunity to create an ad-hoc committee but the request was not granted by the Planning Commission.
 July 26, 2018 – Planning Commission denied PL1510528. The Planning Commission denied a request for a Development Plan Review and nine Variances to construct a two-story, 22’-2” tall, single-family residence with a basement for a total of 2,329 square feet of floor area (including the basement).  May 20, 2019 – applicant submitted a new Development Plan Review application for a new project at the subject property (PL1900208). PL1900208 is the proposal that was most recently considered and approved by the Planning Commission and that has been appealed resulting in this hearing.

A detailed summary of the previous iterations that have been proposed on the project site is provided in the July 26, 2018 Planning Commission staff report, which is included as Attachment 7 to this report. It should also be noted that the applicant proposed a similar single family-residential project at 9171 West Third Street, two lots to the west of the 331 North Oakhurst project site. This project was considered at the same Planning Commission meetings as the projects proposed at 331 North Oakhurst, and was approved by the Planning Commission on August 10, 2017. It is currently under construction.

Planning Commission Discussions on Proposed Project
When submitted to the City in 2019, the project was a new three-story single-family residence at the subject property. On February 25, 2021 (Attachment 4), the project was scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission; however, several requests were made by members of the public to continue the project hearing to a future meeting in order to provide the public with adequate time to review the proposed project.

Subsequently, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to a future meeting.

On March 11, 2021 (Attachment 5), the Planning Commission considered the proposed project, which involved a request to allow the construction of a three-story, 33’-0” tall single-family residence with a basement (Fig. 4). At that meeting members of the public expressed several concerns regarding the proposed project. The Planning Commission also expressed concern about the height of the building and expressed a desire to see the height reduced to two stories. Additionally, Commissioners expressed concern that the proposed project was inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. As a result of the deliberations, the Commission unanimously directed staff to return to a future meeting with a resolution denying the requested Development Plan Review application. A recess was taken immediately after the vote; however, upon reconvening, it was noted that during the recess, the applicant team had requested that the Commission reconsider the direction and requested that the project be continued to a date uncertain. Subsequently, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to reconsider the previous direction for staff to prepare a denial resolution and voted to continue the project to a future hearing date in order to provide the applicant time to conduct a community meeting with interested parties and redesign the project in response to comments provided. After the conclusion of the meeting, City staff emailed the interested parties informing that the Planning Commission’s decision to continue the application to a future hearing date. The City required notice was also be provided when the item returned to the Commission.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Fig. 4 – Previously Proposed – East Elevation
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Gabbay Architects
The applicant originally scheduled a virtual community meeting for October 26, 2021 and also prepared a preliminary concept design to present during the community meeting.

The applicant extended the invitation to interested parties via email on September 22, 2021. City staff also emailed a meeting reminder to the interested parties on October 12, 2021. Requests were received from interested parties to meet with City staff separately to review the preliminary concept design rather than attending the applicant-led community meeting. Accordingly, prior to the scheduled community meeting, staff met with those individuals virtually and in person at City Hall to review the preliminary concept design. On October 26, 2021, the applicant experienced technical difficulties and the community meeting was postponed to November 2, 2021. Interested parties were notified of the postponement via email on October 26, 2021 and the applicant ultimately conducted the virtual community meeting on November 2, 2021; one individual briefly attended the virtual meeting but did not provide any comments regarding the project.

On February 10, 2022 (Attachment 3), the Planning Commission considered the revised project that consisted of a two-story, single-family residence with a basement (Fig. 5). A summary of the changes between the March 2021 and February 2022 iterations of the project are provided in Table 1.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Fig. 5 – Currently Proposed – East Elevation
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Gabbay Architects
Table 1 – Summary of Changes
Project Component Previously Proposed Currently Proposed Floor Area 2,060 SF (above grade)
2,175 SF basement
1,371 SF (above grade)
2,492 SF basement
Height 33’-0” + 10’ tall stair enclosure 22’-8” + 10’ tall stair enclosure
Stories Three Two
Bedrooms Three Two
Parking Four Four
Elevator Provided access from the
basement to the third floor
Removed
Vehicular Gate Set back approximately 2’-0”
along West 3rd Street
Set back an additional 7’-0”
along West 3rd Street
Outdoor Living
Space
Located on the roof, along West
3rd Street
Relocated to the western
perimeter of the roof, with
planters
Front Yard Stairs Located along Oakhurst to
provide access to proposed
subterranean garage
Removed
At the February 10, 2022 meeting, after conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the revised project and adopted a resolution conditionally approving the Development Plan Review application to allow the construction of a twostory, single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive.

Appeal Filed
Subsequently, on March 17, 2022, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed, seeking a City Council review of the Development Plan Review application, and all appeal fees were paid. On April 12, 2022, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for June 21, 2022. On June 9, 2022, staff received a letter from Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

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. The continuance was requested in order to provide the appellant more time to receive copies of public records as a part of his Public Records Act request that was submitted to the City on April 10, 2022. On June 21, 2022, the City Council considered the request and continued the appeal hearing to August 23, 2022. The April 10, 2022 Public Records Act request was fulfilled by the City Clerk’s office on July 6, 2022; however, the appellant submitted a subsequent request on July 25, 2022 that is currently being processed.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary actions requested by the applicant. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are outlined below, and may be used to guide the City Council’s deliberation of the proposed project. Additionally, staff’s analysis is also provided below for the Council’s consideration.

Required Findings – Development Plan Review, BHMC Section 10-3-3104:

A. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

B. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

C. 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. This finding does not apply to the proposed project as the proposal does not involve a commercial development.

D. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

E. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Project Compliance with Zoning
As described above, the proposed project consists of a new two-story, single-family residence with a basement located on a multi-family zoned property. The proposed residence would be 22’-8” in height and would have a total above-grade floor area of approximately 1,371 square feet. The proposed basement would be 2,492 square feet in size and would provide parking for four cars. Vehicular access to the subterranean parking garage would be accessible via West Third Street by a new 14’-0” wide driveway apron. The first floor of the residence would consist of a living room, kitchen, and powder room. The second floor would consist of two bedrooms, each with their own balcony, and two bathrooms. The rooftop would incorporate 200 square feet of outdoor living space and planters are proposed along the west side perimeter (See Fig. 5).

The following table summarizes the project characteristics and provides a comparison between the currently proposed project and required/allowed development standards.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Table 2 – Zoning Compliance
Development
Standard
Required/Allowed Currently Proposed
Floor Area 1,300 square foot minimum for
a two bedroom unit
1,371 SF (above grade)
2,492 SF (Basement)
709 SF (1st Floor)
662 SF (2nd Floor)
Building
Height
33’-0” maximum 22’-8”
Stair
Enclosure
Height
12’-0” maximum 10’-0” maximum
Stories Three stories Two stories
Parking Four spaces (including one
guest parking space)
Three standard (9’x19’) & One Compact
(8.5’x17’) parking spaces provided in a
subterranean parking garage
Outdoor
Living Space
200 SF of usable outdoor living
space for each dwelling unit
200 SF provided via the rooftop patio
Front
Setback
(East)
25’-0” 25’-0”
Rear
Setback
(West)
15’-0” 15’-0”
Side
Setbacks
Sum = 17’-0”
Minimum for each side = 8’-0”
North side = 8’-0”
South side = 9’-0”
Sum = 17’-0”
Modulation 46 SF 46 SF
Walls/
Fences
Front: First 20% of front
yard = max 3’-0” in height.

More than 20% of front yard
= max 6’-0” in height (open
to public view)
Side = max 7’-0”
Rear = max 8’-0”
Front: More than 20% of front yard =
6’-0” in height (open to public view)
North side = 5’-7”
South side = 6’-0”
Rear = 5’-2”
Setbacks. The proposed project would provide a north side yard setback of 8’- 0” and a south side yard setback (from West Third Street) of 9’-0”, which results in a cumulative side yard setback of 17’-0”. Additionally, the proposed project complies with the required front and rear setbacks, which are 25’-0” and 15’-0”, respectively. The required and provided front yard setback of 25’-0” is consistent with other properties along the block. The front yard setback area includes one 5’- 0” pedestrian walkway which is consistent with the pattern of development along the same block and is allowed by the zoning code. The revised project no longer includes stairs within the front yard that would provide access to the subterranean garage.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Fig. 6 – Proposed Site Plan
Source: Gabbay Architects
Site Walls and Fences. The proposed project includes the construction of site walls along the rear and side property lines, as well as a fence within the front yard. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2814, the maximum allowable height of a wall, fence, or hedge located within the first 20% of the front yard shall be 3’-0”.

However, the maximum allowable height of a wall, fence, or hedge located beyond the first 20% of the front yard area is 6’-0” provided that any portion of such wall, fence, or hedge that exceeds 3’-0” in height is open to public view.

The new fence and pedestrian gate proposed within the front yard will have a maximum height of 6’-0” and be set back 5’-0” from the front property line (along North Oakhurst Drive). The proposed fence within the front yard is designed so that any portion of the fence that exceeds 3’-0” in height will be open to public view.

The fence is comprised of horizontal 1”x3” painted wood strips to match architectural features of the proposed single-family residence.

Within the required side and rear yards, the maximum height of a wall, fence, or hedge is 7’-0” and 8’-0”, respectively. However, any wall, fence, or hedge that is located within a side yard and a front yard must comply with the limitations set forth for the front yard, including height and open to public view requirements. A new 5’-7” tall wall is proposed along the north side yard property line. Along the south side property line, a new fence with a vehicle gate is proposed at a maximum height of 6’-0”. The proposed wall and fence along the north and south side property lines are designed to meet the City’s open to public view requirements for the portion of the wall and fence that is also within the front yard. A new 5’-2” tall block wall is proposed along the rear (west) property line.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Modulation. Building in multi-family zones are required to provide façade modulation in order to ensure that buildings are designed to create a break in massing. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2806, the area of modulation required for buildings that do not exceed three-stories in height is 3% of the aggregate building area or 1,500 SF, whichever is less. The principal building area is 767 SF and the aggregate building area is 1,534 SF (767 x 2 stories), which results in a required modulation area of 46 SF (1,534 SF x3%). The proposed modulation is provided via the second floor master balcony located on the southern elevation, facing West Third Street. In order to accommodate the proposed balcony, the southeast corner of the building on the third floor will be set back an additional 9’-6” from the required front setback line. The width of the modulation of the second floor is 5’-0”, resulting in a modulation area of 46 SF.

Outdoor Living Space. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2803 buildings in multi-family zones are required to provide at least 200 SF of useable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit proposed. The proposed single-family residence is considered one unit and therefore, required to provide a total of 200 SF of outdoor living space. The project will provide 200 SF of outdoor living space on the roof and will be separated from the remainder of the rooftop area by a 42” tall wall. The proposed outdoor living space is located along the eastern perimeter, closer to Oakhurst Drive. The City’s zoning code does not require any screening of outdoor living space that is not located on the ground level. However, the applicant incorporated planters along the western perimeter and the proposed outdoor living space would also be buffered by the building code required 3’-6” tall parapet wall.

Impact on Harmonious Development in the Vicinity
The project site is located in a multi-family residential neighborhood where multi-family residential buildings predominately range between one and two stories in height. On that portion of North Oakhurst Drive between West Third Street and Alden Drive, a majority of the buildings are 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 multifamily building immediately to the north of the project site is two-stories in height and the project would be set back a minimum of 8’-0” from the north side property line.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Fig. 7 – Streetscape
View of properties in the immediate vicinity
West (rear) of the project site
Source: Staff Site Visit
Fig. 8 – Streetscape
View from Intersection of West 3rd Street & North Oakhurst Drive Project Site to the Right
Source: Google Maps
The neighborhood is primarily comprised of multi-family buildings that are designed in traditional architectural styles such as Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian, and Federal styles; however, there are several buildings within the immediate vicinity that exhibit midcentury style architecture. The proposed single-family residence exhibits traits of modern architecture and, if the Planning Commission approves the requested entitlement, the project would require review and approval by the Architectural Commission. The proposed single-family residence will have a new fence and pedestrian gate within the front yard with a maximum height of 6’-0” and be set back 5’- 0” from the front property line (along North Oakhurst Drive). The proposed fence within the front yard is designed so that any portion of the fence that exceeds 3’-0” in height and will be open to public view. Although the proposed fence within the front yard is designed to meet the City’s zoning code requirements, as a standalone feature it may be inconsistent with the streetscape along the block. However, the proposed landscaping plan includes 10-15-gallon Grevillea plants that will be maintained at a maximum height of 3’-0” in front of the proposed fence, which may help in softening the appearance of the fence.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

Parking/Traffic/Pedestrian Impacts
BHMC §10-3-2816 requires the proposed project to provide 2 1/2 parking spaces, which is rounded up to three parking spaces. In addition, BHMC §10-3-2817 requires the provision of one guest parking spot for every four dwelling units (or fraction thereof).

Accordingly, the proposed project is required to provide a total of four parking spaces.

BHMC §10-3-2818 requires that parking in multi-family zones is provided within a structure and is completely shielded from public view. The proposed project would provide a total of three standard (9’x19’) parking spaces and one compact (8.5’x17’) guest parking space 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 would be constructed off of West Third Street to provide vehicular access to the subterranean garage.

Fig. 9 – Proposed Site Plan
Proposed Driveway Apron in Orange
Source: Gabbay Architects
The location of the parking in the basement may reduce the amount of visual clutter in a neighborhood and could also limit any sound concerns associated with the moving and parking of vehicles. The construction of the new driveway apron would result in the loss of 14’-0” of curb along West Third Street, which would reduce the amount of space available for public parking on this block. However, the existing curb cut along North Oakhurst Drive would be removed as part of the Project and replaced with curb built to City standards. The replacement of the curb would potentially create one additional parking space on the block, which could offset the loss of one public parking space on West Third Street. The proposed 11’-0” wide driveway ramp will be enclosed by a gate that will be open to public view and will be set back a minimum of 9’-0” from the south side property line (adjacent to West Third Street) and the proposed site walls along this Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

segment are aligned to the building. This proposed design will ensure that pedestrians are visible to drivers exiting the subterranean garage. Finally, the design of, and access to, the basement parking garage has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and found to be in compliance with applicable standards concerning dimensions, turning radius, slope, and sight lines, and is anticipated to adequately serve vehicles associated with the residence.

Landscaping/Garden Quality
The proposed landscaping includes a wide variety of shrub plantings and many of the plants within the front and south side yards are proposed to be located in concrete planter boxes. The front yard also includes one 48”-box olive tree and one 36”-box Pink Trumpet tree. Within the rear yard, one 24”-box Autumn Gold tree is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to the driveway. Hedge plantings (Podocarpus) are proposed along the north and south side property lines, which would be maintained at a maximum height of 7’-0”.

Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
The site has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential (High Density) and a zoning designation of R-4 (Multiple-Family Residential). While a multi-family residential building could be constructed on the site, single-family residences are also permitted uses within the applicable General Plan and zoning designations. As outlined in Table 2 and as described in this report, the proposed revised project is compatible with the City’s zoning development standards and is consistent with the pattern of development within the immediate vicinity in height, scale, and mass. Further, the General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide residential development throughout the City, as noted earlier in the report. The proposed singlefamily residence would replace a single-family residence that was previously demolished on the site. The use of the property as a single-family residence is consistent with the adjacent property to the west and the overall scale of the project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, the applicant has made changes to the proposed project to minimize traffic impacts to residents and vehicle traffic as the driveway gate is now set back an additional 7’-0” from the south side property line (adjacent to West Third Street) and the proposed site walls along this segment are now aligned with the building.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some policies relevant to the City Council’s review of the project include:
 Policy 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.
 Policy 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.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

 Policy 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.
 Policy 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.  Policy LU 6.2. – Housing 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 sizes, building form, scale, massing, relationship to street frontages, architectural design, landscaping, property setbacks, and other comparable elements.
 Policy H1 – Maintenance and Conservation. Maintain and enhance the quality and character of existing housing and residential neighborhoods.

ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
The following is an analysis of the points the appellant raised in the appeal. 1) Resident Protection Conditions Not Added to Resolution The appellant alleges a condition of approval should have been imposed relating to utility easements running through the adjacent property at 9167 West Third Street, which were established when the subject properties were initially developed. While the scope of the suggested condition of approval is unclear, the property owner has the right to exercise their easement rights, and staff finds no basis for the City to alter the property owner’s real property rights. Ultimately, if there is an issue regarding the easement, it would be a matter to be resolved between the private property owners.

The appellant asserts that construction mitigations should have been imposed on the project. While no specific conditions have been articulated by appellant, staff notes that the following conditions of approval were included in the Planning Commission Resolution to address construction related issues:

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.

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.

The appellant also suggests that a condition of approval regarding noise emanating from the roof top should have been added. It should be noted, however, that the proposed single family residence is subject to the generally applicable noise standards in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, as are all residences in the City. The intensity of singlefamily uses is expected to be less than that of a multi-family residential building because Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

multi-family uses consist of multiple units. There have been instances when the Planning Commission has added conditions regarding noise on rooftops, but that is generally when the rooftop contains areas for activities or numbers of people that may cause noise.

2) Backdating of Plans
The appellant asserts that an irregularity in dates on applicant prepared plans should have resulted in a postponement of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the project.

Upon reviewing this concern, the issue raised appeared to have resulted from a correction that staff requested of the applicant (providing for four required parking spaces in the garage instead of three) fairly close to the date of the Planning Commission meeting. As a result, the applicant provided updated plans showing the required four spaces. It should be noted that this change occurred prior to publication of the Planning Commission packet; no changes to the plans occurred after they were made publically available as part of the packet. In addition, the previously proposed iteration of the project associated with Fig. 4 found above, had included a total of four parking spaces within the basement level and the increase from three to four in the current proposal was not considered new information.

Ultimately, staff determined that the date irregularity was not material to the consideration of the project, and that regardless of the date, the plans ultimately considered by the Commission, and made available to the public in advance of the hearing, for the standard amount of time, clearly showed the proposed parking configuration with the required 4 parking spaces.
3) Brown Act Violations
The Appellant asserts that there were violations of the Brown Act committed during the review of the proposed project at the February 10, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, citing that staff did not disseminate information to all parties at the same time, staff revised the Agenda Report less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, and that there are Brown Act concerns regarding how an agenda report was revised and posted, and how a Planning Commission meeting was conducted.

Staff has reviewed these issues and concluded that none of the alleged occurrences are Brown Act violations. Staff works diligently to ensure all parties involved in a project get timely, accurate information per state and local timelines (such as formal notices), or as soon as possible (for informal communication, such as courtesy notices or email updates). The appellant references an agenda report being revised. While a revised report was published on the website in order to add an attachment that was inadvertently left out of the original report, the overall content of the report (e.g., project description, findings analysis, recommendation etc.) did not change; the revisions and posting on the website were all completed in compliance with the regulations in the Brown Act. It was noted online what additional information was provided when the report was revised. In addition, an email was sent to interested parties on February 8, 2022 as a courtesy to ensure that they were aware of the additional information. It should be noted that the attachment that had been added to the February 10, 2022 agenda report had been previously made publically available as a part of the March 11, 2021 Planning Commission packet, as well. Any interested party can call the staff planner assigned to a case to ask questions, get more information, talk through the report or plans, or submit comment at any time. Further, all Planning Commission meetings are conducted in accordance with the regulations contained in the Brown Act. In summary, all interested Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

parties had access to all information and documents that were pertinent to the case.

It is staff’s understanding that the appellant has concerns regarding the Brown Act and the March 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. The March 11, 2021 Planning Commission occurred remotely via Zoom and after consideration of the project, the Commission directed staff to return to the next Planning Commission meeting with a resolution denying the project, in part because the applicant did not request an opportunity to redesign the proposal. The denial resolution was tentatively scheduled to return on April 8, 2021, so interested parties would know when the item would return.

The Commission took a recess and during the recess, the applicant’s representative asked staff if the matter could be continued for further redesign, rather than return for a denial. The applicant was informed that he would need to make that request to the Commission once the meeting reconvened, and that the Commission would need to decide whether or not to reconsider the Commission’s prior direction. It should be noted that the Commission did not discuss the matter during the recess. Upon returning to the meeting, the applicant’s representative requested an opportunity to redesign the proposal to a two-story building. The Commission discussed whether to reconsider its prior direction to prepare a denial resolution. A motion was made to reconsider the Commission’s direction to prepare a denial resolution for the project, which passed 5-0.

Thereafter, the Commission rescinded its direction to prepare a denial resolution and instead continue the matter off calendar, which passed 5-0, and the City required notice would be provided. After the conclusion of the meeting, City staff emailed the interested parties informing them about the Planning Commission’s decision to continue the application to a future hearing date.
4) Quasi-Judicial Hearing Violations
The Appellant asserts that at the February 10, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, the City did not follow normal procedures for the hearing and that the public was not allowed to have the final rebuttal, and that the public hearing was closed after the applicant spoke and no rebuttal was allowed.

In reviewing this concern, staff notes that there was robust public comment and discussion regarding the project, and opportunities for comment and rebuttal of comments were given per City standard practice. When the public hearing portion of the project commenced, the applicant spoke on the project, then members of the public provided input and multiple comments were read into the record by staff. The applicant team then rebutted comments that were made by the public. Members of the public then had the opportunity to comment on the rebuttal by the applicant team. The property owner (a member of the applicant team) then provided an additional rebuttal, followed by further rebuttal from the public. The applicant rebutted this information, followed by a final rebuttal from a member of the public before the public hearing was closed by the Chair of the Planning Commission. The Commission then moved on to the portion of the meeting for comments and questions from Commissioners. As the Commission was discussing the project, a member of the applicant team spoke out of turn to add information regarding one of the topics being discussed (easements), which did not result in the public hearing portion of the meeting being reopened, thus there was no rebuttal provided for. Subsequent to the applicant speaking out of turn, the Chair once again closed the public hearing portion of the meeting; however; the public hearing had already been closed.
5) Applicant Failure to Meet Prior to Redesign
The Appellant asserts that in March 2021, then Vice Chair Gordon directed the applicant to meet with neighbors prior to redesigning the project, and that the applicant redesigned Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

the project without meeting with neighbors. Further, the appellant asserts that the invitation for a community meeting was not sent to interested parties, as noted by staff, and that a number of people who had previously provided testimony were not invited to the meeting.

As discussed above, based on the direction from the Planning Commission on March 11, 2021, the applicant originally scheduled a virtual community meeting for October 26, 2021 and also prepared a preliminary concept design to present during the community meeting. The applicant extended the invitation to interested parties via email on September 22, 2021. City staff also emailed a meeting reminder to the interested parties on October 12, 2021. Requests were received from interested parties to meet with City staff separately to review the preliminary concept design rather than attending the applicant-led community meeting, which was in keeping with the Commission’s direction to work directly with the community. Nonetheless, as an accommodation, prior to the scheduled community meeting, staff met with those individuals virtually and in person at City Hall to review the preliminary concept design. On October 26, 2021, the applicant experienced technical difficulties and the community meeting was postponed to November 2, 2021. Interested parties were notified of the postponement via email on October 26, 2021 and the applicant ultimately conducted the virtual community meeting on November 2, 2021; one individual briefly attended the virtual meeting but did not provide any comments regarding the project.

During the March 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission provided direction to the applicant to extend the invitation to the interested parties. Staff provided the interested parties list to the applicant, for their use. The interested parties list is comprised of individuals for whom staff has contact information. Staff does not necessarily have information for all individuals that have provided testimony throughout the life of a project.
6) Future Use Cannot Be Predicted
The appellant asserts that issues could arise related to future use of the single-family residence. However, as the appellant acknowledges, the property will be subject to the rules of the R-4 zoning designation, which is the same regulations as the single-family residence immediately to the west as well as other single-family residences along Third Street. Ultimately, the proposed single-family residence would be subject to the same rules as other similarly situated properties in the R-4 zone, including noise regulations regardless of whether noise is coming from the roof top or other area of the property. In the event that future use of the property violates municipal code requirements, the City will have the ability to commence all appropriate enforcement actions to gain compliance.
7) Alternatives Not Considered
The appellant asserts that project alternatives should have been considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As explained in the Planning Commission staff report, and set forth in the Planning Commission’s resolution approving the project, the Planning Commission found that the proposal to construct one single-family residence is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction of small structures; (a) one single-family residence in a residential zone (and up to 3 single-family residences in an urbanized area like the project site)). When a project is exempt from CEQA, there is no requirement to consider or analyze alternatives - that requirement only applies when an environmental impact report (EIR) is required.

Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

8) Land Use Policies
The appellant asserts that a number of General Plan Policies were not properly reviewed by the Planning Commission at their February 10, hearing. It should be noted that staff includes Land Use polices that appear to be most applicable to a particular case and highlights them for the Planning Commission to consider in the staff report. There are a significant number of policies in the General Plan, which is why staff picks the most relevant to highlight in the staff report, but does not provide analysis of all policies. The appellant highlights several Land Use policies that were used to deny a version of the project in 2021. At that time, the Planning Commission considered some of the same policies, but could not make the findings to approve the project. 9) Alleged Harassing and Abusive Nature of the Applicant.

The appellant alleges that the applicant team engaged in harassing and abusive behavior towards neighbors. Staff offers no opinion as to the allegations, however, the allegations ultimately do not relate to the findings that must be considered when determining whether to approve or deny the project, and thus are not relevant to the City’s consideration of the project proposal on its merits.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission previously found the project exempt from CEQA (Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303, of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Class 3 Categorical Exemption is applicable to the construction of a single- family residence in a residential zone. As part of its review, the City Council may consider finding the project exempt from CEQA.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Wednesday, June 1, 2022 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 1,000’ radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 7). On-site posting was also posted on the subject property on Wednesday, June 1, 2022. As the proposed project was continued to a date certain (August 23, 2022), no additional public noticing was required.

However, courtesy emails were provided to the interested parties advising them of the hearing dates.

Applicant Outreach Efforts
The applicant held the required virtual neighborhood community meeting on August 16, 2020. At the direction of the Planning Commission from the March 11, 2021 hearing, the applicant also held a virtual meeting in which interested parties of the project were invited to attend on November 2, 2021 via Zoom.

Public Comment
The Planning Commission also held duly noticed public hearings on February 25, 2021, March 11, 2021, and February 10, 2022, where members of the pubic provided oral and written comments on the proposed project. During the Planning Commission’s review, staff received public comments from members of the public expressing concerns with Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

the previously proposed project and the currently proposed project. All public correspondence is included as Attachment 10.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs.

Ryan Gohlich, AICP,
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
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 2
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 3
February 10, 2022 Planning
Commission Staff Report
(without attachments)

City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Resolution
B. Required Findings
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1852
D. Public Comments
E. July 26, 2018 Staff Report (Without Attachments)
F. February 25, 2021 Staff Report (Without Attachments) G. Notice of Public Hearing
H. Applicant Led Community Meeting Notice
I. Architectural Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment) Report Author and Contact Information:

Judy Gutierrez, Associate Planner
(310) 285-1192
[email protected]
Meeting Date: February 10, 2022
Subject: 331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE
Development Plan Review (PL1900208)
Request 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. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA. Continued from the March 11, 2021 Planning
Commission Hearing.

Project Applicant: David Ramin
Project Representative: Hamid Gabbay, Gabbay Architects Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
A request has been made 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 subject property is zoned R-4 (Multiple Residential) and single-family residences are an allowed use in the R-4 zone that may be developed using the multi-family development standards applicable to the site.

On July 26, 2018, the Planning Commission denied a request for a Development Plan Review and nine Variances to construct a two-story, 2,329 square foot single-family residence on the subject property. On May 20, 2019, the applicant submitted a new Development Plan Review application with a new three-story single-family residence at the subject property and without any requests for variances. On February 25, 2021, the project was scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission; however, several requests were made by members of the public to continue the project hearing to a future meeting in order to provide the public with adequate time to review the project. Subsequently, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to a future 3-1

WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

meeting. On March 11, 2021 the Planning Commission considered the project, at which time members of the public expressed several concerns regarding the project. The Planning Commission also expressed concern about the height of the building and expressed a desire to see the height of the structure reduced to two stories. Additionally, Commissioners expressed concern that the 2019 project was not consistent with the City’s General Plan. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to continue the Development Plan Review application to a future hearing date in order to conduct a community meeting with interested parties and redesign the project.

This report provides a description of the revised project and key issues related to the required findings for the requested entitlement. Specifically, the report summarizes the changes that have been made since the March 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, analyzes the revised project’s compliance with the zoning code, and compatibility with surrounding properties and the streetscape. Staff’s analysis concludes that the revised proposed project, as conditioned, will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and the recommendation in this report is for project approval.

BACKGROUND
File Date 5/20/2019
Application Complete 2/2/2021
Revised Project Deemed
Complete
1/19/2022
CEQA Determination Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New Construction) CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination
Permit Streamlining 60 days from Determination of CEQA Exemption Applicant(s) David Ramin
Owner(s) David Ramin
Representative(s)1 Hamid Gabbay, Gabbay Architects
Prior Planning Commission Action Resolution No. 1852 – A resolution denying a Development Plan Review and nine Variances to construct a two- story, multi-family building with a basement containing a total floor area of 2,329 square feet and a height of 22’-2”.

Prior City Council Action None

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address 331 North Oakhurst Drive

1 All project representatives listed have been confirmed as registered legislative advocates in the City’s database. 3-2
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

Assessor’s ID No. 4342-002-024
Zoning District Multiple Residential (R-4) Zone
General Plan Multi-Family Residential (High Density)
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant (previously developed with a single-family residence)
Lot Dimensions & Area 54.83’ x 60.03’
Lot Area: 3,328 square feet
Year Built N/A
Historic Resource N/A
Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North Zone: R-4 – Multiple Family
Land Use: Two-story multi-family building
South (across W. Third Street) Zone: R-4 – Multiple Family Land Use: Seven-story multi-family building
West Zone: R-4 – Multiple Family Residential
Land Use: One-story single-family home
East (across N. Oakhurst) Zone: R-4 Multiple Family
Land Use: Two-story multi-family building
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) North Oakhurst Drive and West Third Street Adjacent Alleys None
Parkways & Sidewalks Parkway on North Oakhurst Drive: 16’-0” wide Parkway on West Third Street: 12.5’ wide
Parking Restrictions North Oakhurst Drive: 2-hour Parking from 8 AM – 6 PM, Monday to Saturday, except by permit.

West Third Street: 2-hour parking from 8 AM – 6pm,
Monday to Saturday, except by permit.

Nearest Intersection North Oakhurst Drive and West Third Street Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is located at the northwest corner of North Oakhurst Drive and West Third Street.

In 2016, the previously existing single-family residence was demolished and the project site has 3-3
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

remained vacant since. The site is located in a multi-family residential neighborhood where multifamily residential buildings predominately range between one and two stories in height. However, the existing multi-family building located to the south of the project site, across West Third Street, is seven stories in height and the site located immediately to the west of the project site is developed with a one-story, 14-foot tall single-family residence. The majority of the multi-family residential buildings on the 300 block of North Oakhurst Drive are constructed with varied architectural styles such as Mid-Century Modern, Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian, and Federal.

Fig.1 – Aerial View of Subject Property
Source: Google Maps
3-4
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

Fig. 3 – Existing Project Site
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Google Maps
Fig. 2 – Previously Existing Single-Family Residence
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Google Maps
gp
3-5
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission has previously considered several iterations of a similar project proposed by the applicant team at the project site between 2016 and 2018. A detailed summary of the previous iterations that have been proposed on the project site is provided in the July 26, 2018 Planning Commission staff report, which is included as Attachment E to this report.

On July 26, 2018, the Planning Commission denied a request for a Development Plan Review and nine variances to construct a two-story, 2,329 square foot single-family residence on the subject property because the Commission was unable to make the required findings for the requested variances. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1852 (Attachment C) memorialized the basis on which the Commission was unable to make the determination for each finding.

Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3715, in the event a variance has been denied, no new application requesting the matter denied shall be filed for a period of six months after the effective date of such denial. Subsequently, the applicant filed a new Development Plan Review application with the City on May 20, 2019, with a new iteration of the project that did not require any variances.

On February 25, 2021, the 2019 project was scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission but several requests were made by members of the public to continue the project hearing to a future meeting in order to provide the public with adequate time to review the project.

The February 25, 2021 Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment F to this report. Subsequently, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to a future meeting. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the project, at which time members of the public expressed concerns with the project. The concerns related primarily to the height and scale of the single-family residence, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed rooftop and potential impacts to adjacent properties, vehicular and pedestrian safety as it related to the driveway adjacent to West Third Street, and consistency with the City’s General Plan.

At that same meeting, the Planning Commission also expressed concern about the height of the building. Commissioners expressed a desire to see the height of the structure reduced to two stories. Additionally, Commissioners expressed concern that the 2019 project was not consistent with the City’s General Plan in that the project was not compatible with the character of the exiting neighborhood. One Commissioner expressed a desire to see the driveway on North Oakhurst Drive, rather than on West Third Street. The Commission continued the project to a future hearing date to allow the applicant sufficient time to conduct a community meeting with interested parties and redesign the project based upon comments provided by both the Commission and members of the public.

The applicant originally scheduled a virtual community meeting for October 26, 2021, at 5:00 PM.

The applicant also prepared a preliminary concept design that he would present during the community meeting. The applicant extended the invitation to interested parties via email on September 22, 2021 (Attachment H). City staff also sent out a meeting reminder via email to the interested parties on October 12, 2021. Requests were received from interested parties to meet with City staff separately to review the preliminary concept design rather than attending the applicant-led community meeting. Accordingly, staff met those individuals virtually and in person at City Hall to review the preliminary concept design. On October 26, 2021, the applicant experienced technical difficulties and the community meeting was postponed to November 2, 3-6
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

Fig. 4 – Proposed Site Plan
Source: Gabbay Architects
2021. Interested parties were notified of the postponement via email and the applicant ultimately conducted the virtual community meeting on November 2, 2021; however, only one individual joined the virtual meeting briefly and did not provide any comments regarding the project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed revised project consists of a new two-story, single-family residence with a basement. The proposed residence would be 22’-8” in height and would have a total above-grade floor area of approximately 1,371 square feet. The proposed basement would be 2,492 square feet in size and would provide parking for four cars. Vehicular access to the subterranean parking garage would be accessible via West Third Street by a new 14’-0” wide driveway apron. The first floor of the residence consists of a living room, kitchen, and powder room. The second floor consists of two bedrooms, each with their own balcony, and two bathrooms. The rooftop incorporates 200 square feet of outdoor living space and planters are proposed along the west side perimeter. The following provides a detailed description of the proposed project:

Setbacks. The proposed project would provide a north side yard setback of 8’-0” and a south side yard setback (from West Third Street) of 9’-0”, which results in a cumulative side yard setback of 17’-0”. Additionally, the proposed project complies with the required front and rear setbacks, which are 25’-0” and 15’-0”, respectively. The required and provided front yard setback of 25’-0” is consistent with other properties along the block.

The front yard setback area includes one 5’-0” pedestrian walkway which is consistent with the pattern of development along the same block and is allowed by the zoning code. The revised project no longer includes stairs within the front yard that would provide access to the subterranean garage.
3-7
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

Site Walls and Fences. The proposed project includes the construction of site walls along the rear and side property lines, as well as a fence within the front yard. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2814, the maximum allowable height of a wall, fence, or hedge located within the first 20% of the front yard shall be 3’-0”. However, the maximum allowable height of a wall, fence, or hedge located beyond the first 20% of the front yard area is 6’-0” provided that any portion of such wall, fence, or hedge that exceeds 3’-0” in height is open to public view. The new fence and pedestrian gate proposed within the front yard will have a maximum height of 6’-0” and be set back 5’-0” from the front property line (along North Oakhurst Drive). The proposed fence within the front yard is designed so that any portion of the fence that exceeds 3’-0” in height will be open to public view. The fence is comprised of horizontal 1”x3” painted wood strips to match architectural features of the proposed single-family residence.

Within the required side and rear yards, the maximum height of a wall, fence, or hedge is 7’-0” and 8’-0”, respectively. However, any wall, fence, or hedge that is located within a side yard and a front yard must comply with the limitations set forth for the front yard, including height and open to public view requirements. A new 5’-7” tall wall is proposed along the north side yard property line. Along the south side property line, a new fence with a vehicle gate is proposed at a maximum height of 6’-0”. The proposed wall and fence along the north and south side property lines are designed to meet the City’s open to public view requirements for the portion of the wall and fence that is also within the front yard. A new 5’-2” tall block wall is proposed along the rear (west) property line.

Modulation. Building and structures in multi-family zones are required to provide façade modulation in order to ensure that buildings are designed to create a break in massing.

Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2806, the area of modulation required for buildings that do not exceed three-stories in height is 3% of the aggregate building area or 1,500 SF, whichever is less. The principal building area is 767 SF and the aggregate building area is 1,534 SF (767 x 2 stories), which results in a required modulation area of 46 SF (1,534 SF x3%).

The proposed modulation is provided via the second floor master balcony located on the southern elevation, facing West Third Street. In order to accommodate the proposed balcony, the southeast corner of the building on the third floor will be set back an additional 9’-6” from the required front setback line. The width of the modulation of the second floor is 5’-0”, resulting in a modulation area of 46 SF.

Outdoor Living Space. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2803 buildings in multi-family zones are required to provide at least 200 SF of useable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit proposed. The proposed single-family residence is considered one unit and therefore, required to provide a total of 200 SF of outdoor living space. The project will provide 200 SF of outdoor living space on the roof and will be separated from the remainder of the rooftop area by a 42” tall wall. The proposed outdoor living space is located along the eastern perimeter, closer to Oakhurst Drive. The City’s zoning code does not require any screening of outdoor living space that is not located on the ground level. However, the applicant has incorporated planters along the western perimeter and the proposed outdoor living space would also be buffered by the building code required 3’-6” tall parapet wall. 3-8
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

The following tables summarizes the project characteristics and provides a comparison between the revised project, previously proposed project (2019 project), and required/allowed developed standards.

Table 1 - Project Summary
Developme
nt Standard
Required/Allowed Previously Proposed Currently Proposed Floor Area 1,500 square foot
minimum for a three or
more bedroom unit
2,060 SF (above grade)
2,175 SF (Basement)
710 SF (1st Floor)
710 SF (2nd Floor)
640 SF (3rd Floor)
1,371 SF (above grade)
2,492 SF (Basement)
709 SF (1st Floor)
662 SF (2nd Floor)
Building
Height
33’-0” maximum 33’-0” maximum 22’-8”
Stair
Enclosure
Height
12’-0” maximum 10’-0” maximum 10’-0” maximum
Stories Three stories Three stories Two stories
Parking Four spaces (including
one guest parking
space)
Four standard (9’x19’)
parking spaces provided
in a subterranean
parking garage
Three standard (9’x19’)
& One Compact
(8.5’x17’)parking spaces
provided in a
subterranean parking
garage
Outdoor
Living
Space
200 SF of usable
outdoor living space for
each dwelling unit
200 SF provided via the
rooftop patio
200 SF provided via the
rooftop patio
Front
Setback
(East)
25’-0” 25’-0” 25’-0”
Rear
Setback
(West)
15’-0” 15’-0” 15’-0”
Side
Setbacks
Sum = 17’-0”
Minimum for each side =
8’-0”
North side = 8’-0”
South side = 9’-0”
Sum = 17’-0”
North side = 8’-0”
South side = 9’-0”
Sum = 17’-0”
Modulation 46 SF 70 SF 46 SF
Walls/
Fences
Front: First 20% of front
yard = max 3’-0” in
height.

More than 20% of front
yard = max 6’-0” in
height (open to public
view)
Front: More than 20%
of front yard = 6’-0” in
height (open to public
view)
Front: More than 20%
of front yard = 6’-0” in
height (open to public
view)
3-9
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

Side = max 7’-0”
Rear = max 8’-0”
North side = 5’-7”
South side = 6’-0”
Rear = 5’-2”
North side = 5’-7”
South side = 6’-0”
Rear = 5’-2”
The notable changes that have been made to the project since the Planning Commission meeting from March 11, 2021 are outlined below:
x Decreased the project from three-stories to two-stories; x Decreased the height of the project from 33’-0” to 22’-8”; x Decreased the above grade floor area from 2,060 square feet to 1,371 square feet; x Decreased the number of bedrooms from three to two;
x Removed the proposed elevator;
x Set back the vehicular gate along West Third Street by an additional 7’-0”; x Relocated the outdoor living space on the roof to be closer to Oakhurst Drive, rather than West Third Street, and added planters along the western perimeter; x Removal of stairs within the front yard that would provide access to the subterranean garage;
x Increased the size of the basement by approximately 317 square feet. 3-10
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

Fig. 5 – Previously Proposed – East Elevation
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Gabbay Architects
Fig. 6 – Currently Proposed – East Elevation
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Gabbay Architects

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
x Development Plan Review
Pursuant to 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 has been forward to the Planning Commission for review in accordance to BHMC §10-3-3102.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
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:
x Policy 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.
3-11
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

x Policy 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.
x Policy 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. x Policy 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.
x Policy 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. x Policy H1 – Maintenance and Conservation. Maintain and enhance the quality and character of existing housing and residential neighborhoods.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The project appears to qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for (New Construction) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303, of the State CEQA Guidelines. This exemption is applicable to the construction of a singlefamily residence in a residential zone. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find the Project exempt from further review under the provisions of CEQA. 3-12
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Type of Notice Required Period Actual Period Required
Date
Actual
Date
Newspaper Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notice of Pending
Application (Owners & Occupants –
1,000' Radius + blockface)
45 Days After
Project Submittal
584 Days
After Project
Submittal2
7/4/2019 12/24/2020
Adjacent Neighbor
Mailed Notice
(100’ Radius sent via private
courier service)
45 Days 584 Days
After Project
Submittal
7/4/2019 12/24/2020
Mailed Notice
(Owners & Occupants –
1,000' Radius + blockface)
20 Days 20 Days 1/21/2022 1/21/2022
Neighborhood Meeting N/A N/A N/A 8/16/2020
Property Posting 20 Days 20 Days 1/21/2022 1/21/2022
Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 2/7/2022 2/3/2022
Website 72 Hours 7 Days 2/7/2022 2/3/2022
Applicant Outreach Efforts
The applicant held the required virtual neighborhood community meeting on August 16, 2020. At the direction of the Planning Commission from the March 11, 2021 hearing, the applicant also held a virtual meeting in which interested parties of the project were invited to attend on November 2, 2021 via Zoom.

Public Comments
Staff has received one comment letter expressing concerns regarding the proposed revised project and is included as Attachment D to this report.

2 The proposed project was submitted before Ordinance No. 19-O-2797 took effect on December 17, 2019, and is therefore considered a pipeline project. The ordinance requires that Notice of Pending Application and Adjacent Neighbor Mailed Notice be sent to owners and occupants within a specified radius within 45 days of an application being filed with the City unless the project was a pipeline project, in which case the notice was sent out as soon as it was feasible.
3-13
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

ANALYSIS3
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary actions requested by the applicant. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided as Attachment B to this report, and may be used to guide the Planning Commission’s deliberation of the proposed project. Additionally, staff’s analysis is provided below for the Commission’s consideration.

Compatibility with Surrounding Properties and Streetscape.

Promote Harmonious Development in the Vicinity.

The project site is located in a multi-family residential neighborhood where multi-family residential buildings predominately range between one and two stories in height. On that portion of North Oakhurst Drive between West Third Street and Alden Drive, a majority of the buildings are 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 two-stories in height and the project would be set back a minimum of 8’-0” from the north side property line.

The neighborhood is primarily comprised of multi- family buildings that are designed in traditional architectural styles such as Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian, and Federal styles; however, there are several buildings within the immediate vicinity that exhibit midcentury style architecture.

The proposed single-family residence exhibit traits of modern architecture and, if the Planning Commission approves the requested entitlement, the project would require review and approval by the Architectural Commission. The proposed single-family residence will have a new fence and pedestrian gate within the front yard with a maximum height of 6’-0” and be set back 5’-0” from the front property line (along North Oakhurst Drive). The proposed fence within the front yard is designed so that any portion of the fence that exceeds 3’-0” in height and will be open to public view. Although the proposed fence within the front yard is designed to meet the City’s zoning code requirements, as a standalone feature it may not be consistent with the streetscape along the block. However, the proposed landscaping plan includes 10-15-gallon Grevillea plants that will be maintained at a maximum height of 3’-0” in front of the proposed fence, which may help in softening the appearance of the fence.

Parking/Traffic/Pedestrian Impacts.

BHMC §10-3-2816 requires the proposed project to provide 2 1/2 parking spaces, which is rounded up to three parking spaces. In addition, BHMC §10-3-2817 requires the provision of one guest parking spot for every four dwelling units (or fraction thereof). Accordingly, the proposed

3 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3-14
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

project is required to provide a total of four parking spaces. BHMC §10-3-2818 requires that parking in multi-family zones is provided within a structure and is completely shielded from public view. The proposed project would provide a total of three standard (9’x19’) parking spaces and one compact (8.5’x17’) guest parking space 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 would be constructed off of West Third Street to provide vehicular access to the subterranean garage.

The location of the parking in the basement may reduce the amount of visual clutter in a neighborhood and could also limit any sound concerns associated with the moving and parking of vehicles. The construction of the new driveway apron would result in the loss of 14’-0” of curb along West Third Street, which would reduce the amount of space available for public parking on this block. However, the existing curb cut along North Oakhurst Drive would be removed as part of the Project and replaced with curb built to City standards. The replacement of the curb would potentially create one additional parking space on the block, which could offset the loss of one public parking space on West Third Street. The proposed 11’-0” wide driveway ramp will be enclosed by a gate that will be open to public view and will be set back a minimum of 9’-0” from the south side property line (adjacent to West Third Street) and the proposed site walls along this segment are aligned to the building. This proposed design will ensure that pedestrians are visible to drivers exiting the subterranean garage.

Landscaping/Garden Quality
The proposed landscaping includes a wide variety of shrub plantings and many of the plants within the front and south side yards are proposed to be located in concrete planter boxes. The front yard also includes one 48”-box olive tree and one 36”-box Pink Trumpet tree. Within the rear yard, one 24”-box Autumn Gold tree is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to the driveway. Hedge plantings (Podocarpus) are proposed along the north and south side property lines, which would be maintained at a maximum height of 7’-0”.

Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
The site has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential (High Density) and a zoning designation of R-4 (Multiple-Family Residential). While a multi-family residential building could be constructed on the site, single-family residences are also permitted uses within the applicable General Plan and zoning designations. As outlined in Table 1 and as described in this report, the proposed revised project is compatible with the City’s zoning development standards and is consistent with the pattern of development within the immediate vicinity in height, scale, and mass. Further, the General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide residential development throughout the City, as noted earlier in the report. The proposed singlefamily residence would replace a single-family residence that was previously demolished on the site. The use of the property as a single-family residence is consistent with the adjacent property to the west and the overall scale of the project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Lastly, the applicant has made changes to the proposed project to minimize traffic impacts to residents and vehicle traffic as the driveway gate is now set back an additional 7’-0” from the south side property line (adjacent to West Third Street) and the proposed site walls along this segment are now aligned with the building.
3-15
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 10, 2022

Analysis Summary
Based on the above analysis, it appears that the necessary findings can be made in support of the Development Plan Review. The currently proposed project is more appropriate in size and mass than the previously proposed iterations of the project reviewed by the Planning Commission.

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family zoned property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:

1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions of approval.

2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings.

3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines.

Report Reviewed By:

Timothea Tway, AICP
City Planner
Community Development Department
3-16
Attachment 4
February 25, 2021 Planning
Commission Staff Report
(without attachments)

City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Resolution
B. Required Findings
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1852
D. Public Comments
E. July 26, 2018 Staff Report (Without Attachments)
F. Notice of Public Hearing
G. Architectural Plans
Report Author and Contact Information:

Judy Gutierrez, Associate Planner
(310) 285-1192
[email protected]
Meeting Date: February 25, 2021
Subject: 331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE
Development Plan Review (PL1900208)
Request for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a three-story single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Project Applicant: David Ramin
Project Representative: Hamid Gabbay, Gabbay Architects Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
A request has been made for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a threestory single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. The subject property is zoned R-4 (Multiple Residential) and 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.

On July 26, 2018, the Planning Commission denied a request for a Development Plan Review and nine variances to construct a two-story, 2,329 square foot single-family residence on the subject property. On May 20, 2019, the applicant submitted a new Development Plan Review application with a new iteration of the project at the subject property. The proposed project complies with the City’s zoning code and does not require variances.

This report provides a detailed description of the proposed project and analysis of key issues related to the required findings for the requested entitlement. Specifically, the report analyzes the proposed project’s compliance with the zoning code and compatibility with surrounding properties and the streetscape with an emphasis on the project’s setbacks, proposed site walls and fences, 3-1

WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

parking, modulation, height, and landscaping. Staff’s analysis concludes that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and the recommendation in this report for project approval.

BACKGROUND
File Date 5/20/2019
Application Complete 2/2/2021
CEQA Determination Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New Construction) CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination
Permit Streamlining 60 days from Determination of CEQA Exemption Applicant(s) David Ramin
Owner(s) David Ramin
Representative(s)1 Hamid Gabbay, Gabbay Architects
Prior Planning Commission Action Resolution No. 1852 – A resolution denying a Development Plan Review and nine variances to construct a one-unit, twostory, multi-family residence with a basement containing a total floor area of 2,329 square feet and a height of 22’-2”. one-unit building.

Prior City Council Action None

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address 331 North Oakhurst Drive
Assessor’s ID No. 4342-002-024
Zoning District Multiple Residential (R-4) Zone
General Plan Multi-Family Residential (High Density)
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant (previously developed with a single-family home) Lot Dimensions & Area 54.83’ x 60.03’
Lot Area: Approximately 3,328 square feet
Year Built N/A
Historic Resource N/A
Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses

1 All project representatives listed have been confirmed as registered legislative advocates in the City’s database. 3-2
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

North Zone: R-4 – Multiple Family
Land Use: Two-story multi-family building
South (across W. Third Street) Zone: R-4 – Multiple Family Land Use: Seven-story multi-family building
West Zone: R-4 – Multiple Family Residential
Land Use: One-story single-family home
East (across N. Oakhurst) Zone: R-4 Multiple Family
Land Use: Two-story multi-family building
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) North Oakhurst Drive and West Third Street Adjacent Alleys None
Parkways & Sidewalks Parkway on North Oakhurst Drive: 16’-0” wide Parkway on West Third Street: 12.5’ wide
Parking Restrictions North Oakhurst Drive: 2-hour Parking from 8 AM – 6 PM, Monday to Saturday, except by permit.

West Third Street: 2-hour parking from 8 AM – 6pm,
Monday to Saturday, except by permit.

Nearest Intersection North Oakhurst Drive and West Third Street Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is located at the northwest corner of North Oakhurst Drive and West Third Street.

In 2016, the previously existing single-family residence was demolished and the project site has remained vacant since. The site is located in a multi-family residential neighborhood where multifamily residential buildings range between one and seven stories in height. The site located immediate to the west of the project site is developed with a one-story, 14-foot tall single-family residence. The majority of the multi-family residential buildings on the 300 block of North Oakhurst Drive are two stories in height and are constructed with varied architectural styles such as Mid-Century Modern, Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian, and Federal. 3-3
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

Fig.1 – Aerial View of Subject Property
Source: Gabbay Architects
Fig.2 – Existing Project Site
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Gabbay Architects
3-4
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission has previously considered several iterations of a similar project proposed by the applicant team at the project site between 2016 and 2018. A detailed summary of the previous iterations that have been proposed on the project site is provided in the July 26, 2018 Planning Commission staff report, which is included as Attachment E to this report.

At the July 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, members of the public expressed concerns with the proposal due to the height, scale, compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood, and adequacy of parking provided. Further, the homeowner of the property immediately to the west of the project site has expressed concern with the location of the parking spaces provided at the rear property, which would be adjacent to the existing single-family residence. The owner also requested adequate landscaping to shield the potential project from the adjacent single-family residence. Ultimately, the Planning Commission denied the 2018 project due to the Commission being unable to make the required findings for the requested nine variances. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1852 (Attachment C) memorialized the basis on which the Commission was unable to make the determination for each finding. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3715, in the event a variance has been denied, no new application requesting the matter denied shall be filed for a period of six months after the effective date of such denial.

Subsequently, the applicant filed a new Development Plan Review application with the City on May 20, 2019 with a new iteration of the project. The proposed project is now code compliant and does not include any variance requests.

Fig.3 – Previously Existing Single-Family Residence
View from North Oakhurst Drive
Source: Google Maps
3-5
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the construction of a new three-story single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property. The proposed residence would be 33’-0” in height and would have a total above-grade floor area of approximately 2,060 SF. The proposed basement would be 2,175 square feet in size and would provide parking for four cars. Vehicle access to the subterranean parking garage would be accessible via West Third Street by a new 14’-0” wide driveway apron.

The proposed residence would be rectangular in shape and would have a length (along North Oakhurst Drive) of approximately 38’-5” 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 facing North Oakhurst Drive, and one bathroom. The third floor includes one master bedroom and bath with two balconies, one facing West Third Street and the other facing North Oakhurst Drive. The proposed residence would provide outdoor space on the ground floor and on the rooftop. Access to the basement, first, second, and third floors will be provided via an interior staircase and elevator.

The proposed single-family residence complies with all minimum setback requirements and would 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 (rear) property line. The front yard setback area, adjacent to North Oakhurst Drive, will be include one 5’-0” wide pedestrian walkway and stairs to provide access to the subterranean garage.
3-6
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

The proposed project complies with the City’s zoning code and the following table summarizes the project characteristics and required/allowed development standards.

Table 1 – Project Summary
Development
Standard
Required/Allowed Proposed
Floor Area 1,500 square foot minimum
for a three or more bedroom
unit.
2,060 SF (above grade)
2,175 SF (Basement)
710 SF (1st Floor)
710 SF (2nd Floor)
640 SF (3rd Floor)
Building Height 33’-0” maximum 33’-0” maximum
Stair Enclosure
Height 12’-0” maximum 10’-0”
Stories Three stories Three stories
Parking Four spaces (including one
guest parking space)
Four standard (9’x19’)
parking spaces provided in
a subterranean parking
garage
Outdoor Living
Space
200 SF of usable outdoor
living space for each dwelling
unit
200 SF provided via the
rooftop patio
Front Setback
(East) 25’-0” 25’-0”
Rear Setback
(West) 15’-0” 15’-0”
Side Setback Sum = 17’-0”
Minimum for each side = 8’-0”
North side = 8’-0”
South side = 9’-0”
Sum = 17’-0”
Modulation 70 SF 70 SF
3-7
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
 Development Plan Review
Pursuant to 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 has been forward to the Planning Commission for review in accordance to BHMC §10-3-3102.

Fig. 4 – Proposed Rendering
Front Elevation (Facing North Oakhurst Drive)
Source: Gabbay Architects
3-8
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
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:
 Policy 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.  Policy 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.  Policy 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The project appears to qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for (New Construction) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303, of the State CEQA Guidelines. This exemption is applicable to the construction of a singlefamily residence in a residential zone. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find the Project exempt from further review under the provisions of CEQA.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Type of Notice Required Period Actual Period Required Date Actual Date
Newspaper Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notice of Pending
Application
(Owners & Occupants –
1,000' Radius + blockface)
45 Days After
Project Submittal
584 Days
After Project
Submittal2
7/4/2019 12/24/2020

2 The proposed project was submitted before Ordinance No. 19-O-2797 took effect on December 17, 2019, and is therefore considered a pipeline project. The ordinance requires that Notice of Pending Application and Adjacent Neighbor Mailed Notice be sent to owners and occupants within a specified radius within 45 days of an application being filed with the City unless the project was a pipeline project, in which case the notice was sent out as soon as it was feasible.
3-9
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

Adjacent Neighbor
Mailed Notice
(100’ Radius sent via
private courier service)
45 Days 584 Days
After Project
Submittal
7/4/2019 12/24/2020
Mailed Notice
(Owners & Occupants –
1,000' Radius + blockface)
20 Days 20 Days 2/5/2021 2/5/2021
Property Posting 20 Days 20 Days 2/5/2021 2/5/2021
Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 2/22/2021 2/18/2021
Website 72 Hours 7 Days 2/22/2021 2/18/2021
Applicant Outreach Efforts
The Applicant held the required virtual neighborhood community meeting on August 16, 2020.

Public Comments
Since noticing of the public hearing, staff received a total of three comments expressing concerns regarding the availability of the architectural plans and requesting the agenda report be published online so community members would have ample time to review the proposed plans. Staff was able to obtain permission from the architect to release plans to interested persons early and a copy of the architectural plans was provided to those members that expressed interest. Additionally, staff has received phone calls from members of the public expressing general concern about the project.

ANALYSIS3
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary actions requested by the applicant. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided as Attachment B to this report, and may be used to guide the Planning Commission’s deliberation of the proposed project. Additionally, staff’s analysis is provided below for the Commission’s consideration.

Aesthetics and Streetscape.

Height and Density. The project site is located in a multi-family residential neighborhood where multi-family residential buildings range between one and seven stories in height.

Specifically, on the portion of North Oakhurst Drive located between Burton Way and West Third Street, building heights range between four and seven stories. On the portion of North Oakhurst Drive between West Third Street and Alden Drive, a majority of the buildings are two stories in height with the exception of one five-story building located at 3 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3-10
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

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 proposed single-family residence would have a height of 33’-0”, which complies with the maximum allowable height.

The proposed project also includes an enclosed stair shaft for roof access that would have an additional height of 10’-0” from the adjacent roof deck, resulting in a 42’-0” tall structure at its highest point above grade. However, pursuant to BHMC §10-3-100, structures enclosing stairs are exempt from building height calculations provided it is no larger than the stair shaft below and such enclosure is not more than 12’ in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck. As designed, the stair enclosure complies with such requirements.

Fig. 5 – Proposed East/Front Elevation from North Oakhurst Drive Source: Gabbay Architects
Setbacks. For buildings that are no taller than three stories or 33’-0” in height, the cumulative side yard setback must be 17’-0” with a minimum side yard setback of 8’-0” for each side. As shown in Figure 6., the proposed project would provide a north side yard setback of 8’-0” and a south side yard setback (from West Third Street) of 9’-0”, which results in a cumulative side yard setback of 17’-0”. Additionally, the proposed Project complies with the required front and rear setbacks, which are 25’-0” and 15’-0”, respectively. The required and provided front yard setback of 25’-0” is consistent with other properties along the block. The front yard setback area includes one 5’-0” pedestrian walkway which is consistent with the pattern of development along the same block and is allowed by the zoning code. In addition to the pedestrian walkway, stairs providing access to the subterranean garage are proposed within the front yard setback area. Pursuant to 3-11
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

BHMC §10-3-2811, entry and exist stairs at or below the first floor level are considered permissible encroachments within the front yard provided that handrails for such elements do not exceed 42” above the first floor level. As designed, the stairs comply with such requirements.

Fig. 6 – Proposed Site Plan
Source: Gabbay Architects
Site Walls and Fences. The proposed project includes the construction of site walls along the rear and side property lines, as well as a fence within the front yard. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2814, the maximum allowable height of a wall, fence, or hedge located within the first 20% of the front yard shall be 3’-0”. However, the maximum allowable height of a wall, fence, or hedge located beyond the first 20% of the front yard area is 6’-0” provided that any portion of such wall, fence, or hedge that exceeds 3’-0” in height is open to public view. The new fence and pedestrian gate proposed within the front yard will have a maximum height of 6’-0” and be set back 5’-0” from the front property line (along North Oakhurst Drive). The proposed fence within the front yard is designed so that any portion of the fence that exceeds 3’-0” in height will be open to public view. The fence is comprised of horizontal 1”x3” painted wood strips to match architectural features of the proposed single-family residence. Although the proposed fence within the front yard is designed to meet the City’s zoning code requirements, as a standalone feature it may not be consistent 3-12
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

with the streetscape along the block. However, the proposed landscaping plan includes 10-15-gallon grevillea that will be maintained at a maximum height of 3’-0” in front of the proposed fence, which may help in softening the impact of the fence and proposed stairwell on the streetscape.

Within the required side and rear yards, the maximum height of a wall, fence, or hedge is 7’-0” and 8’-0”, respectively. However, any fence that is located within a side yard and a front yard must comply with the limitations set forth for the front yard, including height and open to public view requirements. A new 5’-7” tall block wall is proposed along the north side yard property line. Along the south side property line, a new fence with a vehicle gate is proposed at a maximum height of 6’-0”. A new 5’-2” tall block wall is proposed along the rear (west) property line. The proposed fence along the south side property line will meet the City’s open to public view requirements for the portion of the fence that is also within the front yard.

Modulation. Building and structures in multi-family zones are required to provide façade modulation in order to ensure that buildings are designed to create a break in massing.

Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2806, the area of modulation required for buildings that do not exceed three-stories in height is 3% of the aggregate building area or 1,500 SF, whichever is less. The principal building area is 767 SF and the aggregate building area is 2,301 SF (767 x 3 stories), which results in a required modulation area of 70 SF (2,301 SF x 3%). The proposed modulation is provided via the third floor master balcony located on the southern elevation, facing West Third Street. In order to accommodate the proposed balcony, the southeast corner of the building on the third floor will be set back an additional 10’-0” from the required front setback line. The width of the modulation of the third floor is 7’-0”, resulting in a modulation area of 70 SF.

Outdoor Living Space. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2803 buildings in multi-family zones are required to provide at least 200 SF of useable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit proposed. The proposed single-family residence is considered one unit and therefore, required to provide a total of 200 SF of outdoor living space. The project will provide 200 SF of outdoor living space on the roof and will be separated from the remainder of the rooftop area by a 42” tall wall. The proposed outdoor living space is located along the southern perimeter, closer to West Third Street. The City’s zoning code does not require any screening of outdoor living space that is not located on the ground level. The proposed outdoor living space would be buffered by the building code required 3’-6” tall parapet wall.

Compatibility with Surrounding Properties and Streetscape.

Promote Harmonious Development in the Vicinity. As outlined and summarized in Table 1, the project has been designed to meet the City’s development standards. The project site is located in a multi-family residential neighborhood where multi-family residential buildings range between one and six stories in height. A one-story, flat-roof single-family residence that is 14’-0” in height is located directly to the west (rear) of the project site.

The project is proposed at a height of 33’-0” and would be set back 15’-0” from the rear property line. According to the proposed plans, the project would be located 3-13
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

approximately 19’-0” from the existing one-story single-family residence located to the west of the project site.

The existing multi-family building immediately to the north of the project site is two-stories in height and the multi-family building located to the south of the project site, across West Third Street, is seven-stories in height. The neighborhood is primarily comprised of multifamily buildings that are designed in traditional architectural styles such as Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian, and Federal styles; however, there are several buildings within the immediate vicinity that exhibit midcentury style architecture. The proposed singlefamily residence exhibit traits of modern architecture and if the Planning Commission approved the requested entitlement, the project would require review and approval by the Architectural Commission. Therefore, the construction of a code compliant, three-story, 33’-0’ tall building in a multi-family residential zoned property is consistent with the pattern of development within the vicinity.

Parking/Traffic/Pedestrian Impacts. BHMC §10-3-2816 requires the proposal to provide three parking spaces. In addition, BHMC §10-3-2817 requires the provision of one guest parking spot for every four dwelling units (or fraction thereof). Accordingly, the proposed project is required to provide a total of four parking spaces. BHMC §10-3-2818, requires that parking in multi-family zones is provided within a structure and is completely shielded from public view. The proposed project would provide a total of four standard (9’x19’) parking spaces 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 would be constructed off of West Third Street to provide vehicular access to the subterranean garage.

The location of the parking in the basement may reduce the amount of visual clutter in a neighborhood and could also limit any sound concerns associated with the moving and parking of vehicles. The construction of the new driveway apron would result in the loss of 14’-0” of curb along West Third Street, which would reduce the amount of space available for public parking on this block. However, the existing curb cut along North Oakhurst Drive would be removed as part of the Project and replaced with curb built to City standards. The replacement of the curb would potentially create one additional parking space on the block, which could offset the loss of one public parking space on West Third Street. The proposed 11’-0” wide driveway ramp will be enclosed by a gate that will be open to public view and will be set back a minimum of 2’-0” from the south side property line (adjacent to West Third Street) and the proposed site walls along this segment are angled at approximately 45 degrees. This proposed design will ensure that pedestrians are visible to drivers exiting and entering the subterranean garage.

Landscaping/Garden Quality. The proposed landscaping includes a wide variety of shrub plantings and many of the plants within the front and south side yard are proposed to be located in concrete planter boxes. The front yard includes one 48”-box olive tree and one 36”-box Pink Trumpet tree. The front yard also contains a walkway leading to the primary entrance of the residence in addition to access stairs leading out of the subterranean basement. Both elements are considered permissible encroachments within a required front yard and it is anticipated that the access stairs would be 3-14
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
February 25, 2021

substantially screened from view due to the proposed fence and landscaping. Within the rear yard, one 24”-box “Autum Gold” tree is located at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to the driveway. Hedge plantings (Podocarpus) are proposed along the north and south side property lines, which would be maintained at a maximum height of 7’-0”.

Analysis Summary
Based on the above analysis, it appears that the necessary findings can be made in support of the Development Plan Review. Accordingly, the recommendation in this report is to conditionally approve the proposed Project, subject to the conditions noted in the attached draft resolution.

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a three-story single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family zoned property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:

1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions of approval.

2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings.

3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines.

Report Reviewed By:

Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development Department
3-15
Attachment 5
March 11, 2021 Planning
Commission Staff Report
(without attachments)

City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. February 25, 2021 Staff Report (without attachments) B. Draft Resolution
C. Required Findings
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1852
E. Public Comments
F. July 26, 2018 Staff Report (without attachments)
G. Notice of Public Hearing
H. Architectural Plans
Report Author and Contact Information:

Judy Gutierrez, Associate Planner
(310) 285-1192
[email protected]
Meeting Date: March 11, 2021
Subject: 331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE
Development Plan Review (PL1900208)
Request for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a three-story single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA. Continued from the February 25, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing.

Project Applicant: David Ramin
Project Representative: Hamid Gabbay, Gabbay Architects Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
A request has been made for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a threestory single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. The subject property is zoned R-4 (Multiple Residential) and 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 proposed project was originally scheduled for the February 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and was noticed in compliance with the City’s public noticing requirements. Prior to and during the meeting, requests were made by members of the public to continue the project hearing to a future meeting in order to provide the public with adequate time to review the agenda report and architectural plans associated with the proposed project. The Planning Commission considered the requests and voted to continue the hearing to the March 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. As the proposed project was continued to a date certain, no additional public noticing is required.
3-1

WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
March 11, 2021

The staff report prepared for the February 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, which includes full project details and staff analysis, is included as Attachment A of this report.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a three-story single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family zoned property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:

1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions of approval.

2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings.

3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines.

Report Reviewed By:

Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Director of Community Development
3-2
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1852

RESOLUTION NO. 1852

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS DENYING A DEVELOPMENT

PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MULTI-FAMILY

BUILDING, AND DENYING VARIANCES TO BUILD

HABITABLE BASEMENT AREA IN A MULTI-FAMILY

ZONE, TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIRED MODULATION

FOR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS, TO ALLOW THE

REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS,

TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED REAR
YARD SETBACK, TO ALLOW EXTENSION OF A PORTECOCHERE TO ENCROACH INTO A SIDE YARD SETBACK,

TO ALLOW EXTENSION OF A BASEMENT LIGHTWELL TO

ENCROACH INTO A REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO

ALLOW EXTENSION OF A PORTE-COCHERE STRUCTURE

INTO A REQUIRED REAR YARD, TO WAIVE GUEST

PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND TO PROVIDE PARKING

SPACES NOT ENCLOSED BY SOLID WALLS AND IN

REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT
331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE.

The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:

Section 1. Hamid Gabbay, representative of David Ramin (the "Applicant"), has submitted an application for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a new one-unit, two-story multi-family building, a Variance to build habitable basement area in a multifamily zone, a Variance to deviate from the required modulation for multi-family buildings, a Variance to allow the reduction of the required side yard setbacks, a Variance to allow the reduction of the required rear yard setback, a Variance to allow extension of a porte-cochere to encroach into a rear yard setback, a Variance to allow extension of a basement lightwell to encroach into a required side yard setback, a Variance to allow extension of a porte-cochere structure into a required side yard setback, a Variance to waive guest parking requirements, and a

Attachment 7
July 26, 2018 Planning
Commission Staff Report
(without attachments)

City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date:

Project Applicant:

Recommendation:

July 26, 2018
331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE
Variances and Development Plan Review (PLJ5J 0528)
Request for Variances and a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of
a two-story building on the property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission will also consider adoption of
a Categorical Exemption for this project.

Hamid Gabbay
That the Planning Commission:

1. Conduct
a public hearing and receive testimony on the project;

2. Continue the public hearing to
a date certain and direct staff to
prepare
a resolution memorializing the Commission’s findings relative to the requested Variances and Development Plan Review, or;

3. Direct the applicant to modify specific elements of the project and return to the Commission.

REPORT SUMMARY
A request has been made for nine variances and
a Development Plan Review to allow
construction of
a two-story, 2,329 square-foot one-unit building on multi-family zoned property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. The property is approximately 3,327 square feet in size and is currently vacant. The Planning Commission has considered several previous requests by the applicant team for similar projects on the site. The first was a request for six variances
and
a Development Plan Review at this site for
a three-story, 3,724 square foot one-unit
building on August 11, 2016, at which time the applicant received comments from the Commission and was directed to return with
a redesigned project. On January 12, 2017, the
Planning Commission considered
a three-story, 2,145 square foot one-unit building. At this meeting the Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project in order to address several concerns and return to the Commission. On June 22, 2017 the Planning Commission considered
a 2,865 square foot two-story, one-unit building and directed staff to return at the August 10, 2017 meeting with
a resolution denying the requested project. At the
August 10 meeting, the applicant requested that the Planning Commission not deny the project and instead provide an opportunity to redesign. Subsequently on February 22, 2018 staff Attachment(s):A. Required Findings
B. Relevant Code Sections
C. Public Comments
D. February 22, 2018 Staff Report (without attachments) E. August 10, 2017 Staff Report (without attachments)F. June 22, 2017 Staff Report (without attachments) G. January 12, 2017 Staff Report (without attachments)
H. August 11, 2016 Staff Report (without attachments)
I. Project Plans (under separate cover)
Report Author and Contact Information:

Timothea Tway, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1122
ttway@ beverlyhills.org
Subject:
385

WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

11/3/2014
5/24/2017
N/A
60 days from CEQA determination
returned with a request to establish an ad-hoc committee to allow for several Commissioners to work with the applicant to address some defined concerns regarding the proposed projects.

The request for the ad-hoc committee was denied and the applicant has redesigned the project.

This report provides a description of the revised project and analyzes key project components including compliance with the zoning code, height and density, compatibility with surroundingproperties, streetscape and urban design, and a discussion on the merits of the request for the variances. The report also summarizes the various changes that have been made since the June 22, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff concludes that the parcel of land is unusual in its size for a multi-family parcel in the City of Beverly Hills, and the granting of several variances may be appropriate under certain circumstances in order to achieve a feasible project; however, the requested nine variances are not all necessary to provide the property owner with the same enjoyment as similarly zonedparcels in the City. Staff is seeking Commission input and direction on the project at this time.

APPLICATION INFORMATION
File Date
Application Complete
Subdivision DeadlineCEQA Deadline
CEQA Determination
Permit Streamlining
Applicant(s)
Owner(s)
Representative(s)
Registered Legislative
Advocate(s)
Prior Project PreviewsPrior PC Action
Prior Council Action
CC Ad-Hoc Committee
CC/PC Liaison

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address
Take action on project within 60 days of CEQA determination Hamid Gabbay
David RaminHamid Gabbay
Hamid GabbayN/A
N/AN/A
N/A
N/A
c!RLY
331 North Oakhurst
386
ILLS
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July26, 2018

4342-002-024
Multi family
Vacant (previously single-family home)
Approximately 55’ by 60’
Total square footage: 3,327 square feet
R4 — Multiple Family Residential (two-story multi-family building) R4 — Multiple Family Residential (two-story multi-family buildings) R-4 — Multiple Family Residential (seven-story multi-family buildings)
R-4 — Multiple Family Residential (one-story single-family home) Oakhurst Drive, Third Street
6,464 trips per day on 3rd street, 2,230 trips per day on Oakhurst Two-way, north-south alley at rear (west) of property, 20 feet wide.

Sidewalk on Oakhurst: 16 feet wide
Sidewalk on Third Street: 12.5 feet wide
Assessor’s Parcel No.

Zoning District R4
General Plan
Existing Land Use(s)
Lot DimensionsLot Area
Year Built N/A
Historic Resource N/AProtected Trees/Grove None
Adiacent Zoning and Land Uses
North
East (Across Oakhurst)
South (across Third St.)
West
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s)
Traffic Volume
Adjacent Alleys
Sidewalks
Neighborhood Character
The project site is located at the north west corner of Oakhurst Drive and Third Street. The neighborhood surrounding the project site consists of multiple-family residential buildings (and one single-family building) that range from one-story to seven stories in height. The majority of the buildings on the 300 block of North Oakhurst Drive are two stories in height and are constructed in traditional architectural styles such as Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian, and Federal. Immediately to the west of the project site is a one-story, 14-foot tall single-familyresidence. 387
Aerial View of Project Site
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the construction of a two-story, 22’-2” tall residential building with a 3’6” parapet, as well as a full basement. The project is located on a lot that measures 3,327 square feet. The total floor area of the building would be 2,329 square feet inclusive ofthe habitable basement area. The unit consists of three bedrooms located on the first and second floors and one bedroom in the basement. There are a total of three parking spaces provided on the project site. Two proposed spaces are located to the north of the proposed Existing Project Site — View of rtsite from Oakhurst Drive 388
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

structure along the northern property line and one space is located to the west of the proposed structure along the western property line. The space located to the west of the proposed structure would be accessed via a proposed new curb cut that would be located along West Third Street. These spaces are not shielded from public view in a garage structure, but would be partially covered by a cantilevering roof overhang and wood-slatted, semi-transparent gates.

Summary of Previous ProposalsThe following narrative provides a brief summary of the history of the project and the previous iterations of development that have been proposed on the site in the past three years:

Original August 11, 2016 Proposal and Comments
A summary of the project proposed on August 11, 2016 is included in the following table. The staff report from this meeting can be found in Attachment H.

Development August 77, 2076 Proposal
Standard
Floor Area 3,724 square feet
1,020 square feet* (finished floor level that is more than one toot below Basement grade)
Ground Level 947 square feet
Second Level 893 square feet
Third Level 864 square feet
Height 32’2”
Stories Three
Parking Two spaces provided*
No guest parking provided*Not shielded from view or in a structure* Parking encroaches into front yard*
Outdoor living space 203 square feet
Front Setback 25 feet
Rear Setback 5 feet*
Proposed light well to encroach into rear setback*
Side Setbacks North side = 9 feet
South Side = 10 feet
Sum 19 feet
When the Planning Commission considered this project on August 11, 2016 they provided the following comments:
• The Commission would like to see enclosed parking spaces • The Commission was interested in the project including three parking spaces (instead of the proposed two)
• The Commission expressed mixed sentiments regarding the waiving of the guest parking space requirement
• The Commission expressed mixed sentiments regarding the light well in the setback as proposed, but were generally amenable to some reduced setbacks (Commissioner Licht 389
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

expressed concern with the reduced rear setback)
• The Commission was generally amenable to the habitable basement floor area January 12, 2017 Proposal and Comments
A summary of the project proposed on January 12, 2017 is included in the following table. The staff report from this meeting can be found in Attachment G.

Development January 12, 2017 Proposal Standard
Floor Area 2,145 square feet
Basement 571 square feet*
Ground Level 589 square feet
Second Level 512 square feet
Third Level 473 square feet
Height 32’2”
Stories Three (plus stairwell)
Parking Three spaces provided
No guest parking provided*
Two_spaces_not_shielded_from_view_or_in_a_structure* Outdoor living 353 square feet (the stairwell to the roof provides access to outdoor space on roof) space
Front Setback 25 feet
Rear Setback 15 feet
Side Setbacks North side = 46.5*
South side = 5*
Sum 96.5*
Proposed_light_well_to_encroach_into_south_side_setback* When the Planning Commission considered this project on January 12, 2017 they provided the following comments:
• A majority of the Commission expressed concern about the height of the building as proposed. Commissioners expressed a desire to see the height of the structure reduced to two stories;
• Several Commissioners expressed support of two parking spaces instead of the required three, especially if the overall mass of the house was reduced; • Commissioners had mixed comments about a desire to see coveted vs. uncovered parking spaces;
• Generally the Commission was supportive of allowing a basement; • Several Commissioners could support reduced setbacks if they did not negatively impact neighboring properties; • Some members of the Commission expressed concern about the location of the lightwell and the close proximity of the lightwell to the street (proposed to be one foot away from the sidewalk); and L
390
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

Development Previously Proposed Standard (June 2017)
Floor Area 2,865 square feetBasement 972 square teet*
Ground Level 1,003 square feet
Second Level 890 square feet
Third Level N/A
Height 22’-2”
Stories Two
Parking Two spaces provided
No guest parking provided*
Two (all) spaces not shielded from view or in a structure* Outdoor living space 222 square feet
Front Setback 20 feet*Rear Setback 10 feet*
Side Setbacks North side = 10’
South side = 5*
Sum 15’
Proposed light well to encroach into west side setback* Modulation 0 sq. ft* When the Planning Commission considered this project on June 22, 2017 the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the proposed project because the Commission could not make the findings required to approve the Project as presented.

August 10, 2017 MeetingStaff presented a resolution denying the project, per Commission direction given on June 22, 2017. The applicant requested that the Commission refrain from taking action on the denial resolution. Ultimately, the Commission did not adopt the denial resolution.

February 2018 Meeting
On this date staff brought forth a staff report to explore the option of establishing an ad-hoc committee to discuss the project further. At this meeting the Planning Commission denied to establish an ad-hoc committee. • The Commissioners had mixed opinions about the reduction of the rear setback to ten feet.

Members of the public also spoke at the meeting in January and expressed concern about the project. Most comments were related to the height and mass of the building, especially in relationship to the single-family home adjacent to the project on Third Street. Other comments were concerning the design of the buildings and compatibility with the neighborhood character.

June 22, 2017 Proposal
A summary of the project proposed on June 22, 2017 is included in the following table. The staff report for this meeting can be found in Attachment F. 391
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

Current Proposal
The following table summarizes the project characteristics and provides a comparison between
the currently proposed project, the most recently previously proposed project (June 2017), and required/allowed development standards. Standards marked with an asterisk are the subject of a requested variance for the project.

Development Required! Previously Proposed
Standard Allowed (June 2077) Currently Proposed
Floor Area 1,500 square foot 2,865 square feet 2,329 square feet minimum for a three or
more bedroom unit.

Basement No dwelling unit in a multi- 972 square feet* 776 square feet* Ground Level family zone shall have a 1,003 square feet 748 square feet Second Level finished floor level that is 890 square feet 805 square feet Third Level more than one foot below N/A N/A grade
Height 33’ maximum 22’-2” 22’-2”
Stories Three Two Two
Parking Four spaces required Two spaces provided Three spaces provided, (including one guest spaces provided
parking space) No guest parking proposed to be smallerMulti-family projects provided* than normally required require guest parking (one (received preliminary
required in this case) The two spaces not approval by City TrafficRequired parking to be shielded from view or in a Engineer) located within a structure structure*
and not located within No guest parkingtwenty five feet of the front provided* entrance of such structure,
unless such parking is The three spaces not
completely screened from shielded from view or in a
view from all public structure*
streets.

Outdoor living 200 square feet of usable 222 square feet 228 square feetspace outdoor living space for each dwelling unit Front Setback 25 feet 20 feet* 25 feetRear Setback 15 feet 10 feet* 10 feet* Proposed porte-cochere
structure to encroach into
rear setback*
Side Setbacks Sum
= 17 feet North side
= 10’ North side
= 10’
Minimum for each
= 8 feet South side
= 5* South side
=
Sum
= 15’ Sum
= 15’’
Proposed light well to Proposed light well to
encroach into west side encroach into south sidesetback* setback adjacent to the public right of way*
Modulation The area of the modulation 0 sq. ft.* 0 sq. ft. iLLS
c)
392
ILLS
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

(set back at least 10’ from
setback) shall be three
percent (3%) of the principal
building area
* Denotes variance request
Elevation (from Oakhurst) of the previously proposed and currently proposed project Previously proposed
lVdJ
Currently proposed
393
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

Site plan of the previously proposed and currently proposed project

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
Development Plan Review — The applicant is requesting a Development Plan Review (DPR) to allow the construction of the proposed project. Pursuant to BHMC section 10- 3-31 02 the Planning Commission is the reviewing authority for a DPR when the project requires the granting of a variance.

Variances — The applicant is requesting the following variances to allow the constructionof the proposed project:
• Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2805 in order to build habitable basement area in a multi-family zone • Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2806 to deviate from required modulation for multi family buildings • Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2807 to allow the reduction of the required side yard setback• Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2808 to allow the reduction of the required rear yard setback • Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2810 to allow extension of a porte-cochere to encroach into a rear yard setback Previously proposed Currently proposed
• Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2811 to allow the extension of the basement 394
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

Iightwell to encroach into a required side yard setback • Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2812 to allow the encroachment of a porte-cochere into a required tear yard• Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2817 to waive guest parking requirements • Variance from BHMC § 10-3-2818 to provide parking spaces not enclosed by solid walls (not shielded from public view) and provide such spaces in required setbacks

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines1, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project appears to qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures pursuant to Section 15303 of the guidelines because it is a multi-family residential structure that contains no more than four dwelling units.

Alternatively, if the Planning Commission chooses to deny the project then, pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Required Actual Notice Type of Notice Required Period Actual Period Notice Date Date Newspaper Notice 20 20 7/6/18 7/6/18Mailed Notice 20 20 7/6/18 7/6/18 1000’ + block-faceProperty Posting 20 21 7/6/18 7/5/18 Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 7/23/18 7/1 9/18
Website 72 Hours 7 Days 7/23/18 7/1 9/18

PUBLIC COMMENT
Throughout the process staff has received public comment on the proposed projects and members of the public have spoken at Planning Commission meetings. The public comments generally express concern with the proposed development due to the height, scale, compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood, and adequacy of parking provided. Further, the homeowner of the property immediately to the west of the subject property has 1 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at http://ceres.ca.qov/cegalquidelines 395
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

expressed concern with the location of the parking spaces provided at the rear of the proposed project site, which would be adjacent to the existing single-family home. The owner also requested adequate landscaping to shield the potential project from the adjacent single-family home. All public correspondence received regarding this project thus far has been included in Attachment C. The most recent letters from the adjacent neighbors highlight concerns with the placement of the parking spaces adjacent to the neighboring properties and the curb cut along Third Street.

ANALYSIS2
Project approval, conditional approval or denial is based upon specific findings for each discretionary application requested by the applicant. The Development Plan Review and Variance findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided in AttachmentA, which may be used to guide the Planning Commission’s deliberation of the subject project.

The analysis prepared by staff in assessing the project is set forth as follows:

Compliance with Zoning Code.

The proposed project does not comply with the zoning code, and the applicant is requesting nine variances from the existing zoning code. Analysis of the project elements and requested variances is presented below.

Height and Density:

The project is 22’-2” in height and consists of 2,329 square feet on a 3,327 square toot property. The maximum height for buildings in this multi-family zone is 33’. The City’s multi-family standards identify a 1,500 square-foot minimum floor area for a three or more bedroom unit and do not define a maximum floor area ratio for multi-family projects. The one unit proposed is less than the allowed density of two units for thismulti-family property. The 22’-2” proposed height is within the maximum allowableheight in the multi-family zone, and is more compatible with adjacent properties than the previously proposed 32’-2” tall building (one previously submitted proposal also included a stair and elevator shaft for roof access that was an additional 9’ in height resulting in the highest point of the structure being 41 ‘2” above grade).

Setbacks and Encroachments
The project applicant is seeking several variances related to the setbacks on the property. First, the applicant is requesting a reduction of one side setback (south) from the required minimum of 8’ to 5’. The sum of the setbacks would be 15’ instead of the code required 17’ sum. This setback is adjacent to Third Street and results in the building being located 5’ from the public right-of-way. For comparison, the neighboring home, which faces Third Street has an approximate front setback of 5’ from Third Street, therefore, the requested variance brings the proposed structure in line with the setback 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternate findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.
396
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

of the adjacent home on Third Street. The applicant is requesting permission to allow the extension of the basement lightwell into the required southern side yard adjacent toThird Street. The resulting project would have the smallest setback (5’) located adjacent to Third Street. The proposed lightwell, which would encroach into this side setback,would be located immediately adjacent to the public sidewalk on Third Street. In order to shield the lightwell, the applicant is proposing
a 6’ tall fence surrounding the lightwell,
which would be constructed on the property line adjacent to the sidewalk. Due to the grade differential between the sidewalk and the location of the lightwell, this configuration would result in
a fence located immediately adjacent to the public right of way with
a maximum height of 8’-112” above the adjacent sidewalk grade. As currently proposed in the plans, the built-up soil around the lightwell does not appear feasible atthis time and, should the Planning Commission approve this configuration, staff would work further with the applicant on the design of this aspect of the project. The fence is proposed as an open-to-view fence with vines that would cover the fence material. The applicant is proposing vine material to shield the fence. Previously, the Commission expressed concern with
a similar configuration in which
a lightwell was proposed
(January 2017 proposal) in the same location adjacent to Third Street. This configuration would have
a negative impact on the pedestrian experience on Third Street, due to the fact that this fence would be located immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way. Locating
a tall fence directly adjacent to the public right-of-way is generally not
a site configuration that is seen as harmonious with adjacent development. In addition, the fence surrounding the proposed Iightwell could block the ability of a
pedestrian to see
a car backing out of the proposed parking space located off Third Street, which could cause potential pedestrian and automobile conflicts.

The applicant is also requesting
a reduction in the rear yard setback from 15’ to 10’.

This results in the closest portion of the proposed structure being approximately 14’ from the single-story, single-family home located to the rear of the property.

The applicant is also requesting that two required parking spaces be allowed to encroach into the required north side setback and one full required parking space and a
part of another parking space be allowed to encroach into the required rear yard setback. The request to allow parking in the side and rear yard requires a variance from
the requirement to completely shield parking for multi-family buildings from public view and would also require the construction of
a new curb cut off of Third Street. The
proposed location would result in the view of parked cars on the property from the public right of way on Oakhurst as well as Third Street. The location of cars in these setbacks would result in parked cars being located immediately adjacent to the multi-family property located to the north of the subject property, and approximately 3’ from the property line shared with the single-family home to the west of the subject property. Thiscould result in impacts to these neighboring properties, due to the fact that these parking spaces are not located within an enclosed structure. Exposed parking spaces can add to the visual clutter in a neighborhood, and could result in some noise issues for properties immediately adjacent to the parking areas. The addition of the curb cut on Third Street would increase the number of curb cuts for the property from one (existing) to two, which could increase the potential for conflicts between pedestrians walking onthe sidewalk and automobiles entering and exiting the parking area. 397
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July26, 2018

Habitable Basement Area
Pursuant to BHMC § 10-3-2805, habitable floor area of
a dwelling unit is not allowed to
be constructed in
a level below grade in multi-family zones. The applicant is requesting a variance from this development standard, and is proposing a 776 square-foot habitable
basement level, which is
a decrease in basement size from the previously proposed project. Allowance of habitable area in the basement level increases the bedroom count by one bedroom and necessitates the inclusion of
a lightwell on the property. The
applicant has asked the Commission to allow the lightwell in the side yard setback adjacent to the public right-of-way on Third Street. If this property were located in a
single-family zone in the City, subterranean habitable floor area would be allowed.

Because it is located in
a multi-family zone, the applicant is requesting
a variance to
allow such floor area.

Guest Parking
BHMC § 10-3-2817 requires the provision of one guest parking spot for each four units (or fraction thereof) built on a multi-family zoned property. The proposed project would be required to provide one guest parking space in addition to the three code required parking spaces provided; however, the applicant is requesting a variance from this
requirement. Given that the proposed project is designed to function as a single-family residence, and single-family residences are not typically required to provide dedicated guest parking spaces, it appears appropriate to consider a waiver of this code
requirement.Unshielded Parking and Size of Parking Spaces BHMC § 10-3-2816 outlines the number of parking spaces required for multi-family projects. Per the standards, the proposed unit would require three parking spaces (not including the required guest parking spot discussed above). The applicant is proposing the provision of three uncovered parking spaces located in the north side yard and rear yard (westerly yard) of the property.

BHMC §10-3-2818 requires that parking in multi-family zones is provided within a
structure and is completely shielded from public view. The proposed parking spaces on the project site would not be fully shielded from public view and would also be located in the side yard and rear yard setbacks. Staff has expressed concerns to the applicant about the provision of parking in an unshielded manner, as it is not consistent with the existing zoning regulations and the prevailing pattern of development in multi-familyzones in the City. This issue was also discussed by the Planning Commission at previous meetings. At prior meetings the Commissioners expressed a variety of
opinions regarding parking in an open form, with some supporting the provision of parking spaces in an unshielded manner and others expressing interest in parking spaces being provided in
a shielded manner. The property owner located immediately to the west of the subject property has expressed concern regarding the unshielded parking that is proposed to be located in the required rear yard setback, as this would allow parking adjacent to her property and near the bedrooms located in her home.

The shielding of parked cars in multi-family neighborhoods can reduce visual clutter in multi-family neighborhoods and also addresses potential noise related issues. Providing 398
RLY Planning Commission Report 331 North Oakhurst Drive July 26, 2018

interior spaces for parked cars could also increase the bulk and mass of the building.

Staff is seeking Planning Commission direction on the currently proposed parking configuration due to the fact that previous Commission comments received on the topic were not unanimous and neighbors have expressed concern with the currently proposed configuration due to the proximity of unshielded parking next to existing developments to the west and north of the property.

In the current proposal, the applicant is also requesting to provide two parking spaces that are shorter than the normally required parking spaces. In general, required parking spaces in the City must be 9’ by 19’. The applicant is requesting one 10’ by 19’ foot space and two spaces that are 10’ by 17’. Applicants may request approval from the City Traffic Engineer to provide spaces that are shorter than normally required. The applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer prior to bringing this project forward to the Commission for this meeting and the Traffic Engineer gave preliminary approval for the reduced size parking spaces (with an absolute minimum of 17’ in length) for the two spaces in the tandem configuration should the project be granted approval by the Planning Commission.

Modulation
Multi-family projects in the City of Beverly Hills are required to have a certain amount of façade modulation in order to ensure that multi-family buildings are designed to be visually appealing and configured in a way that breaks up the massing of the building.The applicant has asked for a variance from this requirement in order to not provide façade modulation. This has resulted in a project design with a flat façade on both Oakhurst Drive and Third Street. The project does have architectural features on Oakhurst Drive that break up the massing of the structure and emphasize the horizontality of the building. The façade facing Third Street, however, includes no modulation and no architectural features and thus generally reads as a blank wall. Blank walls are not generally seen as a desirable way to design a street-facing façade on a single-family or multi-family building.
(9
Rendering of Oakhurst Drive and Third Street Facades
399
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July26, 2018

Compatibility with Surrounding Properties, Streetscape
& Urban Design
The proposed two-story building would be located at the corner of North Oakhurst Drive andThird Street facing North Oakhurst Drive. This area is primarily comprised of two- and threestory multi-family buildings that tend to exhibit traditional architectural styles such as Spanish Mission Revival, Georgian and Federal styles with classic height to width ratios. The proposed building is also located along Third Street, adjacent to a single-story, flat-roof residence that is
fourteen feet in height. Due to the close proximity of the building to the neighboring properties, especially the single-family home to the rear of the property, staff and the Commission have previously expressed concerns about potential impacts to the neighborhood due to the height of the building in conjunction with the reduced setbacks proposed by the applicant. Since the previous Commission review of the project, the height of the building has remained at 22’2” with a 3’6” parapet. The allowed height for the subject property is 33’.

The proposed building is more compatible with the existing streetscape than the three-story structure that was proposed on this property initially. The two-story height as well as the horizontal architectural features that are incorporated into the design reduce the appearance ofheight as compared to the previously proposed project design and is more in line with the consistent streetscape pattern that is
a result of the architectural features and ratios of the existing buildings. The design of the proposed structure is more compatible with the style of the existing single-family home adjacent to the project on Third Street. The building is located 5’ from Third Street and
a large majority of the elevation facing Third Street lacks architectural detailing or windows. In addition, the fence that is requested to be built around the lightwell that encroaches into this side yard would negatively impact the pedestrian experience on Third Street and is not compatible with surrounding development. If the Planning Commission approves entitlements for
a project at the site, the structure will still require review and approval by the Architectural Commission.

The proposed landscaping for the project includes several types of plants along the rear property line in order to attempt to shield the development from the neighboring property including: Carolina Laurel Cherry, Grevillea, and Wheelers Dwarf. There appears to be anadequate amount of area for the landscaping in the 3’ buffer between the parking space located in the rear setback, however, there is not space provided for landscaping between the two spaces located in the side yard setback and the neighboring property to the north as these spaces are provided at the property line. The plan also includes three trees in the front yard of the property to soften the look of the structure as viewed from Oakhurst Drive.

Street Parking and Curb Cut
The construction of the new curb cut would result in the loss of 16’ of curb space along Third Street, which would reduce the amount of space available for public parking on Third Street.Currently, Third Street falls under the “Al” permit zone, which allows parking for two hours from 8 AM to 6 PM on Monday through Saturday unless
a car displays an “Al” permit. This loss of
street parking could negatively impact the neighborhood through the loss of a parking space.

The new curb cut could also negatively impact pedestrian safety by adding a potential area for
conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles entering and exiting the parking area. 400
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

Entitlement Requests
In order to approve a request for a variance, the Planning Commission must find that because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings the strict application of the zoning code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications. In order to approve the requested Development Plan Review, the Planning Commission must make five findings, which are outlined in Attachment A.

While the parcel of land is unusual in its size for a multi-family parcel in the City of Beverly Hills (multi-family properties in this neighborhood are generally 7,500 square feet at a minimum, this lot is 3,327 square feet), and the granting of several variances may be appropriate under certain circumstances in order to achieve a feasible project, staff is seeking Commission direction on the specific variances requested as they may result in a project with features that are not necessarily in line with comments received by the public and the Commission in previous meetings on this project, and may make it difficult for the Planning Commission to make theDevelopment Plan Review findings.

Based on staff’s review and previous comments made by the Commission at the numerous hearings held on this item, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss the following requestsby the applicant as they relate to the findings for Variances and the Development Plan Review:
• Waiving the requirement for guest parking. The structure is proposed as a single-unit building, similar to a single-family home. In addition, the lot is relatively small compared to the vast majority of multi-family lots in the City. During previous discussions by the Planning Commission, various commissioners have been supportive of allowing the waiving of the guest parking requirements.
• Allowing a portion of the dwelling unit to occupy a floor below the ground floor level (provided that required parking is contained within the building). In past discussions on the topic, the Commission has generally been supportive of allowing this due to the unusually small size of the lot.
• Deviating from required building modulation. Due to the small size of the lot and the relatively small size of the building as compared to other multi-family buildings, it may be appropriate to waive the building modulation requirements. • Reducing the south side setback. Previously the Commission noted that they could support reduced setbacks that did not negatively impact neighbors. The reduced southside setback would bring the setback of 5’ in-line with the setback of the adjacent singlefamily home on Third Street. • Extending the basement lightwell into the required side yard setback. During previous discussions, the Planning Commission did not support the extension of the lightwell into this setback due to the proximity to the adjacent public right-of-way and potential impact that this configuration could have on the pedestrian experience. The location of the lightwell and associated fence could also impact visibility between pedestrians and automobiles exiting the parking space located off of Third Street. • Providing parking spaces not enclosed by solid walls, not shielded from public view, and in required setbacks. Previously the Planning Commission has had extensive 401
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July 26, 2018

conversations about the location and shielding of the parking for the proposed project.

The Commission generally has requested that the applicant provide some of the parking inside the proposed structure to attempt to mitigate the potential negative impacts to neighboring properties. Further, the location of the parking immediately adjacent to the properties to the north and west of the project has been a comment that has been expressed by neighbors from both properties.

Reducing the rear yard setback. Previous comments received and discussions by thePlanning Commission have addressed reduction of the rear setback. The reduction of the rear yard setback places the proposed project 14’ from the single-story single-family home to the rear of the property. This, along with the proposed provision of parking in this setback area, could result in potential impacts to the neighbor to the rear of the property.

General Plan Consistency
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 identity, economic value, and quality of life.

LU 6.2 Housing 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 sizes, building form, scale, massing, relationship to street frontages, architectural design, landscaping, property setbacks, and other comparable elements.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Variances and Development Plan Review would allow development of a twostory residential building on an unusually sized multi-family parcel. The currently proposed project is more appropriate in size and mass than previously proposed iterations of the project reviewed by the Planning Commission, and the applicant has made several design changes in attempts to address comments from the Planning Commission as well as concerned neighbors and residents, however, the project continues to include several features that could have negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood and neighbors located directly adjacent to the project.

Ii
402
iLLS
(9
Planning Commission Report
331 North Oakhurst Drive
July26, 2018

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and provide comments to the applicant and staff regarding the proposed project. It is also recommended that the hearing on this item be continued to a date certain and the Commission direct staff to return with a draft resolution memorializing the Commission’s findings relative to the requested variances and development plan review for the project.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider directing the applicant to make additional project revisions and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain for reconsideration of a redesigned project.

Report Reviewed By:

RyKGphIich,
7cd
AICP, Assistant Director of
Cpr1i.inity Development / City Planner
403
Attachment 8
Notice of Public Hearing

City Clerk’s Office

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:

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 ABASEMENT ON A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE.

The City Council will consider an appeal of the decision made by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on February 10, 2022 to adopt a resolution approving a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at331 North Oakhurst Drive. On March 17, 2022, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed, and all appeal fees were paid within the prescribed timeframe. On April 12, 2022, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for its June 21, 2022 meeting.

This project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmentalregulations of the City. The project qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303 of the state CEQAGuidelines. This exemption is applicable to the construction of a single-family residence in a residentialzone. The Planning Commission found the project exempt from CEQA.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically; and mayview the meeting through live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable.

To submit Audio/Oral comments during the hearing call: 310-288-2288, to submit written comments please email: [email protected], to submit video comments (during public comment only) use https://beverlyhills-org.zoom.us/my/bevpublic (passcode: 90210). To Watch Video Live usehttp://beverlyhills.org/live or On-Demand use http://beverlyhills.org/citycouncilmeetings. In-Personcomments can be submitted with a speaker card to the City Clerk at the meeting.

IM
It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. Written comments will be allowed with a maximum of 350 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Public comment via video conference will be 3 minutes per each individual comment, subject to City Council discretion.

Any interested person may participate in the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the City Council. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Council’s action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.

In Person Participation:

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the above information on the location and time of this meeting.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Judy Gutierrez, Associate Planner, in thePlanning Division at 310-285-1192, or by email [email protected].

HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
Mailed: June 1, 2022
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-2400 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchairaccessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired.

City ofBeverly Hifis 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t(310) 285-2400 JJ310) 385-0862 BeverlyHils.org Attachment 9
Public Correspondence

Non-Agendized Item
February 10th, 2021
Dear Planning Commission,
I wish to comment about the hearing scheduled for 331 North Oakhurst on February 25th.

I am a member of the Sunshine Task Force, and our group proposed and successfully passed through the City Council, the increase in notice time of a public hearing from 10 days to 20 days.

The goal of this was to give members of the public more time to get a better understanding of a project, and its potential impacts. A large part of the discovery process involves the ability to access and closely examine the project’s plans.

With City Hall currently closed, that is all but impossible.

The residents who live close to 331 North Oakhurst are asking for the Agenda Report to be published on time, but the hearing be postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow for them to have the time they need to get a better handle on the latest iteration of this project.

Please consider granting this request.

Thank you,
Debbie Weiss
From: Hammond Entertainment
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:14 AM
To: Karen Myron <[email protected]>; CommentPC <[email protected]> Subject: Communications From the Audience: Non-Agendized CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
2-11-21
Honorable Commissioners:

I am a one of the founding members of the Oakhurst Neighborhood Group.

I wish to comment about a scheduled hearing of February 25th for 331 North Oakhurst I am very concerned that due to Covid-19, the neighborhood’s residents will not have sufficient time to properly review the building plans and the application.

As some of you are already aware, this project has been very contentious for the neighborhood since its original iteration was filed in 2014.

We received a notice in early January from the City stating that an application had been received.

Los Angeles residents were also under a “Stay at Home” order and Beverly Hills City Hall being closed to the public at the time.

Even if City Hall was not closed, there is a natural reluctance for many of our residents to visit city buildings during a pandemic. Given the risks associated with coming to City Hall and to review the plans, is there a plausible reason that the building plans themselves should not have been available online since the City’s notice?
Such building plans will become available, online, with the Agenda Report for the February 25th hearing.

We propose that the Agenda Report be published on time, but that the February 25th hearing be postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting. The residents will be able to review the plans, within the normal 20-day timeline, and without being asked to risk their health to do so.

Thank you.

Chris Hammond
February 11, 2021
RE: Comments to Planning Commission
“Communications From the Audience: Non-Agendized”
Honorable Commissioners:

I wish to provide public comment about a proposed project at 331 North Oakhurst which is scheduled for a public hearing on February 25th.

I am one of the founding members of the Beverly Hills City Oakhurst Neighborhood Group
Due to Covid-19, we have not had access to City Hall to examine either the building plans or the application.

Specifically, one of our members was explicitly informed in an email that access to building plans would not be available until the Agenda Report was published due to City Hall being closed.

This is the sixth time the project has appeared before the Planning Commission.

We need extra time to closely examine this version with its previous editions. Such building plans will not be available until February 18th.

Hence, we ask that the Agenda Report be published on time for the February 25th hearing. However the hearing itself be postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting.

Look forward to your response.

Thank you
Woodrow W. Clark II MA3 PhD
Qualitative Economist
From: Steve Mayer
To: Peter Ostroff; Lori Gordon; Myra Demeter; Thomas C. Hudnut; Andy Licht Cc: Karen Myron
Subject: 331 North Oakhurst – New Incident Supports Postponement Date: Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:04:49 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Honorable Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners:

On Monday, on President’s Day, the owner of 331 North Oakhurst, through its tree contractor, tried to cut down 70-year-old, 75-foot high pine trees. The police stopped them.

No construction is permitted in Beverly Hills on federal holidays, so the contractor came back the next day to complete the job.

This is second time that the contractor acted illegally. In December, Community Preservation stopped the same activity, as the contractor, J & J Tree Service did not have a business license in the City of Beverly Hills.

Ostensibly, the reason the trees are being cut down is so that when the planning commissioners look at the property for next week’s hearing, they will see a clear-cut lot.

Those trees had been there for the last five years since the demolition of an existing single family home. They had remained standing, and thriving, through the previous application.

Incredibly, no permit is required to cut down a tree south of Santa Monica.

That is a problem that has to be solved.

But even so, Staff refuses to enforce the other rules on the books. A “Right Of Way” permit was required, but Staff evidently does not believe that it is necessary to protect pedestrians or the cars parked on the street.

The Beverly Hills Municipal Code has panoply of rules designed to protect people and property.

Staff will insist that contractor complied by providing a “flagger.” How can one be a flagger when holding a 10’ tool, and your job is to protect the tree trimmer? As to the cars, the workers attempted to blow away the wood shrapnel (from the tree cuttings) with a leaf blower, leaving instead a thick layer of wood dust.

Oh, and what happens, when an elderly, infirm person has to navigate into the street and is nearly sideswiped because a chipper truck was blocking the sidewalk.

Temporary construction signage on the street to slow down the cars? Not necessary, according to Staff.

Obviously, speaking on behalf of the Oakhurst neighborhood, we are frustrated. We requested a stop work order be issued to the owner and contractor so Staff could meet with them to inform them of the way it is supposed to work in Beverly Hills, that is, the minimum standards.

We were rebuffed.

This is part of the reason that local neighborhood residents requested the postponement of next week’s hearing on 331 North Oakhurst.

We need to research the record of what is not in the Agenda Report, so that the proper context can be presented to the Commission.

There are a slew of code enforcement and police activity logs that need to be reviewed and that cannot occur quickly. This owner has a history of violating the most basic minimal standards and rules of the City of Beverly Hills.

For example, in 2016, this same owner claimed to a city official that when the water was shut-off to a tenant (in an alleged illegal Ellis Act eviction), that the water meter had been stolen.

For these and many other reasons, the neighborhood residents believe it is appropriate to postpone the hearing for 331 North Oakhurst.

Thank you for your consideration.

Steve Mayer
From: Steve Mayer
To: Karen Myron
Subject: 331 North Oakhurst
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2021 12:06:07 AM
Attachments: 02-24-21 Planning Commission - 331 North Oakhurst - Notices Example.pdf CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Honorable Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners:

With regards to the hearing for 331 North Oakhurst, another reason has emerged that supports its postponement.
“Courtesy Notices” are typically sent to Beverly Hills residents who have expressed interest in a project.

In the past, on this project, we receive two (2) such notifications (by email), for each hearing:
(1) An email, containing the legal announcement of the hearing (2) A second email announcing that the agenda report is available For Thursday’s hearing on 331 North Oakhurst, No. 2 did not occur.

While No. 2 is not a legal requirement, it is what the community has become accustomed.

During its February 2nd meeting, the City Council formally postponed a public hearing and returned the agenda item back to the Sunshine Task Force Committee, because “Courtesy Notices” had not been sent.

The Council also directed the Sunshine Task Force Committee to re-hold its hearing so that the affected individuals would have the opportunity to provide public comment.

Had the City Council February 2nd hearing been properly legally noticed? Yes.

But the Council sent a very firm message that it wants the public to have full opportunity to be heard at the Commission / Committee level, prior to its review.

If 331 North Oakhurst proceeds to the City Council, based upon what occurred on February 2nd, due to the lack of No. 2, they would likely return this to the Commission.

Examples of both notifications for a July 26, 2018 on a previous 331 North Oakhurst hearing are in the attachment.

Steve Mayer
From:

To:

Date:
331 North Oakhurst Drive
"Timmi Tway" <[email protected]>
"Timmi Tway" <[email protected]>
Jul 20, 2018 8:55:55 AM
Hello,
I am contacƟng you because you have previously expressed interest in the proposed project located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the current proposal for this property at their next meeƟng on July 26, 2018 which begins at 1:30 PM. Please note that the staff report is currently available for review on the City’s website by clicking here. The item can be found under “Tab 5”. All previously received comments on the project have been included in the packet.

If you would like to submit comments on the project for the Planning Commission’s consideraƟon please email them to me at Ʃ[email protected] and they will be forwarded to the Commissioners. I am also available if you would like to drop comments off at City Hall.

As always I am available if you have any quesƟons.

Thank you and have a nice weekend.

Timothea Tway, AICP
Senior Planner, Long Range
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Ph. (310) 285-1122
www.beverlyhills.org
mail.com - 331 North Oakhurst Drive https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mail/print;jsessionid=D25FBC7762... 1 of 2 2/24/2021, 11:29 PM
--- The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
mail.com - 331 North Oakhurst Drive https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mail/print;jsessionid=D25FBC7762... 2 of 2 2/24/2021, 11:29 PM
From:

To:

Date:
331 North Oakhurst Update
"Timmi Tway" <[email protected]>
"Timmi Tway" <[email protected]>
Jul 9, 2018 8:57:17 AM
mail.com - 331 North Oakhurst Update https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mail/print;jsessionid=D25FBC7762... 1 of 2 2/24/2021, 11:28 PM
Hello,
I am wriƟng this email because you have previously expressed interest in a proposed project located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. I would like to let you know that a public hearing has been scheduled for the project with the Planning Commission on July 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM. I have aƩached the public noƟce for the project that contains more informaƟon. I will also let you know when the staff report is available for review (the week before the meeƟng).

Please let me know if you have any quesƟons
Thank you,
Timothea Tway, AICP
Senior Planner, Long Range
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Ph. (310) 285-1122
www.beverlyhills.org
--- The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.

Attachments
Mailed _ 331 Oakhurst July 2018.pdf
mail.com - 331 North Oakhurst Update https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mail/print;jsessionid=D25FBC7762... 2 of 2 2/24/2021, 11:28 PM
To the City of Beverly Hills,
I have lived at 340 N. Oakhurst Drive since 2007 and absolutely love our little oasis of a street in the city. I walk my dogs 3x per day up and down the block and around the area. I know every building on the street and have come to appreciate the uniqueness of the architecture and history and especially my wonderful neighbors.

I am writing to express my opposition to the current plans for 331 North Oakhurst in the strongest possible terms. I was aghast that the plan calls for a domineering 3-story building on a charming street of mostly 2-story buildings built in the 30s. I oppose the architecture style which is completely out of step with the rest of the street (especially Oakhurst between 3rd and Alden, where I live). I vehemently oppose the underground parking because of gross pedestrian safety concerns (I've seen plenty of drivers gain "momentum" to exit the up ramp).

Thank you for your acceptance of my concerns as a long-time homeowner and citizen of the City of Beverly Hills.

Regards,
Michael Kim
North Oakhurst Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Sonia Berman
N. Palm Dr.

Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
March 5, 2021
Re: The proposed project at 331 N. Oakhurst Dr.

To: The Planning Commissioners, City of Beverly Hills
Let me start this communication with the disclaimer that I am not an architect, nor an engineer, nor a developer. I do not proclaim to be an expert. I am simply a neighbor who has lived in this neighborhood for the past almost 50 years and feel compelled to voice an opinion on this project.

Every neighborhood has a character. That character is created by the architecture of the homes, the landscaping of the streets, the sunshine that radiates, etc.

This project is out of character for this neighborhood! There are about a half dozen smaller homes along Third and Alden between Maple and the City boundary to the East that add a special touch of history and class.

While this now empty lot does nothing positive for the neighborhood, neither does it add anything negative and while I fully understand that it will be developed and have no issue with that in and of itself, I do have major concerns about the end product.

I walk my dogs on Third, Alden, Oakhurst, Palm, Maple, etc. daily and have enough concerns about the drivers who are speeding down those streets and not stopping at the boulevard stops without having to worry additionally about a car or cars pulling out of a subterranean, steep-grade driveway where my dogs and I cannot be seen until it is too late! I have lived here long enough to remember a friend being hit by a car pulling out of an underground garage on Roxbury as he was walking on the street. He was never the same. I do not want to be in that situation.

This project, in addition to the issue I see with the driveway, will impact the amount of sunlight and shade for all the adjacent properties. If I am correct, it is projected to be 33 feet high with the additional roof garden which will add an additional number of feet. The house immediately to the west of the project is only 14 feet tall and the one to the west of that is 24. The visual of these three adjacent properties from the alley to the street – 24 feet down to 14 feet and then up to 33 feet - is not very attractive and not in keeping with the neighborhood. With a building at over 33 feet, the neighbors will be in the dark all the time. They will be looking at walls and their phone to determine if it is daytime. How can that be alright in anyone’s imagination?
I also see that there is projected curb cut and reduced parking on Third. Parking is already at a premium in that area so losing any parking spaces will impact not just Third but Oakhurst and Palm as well. And potentially even my side of Burton. I have had cars from the apartment buildings parked in front of my house for days when there was no room anywhere else.

I was thrilled to see that rather than tearing down the apartment units on Oakhurst north of Third, they elected to just keep the wonderful architecture and instead, remodel and modernize the interiors. What a fabulous decision and a blessing for the neighborhood.

And finally, the projected wall around the property on both Third and Oakhurst will exacerbate everything. The single-family home on the south side of Third is bad enough but two, across from each other, will really be an eye-sore! As I said at the outset, I am not a professional but someone who cares deeply about this City as exemplified by my service as a Civilian Employee with the Fire Department for ten years running the City’s CPR and CERT Programs; my present service on the Chief’s Advisory Panel; and being a recently retired member of the Human Relations Commission. I also care deeply about my immediate neighborhood. I moved here all those years ago to enjoy the beauty of the City along with enjoying its other perks. Now, as a very senior citizen, I love walking with my dogs which I do three times a day (even before Covid-19 with at least one of those walks being on the North side of Burton Way), looking at the various properties, seeing when new foliage is planted, checking on who is moving in and out, meeting neighbors with and without four-legged friends, and just relaxing (except for the traffic issues) and enjoying my choice of residential area and my home. This project will force me to stay on the south side of Burton Way! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Sonia Berman
1 Judy Gutierrez
From: Pizik Barbara
Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2021 7:38 AM
To: Judy Gutierrez
Subject: Letter from Neighbor
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Judy -
My neighbor doesn’t have a computer and asked me to submit this for her:

To the Planning Commission -
As a tenant of N. Oakhurst for over 40 years I am very much opposed to the size and scope of the proposed project at 331 N. Oakhurst - The height will affect light -air- and view -for my building - The parking is potentially very unsafe for pedestrians - as Third street is a very walked street in this neighborhood. Also the design is totally not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood -Oakhurst is a very special street and this will totally change the feeling of it.

Thank you.

Judy Balsam
N. Oakhurst Drive
1 Judy Gutierrez
From: Pizik Barbara
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:37 AM
To: Judy Gutierrez
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Planning Commission-

I live at W. Third Street- in between 9171 W. Third Street (the house under construction) and 331 N. Oakhurst. I have lived in my home for 25 years - I have also written other comments that were submitted to the city for the same project over the years.

Here are my concerns
- THE DRIVEWAY -

The proposed driveway is right next to my bedroom window/bathroom/office - it will be totally disruptive to my quality of life. In a previous meeting a parking space by my window was rejected and now - the builders are asking for 4 cars to go by my window. This is extremely concerning to me as it is so very close to my bedroom - Also putting in a curb cut which will take away parking right on this small block - so if I have any guests there is no place to park - The other thing is the danger for Third Street and pedestrians - Third street is a very pedestrian walkway for people with dogs and children - Putting a gate up and then cars coming up will be dangerous for pedestrians - with no notice of a car coming out -
There is heavy traffic on Third Street- Sometimes I cannot back into my spot until the end of the day because of the traffic - I think this will create even more of a problem.

-THE SEWER -

I am going to refer to my letter to Timmi Tway on June 22, 2017 - where I spoke to James from PUBLIC WORKS who told me ‘the sewer line goes thru all three properties - lateral connection - and has to stay that way as there is NO SEWER LINE on Third Street- so does that mean that a sewer line has to go thru my property to get to the alley ? No one has addressed this . This is also very concerning to meI had put in a new sewer line right after 9171 had been demolished and then found out that it had to be moved because it was going right under their proposed new house-

-THE HEIGHT -

My home is 14’ 9171 is 24’ and cuts off light in my backyard - 333 is proposing 34’ plus a roofgardenI will feel totally closed in - my light and air will be affected. The visual of 24 - 14 - 34 on this block will be totally unbalanced and not in keeping with this beautiful neighborhood.

I bought my home 25 years ago because I so loved this very special part of Beverly HIlls. I have been offered many times to sell but it is my forever home - I know building next door will happenand I am not opposed to it - but just want it to not affect my quality of living -

A neighbor - Sonia Berman - wrote a beautiful letter describing all the other issues about character - safety - the wall on Oakhurst and the wall on Third Street…also how the integrity of this very special street was protected by renovating the three buildings on Oakhurst.

Thank you so much for reading my deep concerns about this project. I have tried to study the plans and have had some guidance but alot of it is very confusing to a layperson -also has caused me great stress thinking that my life and well being will be so affected by this project. This also has been going on since 2014 - and I believe this is the 5th or 6 meeting on this property - The neighbors are very committed to our wonderful little neighborhood - We all watch out for each other and that also makes it so special. 2 Again, thank you for considering the above when deciding on this project.

Barbara Pizik

1 Judy Gutierrez
From: SUSAN MARFLEET
Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Judy Gutierrez
Subject: 331 N Oakhurst
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments

To
Dear Planning Commission

This proposed plan is ridiculous.

It will look like a tall narrow high box when finished, towering over its neighbors.

Is this a good thing for Beverly Hills? Hopefully we can do better than this?

To build a 3 story single family box like this on that small lot would be an eyesore and a monstrosity.

First of all this is not a multi family dwelling even though its zoned that way.

It is a single family home on a very tiny lot.

We are talking about ……. 3320 SQ. FT LOT.

Can you imagine how silly it will look ,and will downgrade the neighborhood as the block its on is historical architecture
on Oakhurst has has already been recommended by the
City of Beverly Hills to remain in Spanish revival and
1920s period architectural.

The block between 3rd and Beverly is interesting
,charming and historical for sure in its appearance and character .

THIS WOULD NOT BE
Compatible with Surrounding Properties and Streetscape. 2 Next door is a tiny one story home on Third and on the other side you have a multi unit building that is only 2 story on a very big lot.

A two story home works but not 3 .

There are a few other very tiny lots nearby so please do not set a precedent for the neighborhood as it will be ruined.

Thanks for listening

Susan Marfleet

Sent from my iPhone
3/9/2021 ANOTHER LETTER FROM A NEIGHBOR WITHOUT A COMPUTER - Judy Gutierrez https://mail.beverlyhills.org/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGRlYTlmYmI2LWQwNTgtNDkxOC1iMzYxLWZmNTM4MzhkMmU1N… 1/1

ANOTHER LETTER FROM A NEIGHBOR WITHOUT A COMPUTER
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
I live in  property just across Third Street  to the proposed development. I am pro progress for the betterment of a neighborhood, but it seems to me as of late enough is never enough.Our neighborhood has been continousely bombarded by construction for the past decade. I long for the day to not awaken to banging or other noises associated with construction or the dust - the endless dust particles.  The property at 331 N. oakhurst is my view and it pained me to see those beautiful Pine trees chopped down after 35 years at this property.

I have been watching the construction of the home being built by the same builder on the property sharing the same Third Street block. It is amazing enough to see what they have managed to erect in that small lot.  To include another story would dwarf all the surrounding homes of residents who live next to them. Taking away the limited sunlight they already get would definitely hinder the harmony these residents and this neighborhood currently has.  The block of Oakhurst between Third and Alden wasn’t built for giant homes in my opinion, especially when it’s future neighbors will be so affected by its size.

Also, it will no doubt put animosity to the future residents of that home and their neighbors who lack sunlight because of the inconsideration of the builder.  Is another floor really necessary?
sincerely
Tracy Soleimani
Pizik Barbara <bp
Tue 3/9/2021 4:55 PM
To:Judy Gutierrez <[email protected]>;
3/9/2021 331 N. Oakhurst Dr Proposed Project - Judy Gutierrez https://mail.beverlyhills.org/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGRlYTlmYmI2LWQwNTgtNDkxOC1iMzYxLWZmNTM4MzhkMmU1N… 1/1 331 N. Oakhurst Dr Proposed Project
CAUTION: External Sender
Use cauon when clicking links or opening aachments
To the City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission
As one of the tenants right next-door to 331 North Oakhurst Dr for the past 32 years + I’ve enjoyed the charm and uniqueness of the architecture and the history of this special block of homes on Oakhurst Dr between 3rd Street and Alden.  There is no other street in all of Beverly Hills that offers us such a charming neighborhood.

We have been able to save the three beautiful buildings across from ours from being torn down and become a high-rise, we were able to save the three gray buildings on the east side closer to Alden.  We worked hard so that we could save what is left of the special charm of Beverly Hills because we truly care about our neighborhood!
The now  proposed three-story with underground parking and roof terrace at 331 N. Oakhurst Dr is literally just too close to home . . .

Just imagine yourselves living next to a wall that will completely block the light from coming into your home, that will completely cut off ventilation, that will completely change the quality of lives of the tenants in our building.  Also from the roof garden the noise will carry over to our building and we won’t even be able to leave our windows open.

For years we have been talking to the traffic department about the accidents happening at 3rd Street and Oakhurst. We asked for bumps to slow down traffic.

We were told ”do you know what it takes to decide if bumps are needed or not, what it takes for us to analyze traffic before making that decision? It can take years.”
Now I ask how many lives lost does it take to realize that there is a need to find a way to slow down traffic and to get people to stop at the stop signs.

The proposed underground parking exiting on third Street from 331 North Oakhurst could become the poster child for finding a way to slow down traffic and getting people to stop at the stop signs . . . . how many accidents will it take! Thank you for letting us share some of our thoughts with you on the proposed 331 project.

Michèle Forest
On behalf of myself and most of the tenants at N. Oakhurst Dr.

Sent from my iPad
Michele Forest <
Mon 3/8/2021 11:32 PM
To:Judy Gutierrez <[email protected]>;
 To: The Planning Commissioners, City of Beverly Hills  Comments from Barbara Dinow on Sonia Berman's Letter:

Hello - I have taken the liberty to comment on Ms. Berman's letter. My comments are highlighted in yellow. My name is Barbara Dinow.
o Let me start this communication with the disclaimer that I am not an architect, nor an engineer, nor a developer. I do not proclaim to be an expert. I am simply a neighbor who has lived in this neighborhood for the past almost 50 years and feel compelled to voice an opinion on this project. I have lived here for more than 42 years.

That character is created by the architecture of the homes, the landscaping of the streets, the sunshine that radiates, etc. This project is out of character for this neighborhood! I concur!
There are about a half dozen smaller homes along Third and Alden between Maple and the City boundary to the East that add a special touch of history and class. While this now empty lot does nothing positive for the neighborhood, neither does it add anything negative and while I fully understand that it will be developed and have no issue with that in and of itself, I do have major concerns about the end product. As do I! I walk my dogs on Third, Alden, Oakhurst, Palm, Maple, etc. daily and have enough concerns about the drivers who are speeding down those streets and not stopping at the boulevard stops without having to worry additionally about a car or cars pulling out of a subterranean, steep-grade driveway where my dogs and I cannot be seen until it is too late! I have lived here long enough to remember a friend being hit by a car pulling out of an underground garage on Roxbury as he was walking on the street. He was never the same. I do not want to be in that situation.

This project, in addition to the issue I see with the driveway, will impact the amount of sunlight and shade for all the adjacent properties. If I am correct, it is projected to be 33 feet high with the additional roof garden which will add an additional number of feet. The house immediately to the west of the project is only14 feet tall and the one to the west of that is 24. The visual of these three adjacent properties from the alley to the street – 24 feet down to 14 feet and then up to 33 feet - is not very attractive and not in keeping with the neighborhood. With a building at over 33 feet, the neighbors will be in the dark all the time. They will be looking at walls and their phone to determine if it is daytime. How can that be alright in anyone’s imagination? Who wants to be in the dark?! A good point and argument.

I also see that there is projected curb cut and reduced parking on Third.

Parking is already at a premium in that area so losing any parking spaces will impact not just Third but Oakhurst and Palm as well. And potentially even my side of Burton. I have had cars from the apartment buildings parked in front of my house for days when there was no room anywhere else.

I was thrilled to see that rather than tearing down the apartment units on Oakhurst north of Third, they elected to just keep the wonderful architecture and instead, remodel and modernize the interiors. What a fabulous decision and a blessing for the neighborhood. Great decision!
And finally, the projected wall around the property on both Third and Oakhurst will exacerbate everything. The single-family home on the south side of Third is bad enough but two, across from each other, will really be an eye-sore! I agree!
As I said at the outset, I am not a professional but someone who cares deeply about this City as exemplified by my service as a Civilian Employee with the Fire Department for ten years running the City’s CPR and CERT Programs; my present service on the Chief’s Advisory Panel; and being a recently retired member of the Human Relations Commission. I also care deeply about my immediate neighborhood. I moved here all those years ago to enjoy the beauty of the City along with enjoying its other perks. Now, as a very senior citizen, I love walking with my dogs which I do three times a day (even before Covid-19 with at least one of those walks being on the North side of Burton Way), looking at the various properties, seeing when new foliage is planted, checking on who is moving in and out, meeting neighbors with and without four-legged friends, and just relaxing (except for the traffic issues) and enjoying my choice of residential area and my home. This project will force me to stay on the south side of Burton Way!
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Sonia Berman
I have lived in this area N. Oakhurst Drive, since November of 1978) It is a beautiful neighborhood with great lighting, trees and neighbors. A certain amount of protection is certainly a very wonderful and noble goal and quest. It would be great to maintain some of the charm that this neighborhood has. The residents want to keep their homes and this neighborhood as much in tact as possible.
 I would just like to add that a dog park or community park is a great idea.

Thank you for your time.

Please feel free to contact me for any reason.

Kind regards,
Barbara Dinow
1 331 NORTH OAKHURST
PL1900208

OBSERVATIONS & COMMENTS
________________

AS SUBMITTED BY

OAKHURST NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP
MARCH 9, 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The residents of the Oakhurst Neighborhood Group do not believe that findings can be made for the proposed development at 331 North Oakhurst.

Finding No. 1: The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

We do not believe that the proposed plan is
consistent with LU 1.1, LU 2.1, LU 2.4, LU 5.2,
LU 6.3, LU 7.1, LU 7.2, LU 14.4, and LU 14.8

We believe that these Land Use Policies, cited
in an analysis for a close-by property, by then
Commission Craig Corman are applicable to the
proposed plan.

Finding No. 2 The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

We do not believe that a 42’ high structure is
consistent with the streetscape, where 85% of
the apartment houses and the 72% of the
housing units between Third and Alden are in
structures less than 24’
We believe that the proposed structure
will unduly affect the directly adjacent
existing structures and residents at 333 North
Oakhurst and 9167 West Third
We believe that design of the structure,
basically a white wall is, without contextual
basis, is not harmonious to the area.

We believe that a 6’ fence and a stairwell in
the front setback is antithetical to the open
space environments that are so prominent on
both side of the block between Third & Alden
Finding No. 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.

Not applicable. This is not a commercial
development

Finding No. 4 The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

We believe there is a potential pedestrian-
vehicle conflict at the driveway entrance.

We believe there are potential traffic safety
hazards on Third Street.

We believe that more parking spaces will be
eliminated than projected, which will create a
different series of traffic impacts.

Finding No. 5 The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

We believe that the adjacent neighbor at 9167
West Third will be unduly impacted, affecting
her general welfare both financially as well as
create undue stress.

We believe that the “walkable neighborhoods”
construct will be unalterably impacted by the
proposed plan and that it will detrimentally
affect pedestrians’ health and safety.

We believe that the City faces liability if it
approves the steep driveway.

We also recommend adding findings that specifically address the concerns of the two adjacent buildings and other immediate neighbors. It is suggested that the Commissioners determine whether they can find that proposed plan will not have adverse impact on:

Proposed Finding 6 The scale and massing of the streetscape; Proposed Finding 7 The neighbors' access to light and air; Proposed Finding 8 The neighbors' privacy;
Proposed Finding 9 The garden quality of the City; and
Proposed Finding 10. Adjacent properties.

Just as with findings 1-5, if the Commissioners cannot approve all suggested additional findings, then the proposed plan is denied.

These proposed findings are more plain-spoken than listed in BHMC 10-3-3104.

These proposed findings were found in BHMC 10-3-2414(E).

TABLE OF COMMENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
History Before The Commission 1
Neighborhood Definition 5
Code Compliant Vs. The General Plan 6
Land Use Policies To Be Examined 7
Other Issues
Community Outreach 12
Shade / Shadow & Heat Island Effect 12
Driveway 12
Parking / Parking Permits 12
Small Project 13
Utilities 13
Liability 14
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
1 INTRODUCTION
The Oakhurst Neighborhood Group is an informal assemblage of residents headed by Woody Clark, Chris Hammond, Robert Block, and Steve Mayer. It was originally formed to protect the neighborhood interests against a proposed development at 332-336 North Oakhurst. Special recognition goes to Mayte Landeros and Susan Marfleet for inspiring its formation.

On January 10, 2017, it was successful in appealing a Planning Commission decision to the City Council regarding 332-336 North Oakhurst.

The involvement with 331 North Oakhurst began in 2015 to help a tenant who was being harassed by the current owners who allegedly spray-painted graffiti on the garage door and illegally turned off the water.

In addition to helping the tenant, representatives of the group went to the City Council three times to prevent the demolition of the then existing 1924 little bungalow.

It anticipated that nothing could ever be built, because the original investment premise could not be achieved.

Most recently, we appealed to the owners not to cut down the 70-year-old pine trees until after this hearing. They not only ignored such a plea, but commenced cutting down the trees on a federal holiday, an illegal act.

These observations and comments have been contributed by a number of community members.
2 HISTORY BEFORE THE COMMISSION
This will be the seventh time that the neighbors have been dragged to the Commission to protect their little neighborhood from an inexpert, repeatedly code-cited, overreaching Applicant.

It should be noted that we went to the City Council three times to prevent the demolition of the existing 1924 structure. It anticipated that nothing could ever be built, because the original investment premise could not be achieved.

It should also be noted that the previous 3-story iterations were rejected twice by the Commission as being contextually not compatible with the block in August 2016 and January 2017.

A summary of the Commission actions:

HEARING #1: AUGUST 11, 2016
Outcome: Public Hearing continued
to date uncertain
No. of Stories: 3 (+ Basement)
SQFT: 3,724 square feet
Height: 32’2”
Parking Spaces: 2
Front Setback: 25’
Variances: 6
HEARING #2: JANUARY 12, 2017
Outcome: Planning Commission
considered application and
directed applicant to redesign
project
No. of Stories: 3 (+ Basement)
SQFT: 2,145 square feet
Height: 32’2” (+ Stairwell)
Parking Spaces: 3
Front Setback: 25’
Variances: 7
3 HEARING #3: JUNE 22, 2017
Outcome: Planning Commission directed
staff to return to the
Commission with a resolution
denying the project.

No. of Stories: 2 (+ Basement)
SQFT: 2,865 square feet
Height: 22’2”
Parking Spaces: 2
Front Setback: 20’
Variances: 9
HEARING #4: AUGUST 10, 2017
Outcome: Planning Commission declined
to take action on the denial
resolution.

No. of Stories: 2 (+ Basement)
SQFT: 2,865 square feet
Height: 22’2”
Parking Spaces: 2
Front Setback: 20’
Variances: 9
FEBRUARY 22, 2018
Outcome: Planning Commission
determined there was not
sufficient support to form an
Ad Hoc Committee
4 HEARING #5: JULY 26, 2018
Outcome: Project denied by Planning
Commission
No. of Stories: 2 (+ Basement)
SQFT: 2,329 square feet
Height: 22’2”
Parking Spaces: 3
Front Setback: 25’
Variances: 9
HEARING #6: MARCH 11, 2021
Outcome: TBD
No. of Stories: 3 (+ Garage)
SQFT: 2,060 square feet
Height: 33’ (+ Stairwell)
Parking Spaces: 4
Front Setback: 25’
Variances: 0
`
5 NEIGHBORHOOD DEFINITION
We believe it is important to emphasize that the neighborhood is defined as the block of Oakhurst between Third and Alden.

The Planning Commission Report states that the immediate neighborhood is defined from Burton Way to Alden.

On January 10, 2017, however, the City Council, in a public hearing, specifically stated the neighborhood is between Third and Alden. It is a discrete block.

Further, the east side of the block has been deemed a potential historic district by not one but two cities.

A more detailed explanation came from then Commissioner Craig Corman, who elaborated upon the definition of a neighborhood in a public hearing about 332-336 North Oakhurst. Specifically, the neighborhood was not from Burton Way to Alden, but only Third to Alden. Excerpted from Exhibit B, Mr. Corman stated:
“Now importantly and people have made comments about this today. The staff report also points out that four and five story buildings have been built and are in the planning stages elsewhere in the general area. It's true that in January we approved a project in the northwest corner of Beverly Boulevard and Palm and replaced three older low-rise apartment buildings with a five-floor condominium project. That area is zone for extra height and there are already numerous buildings that big in the block. “I would also point out, the same holds true for existing plan buildings in Burton Way but Beverly Boulevard and Burton Way are larger streets, they are wider streets and can accommodate extra height. If taken to its logical extreme one could say the fact we've allowed eight floors of the Montage in the triangle and eight floors of L'Ermitage Hotel means that that's fair game to everyone in the city. We know that's not the case. “Now it's true the Montage are probably 10 to 12 blocks away but L'ermitage is only four to five blocks away. Where do you draw the line? As I said several years ago with respect to the Block Derrah Building at 9936 Durant Drive, also potential historic resource, I believe the obvious answer to that question is that a project's impact to a neighborhood or district should be mainly determined by looking at the immediately surrounding area. I think that's common sense. That's the area that's visible from the property that really defines its aesthetic environment. We should never really say well, when the project is seen in the context of a five-block area it's no harm, no foul because no project is actually seen in the context of a five-block area.
“That's why I believe the 300-block of Oakhurst should be our primary reference and the project is not compatible with that part of the city.” 6 CODE COMPLIANT Vs. THE GENERAL PLAN
There is a general bias by all municipal staffs that if a project is code-compliant, then it must be built … no matter what the General Plan says.

On June 10, 2017, the City Council did not concur with such a concept when conducting an appeal hearing about a close-by property.

The resolution specifically cited that it could not approve a code-compliant project that was in conflict with the General Plan.

In comments made on October 8, 2015, during a public hearing, then Commissioner Craig Corman elucidated on that concept:
“Now, the applicant has made a point. Vice Chair Joe Shooshani's comments actually suggest this point as well, that the project is code compliant which means that it actually conforms to the maximum height limits and densities that the city allows in a zoning code. I think that is something that's floated in the background of the whole project from the design, the staff's reaction to it and that is a presumption we often see, that people ordinarily should be allowed to build to the maximum height allowed absent unusual circumstances. I mean that is a common theme on a number of our projects that come before us.
“I don't think that presumption applies in the R4 areas of the city and I'll tell you why. In the R4 areas of the city every condo project, as Mr.

Gohlich said earlier, and just about every apartment projects, the very, very small ones, requires a DPR. As I pointed out previously one of the key findings for a DPR is consistency with the general plan. Now if you look close to the general plan, you'll see there's nothing in it that says or in any way suggests that people should ordinarily be allowed to build whatever the zoning code permits. To the contrary, the general plan says over and over that new development must be contextural with the neighborhood.
“Land Use Policy 1.1 supposedly says, I said earlier, the importance scale must be underscored. Land Use policy 2.1, Land Use policy 5.2, they're all explicit and these are not optional policies. They're mandatory. They're not all optional or aspirational policies, one of which we'll get to in a minute. The land use policies I've read are not those.
“The lesson to be learned from these land use policies is that new buildings subject to a with DPR like the current project should only be allowed to be built to the maximum height allowed in the zoning code if such scale and mass would fit into the neighborhood. That's the touchstone, otherwise, what's the point in requiring a DPR that in turn requires consistent the general plan? It's just common sense.” For example, just because the proposed plan it is code-compliant with respect to having a 6’ fence and a stairwell in the front setback, it does not meet the General Plan 7 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:

LU1 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 8 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 well- 9 designed, 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 walking 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 10 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 energy-
efficient 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
11 available or as existing buildings are demolished. Consider alternative 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. (LU 1.2, pg 2)
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)
12 OTHER ISSUES
Community Outreach
The Applicant will contend that it performed “community outreach” by holding a Zoom meeting.

What really occurred is that a notice was sent from a downtown address that no residents were familiar and the “invitation” was nonsensical.

Scheduled for a late Sunday afternoon, it could have been in the form of a formal notice, but the Applicant did not choose that option.

From the beginning, the Applicant has shown no willingness to solicit input from any of the residents.

Shade / Shadow & Heat Island Effect
In one of the first hearings, a tenant from 333 North Oakhurst repeatedly expressed concern over a 3-story putting his unit perpetually in shadow.

That was one of the reasons for the council directing the Applicant to re-design, eliminating the third story.

In no way, should the application have been deemed complete, without s shade / shadow study.

Also, there was previous expressed concern that the building structure would affect air flow to the adjacent properties.

Driveway
There are two problems with the proposed driveway:
(1) The angle of the driveway may is likely too steep and will create unnecessary danger
(2) There will be pedestrian / vehicle conflict on the sidewalk Parking / Parking Permits
There are a number of problems relative to the number of parking spaces and the inability to prevent issuance of parking permits and/or use of handicap placards:
(3) A guest will not likely use the guest spot during the day 13 (4) The silhouette in the diagram reflects a Porsche Carrera. What happens if the vehicle is a Cadillac Escalade
(5) Because of the difficulty of ingress / egress, it is anticipated that the residents will park on the street during the day.

Oakhurst between Burton Way to Beverly is already over-parked which will only become worse when 332-336 comes online with another 17 potential vehicles.
(6) No matter what the Commission believes, it cannot create a condition to limit permits for overnight parking. That is in contravention of BHMC 7- 3-302.
(7) Even if a permit was denied, it cannot control the issuance of handicap placards. A handicap placards is exempt from overnight parking restrictions.

For example, at 224 South Doheny for example, there are six cars parked:
two in the driveway, one in the cutout, and three handicap placards.

Small Project
The neighborhood was treated dismissively at the last meeting.

The impression deliberately left was that you have far more important things to do than to deal with a project that is code-compliant and should be approved. The neighbors are merely a petty inconvenience.

Utilities
There are a number of issues that transpired after the approval of 9171 West Third regarding utilities.

They both involved the next door neighbor at 9167 West Third and will again be prevalent if 331 North Oakhurst gets approved, relative to:
(8) Sewer Connection
(9) Power
(10) Telecommunications
Why should the next door neighbor be financially and/or inconvenienced one iota, so that a developer can profit?
14 Why does not the proposed plan show the utilities will be accessed through Third Street?
Liability
The design of the driveway is problematic.

It is believed that the City could be held liable for approving the driveway for:
(11) Any accident that occurs entering or exiting the garage itself (12) A pedestrian being hit by a car needing to speed to reach the top of the driveway incline
(13) Any vehicular accident that occurs on Third Street due to the angle entry and exit from the driveway
EXHIBIT 1

BEVERLY HILLS COURIER ARTICLE
__________________
“Beverly Hills Planning Commission To Review 331 North Oakhurst Drive – Yet Again”
July 20, 2018
By Victoria Talbot
The Planning Commission will
once again review a proposed project
on one of three tiny lots located at the
corner of North Oakhurst and 3rd Street
at 1:30 p.m. on July 26, marking the
fourth time the project has returned to
the Planning Commission for approvals
since the existing home was demolished over neighborhood protests four years ago. The lot is currently vacant.

The applicant, architect Hamid
Gabbay, is asking for a Development
Plan Review and nine variances,
including reduced setbacks that neighbors say will cause noise and privacy impacts.

The two-story, 2,865 square foot
(including a 776 square foot habitable
basement) one-unit building is on a 55’
by 60’, 3,327 square foot lot located
next door to a 990 square foot home
owned by resident Barbara Pizik. That
lot is sandwiched between 331
Oakhurst and an adjacent lot that is
equally small but has an approved project from the same owner and applicant.

Pizik is gravely concerned. A resident for over 25 years, she remodeled her little home, which is a 2-bedroom,
one-story house, and plans to spend the
rest of her life there. “The one thing I
have been fighting for two years is this
exact thing,” she said. “Now it’s even
closer… Now, they’re putting parking
there.”
The parking for the proposed project, she says, lays directly below her bedroom window,
six feet away.

In addition, the project
calls for a curb cut for a
driveway that would remove
one crucial street parking
space on Third Street in an
area that is street-parking
challenged and add a lightwell that would encroach on
the side setback adjacent to
the public right-of-way.

The applicant is requesting variances to build a habitable basement (BHMC 10- 3-2085), to deviate from
required modulation for
multi-family buildings
(BHMC 10-3-2806), to allow
the reduction of the required
side yard setback (BHMC 10-
3-2807) and rear yard setback
(10-3-2808), a port-cochere to
encroach into the rear yard setback
(BHMC 10-3-2810) and into the
required rear yard setback (BHMC 10-
3-2812), a lightwell to encroach on the
required side yard setback (BHMC 10-
3-2811), a waiver for guest parking
(BHMC 10-3-2817) and a variance to
provide unenclosed parking spaces in
required setbacks (BHMC 10-3-2818).

The project is a two-story residential dwelling containing one unit in an R-4 zone multi-family residential structure. The parcel is highly unusual because of its diminutive size for a
multi-family parcel in the City of
Beverly Hills.

What is allowed is a 1,500 square
foot minimum for a three or more-bedroom unit, above grade, 33 feet in height, three stories, with four parking
spaces and one guest parking space,
located within the structure and not
within 25 feet of the front entrance
unless screened from view; a 25-foot
front setback, 15-foot rear setback, and
a total of 17 feet on the side setbacks
with a minimum of eight feet each.

Modulation should be three percent of
the building.

Residents argue that the original
single-story, approximately 1,000
square foot home, was built to code, as
is Pizik’s rather comfortable bungalow.

She has two bedrooms, a dining area,
living area, office and open kitchen,
with a spacious back yard and patio. “It
took me 22 years [living here] to get it
just the way I want it. This is my forever
home,”she said.

But the home is wedged between
the two projects, and though she has
given her blessing to the project located
to the west of her house at 9171 3rd
Street, she is deeply concerned about
this project at 331 N. Oakhurst Dr.

The first iteration of the project
(Aug. 2016) was a three-story, 3,724
square foot residence with a request for
six variances. The project dwarfed the
little house, cutting off access to light
and air. The Planning Commission
rejected it.

The applicant returned Jan. 2017
with a three-story, 2,145 square foot
single-unit building, and was once
again asked to redesign the building.

In June 2017, the applicant proposed a two-story, 2,865 sq. ft. unit with a 972 square foot. basement. This project required a reduced front setback that neighbors said would impact the
neighborhood. The applicant requested
nine variances, including a habitable
basement area in a multi-family zone,
deviation from required modulation for
multi-family buildings, reduction in rear
and side yard setbacks, waived guest
parking, encroachment of a lightwell in
the side yard setback and a portcochere in the rear yard, and nonenclosed parking.

Residents say that last year, Gabbay
promised that he would come back
with a project that would meet Pizik’s
approval. She has not heard from the
developers since then, she says, and she
feels deeply betrayed.

BEVERLY HILLS COURIER | JULY 20, 2018

REAL ESTATE
Beverly Hills Planning Commission To Review 331 North Oakhurst Drive– Yet Again WHAT IT DOESN’T SHOW - A rendering of the unit does not depict the home of Barbara Pizik, her bedroom windows located just a few feet from the rear of the building. The tiny lot has proved challenging for the developers and the residents, who seek to maintain their quality of life.

Brady Brunch House Hits The Market In
Studio City
The Studio City home
used as the exterior for the
home of The Brady Bunch is
on the market for the first
time in nearly 50 years, a
real estate agent announced
Wednesday.

The two-bedroom,
three-bathroom house in
the 11200 block of Dilling
Street, adjacent to the Los
Angeles River, is listed for
$1.885 million, according
to Ernie Carswell, a Douglas Elliman
agent who is listing what he said “is
reportedly the second most photographed home in the United States after the White House.”
The home's interior does not match
what was shown in the 1969-74 ABC
series because those scenes were filmed
at Paramount Studios, Carswell said.

Several homes in the neighborhood
have been demolished recently. The
owners will give first consideration to
bidders who want to keep the home
intact, Carswell said.
“We’re not going to accept the first
big offer from a developer who wants to
tear it down,” Carswell stated. “We'’re
going to wait a few days, in case there
are others who want to purchase it as an
investment to preserve it.”
–– City News Service
The famed home from The Brady Bunch is for sale
EXHIBIT 2

TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
_______________

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2015

TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
DATE:   OCTOBER 8, 2015
SUBJECT: 332‐336 NORTH OAKHURST
SPEAKER: CRAIG CORMAN
All right, thank you. The reason I wanted that clarification is obviously a lot of people spend a lot of time and effort on the historical resource issue. I don't know if these properties are historical resources. It's certainly in the court's hands and they will make a determination. As we've heard today there doesn't seem to be … there haven't been sufficient facts or circumstances or change to the project that were brought to our attention today that would allow us to second guess the MND on that issue.

I'm going to steer clear of the historical resource issue in my comments. I know there are people who like us to address it but I'm sorry I think that's the law and I think that's just the way it is.

There are other issues I think that have been raised today we need to discuss. Let me turn to those now.

The main issue I think at hand is whether we should grant the request of the tentative tract map and development plan review. In order to do that we essentially have to find that the proposed project is consistent with the general plan, harmonious development in the area and will not be detrimental to the general welfare. Now as the number of the speakers today pointed out, the staff report points to several elements of the general plan at page 8 and those are the Land Use Policy 2.4 and 7.1 which deal with design quality, Land Use Policy 14.4 which talks about environmental sustainability and Land Use Policy 14.8 and Open Space policy 6.3 which deal with landscaping.

As speakers today pointed out and I think correctly there are other applicable elements of the general plan that I believe are even more important here. We didn't really read them but I'd like to read some of them because I think they are that important. Land Use 1.1 which was referred to by a couple of speakers specifically says that although implicit in any discussion of the future of the city the importance of scale must be underscored. I mean that's actually in the Land Use policy. As long as the city is able to regenerate itself within the general framework of the existing scale it will alter … it will offer an environment which is becoming increasingly unique in the west side.

Land Use Policy 2.1 specifically says maintain and enhance the character distribution built form, scale and aesthetic qualities, the city's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors and open spaces.

Land Use Policy 5.2, which I'm not sure one of the speakers referred to, does say with respect to infill and replacement housing, and as the applicant pointed out, this is infill and replacement housing, accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with the contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form and scale. Those are really I think the touchstones of our analysis today. I think collectively these policies bring into focus something that's really critical both for this project and elsewhere in the city. That is even if an area is not deemed to be in historic district as this may or may not be, that doesn't mean its character cannot and shouldn't be protected under our general plan, quite the opposite it should be.

If you look at the proposed project closely it's clear to me that it's fundamentally at odds with the character of the surrounding community. Existing buildings on the east side of Oakhurst with one exception at the top of the block are all two stories high. There is a five‐story building, a three‐story building on the west side of the street but the rest of the buildings in that side are two stories as well.

In contrast, the proposed building would be four stories tall in Beverly Hills and effectively six stories tall in Los Angeles. The part in Los Angeles is normally five stories but as Vice Chair Joe Shooshani pointed out the fifth story units have full story loss which effectively bring to the sixth floor. Because the Beverly Hills portion is only 19 feet deep, the overall building will read like a six‐story building from Oakhurst and that is very different to the predominantly two‐story buildings elsewhere in the block. Thus, the proposed project is a lot taller than the surrounding cityscape.

Furthermore, and I think this is something that really is sort of been touched on by some of the speakers but not really hammered home as well as maybe I think I would do it and I'm going to do it now. The existing buildings on the east and west sides of the 300 block of Oakhurst all occupy one city lot and are separated by setbacks. The proposed building on the other hand would span three lots which I think will destroy the development rhythm of the street. Not only will this three‐lot wide development gain the developer 38 feet of otherwise undeveloped setback space. It will create an enormous facade more than three times as long as they're building the block. If there's any doubt of how differently a three‐lot wide structure read as compared to a series of one‐lot wide structures, one need only look at the 400 block of Oakhurst and how 411 Oakhurst stands like a sore thumb there even among neighboring structures that are similar in height.

The proposed buildings is not only much taller than the surrounding buildings, it's much longer as well and it doesn't take a math major to realize that outsized height times outsized width equals massively out of scale development.

That obviously is the inescapable conclusion of the project as proposed is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and therefore, does not comply and is not consistent with the land use elements of the general plan.

In partial defense of the project the staff report points out the four‐story portion in Beverly Hills is only 40 feet tall, is actually 40 feet tall plus the four foot parapet. I think the reason the portion in Beverly Hills is what it is, is because the developer wants to squeeze effectively six floors into a 60‐foot height requirement or 60‐foot height limit or 60‐foot height envelope I should say in Los Angeles and [inaudible 02:06:05] use 10‐foot height place and that's how you get the 40 feet plus the four foot parapet. I don't think it's … I don't think the 40 foot, the height in Beverly Hills have the goodness of anybody's heart.

Now importantly and people have made comments about this today. The staff report also points out that four and five story buildings have been built and are in the planning stages elsewhere in the general area. It's true that in January we approved a project in the northwest corner of Beverly Boulevard and Palm and replaced three older low‐rise apartment buildings with a five‐ floor condominium project. That area is zone for extra height and there are already numerous buildings that big in the block.

I would also point out, the same holds true for existing plan buildings in Burton Way but Beverly Boulevard and Burton Way are larger streets, they are wider streets and can accommodate extra height. If taken to its logical extreme one could say the fact we've allowed eight floors of the Montage in the triangle and eight floors of L'Ermitage Hotel means that that's fair game to everyone in the city. We know that's not the case.

Now it's true the Montage are probably 10 to 12 blocks away but L'ermitage is only four to five blocks away. Where do you draw the line? As I said several years ago with respect to the Block Derrah Building at 9936 Durant Drive, also potential historic resource, I believe the obvious answer to that question is that a project's impact to a neighborhood or district should be mainly determined by looking at the immediately surrounding area. I think that's common sense. That's the area that's visible from the property that really defines its aesthetic environment. We should never really say well, when the project is seen in the context of a five‐block area it's no harm, no foul because no project is actually seen in the context of a five‐block area.

That's why I believe the 300‐block of Oakhurst should be our primary reference and the project is not compatible with that part of the city.

Now, the applicant has made a point. Vice Chair Joe Shooshani's comments actually suggest this point as well, that the project is code compliant which means that it actually conforms to the maximum height limits and densities that the city allows in a zoning code. I think that is something that's floated in the background of the whole project from the design, the staff's reaction to it and that is a presumption we often see, that people ordinarily should be allowed to build to the maximum height allowed absent unusual circumstances. I mean that is a common theme on a number of our projects that come before us.

I don't think that presumption applies in the R4 areas of the city and I'll tell you why. In the R4 areas of the city every condo project, as Mr. Gohlich said earlier, and just about every apartment projects, the very, very small ones, requires a DPR. As I pointed out previously one of the key findings for a DPR is consistency with the general plan. Now if you look close to the general plan, you'll see there's nothing in it that says or in any way suggests that people should ordinarily be allowed to build whatever the zoning code permits. To the contrary, the general plan says over and over that new development must be contextual with the neighborhood.

Land Use Policy 1.1 supposedly says, I said earlier, the importance scale must be underscored.

Land Use Policy 2.1, Land Use Policy 5.2, they're all explicit and these are not optional policies.

They're mandatory. They're not optional or aspirational policies, one of which we'll get to in a minute. The land use policies I've read are not those.

The lesson to be learned from these land use policies is that new buildings subject to a with DPR like the current project should only be allowed to be built to the maximum height allowed in the zoning code if such scale and mass would fit into the neighborhood. That's the touchstone, otherwise, what's the point in requiring a DPR that in turn requires consistent the general plan? It's just common sense. Those are my main comments.

Let me just go a little further if anyone's not too bored. Even apart from the project's incompatibility from a bulk and mass standpoint, I don't think the proposed project is consistent with general plans for other reasons as well. Far from exhibiting a high level of excellence in site planning architectural design and building materials as required by Land Use policy 2.4, the proposed structure is, I think we all can agree, a little more than a large stucco box that was clearly designed to fill the maximum building envelope with little regard for aesthetics.

Now I understand there's been tweaks because of some reactions to the architectural commission but the architectural commission hasn't approved it. They just gave some preliminary comments and the thing was tweaked as a result.

The main step backs in the front façade occur almost exactly on the border between Beverly Hills and Los Angeles to take maximum advantage of the additional height permitted in Los Angeles.

The applicant showed the south elevation to show that there are other intermediate step backs along the way from the bottom floor to the top floor. If you look at the north elevation you'll see parts of the North LA and parts of the building do not step back at all below that 44‐foot parapet. I don't think there are really any meaningful step backs The cutouts in the middle of the building would be barely visible from the street, would not afford any meaningful open space and their purpose seems really to allow the developer to be able to sell these back units which will otherwise have no light or air or whatsoever. There are also some concerns raised in the staff report about potential privacy impacts to neighbors because of those cutouts.

Other than these step backs and cutouts I don't think there's any really meaningful modulation of the façade as required by Land Use policy 7.1. I know the applicant mentioned there are modulations but I don't think there are. I think the fact that the architectural commission suggested they paint the top portion a little different to highlight the difference shows that otherwise, from a bulk and mass standpoint there really isn't much modulation in the façade.

It goes without saying that there's no attempt in the project to satisfy the aspirational provisions of Land Use policy 7.2 which requires some open space and I'll … little differently. Let me read that too because I think that's important. It is inspirational but this is Beverly Hills we like to meet these higher standards. 7.2 says encourage, optional, new multifamily development to provide amenities for residents such as onsite recreational facilities, community meeting spaces, and require usable private open space, a public open space or both. When you're talking about a project that expands three lots you'd like to think that somebody who is doing that large of a development could provide some of these additional amenities.

For these additional reasons I can't vote to approve the project. We also talked about also some discussion today about traffic studies. I personally am not sure the traffic analysis conducted by the applicant sufficiently takes into account other developments in the area but I don't think we have to rely on that at this point. I also heard loud and clear, people in the neighborhood saying look, we have a parking problem already and this could only exacerbate it from bringing in a lot of extra guest parking that will not likely park in the basement. Also, the applicant say well, we're going to provide more tenant parking or occupant parking in the basement that exist in the current rental units. There's obviously some discussion back and forth there but I think that we don't have to get into that today.

It seems to me the question, especially given the fact that one of my colleagues also agrees with me and maybe more do. Where do we go from here? I think it's fair to give the applicant some direction so they don't just spin their wheels and spend money needlessly. For my comments, I think everyone can probably guess. I think the project needs a major overhaul and not just minor adjustments, not just a nip and tuck, not just what's been done previously. It should have a reduced height not just in Beverly Hills but in Los Angeles because that's what we see from Beverly Hills.

I'm not saying it has to be two stories all the way through but certainly, its current height envelope is a nonstarter in my view. It should have much more modulation, at least enough to suggest that the building is comprised of three connected structures matching the lot to lot rhythm of the rest of the street. It should have a more aesthetically interesting design. Maybe not as radical as the building we approved at the corner of Palm and Beverly Boulevard, that's kind of interesting, but something more fitting with the neighbor but something interesting, something that brings value to the community and not just the developer. I don't think expensive light fixtures and painting different portions different colors is sufficient.

On the other hand, I think neighbors who have asserted in some of the correspondence we received that there shouldn't be any development at all because the construction impacts are being a little unrealistic. Even if the existing properties are rehabbed there were still be major construction impacts because as we heard the building themselves are below code, need to be brought up to different kinds of building codes if they could even be that. [inaudible 02:15:11] the court overturn the MND on historic preservations grounds, I think the odds are something that likely going to be build here. The key is finding the right balance that everyone can live with and what we know is the project as it currently poses is not it. For efficiency reasons if there's an agreement among the rest of the commissioners I would suggest a subcommittee to work with the applicant on a redesign. Subcommittee could have notice meetings. Give the applicant intermediate input before they come back to the entire commission. Also, give the neighbors and their local stakeholders an ability to come and have input in the process as well and I think everyone would welcome that. Those are my thoughts. 1 Judy Gutierrez
From: Steve Mayer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 1:25 AM
To: Judy Gutierrez
Subject: 331 North Oakhurst - Comments
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Judy:

Thank you for taking the time to see Robert Block, Snoopy, and me on Friday.

To summarize our comments:
(1) Placement of the driveway:
(A) For one Commissioner, the driveway is a non-starter, stating that he would never approve such a driveway because of the potential traffic conflicts (due to a driver’s natural tendency to look left and not right).
(B) The proximity to Barbara’s house. It should be noted that a previous version where the parking was next door to Barbara’s bedroom was one of the reasons for the rejection of that version (2) Scale of the structure:
(A) Even though a story has been eliminated, the proposed design remains out of character to the adjoining properties.

For example, now that 9171 West Third is nearly completed, it can be seen as a massive structure out of proportion to the neighborhood, compared to what it replaced. (B) Barbara faces a reduction in her home’s value with these two imposing structures on both sides

(3) Shade and shadow:
(A) For four units at 333 North Oakhurst, there will be a loss of sun, compared to what they now experience
(4) Mini-Park:
3-42
2 (A) Commissioner Ostroff suggested that the residents raise the funds to buy the property and donate it to the City to create a mini-park. That apartment dwellers could raise $1 million is optimistic, but there is an alternative
(B) A “Green Space Fund” exists, that is specifically targeted to create mini-parks. That Green Space fund was created at the suggestion of the Oakhurst Neighborhood Group, when selling the former City Manager's home.
(C) While the fund is currently insufficient to purchase the property outright, a transaction could be structured that some cash is paid to the developer, while the developer also contributes the property to the City, generating a sizable charitable tax deduction. Perhaps the City Treasurer Howard Fisher, whose private practice specializes in creating tax-advantaged transactions, could possibly assist.

Hopefully, on behalf of Robert and Snoopy, these comments are constructive.

Steve Mayer
(310) 275-8423
3-43
Dear Commissioners:

I wish to tell you my story, and why I remain opposed to the proposed project for 331 North Oakhurst. By the way, this is the seventh design iteration.

I am the next-door neighbor at 9167 West Third and this will be the ninth hearing we have had to attend, to protect our way of life.

It started like this: In 2014, 8 years ago, the new owner of 9171 West Third and 331 North Oakhurst knocked on my door. He said he was a physician, and with his hand literally placed over his heart told me, “It will be good karma for you to sell your house to me as you are a senior citizen and I will be providing living spaces for doctors at Cedars”*
What existed were three quaint 1920’s bungalows with my house in the middle. I was subsequently informed that the new owner’s original plan was to raze all three little houses and create a multi-story condo project.

Under that scenario, I would have just been collateral damage. I would be expected to uproot my life and take a loss for “progress.” When I refused to sell, the owner (now Applicant) changed the plan to build monster homes on either side of me.

Since that initial encounter, my life, at many times, has been unbelievably stressful. I have been intimidated and harassed by the owner, associates, and his representatives. I am constantly concerned about losing my home of 25 years. I have been living in state of upheaval. This home represents my way of life and what I have worked so hard to achieve.

At times, it has been a dividing issue for my immediate neighbors, sometimes pitting me against them, sometimes all of us joining together.

I have had to learn about curb cuts, municipal codes, utility easements, sewer easements, and more things than I ever wanted to know about. No homeowner should ever have to go through such an education, just so a developer can make a profit.

I have my own business and this has taken away many, many hours of my time, just so I could be well informed.

Since the last Planning Commission meeting on March 11, 2021, a few things that have happened:

Commissioner Gordon specifically ordered the developer to meet with the neighborhood, before creating a new design, by gathering their input addressing all concerns. That never happened.

Instead, after creating a revised design without community input, we had a teleconference in July. Only a few members of the neighborhood were invited. For example, no one from the next-door apartment building at 333 North Oakhurst was invited.

The Applicant was very rude to me (once again) and I left the meeting.

Then, Mr. Gabbay requested a meeting to review plans. Based upon my last experience with Mr. Gabbay, where he mischaracterized our last in-person meeting to the Commission, I asked to review the plans with Judy Gutierrez instead.

What these new plans revealed is that it is just like the last submittal, but with one floor missing.

The Agenda Report summarizes what they believe are 10 substantial changes that have been made. Some of changes, however, actually create greater danger. More importantly, the cumulative changes address only major issue, when, in fact, there are five.

What hasn’t been addressed in the Agenda Report is the major problem of the driveway and curb cut on West Third Street. That had been a major focus of the last Planning Commission hearing. The angle of the curb cut for the driveway has not been changed. The same danger exists.

Also, the cars are going right by my bedroom. That was a key reason why the Planning Commission denied the Application heard on July 26, 2018.

The imposing visual of the house is totally out of character for this block, and overwhelms my house, especially with the structure at 9171 West Third.

Yet another concern of mine is the easement for the sewer, electricity, and telecommunications in my back yard. Just to construct this property, the existing sewer line will have to be replaced at my great inconvenience … again for the sole benefit of a developer.

It has been suggested that a mini-park could be constructed there. That would definitely be my preference after all that I been through.

This has been going on for years and years, and I don’t know why, as a homeowner, I should have to be dealing with this for so long.

I appreciate you taking into consideration all my concerns.

Barbara Pizik
* It should also be noted that during one of the first hearings in 2016 and 2017, Mr. Gabbay stated the 331 North Oakhurst structure was being designed for a small family, such as for his son (a physician), and not as a Cedars Sinai dormitory. That was subsequently corrected (revised?) at the hearing last March, 2021.

TO: Beverly Hills Planning Commission
FROM; Barbara Dinow – 43 year resident of 342 N Oakhurst Drive As a resident of Oakhurst since November of 1978, I am very concerned about all the development and proposed development on Oakhurst Drive.

I am against the proposed development that will be held on Thursday at 1:30 p.m that the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold which is a ninth public hearing about a proposed development at 331 North Oakhurst.

The developer is now proposing a two-story, two-bedroom, 34’ high structure, with subterranean parking.

As mentioned, the structure, due to its zoning, is not a “single family residence.” It is classified as a one-unit apartment house with two bedrooms and rooftop terrace and basement.

This is the developer’s seventh design iteration. The only difference from last March’s design is that it is one floor less.

The developer was directed by the Planning Commission to meet with neighborhood members like you before they started on their next design. The developer chose not to hold that meeting.

The purpose of that meeting was supposed to address all neighborhood concerns, be it parking, public safety, and/or incompatibility of the design with our precious block of Oakhurst between 3rd Street and Alden.

I am concerned about the traffic that this proposed plan would cause. Besides traffic, I am also concerned about the entire project.

Since several Commissioners asked what would be acceptable to the neighbors, what would be acceptable to me, Barbara Dinow, is that either the single-story bungalow the developer demolished or that the City of Beverly Hills create a mini-park.

This solution would help the traffic problem that will be added to by the number of parking places and cars the developer’s proposed subterranean parking would add to Oakhurst.

Signed: Barbara Dinow – 342 N Oakhurst Drive, F – Beverly Hills, CA 90210 "My name is Joleta Bernheim - I live at 9193 W. Third Street and I am upset about the project at 331 N.

Oakhurst
because of the driveway. I have two dogs and walk down Third Street all the time . I feel it is a danger to have cars coming up right onto Third Street as people do not always look in both directions when coming up from the ramps.

Thank you for hearing my comment ."
From Susan Marfleet
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Comittee members
How many times must we go through this when someone wants to build a totally unacceptable big house on a miniature size lot . The plan firs not fit in this neighborhood and is an eyesore and ruins the character of the street .

Thanks so much
S. Marfleet
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
This is not my first time commenting on this project and in spite of the changes that purportedly have been made, I am still opposed to the project.

This corner and its surrounding area does not need another mansion on a small lot to obliterate the sun, to endanger those walking, and to change the ambiance of the neighborhood.

I have to question the mantra of the importance of the residents and their desires and needs with the repeated presentation of this project. It clearly appears that the architect has more influence than all the rest of us!!!!
Once and for all, let this project die!!!!!
Sonia Berman
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Dear Planning Commission,
The owner/developer of 331 N. Oakhurst, Beverly Hills comes before you, yet again. The owner/developer should not be given any preferences because he wants to make a profit or made a mistake at time of purchase.

It is not the City of Beverly Hills obligation to help developers to make a profit. "Residents come first," to quote Mayor Lili Bosse.

There is no reason to change the decision reached the past eight times, as the developer of 331 N. Oakhurst comes before you for a ninth time.

Please vote, once again, against the project.

Thank you,
Allyson Wittner
I would like to address the issue of traffic.

I have lived in Beverly Hills for 43 years on Oakhurst, and over that time, traffic in Beverly Hills has increased a lot.

I have a concern about how traffic can impact the proposed development at 331 North Oakhurst.

A previous 2018 agenda report stated the traffic volume on Third Street was 6,464 trips per day. That translates to approximately 4-1/2 cars per minute.

Naturally there are times when there are no cars on the road and at other times when there is almost gridlock.

Yesterday, a neighbor counted the number of cars in select five- minute intervals at the Third Street / Oakhurst intersection between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. What the neighbor discovered was, on average, 8-9 cars per minute transited in front of the proposed driveway on Third Street.

That means that, on average, every seven seconds, a car could pass by the proposed driveway on Third Street for the 4-car garage of 331 North Oakhurst.

While the survey has not been blessed by professionals, it does point out there is substantial traffic on Third Street and could make it impractical to use the proposed driveway at certain times of the day.

That, on its own, should be sufficient to reject the application on safety grounds.

It should also be noted that the survey was completed before the Live Nation building opened and does not incorporate the future industrial area development on Foothill. Also, since the start of the Pandemic, the entire nature of package delivery has accelerated to many more delivery vehicles being on the road.

Thank you for allowing me to make this public comment, but the bottom line is this project should not go forward. The driveway for the 4-car subterranean garage of 331 North Oakhurst being on Third Street is just too dangerous, and there is no suitable solution.

Respectfully,
Barbara Dinow
N Oakhurst Drive,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Commissioners –
Stop torturing our neighborhood residents and wasting everyone’s valuable time and priority by trying to find every conceivable way to avoid an obvious and long overdue denial of the proposed project. Additionally, when an applicant refuses to comply with the reasonable requests of the Commission and to cooperate with those directly impacted, they are not acting responsibly, and have exhausted any presumption of goodwill many meetings ago.

It is not the Commission’s obligation to indemnify an applicant, or provide them with an eventual approval or favorable result at any cost and no matter how long it takes. That is simply overreaching and an overindulgence on the applicant’s part, and would represent a failure by the Commission to protect the community to whom it owes its fiduciary duty.

Thomas White
Hello Judy,
ETCO Homes would like to add its support for approval of this new single family home. We find this home will not only add value to the community but also adds neighborhood compatibility fitting perfectly with the neighborhood mix that includes other single family homes along 3rd street. As the owners of 332-336 N. Oakhurst (across the street from this project), we also believe that this home should be approved based on its zoning compliance that allows single family homes in the R-4 zone.

We understand that the Planning Commission has all the information necessary to make the finding in support and approval, and urge the Commission to make that finding.

Thank you,
Carl Steinberg
Vice President Community Development
ETCO HOMES, inc.

Wilshire Blvd.,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211

February 9, 2022 Page 1 of 2
To The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Re: 331 North Oakhurst Dr proposed project
We are the residents of 333 North Oakhurst, the building immediately north of the proposed one unit, two-story building with two bedrooms and a rooftop terrace at 331 North Oakhurst Dr developed by the same owners of 9171 W. 3rd St..

We oppose the development of this proposed project.

We are opposed to the development of this project for a number of reasons:

We will experience a loss of privacy. For example, the back windows of 9171 W. 3rd St., a companion development to 331 North Oakhurst Dr, looks directly in the living room of apartments 8 and 9. The same could occur with 331 North Oakhurst Dr for apartments 5 and 6.

We will experience a loss of light, sun and air circulation. That has already occurred on 9171 W. 3rd St.

This project would exacerbate the myriad harms already being caused by multiple construction projects. Our neighborhood has been besieged by concurrent and consecutive construction, renovation and retrofit projects for many years now, at a time when many have been are are still working from home. Residents have endured seemingly constant construction-related noise, pollution, and other harms, severely detracting from the livability of the neighborhood. There have been repeated violations of Beverly Hills' pre-8am and weekend construction prohibitions, a risk that only increases with yet another new project.

The proposed project would cause further harm for untold years to come. All of us have been particularly impacted by the development of 9171 W. 3rd St., under construction for the past three years and unabated by the pandemic, by the same owners of 331 North Oakhurst Dr. In that time, there has been little construction mitigation to protect our building from noise, vibration, dust, other debris, and port-a-potty odors. We have no reason to believe the proposed project would proceed any differently. Indeed, all the evidence indicates this new project would be even more invasive and lengthy given the plan for underground parking. It would be yet another headache and eyesore for our building and the entire neighborhood to endure for untold years to come.

We are very concerned about the safety of the driveway. Because of the steep incline of the driveway, the driver cannot see pedestrians until it is too late. This is a very walkable neighborhood, with many residents having dogs, babies in strollers, seniors taking their daily walk plus the every day walking traffic.

As Vice Chair Hudnut pointed out at the last hearing, a driver’s natural inclination is to look left not right. That was the reason for his opposition, and supports our concern that accidents are almost inevitable on a very busy street.

We have concerns regarding the rooftop entertainment zone. No matter what mitigations, sound will travel from the rooftop.

February 9, 2022 Page 2 of 2
To The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Re: 331 North Oakhurst Dr proposed project
What would be the best use of the property? Commissioner Ostroff suggested at the last hearing that the neighbors get together to buy the property and donate the land to the City for a mini-park. While we do not have the $20,000 a piece to buy the land, we feel that a mini-park is the only compatible use for this very small parcel.

Please, we ask again, that you reject the application for a one unit, two-story building with two bedrooms and rooftop terrace at 331 North Oakhurst Dr..

Thank you for reading our letter of concerns,
The tenants of N. Oakhurst Dr., Beverly Hills 90210
Judy Balsam
Jazmine Monreal
Michele Forest
Natasha Moreno
Matt Mims
Abril Hernandez
Rickey Wang
Eric Palmeri
Chloe Cleary
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I’m writing to express my dismay that the Planning Commission is even considering another hearing on 331 N. Oakhurst. I thought the issue was settled. The project should be denied once and for all time.

Mary Kelly
N Sierra Drive
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
My name is Liz Goldstein and I am a longtime North Oakhurst Drive resident. I have followed the project for over fives years now Because of the impact it has on Beverly Hills and my neighborhood. I am writing to say that this is ridiculous that we are still here Trying to force a bulky mass into a postage stamp size lot.

Enough is enough..Clearly this project does not work..The project should be denied and not allowed to continue. If they want to build Then come back with something new: something that works, but this project has to stop.

Thank you for your time.

Elizabeth Goldstein
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
(If possible please show these three images at some point with the comment. Thank you!) Dear Chair Licht and members of the Planning Commission:

I want to express my concern about two aspects of this project that resonate concerns emerging in multifamily areas citywide: barriers out of character in a garden city and the possible use of this property for short-term occupancies.

The six-foot tall security barrier illustrated in the rendering is not a good fit for a multifamily area because it detracts from garden quality of our city. These barriers are usually combined with plantings that grow tall and thick to carve-out an exclusive compound. That may be fine for neighbors to the north but in the central area our lots are smaller. We can’t have our neighbors diced up into compounds.

The rendering minimizes the visual impact of the barrier. [Picture 1 — rendering]
These barriers look very different on the ground as pictured recently. [Picture 2 — Charleville and Crescent barrier]
[Picture 3 — Picture 3 Charleville near La Peer]
I have rid my neighborhood of two such barriers that were built too close to the sidewalk in front of a multifamily apartment building. But more such barriers are under construction now.

I would like to ask this commission to encourage the applicant to voluntarily reduce the height or to change the aesthetic of this barrier.

My other concern is short-term occupancy. In March of last year the applicant referred to housing for Cedars physician residents. He said residents plural. That suggests not one family but perhaps a rotating roster of shorter-term tenancies.

There is precedent for my concern. Here on Reeves Drive a physician landlord who owns five multifamily properties leases multiple units in some of these properties on a short-term basis to residents and nurses. None of those tenancies are registered with the city, as required. We have seen high turnover among our neighbors, many of whom we don’t know.

I would request this commission to condition your approval on minimum one-year tenancies — and that all such tenancies be registered with the rent stabilization division.

Thank you very much for your consideration,
Mark Elliot

331 NORTH OAKHURST: FINDINGS
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022
FINDING #1
The proposed plan is consistent with
the general plan and any specific
plans adopted for the area.

RESPONSE
We do not believe that the
proposed plan is consistent with
LU 1.1, LU 2.1, LU 2.4, LU 5.2, LU

6.3, LU 7.1, LU 7.2, LU 14.4, and
LU 14.8

We believe that these Land Use
Policies, cited in an analysis for a
close-by property, by then
Commission Craig Corman are
applicable to the proposed plan.
331 NORTH OAKHURST: FINDINGS
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022
FINDING #2
The proposed plan will not adversely
affect existing and anticipated
development in the vicinity and will
promote harmonious development of
the area.

We believe:
* A 33’ high structure is
inconsistent with the streetscape
* Proposed structure will unduly
affect residents at 333 N
Oakhurst and 9167 W Third
* The design is not harmonious
nor contextual
* 6’ fence in the front setback is
antithetical the block
331 NORTH OAKHURST: FINDINGS
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022
FINDING #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.

RESPONSE:

Not applicable. This is not a
commercial development
331 NORTH OAKHURST: FINDINGS
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022
FINDING #4
The proposed plan will not create any
significantly adverse traffic impacts,
traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

RESPONSE
We believe there is a potential
for:
* Pedestrian-vehicle conflict at
the driveway entrance.
* Traffic safety hazards on Third
Street.
* Traffic impacts from the
projected eliminated parking
spaces
331 NORTH OAKHURST: FINDINGS
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022
FINDING #5
The proposed plan will not be
detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare.

We believe:
* Adjacent neighbor at 9167 W
Third will be unduly impacted,
affecting her financially and
create undue stress
* “Walkable neighborhoods”
construct will be unalterably
impacted affecting pedestrians’
health and safety.
* City faces liability if it approves
the steep driveway.
331 NORTH OAKHURST: NEIGHBORHOOD DEFINITION
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022
NEIGHBORHOOD DEFINITION:

Block between Third & Alden
Affirmed by City Council
January 10, 2017
331 NORTH OAKHURST: CODE COMPLIANT vs. GENERAL PLAN
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022

CODE COMPLIANT
Vs.

THE GENERAL PLAN
“As I pointed out previously one
of the key findings for a DPR is
consistency with the general
plan. Now if you look close to the
general plan, you'll see there's
nothing in it that says or in any
way suggests that people should
ordinarily be allowed to build
whatever the zoning code
permits. To the contrary, the
general plan says over and over
that new development must be
contextural with the
neighborhood.”
- Craig Corman
331 NORTH OAKHURST: OTHER ISSUES
Steve Mayer – February 10, 2022

OTHER ISSUES
* Roof Top Noise
* Shade / Shadow
& Heat Island Effect
* Driveway
* Parking / Parking Permits
* Utilities & Easement
* Liability
* Construction Mitigations

Attachment 10
Architectural Plans
GABBAY ARCHITECTS 331 OAKHURST DRIVE 9150 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 145, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 TELEPHONE (310) 553-8866 VICINITY MAP INDEX SHEET CONSULTANTS FAX (310) 860-1516 PROJECT SUMMARY 331 OAKHURST DR., BEVERLY HILLS, CA. 90210
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
-
DATE: 11.15.2021 TS

No. C-31604
CYNTHIA A . DE LEON

C I V I L
EXP. 12-31-2020
GABBAY ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A0.1
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A1.1
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A2.1
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A2.2
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A2.3
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A2.4
GABBAY ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A3.1
GABBAY ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A3.2
GABBAY ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A3.3
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A4.1
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A4.2
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A4.3
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A4.4
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A5.1
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A6.1
1 3
2 4
1 GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A7.1
1 3
1 1
2 2
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A7.2
GABBAY
ARCHITECTS 9150 WILSHIRE BL. STE. 145 BEVERLY HILLS CA. 90212 TEL. 310/553-8866 FAX.310/860-1516 A8.1