AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: October 11, 2022
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Timothea Tway, AICP, City Planner
Subject: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
APPROVING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT
ON A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 331
NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE, AND DENYING A RELATED APPEAL
Attachments: 1. Resolution
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive, finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and rejecting a related appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project.
INTRODUCTION
On February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a twostory, single-family residence on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. Subsequently, on February 23, 2022, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed seeking City Council review of the project, and all appeal fees were paid. At its formal hearing on August 23, 2022, the City Council voted to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the Planning Commission, as approved on February 10, 2022, and directed staff to prepare a resolution memorializing the Council’s findings.
DISCUSSION
The City Council held a de novo hearing on August 23, 2022 regarding the appeal for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a new single-family residence on the property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive. At that meeting, the City Council considered oral and written testimony, and, like the Planning Commission, was able to make the necessary findings in support of the Development Plan Review. The City E-3
Council directed staff to prepare a resolution memorializing the Council’s findings supporting approval of the Project and rejection of the appeal (Attachment 1).
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 City Council has found the project exempt from CEQA (Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 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.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Public notice for the August 23, 2022 City Council meeting was conducted in accordance with the City’s requirements and included a mailed notice and on-site posted notices. No additional noticing was required for the adoption of the City Council resolution conditionally approving the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City.
Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
Resolution
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 22-R-______
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY
HILLS APPROVING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A
BASEMENT ON A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 331 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE,
AND DENYING A RELATED APPEAL
The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:
Section 1. On February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan Review application, submitted by Hamid Gabbay on behalf of the property owner David Ramin, for a new single-family residence (the “Project”) at 331 North Oakhurst Drive (the “Property”).
Section 2. The Project was revised between the initial submittal and February 10, 2022 to implement Planning Commission recommendations to reduce the building height and address issues related to conformity with the City’s General Plan.
Section 3. On February 10, 2022, after conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the revised Project and adopted Resolution No. 1971 conditionally approving the Development Plan Review application to allow the construction of a two-story, single-family residence with a basement on the multi-family residential Property. The Planning Commission’s determination was based on findings that the Project complied with the City’s General Plan; would not cause any significant or adverse impacts to the surrounding residential properties as its dimensions are consistent with the immediate vicinity; did not involve a commercial use; would not result in any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -2-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards; and complied with all the applicable development standards set forth in the City Municipal Code.
Section 4. On February 23, 2022, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Steve Mayer in accordance with BHMC §1-4-101 et seq., seeking City Council review of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
Section 5. On August 23, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed appeal hearing originally scheduled for June 21, 2022, after mailing a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners and residential occupants within a 1,000’ radius (extended to the block face) of the Project site and posting a Notice of Public Hearing sign on the Property on each street frontage.
Section 6. After conducting a de novo public hearing, the City Council made the following findings to approve the Project based upon an analysis of the appeal and an independent review of the evidence contained in the record, and directed staff to prepare a resolution memorializing the City Council’s findings, approving the Project, and rejecting the appeal. The City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the Project:
1. The City Council determines that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and is not located within any specific plan areas. The two-story, single-family residence with a basement is a permissible use within a multi-family residential zone and land use designation. Further, the dimensions for the Project, including the floor area; building height; stair enclosure height; number of stories; amount of outdoor living space; the front, rear, and side setbacks; and the height of the walls/fences, comport with the allowed development standards. The Project will maintain and enhance the character, distribution, form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the residential neighborhood pursuant to Policy LU 2.1 (City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -3-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
and Corridors); Policy LU 5.1 (Neighborhood Conservation); and Policy H1 (Maintenance and Conservation). The Project will specifically maintain the character and design of the neighborhood by both providing a setback to offer privacy and allow room for landscaping to foster a quality pedestrian environment pursuant to LU 7.1 (Character and Design). In addition, the City Council determined that the matter of whether the subject property is within a historical district is not relevant as this relates to an empty lot. The applicant has provided sufficient assurances to the City Council that the developer will demonstrate a high level of excellence in site planning, architectural design, landscaping, building construction practices, and use of other amenities pursuant to Policy LU 2.4 (Architectural and Site Design). The Project will also accommodate new and renovated housing in the neighborhood in terms of parcel sizes, built form, and scale pursuant to Policy LU 5.2 (Infill and Replacement Housing).
2. The Project will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development in the area. The applicant has adhered to the development standards set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. The City Council found no evidence that the proposed single-family structure will disrupt the pattern of predominantly one to two-story multi-family buildings in the neighborhood. Specifically, a majority of the buildings on North Oakhurst Drive near the proposed location are two stories in height, aside from one fivestory building on the same street and another three-story building on a cross street. The Project, which has been amended several times to accommodate the City’s standards, will be developed on an otherwise vacant property to provide additional housing opportunities in the neighborhood. The single-family residence design remains subject to the Architectural Commission’s approval, which will include a review of the Project’s architectural style that exhibits elements of modern architecture unlike the more traditional styles of the surrounding multi-family buildings.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -4-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
3. The Project involves development of a single-family residence in a multifamily residential zone, and thus does not involve any commercial uses.
4. The Project will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards. The Applicant has proposed the construction of a two-bedroom single-family residence with a total of three parking spaces and one compact guest parking space in a subterranean garage pursuant to BHMC §§10-3- 2816-, -2817, and -2818. The subterranean parking space will be accessed via a new driveway located at the rear of the subject property. The driveway gate will be open to public view to ensure pedestrian safety. The City Council concluded that the underground location of the parking in the basement would alleviate concerns about visual clutter and noise in the area. Finally, the Project dimensions for the turning radius, slope, and slight lines must be in compliance with the applicable standards. Based on the foregoing, the City Council determined that the single-family residence will not create an uptick in traffic or any other disturbances.
5. The Project will not be detrimental to the overall public health, safety, or general welfare. The Project has been amended several times to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in the City’s Municipal Code and the General Plan as well as compatibility with the immediate vicinity in terms of height, scale, and mass.
Section 7. The City Council rejects the appeal with respect to the Development Plan Review on the following grounds:
1. First, the Appellant’s claim that the City must intervene to impose a condition of approval relating to utility easements running through the adjacent property is without merit. The City Council found that the private properties must resolve issues regarding an easement DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -5-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
as there is no basis on which to involve the City. The Appellant’s second argument regarding resident protection conditions is already addressed with conditions of approval for construction mitigations. Lastly, there is no cause to add noise-related conditions to a single-family residence as the Property will be subject to the City’s generally applicable noise standards.
2. The City Council rejected the Appellant’s claim that the irregularity in dates on applicant-prepared plans warranted a postponement of the Commission’s consideration of the Project as the plans were made available to the public in advance of the hearing, and the date was not material to the decision.
3. The City Council concluded that none of the alleged occurrences during the review of the proposed project at the February 10, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and later meetings amounted to Brown Act violations.
4. The Appellant’s claim that the February 10, 2022 Planning Commission hearing irregularities amounted to quasi-judicial hearing violations are meritless as members of the public were afforded ample time to express their concerns.
5. Appellant’s claim that the Applicant redesigned the Project without meeting the neighbors is not compelling, as the staff invited individuals from the Commission’s contact list which does not necessarily include the information of all parties who have testified as to this matter.
6. The City Council rejects any hypothetical arguments about issues that may arise in the future as the City may enforce any applicable Municipal Code provisions in such an event.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -6-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
7. There is no requirement to consider project alternatives for purposes of a Development Plan Review in the event that a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
8. The City Council has independently found that the Project has met the General Plan policies, and thus rejects Appellant’s arguments to the contrary.
9. Any discussion about harassment or abusive behavior towards neighbors is irrelevant to the present matter and will not impact a decision on the merits.
Section 8. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of 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 City’s Local CEQA Guidelines (hereafter the “Guidelines”). The City Council, in its independent judgment, finds the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class 3 Categorical Exemption in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303 because the Project consists of the construction of one single-family residence.
Section 9. Based upon the evidence contained in the record on this matter and the findings set forth herein, the City Council hereby rejects the appeal, and approves the Project consisting of a single-family residence with a basement on a multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive, subject to the following conditions of approval:
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 DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -7-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
Construction shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -8-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
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 pedestrian 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -9-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
preliminary plans, shall be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Recreation and Parks Department and the City Engineer is first obtained.
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 the 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -10-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
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 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. 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 City Council decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -11-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
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. 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.
22. 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.
23. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in a termination of the entitlements granted herein.
24. APPROVALRUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 -12-
B0785-0001\2728404v4.doc
Section 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.
Adopted:
_______________________________
LILI BOSSE
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills, California
ATTEST:
________________________________ (SEAL)
HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
________________________________ ________________________________ LAURENCE S. WIENER GEORGE CHAVEZ
City Attorney City Manager
________________________________
RYAN GOHLICH, AICP
Director of Community Development
DocuSign Envelope ID: BBAC31A1-590F-44F4-ADD7-C4E779514138 Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: BBAC31A1590F44F4ADD7C4E779514138 Status: Sent Subject: Complete with DocuSign: Resolution_Denial of Appeal - 331 North Oakhurst Drive_FINAL.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 12 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Evelin Welch
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
10/4/2022 11:52:17 AM
Holder: Evelin Welch
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Ryan Gohlich
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 10/4/2022 12:00:33 PM
Resent: 10/4/2022 1:37:29 PM
Viewed: 10/4/2022 1:38:44 PM
Signed: 10/4/2022 1:39:30 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Dave Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 70.187.141.216
Sent: 10/4/2022 1:39:32 PM
Viewed: 10/4/2022 1:50:23 PM
Signed: 10/4/2022 1:51:53 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Cindy Owens
[email protected]
Policy & Management Analyst
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 10/4/2022 1:51:56 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
George Chavez
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Lili Bosse
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Huma Ahmed
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
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
Dorina Mohan
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Adrianne Tarazon
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Flora Flowers
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 10/4/2022 12:00:33 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps