AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: March 7, 2023
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Timothea Tway, AICP, Director of Community Development Cindy Gordon, AICP, Principal Planner
Subject: CONSIDERATION OF A CONTINUANCE REQUEST RELATED TO THE APPEAL HEARING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 18, 2023 TO
CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AUGUST 26, 2021
DECISION DENYING A HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT TO ALLOW
WAIVERS OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE BEVERLY HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 NORTH
BEDFORD DRIVE
Attachments: 1. Property Owner Appeal Hearing Continuance Request
2. Appeal Petition
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1952
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider whether to grant a continuance request related to the appeal hearing scheduled to consider the Planning Commission’s decision denying a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) for the property at 910 North Bedford Drive.
INTRODUCTION
On August 26, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from the BHMC for the property located at 910 North Bedford Drive pursuant to a request from the property owner (Attachment 1). The waivers and deviations were requested in order to facilitate an addition to the existing single-family residence, which is generally identified as the Anthony-Kerry House and is a designated local historic landmark. Specifically, the resolution denied waivers or deviations from the following BHMC sections:
E-1
Meeting Date: March 7, 2023
10-3-2404 (front yard setback)
10-3-2405 (rear yard setback)
10-3-2407 (street side yard setback)
10-3-2408 (permissible encroachments within a required front yard setback) 10-3-2420 (maximum allowable height for walls, fences, and hedges) 10-3-2422 (required paving buffer).
On September 8, 2021, the property owner (26 LLC) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, seeking City Council approval for a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from the BHMC (Attachment 2). On October 26, 2021, the City Council set the appeal hearing for the first Council meeting in April 2022, which would have been April 12, 2022, in order to provide the property owner time in which to consider redesigning the project in such a way that waivers or deviations from the BHMC would not be required.
Thus far, the City Council has granted two owner-requested continuances of the appeal hearing in order to provide additional time to redesign the project as described above (i.e., one that would not require waivers or deviations from the BHMC). Each continuance was for a period of approximately six months, resulting in a total continuation period of approximately 12 months.
With the most recent continuance request, which was considered by the Council in September 2022, the Council continued the appeal hearing to the first meeting in April 2023.
DISCUSSION
The property owner has submitted a third request to continue the appeal hearing an additional six months as they have formally applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for consideration of a by-right project (i.e., one that would not require a Historic Incentive Permit), which is scheduled to be heard by the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) at their meeting on April 12, 2023. If the Certificate of Appropriateness is granted by the CHC, the property owner could then submit the plans to the City’s Development Services Program for building permit plan review.
If the Council chooses to grant the continuance request, staff recommends that the appeal hearing be rescheduled for the first meeting in October 2023. If the Council does not grant the continuance request, staff will provide public notice in accordance with City requirements for the appeal hearing that is currently scheduled for April 18, 2023, and will bring forward a comprehensive staff report for that meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City, as this agenda item only intends to schedule a hearing date for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Timothea Tway, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
Property Owner Appeal Hearing
Continuance Request
Mail - Cindy Gordon - Outlook
910 Bedford Hearing
Daniel Negari
Thu 2/2/2023 9:12 AM
To: Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hi Cindy
Hope all is well with you. Per our conversations, we have submitted our new fully code compliant, 100% by right addition to the city and are working with staff to be at the April CHC meeting. It has been a challenge getting to this point, as we have significantly scaled back our program and made concessions to be 100% by right and remove any err of controversy. Doing so has come with several unforeseen delays as we changed our architect, and the required reports and historic consultants and others have had to coordinate and re-do all their reports to the new program which has led everyone to the conclusion that our submission meets the secretary of interior's standards and does not require any deviations from the codes.
I am hopeful we will obtain our approval at the CHC level in April, and the pending appeal we have will not need to be heard and I am requesting a 6 month extension on our appeal, so we may move forward in peace and be done with this grueling 8 year home addition entitlement process.
Thank you
Daniel
Attachment 2
Appeal Petition
2021SEP8PH5
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION
APPEAL TO City Council
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK
COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL
9/8/2021
Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Planning Comission (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on Aiig 7R 9091 , ; which decision consisted of:
The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State aU grounds for appeal. Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper if necessary.) See attached.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
Ryan Gohlich, George Chavez
(Department Head(s) Involved)
on Aug - Sept 2021
Date
It is requested that written notice of the time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:
26 LLC
Name
910 N Bedford Dr Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Address ^
Signature of appealing party
910 N Bedford Dr Beverly Hills. CA 90210
Address
310 962 3559
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid J ..(X)
LOG NO.
(For City Clerk's use)
Written Notice mailed to appellant:
DATE RECEIVED
Copies to; City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, R-f 6 ^ ^ ^ 6lltZ-Pt)iO Involved Department
26 LLC
910 N Bedford Dr, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
September 8, 2021
VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL
City Council
c/o City Clerks Office
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Determination on the Historic Incentive Pennit Application for the Anthony-Kerry House
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
In accordance with the appeals procedure authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code ("Code"), 26 LLC (the "Owner"), hereby appeals the City Planning Commission's ("Commission") decision rendered on August 26, 2021. This improper decision consisted of the denial of the Owners Historic Incentive Permit ("HIP") application for certain waivers and deviations from development standards that are available to historic landmarks in the Cit>' of Beverly Hills ("City"). The deviations that were sought were part of the Owner's proposed restoration of and addition to the AnthonyKerry House ("Project"). The grounds submitted for this appeal are set forth below. Additional bases of error may be provided at a later date and the Owner reserves all rights to do so.
The Planning Commission's actions in denying the HIP for the Project constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that it failed to proceed in the manner required by law and failed to support its decisions by substantial evidence. The Planning Commission's final determination and resolution denying the HIP contain numerous flaws, makes unsubstantiated assumptions and lacks insufficient evidence to support its conclusions regarding the HIP and the Project. Some of these deficiencies are noted in the paragraphs that follow.
1. The Commission's determination relied largely on certain factual findings in the report of the City's historic consultant. Jan Ostashay of Oslashay & Associates Consulting - in particular her factual findings that lead to her conclusion that the Project only partially complied with some of Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings ("SOl Standards"). As explained in the Owner's historical consultant's report, which was previously provided to the Commission and which is incorporated herein by reference, the Project is sufficiently consistent with the SOl Standards.
Further, even if the Project did not fully comply with the SOl Standards, it nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property. Certain of these problematic factual findings are described below.
The Commission erred in relying on and/or making a determination in line with the City's historical consultant's conclusion that the walls and fences, particularly the steel stanchion security fence, would obscure much of the currently visible landscape features that define the openness of the project site. This is objectively and verifiably false and should not have been relied upon by the Commission.
3. The Commission erred in relying on and/or making a determination in line with the City's consultant's conclusion that the proposed walls and fences, along with certain landscape materials, would visually and physically enclose the property and obscure views to landscape features that are currently visible and thus the spatial relationship of the Anthony-Kerry House and the project site is altered. This is either entirely false or true to only an immaterial extent given the current layout of the Anthony-Kerry House. Specifically, the Anthony-Kerry House is already surrounded by walls and mature landscaping that visually and physically enclose the property to effectively the same extent as the proposed addition. Further, even if the addition is not added, additional mature landscaping that the Owner is required to add to the property will nevertheless will visually and physically enclose the property and obscure views of the house.
4. The Commission erred in relying on and/or making a determination in line with the City's consultant's conclusion that the two-story basement would be a considerable physical and costly undertaking and could also adversely impact the mature trees on site, the AnthonyKerry House itself, the reconstructed clinker brick wall, and the overall site characteristics.
The fact that the two-story basement would be a considerable physical and costly undertaking should not have been a relevant consideration. Moreover, the Owner's consultants, including its arborist, made it clear that the two-story basement would not materially adversely impact the mature trees on site given the mitigation measures that would be taken.
5. The Commission erred in relying on and/or making a determination in line with the misleading assertion that the Anthony-Kerry House maintains some visibility from Benedict Canyon Drive when viewed from the south. While "some" visibility exists currently, this is not a material amount of visibility such that any alteration in visibility resulting from the Project would materially lower the amount of visibility the house receives from Benedict Canyon Drive when viewed from the south. Although the addition would be visible from Benedict Canyon Drive, the overall visibility of the Anthony-Kerry House would not be materially lowered by the addition. Currently, there is a large wall that almost entirely obscures the view of the Anthony-Kerry House and additional mature landscaping that the Owner is required to add to the property will nevertheless visually and physically enclose the property and obscure views of the house.
The Commission erred in relying on and/or making a determination in line with the City's consultant's and the Staff Report's assertion that the steel stanchion security fence along North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive may visually and physically enclose the propert>' and obscure views to the expansive landscape area that is currently visible, and may alter the general openness of the streetscape that currently exists. As was made clear by the plans provided by the Owner's architects, the security fence only minimally obscures visibility of the Anthony-Kerry House. Further, safety and security considerations outweigh any minimal obscuring of the visibility of the Anthony-Kerry House.
7. The Commission erred concluding that the existing residence would no longer be functionally necessaiy. This is an incorrect and baseless speculative and subjective assertion with no basis in objective reality. For example, the Owner intends to have a large family that would necessitate all of the living space in both the existing house and the addition.
8. The Commission erred in basing its determination, in party, on the misleading fact that the size of the proposed addition is significantly larger than the existing Anthony-Kerry House.
While literally true, the addition is designed in such a way that the Anthony-Kerry House would remain, by far, the most prominent portion of the completed residence with the addition included. Thus, this fact should not have been relied on to reach the conclusion that the addition would be the prominent visual element.
9. The Commission erred in concluding that Project is inconsistent with many General Plan policies, specifically Land Use Policies LU 6.1 (Neighborhood Identity) and LU 6.2 (Housing Character and Design). The justifications given by the Commission for this conclusion bore such little connection to the actual policies that were cited and were so incoherent that they don't warrant rebutting here.
in addition to the deficiencies noted above, the denial of the HIP by the Planning Commission amounts to a violation of the Owner's procedural and substantive due process rights. Among other violations, the involvement of former Planning Commission Vice Chair Lori Green Gordon in advocating and lobbying against the HIP and the Project - both while and after she was a member of the Planning Commission — created improper bias against the Owner, the HIP and the Project. This was because of her personal embroilment and embroilment imputed on other members of the Planning Commission.
Evidence of this embroilment and other improper involvement will be provided before and during the appeals hearing on this matter. The Owner also believes that this bias extends to Lori Green Gordon's involvement with certain improper and targeted code enforcement violations issued against the Appellant in 2018, which have thwarted the Project's various entitlement efforts ever since. In the event of litigation arising from this matter, extensive discovery will nearly certainly reveal the extent of the improper bias, undue influence and conflicts of interest that impacted the Commissions determination.
The Commission's actions amount to an improper application of the City's HIP law, process and procedure as described in the Code. The Commission's determination neither aligned with the "letter of the law" nor the "spirit of the law." It amounts to such an inconsistent application of the HIP law as to amount to a violation of the owner's due process rights. Further, the Commissions actions are riddled with bias and discrimination based on age, race, gender, family size, ethnicity and religious beliefs.
As noted above, additional bases of error may be provided at a later date and the Owner reserves all rights to do so. This letter is without prejudice to any of the Owner's rights, powers, privileges, remedies, and defenses, now existing or hereafter arising, all of which are hereby expressly reserved Sincerely,
26 LLC
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Cashiering Govolution MID
455 N. REXFGRD DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
33345578-0001 Francisco 09/08/2021 05:04PM
CASH RECEIPTS
2022 Item: 3970
1 .00 @ 5,958.00 5,958.00
Subtotal
Total
CHECK
Check Number1491
Change due
Paid by: 25LLC
5,958.00
Thank you for your payment.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS COPY
DUPLICATE RECEIPT
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1952
RESOLUTION NO. 1952
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS DENYING A HISTORIC
INCENTIVE PERMIT TO ALLOW WAIVERS OR
DEVIATIONS FROM BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
(BHMC) §10-3-2404 (FRONT YARD SETBACK), §10-3-2405
(REAR YARD SETBACK), §10-3-2407 (STREET SIDE YARD
SETBACK), §10-3-2408 (PERMISSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS
WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK), §10-3-2420
(MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR WALLS, FENCES,
AND HEDGES), AND §10-3-2422 (REQUIRED PAVING
BUFFER) ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 NORTH
BEDFORD DRIVE (PL1900251)
The Planning Commission of the city of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:
Section 1. Murray D. Fischer, representative of 26 LLC (the “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Historic Incentive Permit to allow waivers or deviations from Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-2404 (front yard setback), §10-3-2405 (rear yard setback), §10-3-2407 (street side yard setback), §10-3-2408 (permissible encroachments within a required front yard setback), §10-3-2420 (maximum allowable height for walls, fences, and hedges), and §10-3-2422 (required paving buffer) on the property located at 910 North Bedford Drive (the “Project”).
Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3252, waivers or deviations from any development standards may be permitted through the issuance of a Historic Incentive Permit. Such permits are available to properties that are designated as a local historic landmark in the City of Beverly Hills and require approval by the Planning Commission.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 2 Section 2. The Project consists of the restoration of the Anthony-Kerry House and a two-story addition with a two-story subterranean basement. An existing two-story detached accessory structure located to the rear of the property, adjacent to the street side and rear property lines, would be maintained and rehabilitated as part of the overall project. Based on a site area of approximately 33,971 square feet, the maximum allowable floor area for the site is 15,088 square feet, excluding basement areas. The Anthony-Kerry House and two-story accessory structure have a combined floor area of 5,267 square feet. The addition would include 7,977 square feet of abovegrade floor area, resulting in a site wide floor area of 13,244 square feet. The Anthony-Kerry House has a basement floor area of 2,200 square feet and the proposed basement addition would include 21,506 square feet of floor area, resulting in a basement floor area of 23,706 square feet.
Cumulatively, the project would result in 36,950 square feet of floor area.
The addition is designed in a contemporary style to provide contrast from the Craftsman style of the Anthony-Kerry House. The proposed addition features a curved wall at the northwest corner and a stepped wall design along Benedict Canyon Drive. The portion of the addition located above grade would be connected to the Anthony-Kerry House at two points on the northern elevation via glass enclosed corridors on the first floor. The height of the addition, as measured from average natural grade, would be approximately 21’-7” and would sit lower than the existing Anthony-Kerry House, which would be maintained at a height of approximately 24’- 3”. The location of the addition would be within the surrounds of the clinker brick wall, which would be reconstructed in its existing location.
Along North Bedford Drive, the addition would provide a 58’-1” setback above grade and a 5’-0” setback below grade; a 50’-0” setback is otherwise required. Along Benedict Canyon Drive, the addition would provide a 15’-0” setback above grade and a 10’-0” setback DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 3 below grade; a 40’-0” setback is otherwise required. Along the alley (rear property line), the addition would provide a 37’-6” setback above grade and a 30’-6” setback below grade; a 58’-0” setback is otherwise required. A stairwell is proposed within the required front yard setback, near the northern corner of the Project site, in order to provide egress from the subterranean basement in this location.
Additionally, the Project includes three different types of walls and fences located within the front yard, street side yard, and rear setbacks:
Transparent glass security fence: This fence is proposed to be 6’-0” in height and located directly in front of the Anthony-Kerry House within the required front yard setback. While it complies with the City’s open-to-view requirements, it is located in an area where the maximum allowable height for a wall or fence is 3’-0”.
Steel stanchion security fence: This fence is proposed to be between 5’-6” and 6’-0” in height and would begin at the northernmost vehicle gate adjacent to North Bedford Drive and would terminate at the clinker brick wall adjacent to Benedict Canyon Drive; it is located in both the required front yard setback and required street side yard setback. While it complies with the City’s open-to-view requirements and height standards for the required street side yard setback, it is located in an area within the required front yard setback where the maximum allowable height for a wall or fence is 3’-0”.
Clinker brick wall: The clinker brick wall is a character defining feature on the property and would be reconstructed in its existing location, within the DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 4 required front, street side, and rear yard setbacks, and the brick configuration would largely match the existing with the exception of two new openings adjacent to a courtyard feature. The fence would be reconstructed to its existing height, which is between 6’-0” and 9’-6”. The wall does not comply with the City’s open-to-view standards or the wall height standards for the front, street side, and rear setbacks.
The Project includes front yard paving comprised of a circular driveway and pedestrian walkway, accessed from North Bedford Drive and directly in front of the AnthonyKerry House, and amphitheater-style seating located in the northern portion of the Project site.
The landscaping would also include a number of trees that are required to be planted as part of the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued as a result of the removal of several large, character defining trees on the property. The required replacement trees include three Deodar Cedars and one each of the following species: Rustyleaf Fig, Maidenhair, Southern Magnolia, Aleppo Pine, Carolina Cherry, Coast Live Oak (multi-trunk), and a Coast Redwood. The landscaping plan also includes the preservation of a number of trees located along the southern property line and near the existing accessory structure, as required by the Certificate of Appropriateness. Certain trees within the front and street side yards are proposed to be removed as part of the overall project; however, these trees are not considered native or heritage trees and, therefore, are not subject to the City’s tree protection requirements.
Based on the scope of work, the project would require waivers or deviations from the following BHMC development standards:
///
///
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 5 BHMC §10-3-2404: Required front yard setbacks;
BHMC §10-3-2405: Required rear yard setbacks;
BHMC §10-3-2407: Required street side yard setbacks;
BHMC §10-3-2408: Permissible encroachments within a required front yard setback;
BHMC §10-3-2420: Maximum allowable height for walls, fences, and hedges; and
BHMC §10-3-2422: Required paving buffers.
Section 3. 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 environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the Guidelines, a project that is disapproved or rejected by a public agency is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds the denial of the Project to be exempt from further environmental review.
Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on July 2, 2021, to all property owners and residential occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the property, extended to the block-face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on July 2, 2021. On July 22, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the applications at a duly noticed public meeting. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting, and at the conclusion of deliberation, the Planning Commission, by a 4-1 a vote (Vice Chair Hudnut DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 6 dissenting), directed staff to prepare a resolution memorializing denial of the Project because the Planning Commission could not make all of the required findings, as described in Sections 5 and 6 of this resolution.
Section 5. In reviewing the request for a Historic Incentive Permit, the Planning Commission considered the following criteria:
1. The proposed Project either:
a. Complies with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings"; or
b. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings", but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property; and
2. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape;
3. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties; DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 7 4. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on neighbors' access to light and air;
5. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on neighbors' privacy;
6. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the city; and
7. The proposed Development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare.
Section 6. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows regarding the Historic Incentive Permit:
1. The Project does not demonstrate strict or substantial compliance with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings" (SOI Standards) and, as designed, does not protect and preserve the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property. The Project is largely, if not entirely, unrelated to the preservation and rehabilitation of the Anthony-Kerry House, which will be addressed separately through the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Specifically, the size, scale, proportion, and massing of the Project diminish the Anthony-Kerry House and reduce the historic landmark to a secondary resource on the Project site, thereby minimizing its importance.
The Project does not maintain a significant relationship to the existing Anthony-Kerry House and the existing residence would no longer be functionally necessary. The walls DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 8 and fences proposed along the perimeter of the Project site would visually and physically obscure the publicly visible landscape features, which are a character defining feature of the Project site.
2. The Project is proposed in the northern portion of the Project site, within the surrounds of the existing location of the clinker brick wall, and would have visibility from both North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive. When viewed from Benedict Canyon Drive, the addition would be the prominent visual element and would obscure much of the Anthony-Kerry House that is currently visible from that vantage point.
Additionally, the size of the proposed addition is significantly larger than the existing Anthony-Kerry House. Above grade, the addition would result in a floor area increase of approximately one hundred fifty percent (150%). Cumulatively, including the basement areas, the addition would occupy approximately 80% of the total floor area. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks are inconsistent with other properties in the area, particularly the above grade setback along Benedict Canyon Drive, which would require a setback reduction of approximately 25’. Other properties in the area generally provide setbacks that are approximately 40’-60’ along Benedict Canyon Drive. The construction of the steel stanchion security fence along North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive would significantly reduce the openness of the property when compared to existing conditions as viewed from both streets. This fence would visually and physically enclose the property and obscure views to the expansive landscape area that is currently visible, and would alter the general openness of the streetscape that currently exists. Therefore, the Project would have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, and character of the streetscape. ///
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 9 3. As described in Paragraph 2 of this section, the Project will have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing as viewed by neighboring properties due to the size of the proposed addition in comparison to the Anthony-Kerry House, the reduced setback along Benedict Canyon Drive, and the fact that the addition would be the prominent visual element along Benedict Canyon Drive and would obscure much of the Anthony-Kerry House that is visible from that vantage point.
4. The Planning Commission did not consider the Project’s impact on neighbors’ access to light and air due to the other criteria for which it was unable to make the findings, as described in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this Section.
5. The Planning Commission did not consider the Project’s impact on neighbors’ privacy due to the other criteria for which they were unable to make the findings, as described in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this Section.
6. The Project site is generally characterized by an expansive, open landscape area on the northern portion of the property near the intersection of North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive. The Project includes site wide landscaping that consists of large trees and a variety of other planting materials. As required by the Certificate of Appropriateness issued in response to the removal of character defining trees, the landscape plan includes three Deodar Cedars and one each of the following species: Rustyleaf Fig, Maidenhair, Southern Magnolia, Aleppo Pine, Carolina Cherry, Coast Live Oak (multitrunk), and a Coast Redwood. However, as described in Paragraph 1 of this section, the walls and fences proposed along the perimeter of the Project site would visually and physically obscure the publicly visible landscape features. Specifically, these elements alter the spatial relationship between the Anthony-Kerry House and the expansive, open DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 10 landscape that is characteristic of the local landmark as the walls and fences enclose the Project site and significantly minimize the garden quality of both North Bedford Drive and Benedict Canyon Drive. Furthermore, the steel and glass materials that are proposed are not materials that enhance the garden quality. Therefore, the Project would have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the City.
7. The Project is inconsistent with many General Plan policies, specifically Land Use Policies LU 6.1 (Neighborhood Identity) and LU 6.2 (Housing Character and Design). Land Use Policy LU 6.1 seeks to “maintain the characteristics that distinguish the City’s single-family neighborhoods from one another in such terms as topography, lot size, housing scale and form, and public streetscapes.” Land Use Policy LU 6.2 requires 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.” As described in Paragraph 1 of this section, the Project does not demonstrate strict compliance with the SOI Standards and, as designed, does not protect and preserve the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property. Additionally, as described in Paragraphs 2 and 6 of this section, the Project is out of scale with other properties in the vicinity; encloses an existing open, expansive landscape area that is characteristic of the site; and would have substantial adverse impacts on the scale, character, and massing of the streetscape as well as the garden quality of the city. Therefore, the Project will have a substantial adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 11 Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary findings to approve the Project, and hereby denies the requested Historic Incentive Permit.
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: August 26, 2021
Andrew Licht
Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:
Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
David M. Snow Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Assistant City Attorney Director of Community Development DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531
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. 1952 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on August 26, 2021, 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0ABB89F7-70FC-4CC7-992B-0BFDD52C2531 Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 0ABB89F770FC4CC7992B0BFDD52C2531 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: PC Reso 1952 - 910 N Bedford Denial.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 12 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
10/13/2021 1:54:02 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: 10/13/2021 1:56:00 PM
Viewed: 10/13/2021 3:05:52 PM
Signed: 10/13/2021 3:07:26 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
David Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 70.187.141.216
Sent: 10/13/2021 3:07:28 PM
Viewed: 10/15/2021 4:55:14 AM
Signed: 10/15/2021 4:55:31 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Ryan Gohlich
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 10/15/2021 4:55:33 AM
Viewed: 10/15/2021 8:31:41 AM
Signed: 10/15/2021 8:32:00 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: 10/15/2021 8:32:02 AM
Viewed: 10/15/2021 10:06:57 AM
Signed: 10/15/2021 10:07:44 AM
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 10/13/2021 1:56:00 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 10/15/2021 10:06:57 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 10/15/2021 10:07:44 AM Completed Security Checked 10/15/2021 10:07:44 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps