AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 6, 2024
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Cindy Gordon, AICP, Principal Planner
Philip Coronel, Associate Planner
Subject: TO SET A HEARING DATE FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 26, 2024, DECISION APPROVING A TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF THREE
HERITAGE TREES LOCATED WITHIN FRONT SETBACK AREAS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1001 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE
Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2062
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
• Schedule a public hearing for September 10, 2024 for the Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) to allow the removal of three heritage trees located within front setback areas for the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive.
DISCUSSION
On June 26, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution (Attachment 2) approving a TRP for the removal of three heritage trees located within the front setbacks at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (the “project site”). The property consists of a double frontage along North Roxbury Drive and Whittier Drive, as well as a street side yard along Lexington Road. The project site contains 44 trees. Thirty of those trees are located within the front setbacks and Meeting Date: August 6, 2024
street side setbacks (i.e., tree protection areas), and have a circumference of greater than 48”, which would classify these trees as protected trees. Of the 30 protected trees, three protected heritage trees are proposed for removal.
On July 9, 2024, Ellis Raskin of Hanson Bridgett LLP, on behalf of Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision, requesting that the City Council review the proposed Tree Removal Permit request (Attachment 1). Specifically, the appeal alleges the Planning Commission’s findings and decisions were not based on substantial evidence in the record.
On July 16, 2024, the City Council considered calling up the Planning Commission’s decision.
The City Council did not call up the Commission’s decision. Councilmembers did comment that the City Council would hold a hearing on the project due to the appeal that was filed.
PROCESS
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §1-4-105, the procedure for appeals of Planning Commission decisions to the City Council is a two-step process. The matter is first placed on the Council agenda for review of the evidence presented in the appeal petition. If the evidence and information presented in the appeal is the same as was presented to the Commission, the Council can then set a public hearing to consider the appeal. However, if the appeal petition contains new information, the Council may order that the Commission rehear the matter.
Based on the appeal received by the City, it appears that the appeal is based on information that was previously considered and presented to the Commission as part of the original project approval. Pursuant to BHMC §1-4-105, staff recommends that the Council move forward on the consideration of the appeal.
Staff recommends that the Council schedule a public hearing for September 10, 2024 to consider the appeal. Representatives of both the project applicant and the appellant have confirmed their availability on September 10, 2024. Additionally, scheduling for September 10, 2024 will allow for adequate time to meet all required BHMC public noticing requirements for the appeal hearing. Per BHMC §10-3-257, the appeal is required to be noticed using the same procedures as the original entitlements being appealed, which includes the required 20-day notification period.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City, as this agenda item only schedules a hearing date for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Community Development Director
Approved by
ATTACHMENT 1
APPEAL PETITION (PL2300506)
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 CLEARLYIN BLACK INK July 9, 2024
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 the Beverly Hills Planning Commission (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on June 26, 2024 which decision consisted of:
Approval of Tree Removal Permit No. PL2300506 (for the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive) and California Environmental Quality Act exemption (Class 4 Exemption) The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State all groundsfor appeal. Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper ifnecessary.) See attached letter
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
Cindy Gordon, on behalf of Masa Alkire on July 8, 2024 (Department Head(s) Involved) It is requested that written notice ofthe time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to: 777 5. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 :11:Raskin,HansonBridgettLLP Representative for Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC Signature of appealing party Address: 777 5. Figueroa Street, St. 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Address
Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC
401 North Maple Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Ph: (415) 995-5835; Fax: (415) 995-3456 Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid
(For City Clerk’s use) DATE RECEIVED
REV HILLS CITY CLERK
LOG NO.
Written Notice mailed to appellant: 2024 JUL 9 P333
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Involved Department
HansonBridgett PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL (415) 995-5835
DIRECT FAX (415) 995-3456E-MAIL [email protected] July 9, 2024
Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development DepartmentCity of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Tree Removal Permit No. PL2300506 (1001 North Roxbury Drive)
Dear Mr. Alkire:
On behalf of Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC, we respectfully appeal the Beverly Hills Planning Commission’s June 26, 2024 decisions, approvals, and findings concerning Tree Removal Permit No. PL2300506 (1001 North Roxbury Drive). The grounds for the appeal are set forth in this letter. Please note, however, that we reserve the right to present additional evidence and legal arguments prior to the hearing on this appeal.I. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF APPROVING THE
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
The protected trees proposed for removal are two Coastal Redwoods (botanical name Sequoia Sempervirens) with trunk circumferences of 94” and 107”, respectively, and one London PlaneSycamore (botanical name Platanus Acerfolia) with a trunk circumference of 75”. The PlanningCommission’s findings in support of the Removal Permit do not comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 10-3-2900 et seq., and the findings are not supported by evidence in the record of proceedings.
First, the removal of the protected tree will adversely affect the neighboring properties and/or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area. The City’s findings are premised on the fact that (1) the trees are located in setback areas, and (2) the trees will be replaced. The setback issue is a complete non-sequitur. The loss of the trees will result in significant adverseenvironmental effects through the loss of canopy cover, habitat, and other ecological, aesthetic,and historic benefits. Substantial evidence shows that the trees provide irreplaceableenvironmental benefits, and their removal will adversely affect neighboring properties and the surrounding community. The replacement trees will take many years to mature and will not provide equivalent environmental value.’ Accordingly, the Planning Commission prejudicially1 The Fire Department’s findings are also irrelevant. Removing any canopy cover will reduce fuel.
Accordingly, this is not a justification for making this finding.
Hanson Bridgett LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 hansonbridgett.com 20978022.1
Masa Alkire, AICP
July 9, 2024
abused its discretion when it found that there would be no adverse effects associated with the removal of these trees.
Second, the removal of the protected tree will adversely affect the garden quality of the City. As noted above, replacement trees will take many years to mature. There are only a handful of specimen trees of equivalent age and quality in the city, and the loss of the replacement trees here will have a decades-long adverse impact on the garden quality of the City.
II. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA requires public agencies to disclose and analyze adverse environmental effects of discretionary projects before approving those projects. “[I]t is the policy of the state that publicagencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) CEQA is “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Ibid.)
“The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted insuch manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972)8 CaI.3d 247, 259.)” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390.)
Fundamentally, the purpose of CEQA is to enable decisionmakers and members of the public to make meaningful and fully-informed decisions about new development and land use planning in their community. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)40 Cal.4th 412, 448-450.) As the Court of Appeal explained in Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 704-705, CEQA review procedures generally involve a “three-tiered process:”
“The first tier requires an agency to conduct a preliminary review to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed project. [Citation.] If CEQA applies, the agency must proceed to the second tier of the process by conducting an initial study of the project. [Citation.] Among the purposes of the initial study is to help ‘to inform the choice between a negative declaration and an Environmental Impact Report ‘ElR7. ‘[Citation.] If there is ‘no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment’ the agency prepares a negative declaration. (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(2).) Alternatively, if’ “the initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans ‘would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on theenvironment would occur’ and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment a mitigated negativedeclaration may be used.” ‘[Citation.] Finally, if the initial study uncovers ‘substantialevidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment’ (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(1)), the agency must proceed to the third tier of the review process and prepare a full EIR.... [Citation.]”
20978022.1
Masa Alkire, AICP
July 9, 2024
When reviewing whether a project will have adverse environmental impacts, public agencies must disclose, analyze and mitigate any environmental effects on “human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(4).) In fact, CEQA mandates a finding of significant impact, and thus preparation of an EIR, when substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, shows that a project may have a significantcumulative effect, or has “effects [that] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2), (3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3), (4).) This requirement operates in conjunction with California’s environmental justice statutes, which require CEQA to be applied in a manner that fairly andequitably considers potential disparate impacts on the basis of age, disability, or other protected characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 11135, subd. (a); Id. at § 65040.12, subd. (e).)CEQA and the Guidelines also require a CEQA analyses to disclose and evaluate a project’s cumulative impacts and lead agencies may not, ipso jure, equate individually minor effects withcumulatively minor effects. Rather, CEQA mandates “a finding that a project may have ‘a significant effect on the environment’ “where the “possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b), emphasis added; Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).) “[C]umulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2).) Cumulative impacts may compound or increase other environmental impacts, and a CEQA analysis must inquire into and discuss the incremental impacts of a project when added to closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future development projects taking place over a period of time. (Guidelines, § 15130, 15355, 15358; see North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 682; Kings County Farm Bureau v.
City of Hanford (1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) Even when a combined cumulative impact associated with a project’s incremental effect and the effects of other related projects is notsignificant, the analysis still must “briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail.” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(2).) “A Lead Agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.” (Ibid.)
Here, the City prejudicially abused its discretion by approving a Class 4 Exemption for the Removal Permit. Substantial Evidence in the record of proceedings shows that the removal of these protected trees will have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts. Amongother things, witnesses have observed that the trees have been used as wildlife habitat; the trees provide unique aesthetic benefits; and the trees mitigate the heat island effect in a manner that less-mature trees cannot achieve. Coupled with other tree removals in the City, the loss ofthese trees and others is cumulatively significant.
Accordingly, the City prejudicially abused its discretion by approving a Class 4 Exemption forthe Removal Permit. 20978022.1
Masa Alkire, AICP
JuIy9, 2024
III. FAILURE TO PROVIDE LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICE
Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC is informed that surrounding property owners failed to receive legallyrequired notices and they were unable to fully participate in Planning Commission proceedings due to the lack of notice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that the Planning Commission’s decision to grant a Removal Permit should be reversed.Very truly yours, Ellis F. RaskinPartner
20978022.1
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2062
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2062
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE THREE HERITAGE
TREES WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1001 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE (PL2300506).
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:
Section 1. Jason Somers, on behalf of the property owner, Groverbury LLC (collectively, the “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Tree Removal Permit to remove three (3) heritage trees located in the front setbacks (along North Roxbury Drive and Whittier Drive) of the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (the “Project”). The removal of the three heritage trees does not meet the standards necessary for a ministerial Tree Removal Permit to be issued pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-2901.B, and therefore requires the Tree Removal Permit to be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2902.
Section 2. The Project consists of the removal of three (3) heritage trees located within the front setbacks of the property located along North Roxbury Drive and Whittier Drive, as well as a street side yard along Lexington Road. The Project site consists of a total of 44 trees. 30 of those trees are located within the front setbacks and street side setbacks which classify these trees as protected heritage trees. Of the 30 protected heritage trees, only three (3) protected heritage trees are proposed for removal. There are 14 other trees located throughout the property outside of the front and street side setbacks, nine of which are also being proposed for removal but not subject to this request due to their location on the property (i.e., outside of the tree protection area). There Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD 2 are a total of nine non-protected trees to be removed and five non-protected trees to remain. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2900, a heritage tree is defined as any tree not listed on the City’s official list of native trees and with a primary trunk circumference of forty-eight inches (48”) or more, measured at a height of four feet six inches (4’-6”) above natural grade. The trees proposed for removal are protected trees are two Coastal Redwood (Sequoia Sempervirens) trees with trunk circumferences of 94” and 107”, respectively, and one London Plane Sycamore (Platanus Acerfolia) with trunk circumference of 75”.
The Project site consists of a vacant lot located on the western side of the 1000 block of North Roxbury Drive in the Central Area of the city. The site is currently vacant and the construction of a new single-family residence is proposed, which is not the subject of this request.
The site is surrounded by single-family residential properties to the north, south, east, and west, which consist of primarily one and two-story single-family dwellings within the City’s R-1.X, One-Family Residential Zone. The three trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the construction of the new single-family residence and associated site improvements.
Section 3. The 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 qualifies for a Class 4 Categorical Exemption (Minor Alterations to Land) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15304 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This exemption is applicable to minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient landscaping. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds the Project exempt from further review under CEQA.
Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD 3 Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on June 6, 2024, to all property owners adjacent to the Project site whose property rights may be substantially affected by the approval of the requested permit. On June 26, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting.
Section 5. In reviewing the request for approval of a Tree Removal Permit to allow for the removal of three (3) protected heritage tree within the front setbacks of the Project site, pursuant to §§10-3-2901 and 10-3-2902 of the BHMC, the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:
1. The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; and,
2. The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the garden quality of the city.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Tree Removal Permit:
1. Since the three protected trees are located within the front setbacks of the project site, and will be replaced with three new trees and other site planting, the removal of the three protected trees will not have any significant environmental effects or otherwise harm the public health or general welfare of the surrounding area. Additionally, the protected trees are not located on any hillside or any topographically sensitive area and will therefore not significantly and adversely affect erosion and soil retention. Furthermore, Beverly Hills Fire Department recommends the removal of these protected trees to reduce the amount of trees that burn at a higher temperature and spreads faster to promote fire Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD 4 safety. Therefore, the removal of the protected trees will not adversely affect neighboring properties, general welfare, or the safety of the surrounding area.
2. Removal of the three protected trees will not have an effect on the garden quality of the city because several neighboring properties on Roxbury Drive and Whittier Drive maintain mature trees and foliage such that the removal and replacement of the protected trees with larger sized box trees as replacements will mitigate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood upon replacement. The landscape plan provided by the applicant (Attachment F) shows that protected trees will be replaced by two 48” box Quercus Virginiana “Cathedral” trees (20’-30’ in height and 20’-30’ in width at maturity), and one 60” box Magnolia Grandiflora tree (20’-30’ in height and 20’-30’ in width at maturity). The new trees will be located within the front and side setbacks, in locations that do not conflict with the proposed future improvements. Additionally, the Project site will be improved with new planting throughout the front setback consisting of a variety of other low plantings, including several shrubs and succulents. Therefore, the removal of the protected trees will not adversely affect the garden quality of the city.
Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Tree Removal Permit, subject to the following conditions:
Project Specific Conditions
1. The Applicant shall install three replacement trees in the location shown on the planting plan submitted to the Planning Commission on June 26, 2024 and such replacement trees shall be a minimum of 25 feet (25’) in height at time of installation, with a minimum tree maturity height of 70 feet (70’), and which shall be from the plant palette provided by the Applicant in the presented landscape plans.
Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD 5 2. The replacement trees shall be planted prior to the issuance of building permits for the primary residence. Permits for grading, landscaping, and similar activities may be issued as necessary in order for the landscaping to be installed as conditioned, prior to issuance of permits for the primary residence.
3. The applicant shall submit revised plans incorporating the revised landscape elevation (Sheet No. L-3.02) presented to the Planning Commission, on June 26, 2024, and the revised planting plan as required pursuant to Condition No. 1.
4. This approval is for those plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2024, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the Community Development Department. The Project shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
5. Minor amendments to the approved Project shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. A significant change to the approved Project, as determined by the Director, shall be subject to Planning Commission Review.
Standard Conditions
6. 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.
7. RECORDATION. This resolution 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 Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD 6 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 Project 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 will 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.
8. EXPIRATION. The exercise of rights granted in this resolution shall be commenced within three (3) years of adoption of such resolution unless otherwise extended in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-3-207 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
9. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in a termination of the entitlements granted herein.
10. 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. //
//
Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD 7 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: June 26, 2024
Gary B. Ross
Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:
Masa Alkire, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
David M. Snow Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant City Attorney Assistant Director/City Planner Community Development Department
Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD
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. 2062 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on June 26, 2024, 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 Milkowski, Wolfe, Demeter, Vice Chair Kaplan, Chair Ross
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
________________________________
KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Docusign Envelope ID: 24BFAFB4-D57F-4982-ABF4-83AC2E769AFD Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 24BFAFB4D57F4982ABF483AC2E769AFD Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: PC Reso 2062 - 1001 N Roxbury.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 8 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
7/8/2024 2:29:30 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Gary B. Ross
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 79.17.21.248
Sent: 7/8/2024 2:31:47 PM
Viewed: 7/11/2024 2:09:18 AM
Signed: 7/11/2024 2:09:49 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: 7/11/2024 2:09:50 AM
Viewed: 7/12/2024 12:54:51 PM
Signed: 7/12/2024 12:55:49 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Masa Alkire
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 7/12/2024 12:55:50 PM
Viewed: 7/12/2024 1:56:40 PM
Signed: 7/12/2024 1:57:27 PM
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: 7/12/2024 1:57:28 PM
Viewed: 7/12/2024 5:06:30 PM
Signed: 7/12/2024 5:07:57 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 7/8/2024 2:31:47 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 7/12/2024 5:06:30 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 7/12/2024 5:07:57 PM
Completed Security Checked 7/12/2024 5:07:57 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps