Beverly Hills City Council
September 17, 2024

I. THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPROVAL IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA The Planning Commission correctly found that the Tree Removal Permit was exempt from CEQA.

The Project qualifies for multiple categorical exemptions from CEQA. The Planning Commission found the Project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class 4 exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15304.) The Project is also exempt under the Class 2 and 3 categorical exemptions.

The City Council may make these additional determinations in denying the appeal as CEQA does not set forth any specific procedure for public agencies to follow in approving activities that are exempt. (Robinson v. City & County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, 963; see California Farm Bureau Fed’n v. California Wildlife Conserv. Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 190 [when an exemption applies to a project, it may be raised for the first time in litigation]; Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comm’n (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 [same].) A. The Project Qualifies for a Class 4 Exemption
A project qualifies for a Class 4 exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 if it “consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes.” The Guidelines list specific examples of projects which qualify for this exemption, which include “[n]ew gardening or landscaping including replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resistant landscaping.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15304(b).) The Project qualifies for a Class 4 exemption. The landscape plan involves replacement of existing conventional landscaping that has a higher fire risk, including the two front-yard conifers, and replacement with fire-resistant trees and landscaping. 1 Further, the
landscape plan would replace the grass lawn with low-water groundcover, replace non-climate adapted tree species with high water requirements with climate-adapted and California native trees, and use about one third of the water the prior landscaping is estimated to have consumed.2 Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC argues that the Planning Commission abused its discretion in approving a Class 4 categorical exemption for the Project because Class 4 exempts projects involving minor alterations to “land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes” (CEQA Guidelines § 15304 [emphasis added]), and they argue removal of mature heritage trees for the purpose of accommodating a single-family residence is not for a forestry or agricultural purpose. (Appeal, p. 3.) However, the Class 4 categorical exemption makes clear that it does not apply to “healthy, mature, scenic trees.” In other words, removal of trees that are mature and healthy, but not scenic, qualifies for the categorical exemption from CEQA. Evidence demonstrates that the trees are not “scenic” or “healthy.”
1 See landscape plan provided as Exhibit 1 to our letter dated September 3, 2024. 2 Ibid.

September 11, 2024

One of the three protected trees proposed for removal is not visible from the street, and the other two trees in the front yard are part of a large stand of like-sized trees and a passerby would be hard-pressed to differentiate the two from the surrounding trees being retained.3 Moreover, a report addressing current health and conditions of the three trees proposed for removal found that the current density of mono-cultured trees on the property has caused them to compete “for resources, soil space, and water availability,” resulting in “very poor soil conditions [which] has encouraged these trees to develop superficial root systems.”4 The canopies of the trees also shows “congested lateral limbs” with extensive dead wood in the canopies due to “shading out and decades of competition.”5 As a result, these trees have “reduced vigor” due to a combination of “growing conditions, species, and effects of drought stress and overcrowding.”6 Thus, these are not “scenic” or “healthy” trees, and the Class 4 exemption is applicable.

City precedent also supports use of a Class 4 categorical exemption. In May 2023, the Planning Commission approved a Tree Removal Permit for a project at 507 Foothill Road to remove two protected heritage trees as part of overall site improvements associated with future construction of a new single-family home.7 Consistent with staff’s recommendation, the Planning Commission determined that the action was eligible for a Class 4 categorical exemption from CEQA.

B. The Project Also Qualifies for Class 2 and 3 Categorical Exemptions The Project also qualifies for two other categorical exemptions – Class 2 and Class 3.

Although these categorical exemptions were not included in the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, the City Council as the final decisionmaker may find that these exemptions apply to the Project. (Robinson v. City & County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, 963.)
A project qualifies for a Class 2 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 if it consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure to be replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, including “[r]eplacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, 3 Id. pp. 4-6.
4 See p. 3 of Heritage Conditions Tree Report provided as Exhibit 2 to our letter dated September 3, 2024.
5 Id., pp. 3-4.
6 Id., p. 3.
7 See May 11, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting, Agenda Item No. 3, available here:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/9198?view_id=57&meta_id=563252&redirect=true; see also staff report for Agenda Item No. 3 for May 11, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting, available here:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=9198&meta_id=56325

3. September 11, 2024

purpose, and capacity.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15302(b).) The size of the project is irrelevant to this categorical exemption, and there is no requirement that the new structure be located on the same footprint as the prior structure; the “same site” requirement is met if the new structure is located on the same overall project site. (Dehne v. County of Santa Clara (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 827, 837.) The Project consists of construction of a new single-family home on a site where a single-family home previously was located and was demolished. This qualifies as replacement of the single-family home under this categorical exemption.

A project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) if it consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. (CEQA Guidelines § 15303.) Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, and in urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15303; see Robinson v. City & County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, 956 [“Courts have approved the application of Class 3 exemptions to projects such as the construction of a 2,700 square-foot single-family home in a residential neighborhood…”].) As the Project is the construction of a single-family dwelling, it meets the qualifications of the Class 3 categorical exemption and is exempt from CEQA.

C. No Exceptions to the Use of a Categorical Exemption Apply When a project is eligible for a categorical exemption under CEQA, it must be approved unless one or more of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies. None of these exceptions apply, and Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC does not even attempt to argue that they do. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105 [Once an agency determines that a project falls within a categorical exemption, the burden shifts to the objecting party to produce evidence that one of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions applies].)

1. No Cumulative Impacts
To the extent Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC argues that the cumulative impacts exception to application of a categorical exemption applies under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, this argument is meritless. This exception prohibits use of a categorical exemption when “the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b).) To the extent Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC argues that this exception applies because, as they allege, the Project would have cumulative impacts through “the continued loss of mature canopy cover in the City” (Appeal, p. 5), as discussed in Section I.D below, this argument is meritless. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC presents no evidence of cumulative projects with significant environmental impacts. Moreover, as discussed below, the Project would not result in any environmental impacts under CEQA, so there is no argument that it could result in cumulative impacts. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 799 [“Just as zero added to any other sum results in no September 11, 2024

change to the final amount, so, too, when no environmental impacts cognizable under CEQA are added to the alleged environmental impacts of past projects, there is no cumulative increased impact.”].)

2. No Significant Effect on Environment Due to Unusual Circumstances To the extent Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC argues the unusual circumstances exception to the application of a categorical exemption applies, this argument is meritless. CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) states that “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” To demonstrate that the unusual circumstances exception applies, there must be “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) This “unusual circumstances” exception to a categorical exemption applies only when the circumstances of a project differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and those circumstances create an environmental risk inconsistent with the exemption. (Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley (199) 75 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1260.) Thus, the exception involves two inquiries: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances, which is evaluated under the substantial evidence standard; and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result due to those circumstances, which is evaluated under the fair argument standard. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 869; Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943, 953; CEQA Guidelines § 15384.) A project must be unusual compared to other projects in the exempt class, and “[c]ourts may look to conditions in the immediate vicinity of a proposed project to determine whether a circumstance is unusual. This includes whether the project is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses.” (Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 961, 963 (citations omitted).) Here, the property is zoned for single family use, and the Project – a singlefamily home – is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses, which are other singlefamily homes. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC also does not express a fair argument that there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental effect will result from the project’s location and design. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 869; Hines v. California Coastal Com. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, 857 [finding appellants failed to point to any evidence in the record that construction of single-family residence within 50 feet of riparian habitat would have any significant adverse effect on the environment].) Thus, Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC cannot satisfy the requisite burden of proof, and the argument fails.

D. The Project Would Not Result in Significant Environmental Impacts Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC argues that the Project will have “direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts” due to alleged loss of wildlife habitat, aesthetic benefits, and heat island mitigation effects, and therefore requires environmental review. (Appeal, p. 5.) This is incorrect. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC cites to no evidence that the removal of three trees would September 11, 2024

have significant environmental impacts requiring environmental review under CEQA. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at 799.) Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC claims that witnesses have “observed that the trees have been used as wildlife habitat,” and that the trees provide “unique aesthetic benefit,” “mitigate the heat island effect,” and play a role in carbon sequestration, and that replacement of the trees would not “immediately mitigate the loss of habitat.” (Appeal, p. 5.)
As explained above, the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Nevertheless, Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC does not present any evidence in the record to support its claims that removal of these three heritage trees would have a significant impact under CEQA on protected wildlife habitat, and there is none.

Regarding aesthetic impact, the property is flat, and the removed trees are at a substantial distance from all neighbors. As shown in the landscape plans submitted as Exhibit 1 to our September 3 letter, one of the three trees proposed for removal is not visible from the street, and the other two trees in the front yard are part of a large stand of like-sized trees and a passerby would be hard-pressed to differentiate the two from the surrounding trees being retained.8 Moreover, there will be 63 total trees on the property once the landscaping plan is completed, with 37 total trees in the front yard alone (15 existing and 22 new). Together with the seven mature street trees, there will be 44 total trees between the street and the front of the house.

Further, the three removed trees will be replaced with trees that will be at least 25 feet when planted and will reach a minimum tree maturity height of 70 feet, growing at a rate of approximately two to three feet per year.9
Regarding supposed “heat island” impacts from removal of trees, as discussed above, most of the existing trees on the property will remain, with a final total of 63 trees at the Bakers’ home – 37 in the front yard alone. This is more than exists currently at the property.

Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC also argues the Project “makes a cumulatively considerable contribution to the continued loss of mature canopy cover in the City” referencing the City’s plan to replace certain street trees on Robertson Boulevard. (Appeal, p. 5.) While the Project is exempt from this level of environmental review, as discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the three protected heritage trees provide habitat for special status species or that their replacement and the planting of 31 new climate adapted trees will impact biological resources in any way. Compliance with the law will ensure that no harm to protected bird species would occur. Moreover, as discussed above, the Project would replace the three protected heritage trees and would involve planting more trees on the property than currently exist. 8 See supra note 1, pp. 4-6.
9 Id., pp. 7-8, 10; for information on growth rate per year, see: https://selectree.calpoly.edu/treedetail/1107 (showing growth rate of Western Sycamore (aka Platanus racemosa) as 36 in per year); https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/1265 (showing growth rate of Southern Live Oak (aka Quercus virginiana) as 24-36 in per year); https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/845 (showing growth rate of Southern Magnolia (aka Magnolia grandiflora) as 24 in per year).

September 11, 2024

Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s attempt to equate the removal of three trees on the densely planted property to the proposed removal of 84 street trees on Robertson Boulevard fails. There, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City of Beverly Hills from continuing its program to remove a total of 84 Ficus street trees that were 60 to 100- years old with “enormous canopies” located along Robertson Boulevard comprising a “vast area of urban tree canopy” and replace them with Crape Myrtle and Mexican Fan Palm trees that were “not comparable to the current healthy mature Ficus trees,” including having no carbon capture benefit. (Robertson Blvd Special Task Force v. City of Beverly Hills, No. 23STCP00989, p. 1, 21 (July 27, 2023, Decision on Application for preliminary injunction).) The City was removing these trees as part of a program to even out its sidewalks. (Id., p. 6 [“The Project presupposes that the City must remove the trees because they are causing the uneven sidewalks.”].) The court found that Petitioners had demonstrated a reasonable probability of success that a Class 1 categorical exemption for existing facilities did not apply to removal of the Ficus trees because evidence demonstrated potential for impacts to aesthetics, shading from reduced urban canopy, and noise, in part because the replacement trees would not provide the same amount of canopy as the Ficus trees. (Id., p. 21.)
Here, the Bakers propose to remove three protected heritage trees on their private property that will be replaced with trees of comparable size that are climate-adapted. In addition to replacing these three protected heritage trees, one of which is not even visible from public rights-of-way, the Bakers will also plant a total of 31 new trees for 63 total trees on the property.

And unlike the 60- to 100-year-old Ficus trees, these three protected heritage trees were planted in the 1990s.10 This is not similar to the City’s proposal to remove 84 trees from a commercial area that provide shading along Robertson Boulevard.

II. CONCLUSION
On behalf of the Bakers, we appreciate this opportunity to respond to the CEQA issues in Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s appeal and respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal in full and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Tree Removal Permit.
10 See historic aerial photos of property, provided as Exhibit 4 to our letter dated September 3, 2024.

ATTACHMENT 3

DRAFT CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION
 






 
!"#$$"#$%"
&'%#$(!%!))'*!
+'!)+!,#+'!"#
#!*$!(,#"&!$-
!!"#))%$!(!.//.#
0&%('!((%*!!(!))!

12$345$67893:6;412$3456;&2<2=:5#3::>12=?5;38@>A=2>6:<2>B8@@242=C382>B> ;6::6D>E
294368.
FB>686C2=>6;$=2>42B:>4B42A68?21B:;6;*=6<2=?7=5$A G96::2943<2:5412H!II:39B84JK1B>>7?C3442@B8BII:39B4368;6=B=222C6<B:)2=C3446=2C6<2 41=22GLK12=34BM24=22>:69B42@D34138;=684>24?B9N>GB:68M6=416O?7=5(=3<2B8@,134432= (=3<2=2>I2943<2:5K6;412I=6I2=45:69B42@B4.//.6=416O?7=5(=3<2G412H)=6P294JK 12
=2C6<B:6;41241=22GLK12=34BM24=22>@62>864C224412>4B8@B=@>8292>>B=5;6=BC383>42=3B:=22 2C6<B:)2=C3446?23>>72@I7=>7B8446&2<2=:513::>+78393IB:$6@2G&#+$KQ./L R/.
&A
B8@412=2;6=2=2S73=2>412=222C6<B:)2=C3446?2M=B842@38412;3=>438>4B892?5412):B8838M $6CC3>>368I7=>7B8446&#+$Q./L
R/

(293>368>6;412):B8838M$6CC3>>3689B8?2
BII2B:2@46412$345$67893:

294368

12)=6P294968>3>4>6;412=2C6<B:6;41=22GLK12=34BM24=22>:69B42@D34138 412;=684>24?B9N>6;412I=6I2=45:69B42@B:68M6=416O?7=5(=3<2B8@,134432=(=3<2AD1391 B=2?641968>3@2=;=684:64:382>?29B7>26;41241=67M1:64.968;3M7=B43686;412I=6I2=45 12
)=6P294>34297==284:59684B38>B464B:6;

4=22>
13=45GL/K6;416>24=22>B=2:69B42@D34138412
;=684>24?B9N>B:68M6=416O?7=5(=3<2B8@,134432=(=3<2AB8@412>4=224>3@2>24?B9NB:68M  .)2=&2<2=:5#3::>+78393IB:$6@2294368./L.//AH1=67M164JC2B8>H!>342B=2B1B<38M;=684BM2684D6 G
K>4=224>A?74864B44123842=>2943686;416>2>4=224> J
TUVWXYZ[\[]^_U`^aTbcdcefghijTfkhjldTgjgfc\jmgTnddi\geTk 


 


 ! !"
##$% #&#
#'&!
 &
&#()$ *+'&!
 &

&#
"% &,*-'&!
 &
&#
&'&'#
$&&./
"(0 &
&12 &&#
"!

 &3 3 '&'&%3#
$ $&

#&#
#4
!5#
$ ! 
&
"#
4'&'#
$&&./
"
43 ! 
&#346! #&73#
3 &"!
3#

$ $&

#&#
#4
!5# '&'&%(0 &
&

"$8'&!
&#
4&./


$/8'&!
&#&.
(93&#3
:;<=>1+8*8?@++

 &

&#
$

#
%&"#
 =%A#$$!
""#$
/&#

 
'&.
&%
&35!&!3.$&!$$&%8 ! #,2BC-&.& .
#3&


  $$3&$#! #
,2A8DC-
4/
3&
"&

(0 '&!
&#'&'#
$&&./
"!##$=
#
"


,E73
E.'&/&#-&# &35!&!3.$&!#$@2C

1+FC
&#'!/"%




9"
E%!
.&,9"

3#G!&$"
- &35!&!3.$&!$FHC(
0 9&6!##"!

 #&#
$ 1+++4"!5$I& 43&%J&/
 =&
"G&
$ !%(0 ##!3&&"%/
!


 !#&3!$
#"8
$
."%&#
!#'&'#

 ! # #346!$ #&73#(0 ###3&&3 
4%
#"8$
."%&#

"'&'&# &
#3

#


#
 ! !##$


8#&%#"8$
."%
""#  =%A#81(K
)8L
."%#

"M(0 
 &&#
&'&'#
4&./

!!..

 !#&3!$ #"8$
."%
&#
!


##!

#.'&/.#(
E!*()N3?D
?+?2
 9"
=..## "


3"%!
'34"!

&
$& ! 

'
#"3I(?+D?
!

""%
''&/ 0&./
"
9&.&./ &,*- &
&#  $&#4
!5
&
#(0 9"

=..##A#
&.

#4
#
$
#
 &./
"$ '&!
&#""
OPQRSTUVWVXYZP[Y\O]^_^`abcdeOafceg_Obeba^WehbOi__dWb`Of 



 




 !
"# !$#$
#

!%#
#

&#& !'


(##

$#



% #




!)&
#



*
+

#,*-.&/0121,0
($$#

3 !4#((  #5
 #
% "6 78 #9#: !

;;30#"
#<$;=
&0;;40 


#
%

:9<4>?@,@?2?
)*08 !4
4#&
 %#

3 !
4#((  #5$$##

3#A

*
+

#B*-+$
("?C0121,0

4
4#&

&#

$$

 !0
(  !D#

#3&"
9 !
#A

$#$
#% 

#

&$
#

3#A


$#
!

D#

#3&"
9 ! !#

3#$
E#
#!



#
!F*
+

#G*H
##% !  #

$#
  

$$ #.&
/0121,"6 78 #9#: !
;;30#"
#<$;=
&0;;4*H
4

4#&
A



$#
  

$$#

#
#

"#%I
?*H
3 !4#((  #5  ! &$$#
#$$# !

H73#

&$$#
" 
*
H
3 !4#((  #%"
#(8

  !$$#

$(
"#

 
$# 0%




##
%#$#A

@$


#
#
#&


% 
"$
%

!0(
&
*3&&

#:9<4?2@J@1/210

3 !4#((  #5
 %#

H73$$

#
##%

(##

$#




!
 "#

##% !  !I
KLMNOPQRSRTUVLWUXKYZ[Z\]^_`aK]b_ac[K^a^]ZSad^Ke[[`S^\Kb 



 



 !"#$

%
"&
'

!%$()$%(
 $&(%

#

&

'
&**%"

+
%"

,


 !"#$

%
"&
'

!(
"%
-*

$'
!$'

.$%!  '  '$&%
!
"%
%'$

&$" (
$!

'&%&$$


/


&#$

%

!
%'&$%
%"&$
%$%0""$$%

'/1
'
2$

&3$4
%$#"-*&
%"!%"
#5
&

6"#"&


&*)7!


-*&
!%""


$%8'2$(3$
2 9
".$':%$%#$!  '$&
!
"3*/;%"%<

%.'!

-*$&#

%' &
&/$&


&&*

""*"'!
$
/
%"$
#$

)

!"#$
& !$&
#$

"
%"
&&#

/<

%%$%(5$&&$%
#
&
)
"$%
)
&"%&
$%"$%(&/


 !"&#$

%

"&
'

!%$()$%(  $&(%

#

&

'
&**%"$%(


<7!&$!%
$%&



==&$'
&&

!
"#$$%
%

%"&&$"&)
!>&
%"
&
 $
'*%>!$!*
%!

'?$($%!&@=ABC/

&*"

$(

*
&$D$%!&@=E?FBC
)%
*

(
"/#$!#$

!

&&$
'&
&
& !"$
(&G
HI !"$
(&/
  &"




=&
!
"*(*  '*&$"

%
%"&&$"&)
!>&/
%$%
#$!


&)$%(  &"


)*%&*)7!$&-*&)!
*&'

% !"&"*$
!
$%%  '  &"

%"&!
$%(

%&#&

H,&#$


$%%  '#$
%
""$$%

H%#&)

%"




FH
&%  '<

%%$%(5$&&$%"$&!*&&" %$

$
!&




JKLMNOPQRQSTUKVTWJXYZY[\]^_`J\a^`bZJ]`]\YR`c]JdZZ_R][Ja 








 

!
 "
#

$
%
#"$
&
'( "
(
""
%)
 



$%


$!"
'
#

'*
+

,#

$-.




(
 
/
0 

#






-
(

#
""
(1
23 "

""
"" "

"




(
 "
$
"%

4"
$.




567-6869
 "

""%


#6:#

$

#
""



 
'
$
#;8#-(

""%#
 " " 
)

%'3 "


 "
  "*
2< "
""% " 





#%
"
$ 
#

 
'

*
<.
'.


"#
-%
)
(
#""
#)

(






#
 
)"

%'4"
$.



-1
2<
)"
# 

(
"
)"'##

$%

$



$"("#
#'
#
=
2<
)"
# 

(
"
)"'##
$!"
'
#


'*
6*<.
'#
"


 "'(
."
#

>)

"?"
'3

@.>?3A*
< "" 
)
$"
#



 "




#.>?3

 "



.
'%




%' 
)
$."9.$


">B 


@C

3"


DA#
4
/
*
EFGHIJKLMLNOPFQORESTUTVWXYZ[EW\Y[]UEX[XWTM[^XE_UUZMXVE\ 

 

 





 

!" 
 #$


%&#$
&'($
"&)
*
$+&,$,

($,$- .()
.
&&

/&


012)!
3&$4567%!
#)
*
$+&8!$
$9)- -$



%
'($"&)
,$,

($,$- .()
.
&&

-$
$:-$


;$:
#
&))
)
$
/<=>) 4?.@7@%
./6/A!$
$.$B,
.
($
#
="A$-
012)!
3&$4567%.B&

&-&'($-
&,

&)!!B
&$$-'($C
8="ADB#
!#$
!
&#.EFGHIJEFKLMNONPHQGNRNFLSTNUEVLEFK
GSFWNFLESFQHHQFJVGQPEFKXELMXQLNONTTEGENFLSOTEONONVEVLQFLHQFJVGQPEFKYZ 
$$
!*
$+&&)!

($,$-$[$!$*
!B$
$

\!B$$!

/
-$)!
"$

\$
.[$!$*


$B
)!$

$)

-$
,
$(
&$(
!$,
&
/[$!$*

,#

B

9)
(
!&$


$($
)
$
  /])$(!B

," !
$$#!!
$)#
.
($
!--&)-$
[$!$*

$!$

,
$(&)
#!&
/[$!$*

$$
!-$

($,

$
!(!$"-
/
"$


$

$

B$
$
\!B$$!

,
#
-(("
$

!
$
&$((!!^,
 _
`
#a
_b
!
3,
 c$=`_a_3cA" ^,
 _
a
]
(/3&
$
\!B$$!



&$
!
!$"
$-*-( .^_a]
&$((!

($,$-
$

\!B$$!
!)$#
")
(
)
$-


!$

" $--



!
($#
&$
$&#!/
a)

.


($,$-
$&!

B,!
&.!
&.
!&)(), 
#-&(&
/
&)!

$
#

(
defghijklkmnoepnqdrstsuvwxyzdv{xz|tdwzwvslz}wd~ttylwud{ 







!
 

"!
#!#$

% 

"&"

'$%
! ()

#
!$$'
(
 
#*(
"  
'


'
+
",#!
   (

#+-.#

$ 
!
 
'"("#

#-)$'
/
0 . (

#
$ ,
'! 
"
$


#
$12,
'! 

'#
#-##
 "#
! '(,
'


(.
!##



)$'
! '
(,
'


('
" 

$ (
) 
) (




!!'
!

$3
4'.'##$"  
'!
")
!!

$


 15  ,'
#!#$


!
'$0"  )

3
4'
##

(
 
'" #-6
.,
,

###



-
#
!
(,
'0

( 

. (

#
! ,#
'(
$  ##
 "#
-
! '(,
' )
!
#!#$

.
'.

#
!$$'
7 (

#
$ ,
'! ##
 "#
'"("#

(,
'

3 4',
,

 
18 ,
, -
!!

$15 

,#
!$



#
$91 

#,
, -7 

#

,
,
!'
)

  :''
!)
#
!'
,,#
.8; 
,
,
! &" !
$

! !
'<$"  ",,
)$
'
 (

#
$ ,
'!
 ##



'"("#

(,
':!!

##-.+-
$$'
!"'!

'
$
!' 

-7 =(

#3 (5222$
$"4',
, -
!$
"!
#-

7 =(

#3 ('

,,

!$
5281=
6" -> 
7
- &"

#
!

#-$
 #
'

.
 (

#.
$$
"  
)
#
 
$
-
!
'<


0"  (
.#

$ ,
'! ##

##

)$'
(,
'
?@ABCDEFGFHIJ@KIL?MNONPQRSTU?QVSUWO?RURQNGUXR?YOOTGRP?V 






 !"#$%%&$'

&&()*$+++,$-
.&$
/



0+
1
233++
+&4&-$&
)&5+*$'6$2$$3+%

%&
$-5'
&%5
5+*
3%&($+&78'12$$$3+%

3$&9%
33$&:
+1"
+8($&
;<<;=&$4&:-5$>$*
'+&%'+&

%&

$%+
?&
'3$&3$
$
'&(16%&
;" <<1@-A&(BCDE5'+

:
3&
++
&33+8
%5
5+*
3%&(5%%*3$&9%&(

3

3+%&*$


(%
1F
%2$4
&*+0$
'&

&&%%5$

3+%4&-$&
)&5+*$'6$2$$3+%


3$&9%
&%%5$&
&33&'&(%
'$+&%'
'(($
?&


'$%1
6(($*8%&
%+5'$'&
&33$&-%5
5+*%&
'&
8++
'G5+($G5'2$4
&*+0$
($&
5&(+!
&$%+B:
3&
1
12(+'&3$&*'+
++$G5$'
&%

1
233++
$*-

(&$
'5$$&5
'

3$&3$&8
$(+'
&$%*+
++7$G5$'
&%
'8$5
-+&(5++3$%3
0+




&

&
3$&%'

'5&+%H&(
&%1
2)I/
&%

$G5$

(&$240$G5$=&%&(05-+%I$


'
&-
+'&'9%
3$&3$&8
$8&3$&3$$

-5-
++((%'-
33$&*+&($G5'3$
12)I/$G5$

'(($($&
$'57-'

&%

$G5$

(&$&$'%$&
$3$
$*8'-1D%%&$'

+&
J5

K<!<'3$&$&0+



&

&
$


+'=&%&(05-+%
I$

&3$&3$&8
$&((&++&8

''$L;<<4&:-5$>$*;<<<4&:-5$
>$*M;N4&:-5$>$*M;4&:-5$>$*M;NO$>$*M#O$>$*MM" PQRSTUVWXWYZ[Q\Z]P^_`_abcdefPbgdfh`Pcfcb_XficPj``eXcaPg 



 



!"#$%&''('
!)**+,-./('
!
 )**0,-./('
12'3
4.&&55/46
73 
 &55/'
718 ''

/!
4&'
9' ./3 !&2'37:.
'3;
'<'<45

3 
3&
7
<

<,-./('
!=-'<,
!
 %&'' '
>?!@*@0183&!&
A'/5
'  .&&
<

/9' '3'<9' 7B,:
 -3  &9'C
&<&&D'5 '31
3'+1E3' '<&97
55

7
B,C

:C'!5

3'F)*D#D@"*@7&;GA7&

/;'

G'3'5

A H;GAI!&A'/A3'

3'  4&&'3
C
J&7

4'<7' '<'557&:K3L
)1B&C

7&53 MN4'




/
773&
'<&.'<55'&<

4
7 
7/7& '<

O
 !
@1B&C

7&53 MN4'




/
773&<

9

'/7&3'/1
3'P1873 3'<
 
5.
'3&
'<!&A'/A3'
&./C
J
&7

4'<7' '<
55

B,C

:C'!.
 5



/'7&
55



 
' 5 
'47&
' 33
' '&3 L
)1'3&&53 

3
 4'&'&7.
3J7&
:K3'!
 4'

.5

3 4'&&4
 &'5

'<!&C


7&&53 4'

&


/'<'7'3

'C

773&4'
&
C&5.
'3&

&<

4
7 7& '<

18 ''

/!&
53 

3
 
/&'

' 
/5<
5&'3

/''



 4'


&7'<'7'3

/
 


/
773'
 '
'1Q&C!


/;'

Q'(5
C3CC &C

7&53  3
RSTUVWXYZY[\]S^\_R`abacdefghRdifhjbRehedaZhkeRlbbgZecRi 









 !

"
!
"

!


#$%
&'
(
!)"
*((
"'
(#

)  
!!
& 
(*(

&

#

" 

$
+$,'
(
!)"
*((
'


)
"
-
(#
)#)


'
(  !!
,.#/'
"0
/'




"
(

)
'
(
"!(
)

!)"
*(
 
1".


!(
)
*((
!
)

"  "!!(
)$%!(
)






(
 .
1
"
#*!(
"

*((

"'
!
)
 "
"
"-
(#
)#$%*
*((
()
"*

"
"

)2
&()


")
()*
!!
"
!'
$3""
((#&45)
*((!'"**
!(
  


)2)

 

'
#
(*!(

&
)(" 
'
(


"
))(
$%
&'
(
!)"
*((

"'
(#

)
"-
(#
)#$
6)7$%
45)

'*"!

89:3&6
89:3
;"(
<8
(

8"
, (

&%(=>&6)
=?@@@
-$A
"8#B
()
(
89:3 "(
$C!'*
""
)

6)+

'!&


('


45)-
(



8(

>8
 
(9.!<D3(

E
"A
))"
)
*-

6)=?F@>


89:3;"(
$%
.!


!!()
(!()!'

(

)"
(
"&*
&
"G' 
&
)(" !(
)
.
 )'
((
"
)
! **


)(
"
)
! $
HIJKLMNOPOQRSITRUHVWXWYZ[\]^HZ_\^`XH[^[ZWP^a[HbXX]P[YH_ 







 
!"#!$
"%" &'
(
)
!*+,)$$

!%
-!
."

%*(
)"
'

))%%
/
))
%" 
"
"0
1
""

)


" ) 2
"&'
"(
)
!*+,)$$

!*+,3$" %"4
"56778

""%%)'
2

$9
:
;""
"<"!"#/.
%)%
%
$ ".
"

%%
))%"

2%
.
%)%
)%"
"
<%%
<"
))%"

2%=". ".
"
.$%
"04)
""

%%#
&'
"
"<".
%)%
%
$)%"
".
 "." ".
".2 
" "#
<%%
))

)%"
".
 ".


.
%


)".0
)%


%


)".<"%%
"2$$
"
2% ".2#
""
"=".$
2
2
> 

.("".%


)".
"
%$ 
#

.">%>
)%
".
)))"
%#"= )%




)%
("". >%)



"
"".2 " "#2#)%
".

'"#<<""?$" 

" 2

@0
:2;"""!"#A>%#B"%%
"
"%
">

""=C
:
;""
"

>
%$
. 

 )
".">

"
2 >%) 


"
" 

".%D

"%#" 
"
2$"%D$".2 
 

C
: ;
))>
%)'
<"%%$%"
#".""


%
".
"
"

"?$
%"#<
?$
%"#2

$""$%"

%#
)
)%



)>"$%#
("".".%D

"%#" 
<"
<" 

<"%%
><$2
"
%%#
EFGHIJKLMLNOPFQORESTUTVWXYZ[EW\Y[]UEX[XWTM[^XE_UUZMXVE\ 
 






 !"
# !"$%
&"

'(



'#((%


'
)
'
*+(

' !"
,'&"!! ' !

'% &!
,

,'
&"
((%


'$
!

(



'

!-$!"
'
.
/ (
(

0%!
'&
,'
(1!

20$%




(
0%



!0$%


13456 '!

7

89:;;.<%%!".
7

8;.=
' %

(,'



'
(
'

(
$
'(

'



((
(1"1

!(&"%%
,
( 
'>?$
,!@$

!!
#($
,!
(*:+(
#(
(


&A
8;;8B
(?
0& "
C,
&D
(
!!
#


'


%%
,!
''

(%%!E
@
D-7%1

'



8.>(5%%!

(!!

!!(%!$


(!



(
#



(%!

%!

&$'
(1"1

!

7%$&8F<;<2
'
(
%!$


(!!&$
$ $
<9*<9G+
(($


!!

#(
$
$ $$ "((
F;*F;G+
'#((
(!!&
$(%!
%!
%
,''&"(5%%!

(%

'!
'
%%!

.
<.>(%!$


(!!&%!
'%

(



& !'

%$

(%$"
'
.@$

'
!
'
%

'
$!,

$"&

'



"

'
(!
'
%

&

!!'


'

'%






%$

(%$"
'
.
:.>(
%%
,!

(

%!

,#'&"(1"1

!

7%$&
8F<;<2
%"
#((
(!!&$

'
(!

(1
$$
"C,!
%$

HIJKLMNOPOQRSITRUHVWXWYZ[\]^HZ_\^`XH[^[ZWP^a[HbXX]P[YH_ 
 







 !"
##$!"%"&%
"'!
#"()!"
&%""!%*%+
%
"!+%%"*,#
- .%+"
,+
 !"
##$"'$ !,#$/

%!/*0'%/,#1"%2%*%!!
2
,+
 !(
"+%+$/
%!("
##$"'$ !
#%20%""%,%&
3++0+%%"
4560751
879

%""#'%,%2
%"
5,#
%
"
##$!**!%,'%#
&*

 !"%!+"!,(
"%"*!/%*+!
0%/1/(!!%2
!+%%"*,#
"*
%
%""#'%

!,"
##%!#'+!/*
%""#'%"
)
%$%

1#%!"
##+#%,
)!'+!,
*
0'%/,#&%
%:;<+/"*
0%/0'!%#+!%"%1
%


1#%!+#%,"
!,
0%/(
1#%!"
###",%+
0%/
&%
##*"!""/!+
+!'&%

0'/5!+8*
1#%!
*%#"+#%,
)!'+!,&%
%
='%+:;<+/"(
%""#'%
,%2
5,#
%"
##$'##+,%++**'
**!
9&%
"+%2
*2%2(
%!*0'%/,#/('
&%='"$/
1#%!("'$%+%
)%%*
:;<>+/%+(
2&%&%,*
:;<>+/%#%%*%+*
:;<+/"
%*(
%*
='"(
%!+%"


,$"'$"%#
!
2"/*+#("#!##&
&%##**!

 !52+#""*

%#%""*
%
%"!+%%(%,"
##$'%#+%2%$%""'+%

!+%*
!,
?@ABCDEFGFHIJ@KIL?MNONPQRSTU?QVSUWO?RURQNGUXR?YOOTGRP?V 
 







 !"#$
%&'()
*%+!,
%-(&+-
#.&/%.
+0*(#11
!"#$++(#$$2*! .*/3%&(%.&(
4567#
+#,&
&(/#&!,#11
!"#$!,&(%+

+!$0&%!.8#+1
!"%//,!
%.9:;<=>?@5@A?B80.$++!&(
3%+)&.//
BC
D


E<

F

G'"%!$#&%!.!,#.7!,&(+*!./%&%!.+!,
#11
!"#$ #7
+0$&%..,!
* .&#*&%!.27&(<%&70.&%$+0*("%!$#&%!.%+#2#&/! &(
.&%&$ .&-
#.&/(
%.%+
"!H/10
+0#.&&!G*&%!.>?@5@AIJ!,&(9:;<8!
%&+
+0**++!

-0$#&%!.$$*!+&+%.*0

/27&(<%&7#+#
+0$&!,#2#& .&!,#"%!$#&%!.
!.&(1
!1
&7+(#$$2
% 20
+/27&(1#
&7%.2
#*(!,&(%+
+!$0&%!.
J
CDK
GL:D
F(+*!./%&%!.++(#$$

0.3%&(&($#./
#./+(#$$
#%.%.,0$$,!
*,!
&(/0
#&%!.!,&($%,!,&(
!M*&
N
F;
E<


E:<O./ .%&78F0&7&!F,./#./

2$%-#&%!.&!#7P0/- .&+#./F,.+<!+&+8.*$0/%.-&&! .7+QE+8.*0

/27
&(<%&7(11$%*#.&+(#$$/,./8%./ .%,78#./(!$/(# $++&(<%&78%&+$*&/
!,,%*%#$+8!,,%*
+8 1$!7+8"!$0.&
+8#-.&+8#./&(!+<%&7#-.&++
"%.-#+
%./1./.&*!.&
#*&!
+%.&(
!$!,<%&7!,,%*%#$+4*!$$*&%"$7R./ .%&+S6,
! #./
#-#%.+&#.7*$#% +8/# #-+8#*&%!.+8*#0++!,#*&%!.+8$#3+0%&+8+0%&+81 !*/%.-+8$!+++8
M0/- .&+8*!+&+8#./)1.++4%.*$0/%.-83%&(!0&$% %&#&%!.8#&&! .7+Q,+!
*!0
&
*!+&+6%.#.7 #..
#
%+%.-!0&!,!
%.*%/.&&!&(<%&7<!0.*%$Q+#*&%!.+8&(%+#11
!"#$
#./&(<%&7<!0.*%$Q+#*&%!.+8
$#&/.&%&$ .&+8!
&(<%&7Q+."%
!. .&#$
"%3
&(
!,(11$%*#.&+(#$$1#7#./+#&%+,7#.7M0/- .&8#3# /!
/*
&(#& #72

./
/#-#%.+&<%&7!
&(!&(
./ .%&+%.#.7+0*(+0%&8#*&%!.8!
!&(
$-#$
1 !*/%.-(<%&7+(#$$1
! 1&$7.!&%,7&(11$%*#.&!,#.7*$#% 8#*&%!.8!

1 !*/%.-#./&(<%&7+(#$$
#+!.#2$7*!!1
#&%.&(/,.+,&(<%&7,#%$+&!
TUVWXYZ[\[]^_U`^aTbcdcefghijTfkhjldTgjgfc\jmgTnddi\geTk 








!"#
$



 

"



!"!#!%"# ! %
&

'!%
() &
  *

+




,"


() $



 %,
&
#!


'!%
#"!+-
!


,!
"
%




.
"
+
!%
 
*!!(/
+


!
 

,!
0,
$




!%"'!%
"

%+"%
++
.",%
!,

"
'!%
('

*
,
+

"!
++
&
1!
%
 

,
"


*#
&
 
%

-
"

+
() 
$



 !

!%,
.

&
#

!

"
&
#


+%
.

&


,
-


%!,(

23456789:9;<=3><?2@ABACDEFGH2DIFHJB2EHEDA:HKE2LBBG:EC2I 
 








!"#
$ !%
$&'%
#!# ($&#
$ $(#

#!# ($&
!!%$)!&
*"%+# (#%

( %
#



,&'&-

   ./
0+12+3/45,6
5$!%

%*7! 8 #9

$ %!$

,

/
-

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

8;5,,85/4


!"

</,.=
,>>+0?/4,
020+5-

,>>+0?/4,
0
06 /6
-
.,;+/6
/@3/6/+

,!
6,6
A8;6
B
022/A

5$$C!
  
DEFGHIJKLKMNOEPNQDRSTSUVWXYZDV[XZ\TDWZWVSLZ]WD^TTYLWUD[ Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: ABA5F836DF234BD88FAE98D7BB6E85D2 Status: Sent Subject: Complete with Docusign: 24.09.17 FS 1001Roxbury_AppealReso_FINAL.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 16 Signatures: 1 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
9/11/2024 4:24:25 PM
Holder: Evelin Welch
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Dave Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 47.176.8.47
Sent: 9/11/2024 4:49:54 PM
Resent: 9/11/2024 5:12:06 PM
Resent: 9/11/2024 5:16:34 PM
Viewed: 9/11/2024 5:18:16 PM
Signed: 9/11/2024 5:18:44 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: 9/11/2024 5:18:47 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
Nancy Hunt-Coffey
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
Lester J. Friedman
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
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
Keith Sterling
[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
Megan Grilley
[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 9/11/2024 4:49:54 PM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/11/2024 5:11:52 PM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/11/2024 5:11:52 PM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/11/2024 5:11:52 PM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/11/2024 5:11:52 PM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/11/2024 5:11:52 PM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/11/2024 5:11:52 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 4
JUNE 26, 2024 PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1000 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Resolution
B. Required Findings
C. Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies
D. Arborist Report
E. Public Notice
F. Landscape Plans
Report Author and Contact Information:

Philip Coronel, Associate Planner
(310) 285-1173
[email protected]
Meeting Date: June 26, 2024
Subject: 1001 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE
Tree Removal Permit (PL2300506)
A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove three heritage trees located within front setback areas. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Project Applicant: Robert Adler, Landy Design Group
Project Representative: Jason Somers, Crest Real Estate Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Tree Removal Permit, and finding the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
The proposed project is a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove three heritage trees located within the front setbacks of the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. The property is a through lot with front setbacks along both North Roxbury Drive to the east and Whittier Drive to the west. The affected trees would be replaced with new trees and site planting as part of the overall site improvements associated with the construction of a new single-family residence (SFR).

The project does not require any other entitlements from the Planning Commission and, as such, the Commission’s authority in reviewing the proposed project is limited to the requested Tree Removal Permit. This report provides a description of the request and analyzes key project components including the type, size, and location of the trees identified for removal and the proposed replacement trees. Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff concludes that the approval of a Tree Removal Permit would not result in significant adverse impacts to the neighboring properties; the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; or the garden quality of the city, and recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve the project with conditions specified in the draft resolution (Attachment A).

Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

BACKGROUND
File Date 01/19/24
Application Complete 05/06/24
Subdivision Deadline N/A
CEQA Recommendation Class 4 Categorical Exemption (Minor Alteration to Land) CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination
Permit Streamlining 60 days from Determination of CEQA Exemption Applicant(s) Robert Adler, Landry Design Group
Owner(s) Groverbury LLC
Representative(s) Jason Somers, Crest Real Estate
Registered Legislative Advocate(s)1 Karen Mitri, Crest Real Estate Chris Rallo, Crest Real Estate
William Mungall, Landry Design Group
Murray D. Fischer, Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer
Prior Planning Commission Action N/A
Prior City Council Action N/A

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Address 1001 North Roxbury Drive
Assessor’s ID No. 4348-023-020
Zoning District R-1.X – One-Family Residential Zone (Central Area) General Plan SFR Medium Density (4DU/Acre)
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Single-Family Residential parcel Lot Area 297’5” x 272’-5” = 81,108 square feet (SF)
Year Built N/A
Historic Resource N/A
Protected Trees/Grove 30 protected heritage trees on site, three (3) to be removed.

Refer to Attachment F for tree inventory and location map. 1 Search of Legislative advocate database run on June 17, 2024, and four project representatives have been confirmed as registered legislative advocates in the City’s database.

Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North / South / West / East R-1.X – One-Family Residential Zone (Single-family residential uses)
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) North Roxbury Drive, Lexington Road, Whittier Drive Adjacent Alleys N/A
Parkways & Sidewalks 15’ from curb face to property line Nearest Intersections North Roxbury Drive/Whittier Drive and Lexington Road Circulation Element Local Streets
Neighborhood Character and Project Site
The project site is located within the R-1.X Single-Family Residential Zone on the western side of the 1000 block of North Roxbury Drive in the Central Area of the city, with Lexington Road to the south and Whittier Drive to the west. Properties along the 1000 block of North Roxbury Drive are improved with one and two-story residences with accessory structures and generally consistent front yard setbacks and lot dimensions. The site is currently vacant and the construction of a new single-family residence is proposed, which is not subject to this request. An aerial image of the project site and neighborhood is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Aerial Image of Project Site
Source: Google Earth
Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the removal of three heritage trees, located within the front setback of the project site. This parcel 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 consists of a total of 44 trees. Thirty of those trees are located within the front setbacks and street side setbacks (i.e., tree protection areas), which classify these trees as protected heritage trees. Of the 30 protected heritage trees, 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 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 are a total of nine non-protected trees to be removed and five non-protected trees to remain.

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 Plane Sycamore (botanical name Platanus Acerfolia) with a trunk circumference of 75”. The protected trees would be replaced with new trees and site planting consistent with the landscaping plan shown in Attachment F including two 48” box Quercus Virginiana ‘Cathedral’ and one 60” box Magnolia Grandiflora. The existing site would undergo overall improvements associated with the construction of a new single-family residence as shown in Figure 2. New sitewide landscaping that consists of trees, shrubs, and other plantings is proposed with the construction of the new single-family residence. The proposed single family residence does not require any other entitlements to be granted by the Planning Commission and, as such, the Commission’s authority in reviewing the project is limited to the requested Tree Removal Permit.

Figure 2. Project Site Plan
Source: Christine London Ltd.

Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

TABLE 2. PROTECTED TREES
Tree Number Tree Species Native Height Circumference
14 Coastal Redwood
Sequoia Sempervirens No 70’+ 94”
15 Coastal Redwood
Sequoia Sempervirens No 70’+ 107”
34 London Plane Sycamore
Platanus Acerfolia No 70’+ 75”
Figure 3. Protected Tree at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (Tree No. 14 – North Roxbury Drive Frontage)
Source: Tree Inspection Report
Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

Figure 4. Protected Tree at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (Tree No. 15 – North Roxbury Drive Frontage)
Source: Tree Inspection Report
Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

Figure 5. Protected Tree at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (Tree No. 34 – Whittier Drive Frontage) Source: Tree Inspection Report
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-2900, a heritage tree is defined as any tree not listed on the City’s official list of native trees that has a primary trunk circumference of 48” or more, measured at a height of 4’-6” above natural grade. The trees associated with this request are not listed on the City’s list of native trees. However, as the circumference of the identified trees is 48” or greater, they are considered heritage trees and are protected by the City’s tree protection ordinance. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2901, a property owner seeking to remove a protected tree from the front yard or street side yard area is required to obtain a Tree Removal permit. A Tree Removal permit may be obtained ministerially from the city if the removal meets specific criteria provided in BHMC §10-3-2901.B, provided as Attachment B to this report.

Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

Planning Commission review is required for the removal of a protected tree that does not meet the ministerial approval criteria. Based on the description of the protected trees in the arborist report, the proposed removals do not meet the criteria for a ministerial approval of a Tree Removal permit under BHMC §10-3-2901.B. According to the arborist report, all of the trees are recommended for removal to accommodate the new single-family residence and associated improvements. Therefore, Planning Commission review and approval is required to remove the three protected heritage trees. The applicant is proposing that the existing protected trees be replaced with various trees and shrubs in accordance with the attached landscaping plan, including two 48” box Quercus Virginiana “Cathedral” trees and one 60” box Magnolia Grandiflora tree. As the request does not meet the criteria for ministerial approval, the Planning Commission is the reviewing authority. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2902, the Planning Commission may approve the removal of a protected tree under any circumstance provided that the Commission makes the following findings:
• The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; and • The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the garden quality of the city.

The arborist report provided by the project applicant (Attachment D) identifies the existing Coastal Redwoods (Tree Nos. 14 & 15) and London Plane (Tree No. 34) as protected heritage trees.

According to the arborist report, Tree Nos. 14 and 15 are in fair condition. The arborist report states that Coastal Redwood trees thrive better in cooler, humid coastal environments, whereas Beverly Hills has a warmer and drier climate that the preferred range of this species. Coastal Redwood trees are also highly flammable and not recommended in the Beverly Hills Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the Beverly Hills Fire Department. Since Coastal Redwood trees are considered to be a part of the Pine family, BHFD recommends the removal of the Coastal Redwoods due to the higher burn temperature of these trees and the possibility of faster spread among the tree canopies once ignited. Additionally, BHFD recommends a 200-foot fuel modification zone around new structures which limits the types of trees and vegetation to promote fire safety. Furthermore, the applicant has stated that Tree Nos. 14 and 15 is proposed for removal because of the close proximity to the proposed single-family residence, which raises concerns for the foundation as the roots of the tree could potentially cause future damage to the foundation of the proposed single-family residence. Tree No. 34 is also deemed to be in fair health as London Plane trees experience heat stress and have high water requirements. Tree No. 34 is proposed for removal as it is in close proximity to the proposed pool deck and terrace at the rear of the property (Whittier Drive front yard area). The project site consists of a total of 44 trees. Thirty of those trees are located within the front setbacks and street side setbacks, which would 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.

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
• Tree Removal Permit: A request pursuant to BHMC §§10-3-2901 and 10-3-2902 to allow for the removal of three existing heritage trees within the front yard of the project site.

Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES1
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project included as Attachment C.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines2 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the City’s local CEQA guidelines. Upon review, the project appears to qualify 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, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project exempt from further review under the provisions of CEQA.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
TABLE 2 – PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Type of Notice Required
Period
Actual
Period
Required
Date
Actual
Date
Notice of Pending Application N/A N/A N/A N/A
Adjacent Neighbors Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notice of Public Hearing* 20 Days 20 Days 6/6/2024 6/6/2024 Newspaper Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A
Property Posting N/A N/A N/A N/A
Agenda Posting 24 Hours 7 Days 6/25/2024 6/18/2024
Website (Agenda) 24 Hours 7 Days 6/25/2024 6/18/2024
*Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-253, special noticing requirements apply to Tree Removal Permits. Notices are required to be mailed only to any adjacent property owners whose property rights may be substantially affected by the approval of the requested permit, instead of mailing notices to a specific radius.

Public Comment
As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comments regarding the removal of the protected trees.
1 Available online at beverlyhills.org/departments/communitydevelopment/longrangeplanning/generalplan/ 2 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

ANALYSIS3
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial are based upon specific findings for the discretionary application requested by the applicant. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided as Attachment B to this report, and the draft resolution (Attachment A) contains draft language for findings that may be used to guide the Planning Commission’s deliberation on the subject project.

Tree Removal Permit. Pursuant to BHMC §§10-3-2901 and 10-3-2902, the Planning Commission’s review of a Tree Removal Permit application to allow the removal of three protected heritage trees is based on the following findings:
• The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area.

Since the three protected trees are located within the front setbacks of the project site, and would be replaced with three new trees and other site planting, the removal of the three protected trees would 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 would 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 safety. Therefore, the removal of the protected trees would not adversely affect neighboring properties, general welfare, or the safety of the surrounding area. • The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the garden quality of the city.

Removal of the three protected trees would not appear to 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 would mitigate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood upon replacement. The landscape plan provided by the applicant (Attachment D) shows that protected trees would 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 would be located within the front setback and side setbacks, in locations that do not conflict with the proposed future improvements. Additionally, the project site would be improved with new planting throughout the front setbacks consisting of a variety of other low plantings, including several shrubs and succulents. Therefore, the removal of the protected trees would not adversely affect the garden quality of the city. 3 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.

Planning Commission Report
1001 North Roxbury Drive
June 26, 2024

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

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Tree Removal Permit to allow for the removal of three heritage trees within the front setback for the proposed project at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, and finding the project exempt from CEQA.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:

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

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

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

Report Reviewed By:

Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 5
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
ATTACHMENT 6

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
çBEVRLYRLY
City Clerk’s Office

PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council ofthe City ofBeverly Hills, at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 17, 2024, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N.

Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:

AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 26, 2024 DECISION

APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE THREE HERITAGE TREES LOCATED WITHIN FRONT SETBACK AREAS AT 1001 NORTHROXBURY DRIVE AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

On July 9, 2024, Ellis Raskin of Hanson Bridgett LLP, on behalf of Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC (the “Appellant”), submitted a letter appealing Planning Commission’s June 26, 2024 decision approving a Tree Removal Permit to remove three heritage trees located within front setback areasat 1001 North Roxbury Drive and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. On August 6, 2024, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for September 17, 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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. Upon review, the Planning Commission determined thatthe project qualifies for a Class 4 Categorical Exemption (Minor Alterations to Land) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15304 the state CEQA Guidelines. The City Council will consider whether or not to find the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please be advised that pre-entry metal detector screening requirements are now in place at CityHall. Members of the public are requested to plan visits accordingly. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meeting through live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings are City ofBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-l000f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org broadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms. Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed.

These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.

Public Comment Participation:
• Oral Comment/Listen only: (310) 288-2288• Email: [email protected] • Video (during public comment only): http://beverlyhills.org/comment• To Watch Video Live: http://beverlyhills.org/live or • On-Demand: http://beverlyhills.org/citycouncilmeetings• In-Person: Submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk at the meeting How to Submit Public Comment (Email/Video):

It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council/Parking Authority. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only the first three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a large number of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the CityClerk’s Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part ofthe record.

If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Public comment via video conference will be no longer than three (3) minutes per each individualcomment, subject to City Council discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting. Inperson speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk directly during the meeting.

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

In Person Participation:

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

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Philip Coronel, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at (310) 285-1173, or by email at [email protected]. Please also contact us to add your email to the interested parties list for this ordinance, so that importantupdates and notifications may be sent to you.

City ofBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t(310) 285-1000 f(310) 385-0862 BeverlyHffls.org

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

City ofBeverly Hifis 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hifis, California 90210 t(310) 285-1000 fl310) 385-0862 BeverlyHffls.org ATTACHMENT 7

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
Lori Greene Gordon
Benedict Canyon Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Beverly Hills Planning Commission
Gary Ross, Chair
Terri Kaplan, Vice Chair
Commissioner Myra Demeter, PHD
Commissioner Jeff Wolfe
Commissioner Lou Milkowski
Re: June 24, 2024 Special Meeting – Agenda Item 3 – 1001 North Roxbury Drive As a former Planning Commission Chair (2017-18) and Commissioner (2015-2021), I wish to address the issue of heritage tree removal at 1001 North Roxbury. I have lived in this neighborhood for more than 50 years and have come to consider the 1000 block of Roxbury Drive to be one of the greatest historic resources of our community. The home that existed on that lot is lost forever, however, the home was not the only thing about the property that made the neighborhood so special. The numerous trees that are scattered throughout the property provide a significant visual and ecological resource for the entire region.

I had the opportunity to review a number of tree removal permit requests while I was on your commission. Nearly every one had an arborist’s report that indicated the trees suffered from disease and therefore needed to be removed. I have never seen a report that indicates that the trees are essentially healthy, but need to be removed because they get in the way of the design of the new home.

I walk by this property daily. I have noted that the owner of the property has not been watering these trees, which is his responsibility to do. If the fire department feels the heritage pines are a fire hazard, why do they allow similar pines to exist on Lexington Road…including a relatively newly planted pine catty corner from this lot?
In a long and heated meeting a few years ago, the city council voted to allow for the certificate of ineligibility to be granted for this home, thus paving the way for its removal. Many, many people in and out of our city think that was a travesty. But this adds insult to injury as they would not allow for tree removal at that time. This applicant has taken advantage of the passage of time, and a new planning commission and city council to enable him to go back for this very big request.

I implore you to respect the integrity of this beautiful street with numerous mature trees throughout and deny the removal of these heritage trees. Additionally, it would be my hope that the applicant and his architect would respect the property they own and design a home the incorporates all the existing landscape. 48” boxes will take generations to grow into what already exists on this lot.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Lori Greene Gordon
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
1001 N Roxbury Drive Tree Removal
Lenore Greenberg < >
Wed 6/26/2024 11:28 AM
To:Philip Coronel <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Coronel,
As per our conversation, I understand that the owners of the property at 1001 N Roxbury Drive are seeking permission to remove trees within their front setback.  I also was told they have not yet applied for a building permit.  It seems prudent that the plans for their new house need to be approved by the city before allowing trees to be cut down.  These are magnificent mature trees and should be treasured.

I am not able to attend the meeting where this issue is to be addressed but as a neighbor I want to have my input known.  My husband and I have lived since 1967 at Roxbury Drive, which is two houses north of the property under discussion, and believe these trees are an important feature of the aesthetic character of the neighborhood.

Best regards,
Lenore S. Greenberg
6/26/24, 11:49 AM 1001 N Roxbury Drive Tree Removal - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank 1/1
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

P.S. IMPORTANT: 1001 North Roxbury Drive construction project Erica Clark
Fri 6/21/2024 11:11 AM
To:Philip Coronel <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Mr. Coronel,
I should have added that I would like my letter below to be read into the record of your upcoming meeting.

Many thanks,
Erica Clark
On Jun 21, 2024, at 10:35 AM, Erica Clark wrote:

Dear Mr. Coronel,
Like so many others in the vicinity of 1001 North Roxbury Drive, I am dismayed by the stated intentions of Crest Real Estate to remove the heritage trees on this very special piece of land.  It’s unfortunate enough that the developer demolished an exquisite historic house in order to erect a faux “palace” in the worst possible taste — obviously just a spec house designed for quick profit —  and it’s entirely unnecessary to remove the beautiful old trees as well.  The wording on the sign at the property — “the affected trees will be replaced with new trees” etc. — is clearly a disingenuous attempt to disguise the damage.

Thank you for taking note of this and many others’ objections as you review the project.

Respectfully,
Erica Clark
6/21/24, 2:12 PM P.S. IMPORTANT: 1001 North Roxbury Drive construction project - Philip Coronel - Outlook

CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Regarding 1001 N. Roxbury. Please read aloud.

Irene Borger
Fri 6/21/2024 12:36 PM
To:Philip Coronel <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Mr. Coronel,
Am writing to you with the hope that you will seriously consider and reject the ill-considered request to desecrate the land and kill the heritage trees on the property at 1001 North Roxbury Drive.

Old magnificent trees not only enhance and delight a neighborhood, they are masters of the carbon dioxide oxygen cycle, the basis of life on Earth. One must not discount the birds, butterflies, and beneficial insects that populate this beautifully developed, sustained micro-climate.

To imagine that planting young trees in place of the heritage trees which will take decades to grow to like size is a travesty and masquerade.

I urge you and the committee to reflect on such an action in the face of climate change. According to the US Forest Service fire has raged through more than 4 million acres of California. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates that 170 million trees have been lost between 2010-2021 and NPR reported in February 2023 that California lost another 36 million trees just in that last year.

It might seem to the untutored that the request to chop down a few trees is insignificant.

Please take the big view. Or as the old saying goes: “Think Global. Act Local.” Sincerely,
Irene Borger
Director
Herb Alpert Award in the Arts
--
Irene Borger
Director
Herb Alpert Award in the Arts
6/21/24, 2:13 PM Regarding 1001 N. Roxbury. Please read aloud. - Philip Coronel - Outlook

⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
1001 N Roxbury Drive Tree Removal
Lenore Greenberg < >
Wed 6/26/2024 11:28 AM
To:Philip Coronel <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Coronel,
As per our conversation, I understand that the owners of the property at 1001 N Roxbury Drive are seeking permission to remove trees within their front setback.  I also was told they have not yet applied for a building permit.  It seems prudent that the plans for their new house need to be approved by the city before allowing trees to be cut down.  These are magnificent mature trees and should be treasured.

I am not able to attend the meeting where this issue is to be addressed but as a neighbor I want to have my input known.  My husband and I have lived since 1967 at Roxbury Drive, which is two houses north of the property under discussion, and believe these trees are an important feature of the aesthetic character of the neighborhood.

Best regards,
Lenore S. Greenberg
6/26/24, 11:49 AM 1001 N Roxbury Drive Tree Removal - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank 1/1
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Fw: Opposition to Request for Tree Removal Permit to remove three heritage trees at 1001 North Roxbury Drive - Beverly Hills
Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
Thu 6/27/2024 8:58 AM
To:Philip Coronel <[email protected]>
From: Cutler, Dr. Neal (ML7)
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:33 PM
To: CommentPC <[email protected]>
Cc: Masa Alkire <[email protected]>;
Subject: Opposition to Request for Tree Removal Permit to remove three heritage trees at 1001 North Roxbury Drive - Beverly Hills
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important By email and fax
Dear Commissioners:

We are the homeowners of the property located at Roxbury Drive and neighbors of the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive.

We oppose the application for a Tree Removal Permit to remove three mature heritage trees from the 1001 North Roxbury Drive property.

We have only just received notice of the owner’s plan to remove the three trees.

Those trees are an important part of the aesthetics of our neighborhood: they help keep the residential flavor of the neighborhood and also buffer noise and sight lines. They help filter the air. We believe that an environmental review under CEQA is required, together with a careful assessment and a meaningful opportunity for public review, prior to the city approving the proposed tree removals.

Replanting new, young trees will not suffice to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood of removal of the three mature heritage trees.
6/27/24, 9:06 AM Fw: Opposition to Request for Tree Removal Permit to remove three heritage trees at 1001 North Roxbury Drive - Beverly Hills - Ph… about:blank 1/2
We ask you to turn down the request for the Tree Removal Permit. If you do not want to do so, we ask that you delay your vote on this request and schedule another public hearing for at least a month from today to allow for further analysis and meaningful public comment on the proposed permit.

Thank you for your consideration –
Sincerely,
Dr .Neal R. Cutler
Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, CA
6/27/24, 9:06 AM Fw: Opposition to Request for Tree Removal Permit to remove three heritage trees at 1001 North Roxbury Drive - Beverly Hills - Ph… about:blank 2/2
Date June 17, 2024
The Beverly Hills Planning Commission
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Letter in Support of the Application for a Tree Removal Permit Dear Planning Commission,
As an owner of the property located at _______________________, I hereby offer my support for the upcoming project at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive for the proposed Tree Removal Permit. I urge the Planning Commission to consider this application favorably and approve the proposed tree removal application.

The representatives from 1001 N. Roxbury have shared information of the 3 proposed heritage trees to be removed and have expressed that the project will be saving 27 additional existing trees on site. The chart of removals and site plan description are below and attached.

Thank you for considering this letter of support.

Sincerely,
Name:

Date:

⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

From: Brook Claman
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 2:45 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]>; 12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>; John Mirisch <[email protected]>; 13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>; 14-Mary Wells <[email protected]> Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important September 6, 2024
Dear Honorable Members of the Beverly Hills City Council, I have lived in Beverly Hills almost my entire life, gone through BH public schools, and have known Nikki, Eric and their lovely family for years.

What is happening here isa bit of an abuse of the system. If every time the Bakers (who have to my knowledge followed all applicable rules) need the approval of a commission, they get dragged back before the Council for appeals, call ups and extra hearings - they are being subjected to undue and exceptional scrutiny. It seems that the City is struggling to follow its own rules here, and that is simply not fair to any resident of the city. We all understand the house that was demolished was an emotional subject. But it wasn’t found to be of historic significance. The new owners were allowed to remove it and this is now an ordinary piece of property, no different from 628 North Alpine or 436 South Swall. This is private property, and on it, a residential development is built, a family home. The property is being treated as if it were a hotel or condo complex, a public park or some specially designated piece of property. It is not. It’s a lovely and large lot and on it shall be a a family home. Wasting the City Council’s resources leaves us with an empty lot (which I drive past nearly every sigle day) for years and a very unsettled feeling about the rule of law being trusted and upheld in Beverly Hills...

Please vote to help the Bakers get this done. Their investment and commitment to a beautiful green property is totally within bounds of what has always been considered appropriate for Beverly Hills.

Thank you for reading and considering. The time and effort you all put in is much appreciated.

Best regards,
Brook Claman
Alta Drive
9/5/24, 10:30 PM Re: 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank 1/1
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
1001 Roxbury
Clinton Hooks >
Mon 9/9/2024 4:49 AM
To:City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc:11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]>;12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>;John Mirisch <[email protected]>;13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>;14-Mary Wells <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Honorable Members of the Beverly Hills City Council, I grew up here and came back to live in Beverly Hills because I love this city. I support Nikki and Eric Baker. They are good people who have worked to make sure they are abiding by the city’s rules and planning to build a beautiful and tasteful family home on their private property. This appeal seems to be a waste of time and money for everyone involved and I am sure there are more important matters for the city council to its time on rather than an already-approved tree removal plan on the Bakers’ owned property.

I am sure we all know of people who have intentionally allowed trees to be damaged or die on their properties in order to avoid going through the process of getting permits and doing proper removal. So, please, don’t punish the Bakers for following the rules. That isn’t the city we want to be.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Clinton Hooks
Sierra Drive
9/10/24, 8:03 AM 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 1/1
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
1001 Roxbury. Please let me know if I can help? Thank you! Michael >
Mon 9/9/2024 11:18 AM
To:City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc:Hezi Yechiel < >;11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]>;12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>;John Mirisch <[email protected]>;13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>;14-Mary Wells <[email protected]>
1 attachments (25 KB)
Hezi Letter to mayor.pdf;
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello BH,
I have attached a letter from my client, Hezi Yechiel, along with this email.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Michael Hong
Private Assistant
blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane3 1/1
Dear Mayor Friedman, Vice-Mayor Nazarian, Council members Mirisch, Corman and Wells, When you vote on whether to uphold the appeal or uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision rendered back in June, please remember:
• There are no negative impacts to the neighborhood or garden quality of the city. • The city’s canopy will be expanded when dozens of environmentally appropriate trees are planted.
• The property will have over 50 significant trees on it when landscaped. • The air quality in the neighborhood will be improved but the additional trees.

We should be encouraging homeowners to invest in their properties as the Bakers are trying to do, rather than dragging them through a process like this. I hope this isn’t what they should expect as they finish going through the city’s process.

Best regards,
Hezi Yechiel
[Rexford Estate]
Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
1001 Roxbury
jackie winnick
Sun 9/8/2024 2:41 PM
To:City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc:12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>;John Mirisch <[email protected]>;13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>;14-Mary Wells <[email protected]>;11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
September 8, 2024
Dear City Council,
My husband and I grew up in Beverly Hills, and are raising our young family in a home around the corner from the Baker’s property.

I love trees and gardens. But in the case of 1001 Roxbury, the 3 trees this hearing is about are not native, not climate adapted, and have been deemed a fire hazard by BHFD. The Bakers spent a year moving around the design of their home in order to protect as many trees as possible, and as such they have only asked to remove 3. These 3 will be replaced by more appropriate, climate adapted trees which are mature and generous. In addition, the owners are preserving 27 of the 30 protected trees and are committed to planting 40+ additional mature trees that are sustainable and native to our area. They are adding layers to the already rich ecosystem.

What’s more, the Bakers are trying to build a home for their young family and are doing so with the utmost respect to the values, rules and aesthetics of the city. Their property will contribute more to the garden atmosphere of our city than any house on that block. Their commitment to what makes Beverly Hills so beautiful should be celebrated rather than attacked.

Best regards,
Jackie Winnick
9/10/24, 8:09 AM 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane9 1/1
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Re: 1001 Roxbury
Olivier de Givenchy >
Sun 9/8/2024 6:07 PM
To:Zoe de Givenchy < >
Cc:City Clerk <[email protected]>;11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]>;12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>;John Mirisch <[email protected]>;13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>;14-Mary Wells <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Beverly Hills City Council Members,
I am writing to add my support for Nikki and Eric Baker’s improvement project at 1001 Roxbury Drive.

They are good friends of ours and caring residents of Beverly Hills who have shared their love for their City with us.

They show a strong commitment to our community by carefully following city guidelines and thoughtfully designing a home that complements the character of our neighborhood. Their plan to plant over 30 new trees, in place of the three they wish to remove, reflects their dedication to enhancing our environment. It seems unfair that their project faces an appeal from an LLC, especially when we have been told that other properties have received tree removal permits without difficulty or made far less effort to replace what they remove. The Bakers’ approach sets a positive example of how development can benefit the entire community, balancing progress with preservation. This kind of responsible and generous planning should be encouraged, not hindered by arbitrary obstacles. I urge you to vote in favor of their plans and recognize the Bakers’ genuine efforts to contribute positively to our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Yours faithfully, Olivier de Givenchy
On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 8:39 PM Zoe de Givenchy < > wrote:

Dear Beverly Hills City Council Members,
Nikki and Eric Baker Application Support - 1001 Roxbury I know and support Nikki and Eric Baker, of 1001 Roxbury Drive, who are working respectfully within the city’s rules to build their family home. The Bakers are planning to plant more than 30 trees to replace the 3 they are asking for permission to remove and have worked with a leading architect and renowned landscape architect to design a home that beautifully reflects the style and scale of the neighborhood. It seems arbitrary that they are being halted by an appeal from an LLC when so many other homes in BH remove trees without permission, or receive removal permits without hassle, and don’t plant with the generosity of the Baker’s plan.

I kindly ask you to please vote to support Nikki and Eric Baker.

Yours faithfully,
9/10/24, 8:11 AM Re: 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane11 1/2
Zoë de Givenchy
Martin Lane
Beverly Hills CA 90210
9/10/24, 8:11 AM Re: 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane11 2/2
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Re: 1001 Roxbury
Sabina Nathanson
Mon 9/9/2024 8:38 AM
To:Megan Mumby <[email protected]>
Cc:City Clerk <[email protected]>
1 attachments (3 KB)
image001.jpg;
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important This is for the Sept 17th city council hearing for the 1001 N Roxbury meeting.

Thank you so much
On Sep 9, 2024, at 8:16 AM, Megan Mumby <[email protected]> wrote:
[EXTERNAL]
9/10/24, 8:10 AM Re: 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane10 1/4
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important ⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Good Morning,
Were you intending for this to be a non-agenda public comment for tomorrow’s City Council meeting?
Megan Mumby
Executive Assistant
City of Beverly Hills
City Clerk’s Office
Office: (310) 285-1102
<image001.jpg>
From: Sabina Nathanson
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 7:22 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]>; 12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>; John Mirisch <[email protected]>; 13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>; 14-Mary Wells <[email protected]> Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Dear Mayor Friedman, Vice-Mayor Nazarian, and Councilmembers Mirisch, Corman, and Wells,
Beverly Hills is known for its beauty, with immaculate streets, tree-lined neighborhoods, and well-maintained homes. This makes the situation with 1001 Roxbury all the more puzzling.

The Bakers, whom I have known personally for many years and who are the new property owners, are enhancing the landscape by planting more trees than currently exist and focusing on native and sustainable species. The removal of three trees, for which they have city approval, will not negatively impact the neighborhood. In my opinion, their project will ultimately add value to the street and surrounding area.

Please support the Bakers, who are outstanding members of our community. They have followed all necessary protocols and worked closely with the city. I’m asking that you uphold the Planning Commission's decision and reject the appeal.

Best regards,
9/10/24, 8:10 AM Re: 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook Sabina Nathanson
9/10/24, 8:10 AM Re: 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook ⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
1001 Roxbury
Zoe de Givenchy
Sun 9/8/2024 5:39 PM
To:City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc:11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]>;12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>;John Mirisch <[email protected]>;13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>;14-Mary Wells <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Beverly Hills City Council Members,
Nikki and Eric Baker Application Support - 1001 Roxbury I know and support Nikki and Eric Baker, of 1001 Roxbury Drive, who are working respectfully within the city’s rules to build their family home. The Bakers are planning to plant more than 30 trees to replace the 3 they are asking for permission to remove and have worked with a leading architect and renowned landscape architect to design a home that beautifully reflects the style and scale of the neighborhood. It seems arbitrary that they are being halted by an appeal from an LLC when so many other homes in BH remove trees without permission, or receive removal permits without hassle, and don’t plant with the generosity of the Baker’s plan.

I kindly ask you to please vote to support Nikki and Eric Baker.

Yours faithfully,
Zoë de Givenchy
Martin Lane
Beverly Hills CA 90210
9/10/24, 7:46 AM 1001 Roxbury - Philip Coronel - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 1/1
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important ⚠️CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

From: Ellen Bronfman Hauptman
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman <[email protected]>; 12-Sharona Nazarian <[email protected]>; John Mirisch <[email protected]>; 13-Craig Corman <[email protected]>; 14-Mary Wells <[email protected]> Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Dear Mayor Friedman, Vice-Mayor Nazarian, Councilmember Mirisch, Councilmember Corman and Councilmember Wells, I am writing to support Nicole and Eric Baker. From everything I’ve seen, they’ve followed the rules to the letter, worked hard to do the right thing by the city and saved as many trees as possible. The Planning Commission has approved their request 5-0. They wish to build a family home on the land they purchased.

I hope this Council will uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ellen Bronfman Hauptman
9/10/24, 2:04 PM Mail - Philip Coronel - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGMxMGMxOWQ1LTk5MjctNDk0YS04NTYzLTI3YjExM2NhNTQ0MwBGAAAAAAD1d4mRMUEzQbu… 1/1 ATTACHMENT 8

ARBORIST REPORT

PROTECTED TREE REPORT

PREPARED FOR
Groverbury LLC

PROPERTY
1001 N. Roxbury Dr.,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

CONTACT
Suzanne Shepela
310.444.1404
[email protected]
June 5, 2024

PREPARED BY
LISA SMITH, THE TREE RESOURCE ®
REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORIST #464
ISA BOARD CERTIFIED MASTER ARBORIST #WE3782B

ISA TREE RISK ASSESSOR QUALIFIED - INSTRUCTOR

MEMBER OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CONSULTING ARBORISTS
P.O. BOX 49314, LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
T 310-663-2290 E [email protected]
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 3
ASSIGNMENT 5
LIMITATIONS 5
TREE CHARACTERISTICS AND SITE CONDITIONS 5
IMPACT ANALYSIS AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 5
APPENDIX A –TREE LOCATION MAP 6
APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS 7
APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF FIELD INSPECTION 28
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 31
Working Within the Protected Zone 31
Protective Fencing 32
Planting Within the Protected Zone 33
New Tree Planting 34
Tree Maintenance and Pruning 36
Diseases and Insects, Grade Changes and Inspection 38
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 39
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 3

PROTECTED TREE REPORT
1001 N. Roxbury Dr.,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
This Tree Report was prepared at the request of Groverbury LLC, who is currently preparing to construct a single family residence and amenities.

PROTECTED TREES
The property is in the jurisdiction of the City of Beverly Hills and guided by the Regulation of Trees on Private Property BHMC (Ordinance No. 93-O-2176). The City has adopted this regulation to recognize the aesthetic, environmental, ecological and economic benefits and the historical legacy that these trees provide the community.

Within this ordinance there are 3 categories of “Protected Trees”: Heritage Trees, Native Trees and Urban Groves. Heritage Trees are those with a circumference of 48 inches or more and located in the front or street side setback. Native Trees are those on the city's official list of local native trees with a circumference of 24 inches or more and located in the front or street side setback. Urban Groves are a group of 50 or more trees located anywhere on a single family property.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Site Address 1001 N. Roxbury Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Location and/or Specific Plan Beverly Hills
Project Description Single family residence and amenities Total trees on-site 44
Number of Protected Heritage Trees on Site 30
Number of Recommended Heritage Removals 3
Number of Recommended Heritage to remain 27
Number of non-protected Trees on Site 14
Total number of non-protected trees to be
removed
9 Total number of non-protected trees to remain 5

SUMMARY
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 4

PRIVATE SET-BACK TREES
I have reviewed the inventory of the trees on this property as a Certified Arborist and am relaying my observations. There are thirty (30) Heritage Trees on site in the front and side setbacks.

Three (3) trees are recommended for removal.

NON-PROTECTED TREES
Fourteen are considered non-protected due to being located behind the setbacks. Five non-protected trees will be retained. Nine non-protected trees will be removed.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS STREET TREES
There are fifteen (15) street trees located in the City of Beverly Hills parkway setback. All of the street trees will be retained and protected in place.

ASSIGNMENT
The Assignment included a field observation and inventory of the trees on site; an evaluation of potential demolition impacts; and recommendations for the protection of trees to remain. A Tree Location Plot Map is included in Appendix A. Photographs of the subject trees are included in Appendix B.

LIMITS OF THE ASSIGNMENT
The field inspection was a visual, grade level tree assessment. No special tools or equipment were used. No tree risk assessments were performed. My site examination and the information in this report is limited to the date and time the inspection occurred. The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees at the time of my inspection.

TREE CHARACTERISTICS AND SITE CONDITIONS
Detailed information with respect to size, condition, species and recommendations are included in the Summary of Field Inspections in Appendix C. The trees are numbered on the Tree Location Map in Appendix A.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 5

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
There are forty-four trees on this property.

HERITAGE TREES: Thirty are considered Heritage size and located in the front, side, or rear setback.

Three (3) Heritage trees #14, #15 and #34 are recommended for removal due to construction impact.

Twenty-seven (27) Heritage trees will be retained. All trees near new front garden wall will be retained and protected in place.

NON-PROTECTED: Fourteen are considered non-protected due to being located behind the setbacks.

Five non-protected trees will be retained. Nine non-protected trees will be removed.

STREET TREES: Fifteen street trees #45 - #59 on Roxbury Drive, Lexington Road and Whittier Drive will be retained.

REMOVAL SPECIES: The recommended removals are London plane and Coastal Redwood trees.

LONDON PLANE:

London plane trees are a hybrid species, resulting from the cross-breeding of the American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and the oriental plane tree (Platanus orientalis). These parent species are native to different regions and have adapted to different climates. As a result, London plane trees may not possess the same level of climate adaptation as species native to southern California. London planes experience heat stress during heatwaves or in urban environments with inadequate shade or poor air circulation. This can lead to reduced growth, increased susceptibility to diseases, and overall decline in tree health. London plane trees have moderate to high water requirements, often needing consistent soil moisture to thrive. Southern California has limited water availability and prolonged droughts, so maintaining optimal moisture levels for these trees can be challenging. This makes them less adaptable to arid or semi-arid climates where water resources are scarce or regulated.

COASTAL REDWOOD: Coastal redwoods thrive best in a cooler and more humid coastal climate, such as in Northern California or the Pacific Northwest. Beverly Hills, located in Southern California, has a warmer and drier climate, which is not ideal for the growth and health of coastal redwoods. Additionally redwoods are Fire-prone vegetation and not recommended to plant in Beverly Hills High Fire Zone.

Coniferous trees, have highly flammable properties. Their needles, branches, and bark can easily ignite and contribute to the spread of wildfires. They contain a high amount of resin, which is highly combustible.

This resin acts as an accelerant, making redwood trees particularly vulnerable to fire. The accumulation of fallen needles, dead branches, and other debris under redwood trees can create a significant fuel load. This increases the intensity and spread of fires when ignited. Redwoods have a unique characteristic of having branches concentrated near the top of the tree, forming a dense, highly flammable canopy. This allows fire to climb vertically, creating a "fire ladder" effect that can quickly spread the fire to neighboring trees, buildings, and other structures.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 6
APPENDIX A.1 - TREE LOCATION MAP Site Plan
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 7

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 1 - Shows Heritage trees in the front setback. All these trees are slated to be retained in the front setback. 12 1 11
13 5
2 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 8

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 2 - Shows Protected Heritage trees in the front setback. London Plane #2, 3, 4 These trees will be retained in place.
2 4
3 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 9

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 3 - London Plane Tree #6 - This is a removal candidate. Non-protected. Behind setback Circles with red outline are removals
6 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 10

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 4 - Trees 5, 11, 12, 13, all will be retained.

Non-Protected London Plane tree #6 in front right, to be removed. Heritage #14 to be removed.

Circles with red outline are removals
11 12
13 14
5 6
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 11

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 5 - Non-Protected London Plane trees #6 and 8 to be removed London Plane trees #1- #4 and #7 to be retained in the front, adjacent to the street view on Roxbury.

Circles with red outline are removals
11 12
13 14 6
5 8
1 2
7 3
4 6
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 12

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 6 - Redwood Trees 11, 12, 13, 7 all will be retained.

Non protected trees #6, 8, 9, 18 and heritage #14 to be removed.

Circles with red outline are removals
11 12 14
6 13
7 9 8
18 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 13

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 9 - London Plane Sycamore #8 and #9 - in poor condition from old pruning heading cuts. Both trees are to be removed. These trees are non-protected, located behind the setback. 8 9
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 14

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 10 - London Plane Sycamore #9 and Redwood #18 - both are removals due to their location in the footprint of the future residence. These trees are non-protected, located behind the setback. 9 18
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 15

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 11 - Redwood #15 - to be removed.
15 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 16

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 12 - Left to right -NON-Protected trees located behind the front setback Redwood #19 - retain.

London Plane Sycamore #10 retain.

Redwood #18 - Remove.

London Plane Sycamore #9
PROTECTED HERITAGE TREE in front setback - Redwood #15 - REMOVE 19 10
18 9
15 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 17

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 13 - Redwood #16 and #17 - RETAIN
16 17
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 18

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 14 - Redwood tree #17, 16, 22, 21, 20 - RETAIN all 16 17
21 22
20 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 19

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 15 - Redwood tree #17, 16, 22, 21, 20 - RETAIN all 16 17
21 22
20 20
16 17
21 22
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 20

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 16 -
Non-Protected Trees behind Front Setback
Redwood #18 - remove.

London Plane Sycamore #10 retain.

Redwood #16, 17, & 20 - RETAIN
16 17
21 22
20 20
16 17
21 22
20 16 17
18 19 10
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 21

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 17 - Redwood #23 - RETAIN
23 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 22

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 18 - Redwood left to right 24, 25, 26- retain all.

Non-Protected behind Side Setback (Lexington side) - Redwood #27- retain 24 26 27 25
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 23

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 19 - Redwood #29 - REMOVE Non-Protected behind Side Setback (Lexington side) 29 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 24

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 20 - Redwood #29 - showing evidence of Botrysphaeria Canker on needles - this tree is a removal candidate 29 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 25

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 21 - Redwood #29 - showing evidence of Botrysphaeria Canker on needles - this tree is a removal candidate 29 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 26

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 22 - Protected Heritage Trees in rear setback (off Whittier) Redwood #35 Retain and
London Plane Sycamore #34 - REMOVE
35 34
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 27

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 23 - Non-protected, behind setback Redwood #36 - REMOVAL 36 The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 28

APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF FIELD INSPECTION
Rating Code: A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Fair, D = Poor, E = Nearly Dead, F = Dead Tree # Location Species Status DBH (”) CIR (“) Height (’) Spread (‘) Summary of Condition Retain or Remove 1 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Protected Heritage 24 75 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 2 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Protected Heritage 20 63 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 3 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Protected Heritage 24 75 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 4 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Protected Heritage 24 75 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 5 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Protected Heritage 32 101 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 6 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Non-protected 24 75 45’+ 25’+ C REMOVE 7 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Protected Heritage 24 75 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 8 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Non-protected 18 57 45’+ 25’+ C REMOVE 9 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Non-protected 28 88 45’+ 25’+ C REMOVE 10 Front Setback London Plane
Platanus × hispanica Non-protected 18 57 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 11 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 30 94 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 12 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 30 94 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 13 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 30 94 45’+ 25’+ C RETAIN 14 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 15 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 34 107 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 16 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 28 88 60’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 17 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 30 94 60’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 18 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Non-protected 28 88 60’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 19 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Non-protected 22 69 60’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 20 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 21 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 20 63 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 22 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 26 82 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 23 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 18 57 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 24 Front Setback Western Sycamore
Platanus racemosa Protected Heritage 28 88 40’ 30’+ C RETAIN The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 29

APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF FIELD INSPECTION
Rating Code: A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Fair, D = Poor, E = Nearly Dead, F = Dead Tree # Location Species Status DBH (”) CIR (“) Height (’) Spread (‘) Summary of Condition Retain or Remove 25 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 26 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 32 101 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 27 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Non-protected 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 28 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 36 113 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 29 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Non-protected 32 101 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 30 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 34 107 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 31 Front Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Non-protected 34 107 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 32 Rear Setback London Plane Sycamore
Platanus acerifolia Non Protected 14 44 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 33 Rear Setback London Plane Sycamore
Platanus acerifolia Non Protected 14 44 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 34 Rear Setback London Plane Sycamore
Platanus acerifolia Protected Heritage 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 35 Rear Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Protected Heritage 36 113 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 36 Rear Setback Coastal Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens Non-protected 34 107 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 37 Rear Setback London Plane Sycamore
Platanus acerifolia Protected Heritage 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 38 Rear Setback London Plane Sycamore
Platanus acerifolia Non-protected 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE 39 Rear Setback Indian Laurel Fig
Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’ Protected Heritage 18 57 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 40 Rear Setback Indian Laurel Fig
Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’ Protected Heritage 18 57 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 41 Rear Setback Indian Laurel Fig
Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’ Protected Heritage 18 57 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 42 Rear Setback Indian Laurel Fig
Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’ Protected Heritage 18 57 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 43 Rear Setback Indian Laurel Fig
Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’ Protected Heritage 18 57 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN 44 Rear Setback Indian Laurel Fig
Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’ Non-protected 18 57 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 30

APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF FIELD INSPECTION
Rating Code: A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Fair, D = Poor, E = Nearly Dead, F = Dead Tree # Location Species Status DBH (”) CIR (“) Height (’) Spread (‘) Summary of Condition Retain or Remove 45 Whittier Drive Jacaranda
Jacaranda mimosifolia Street 15” 47 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
46 Whittier Drive Jacaranda
Jacaranda mimosifolia Street 15” 47 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
47 Whittier Drive Jacaranda
Jacaranda mimosifolia Street 15” 47 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
48 Whittier Drive Jacaranda
Jacaranda mimosifolia Street 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
49 Lexington Road Canary Pine
Pinus canariensis Street 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
50 Lexington Road Canary Pine
Pinus canariensis Street 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
51 Lexington Road Canary Pine
Pinus canariensis Street 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
52 Lexington Road Canary Pine
Pinus canariensis Street 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
53 Lexington Road Canary Pine
Pinus canariensis Street 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
54 Lexington Road Canary Pine
Pinus canariensis Street 30 94 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
55 Roxbury Drive Tipu
Tipuana tipu Street 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
56 Roxbury Drive Tipu
Tipuana tipu Street 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
57 Roxbury Drive Tipu
Tipuana tipu Street 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
58 Roxbury Drive Tipu
Tipuana tipu Street 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
59 Roxbury Drive Tipu
Tipuana tipu Street 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C RETAIN
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 31

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of construction, trees can receive much stress, pollution, soil compaction and lack of water. The following general recommendations should be followed to establish and maintain a healthy environment for all retained trees.

WORKING IN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE
This area generally encompasses an area within the dripline of the tree plus additional feet depending on the species and size of the tree. However, if you should need to encroach within a tree’s protected zone, please follow these guidelines.

Observation – All work within the protected zone should be observed by a certified arborist experienced with each specific tree’s requirements. The arborist should be contacted in a timely manner to ensure their availability.

Hand Tools – All work should be performed utilizing hand tools only. To reduce compaction in the root zone, no large equipment, such as backhoes or tractors should be utilized in this protected zone.

Root Pruning - Should there be a need to perform any light root pruning, it should be done carefully. The roots should be exposed through hand digging. The roots should be cut at a 90-degree angle and cut cleanly. No roots should be torn or jagged; this can lead to rotting and decay in the root zone and reduced stability and health in the tree. I caution excessive root pruning, and encourage you to err on the conservative side. If a tree is in any existing stress or is lacking in health and vigor, the root pruning can contribute to the quick decline of a tree.

Protective Fencing – If necessary, the arborist should be contacted to develop a specific fencing plan for your trees. Fencing may be of a flexible configuration and be a minimum of 4 feet in height. A warning sign must be displayed on the street side of the fence, stating the requirements of all workers in the protected zone. Throughout the course of construction, maintain the integrity of the tree protection zone fencing and keep the site clean and maintained at all times.

Irrigation – Irrigate trees for the duration of the project. If the tree is newly planted, deep watering should be weekly during its establishment period. If the tree is quite mature, deep water once per month during spring and summer months.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 32

PROTECTIVE FENCING
Tree protection fencing must be installed at the edge of the Tree Protection Zone (critical root zone) or beyond prior to the start of any clearing, grading or other construction activity. If space limits the fencing, place at the furthest possible distance from the trunk. 1) Fencing may be of a flexible configuration or chain-link and be a minimum of 4 feet in height supported by vertical posts at a maximum of ten-foot intervals to keep the fence upright and in place. 2) A warning sign should be posted on the fencing which states, “Warning: Tree Protection Zone” and stating the requirements of all workers in the protected zone. Example available upon request. 3) Throughout the course of construction, maintain the integrity of the tree protection zone fencing and keep the site clean and maintained at all times. No construction staging or disposal of construction materials or byproducts including but not limited to paint, plaster, or chemical solutions is allowed in the Tree Protection Zone.

Tree Protection Zone” and stating the requirements of all workers in the protected zone (see the example on next page).
3) Throughout the course of construction, maintain the integrity of the tree protection zone fencing and keep the site clean and maintained at all times. No construction staging or disposal of construction materials or byproducts including but not limited to paint, plaster, or chemical solutions is allowed in the Tree Protection Zone.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 33

PLANTING WITHIN THE PROTECTED ZONE
Trees remain healthier and vigorous with NO plantings within the protected zone. The natural leaf litter that the tree provides should be allowed to remain on the ground, to provide natural mulch and nutrients. If planting is desired, please follow these recommendations:

Plant Selection – Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with the specific trees should be selected. Most importantly, select plants that are resistant to Armillaria or Phytophthora. Some trees are particularly susceptible to these diseases in urban areas and when under construction stress. Please refer to local guides for acceptable plant recommendations
Irrigation – Water should not be spraying toward the base of the trunk or tree; this can encourage rotting of the root crown. Excessive moisture on the base of the trunk can encourage Armillaria mellea (Oak Root Fungus) or Phytophthora cinnamomi (Avocado Root rot). Both of these fungus’ can reduce the health and vigor of the tree, thus leading to decline and potential failure of the tree (falling over). It is recommended to only provide irrigation to the roots in the warmer months of spring and early summer, thus extending the natural rainy season. This irrigation should be provided via soaker hoses that do not spray upward.

Mulch - Apply a light layer of organic mulch over the root zone (approx. 3- 4 inches thick). The mulch will reduce loss of moisture from the soil, protect against construction compaction, and moderate soil temperatures. It also has been demonstrated that the addition of mulch reduces soil compaction over time. Do not place mulch against the trunk, instead placing at least 3 inches from base.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 34

NEW TREE PLANTING
The ideal time to plant trees and shrubs is during the dormant season, in the fall after leaf drop or early spring before budbreak. Weather conditions are cool and allow plants to establish roots in the new location before spring rains and summer heat stimulate new top growth. Before you begin planting your tree, be sure you have had all underground utilities located prior to digging.

If the tree you are planting is balled or bare root, it is important to understand that its root system has been reduced by 90 to 95 percent of its original size during transplanting. As a result of the trauma caused by the digging process, trees commonly exhibit what is known as transplant shock.

Containerized trees may also experience transplant shock, particularly if they have circling roots that must be cut. Transplant shock is indicated by slow growth and reduced vigor following transplanting.

Proper site preparation before and during planting coupled with good follow-up care reduces the amount of time the plant experiences transplant shock and allows the tree to quickly establish in its new location. Carefully follow nine simple steps, and you can significantly reduce the stress placed on the plant at the time of planting.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 35
NEW TREE PLANTING, continued

1. Dig a shallow, broad planting hole. Make the hole wide, as much as three times the diameter of the root ball but only as deep as the root ball. It is important to make the hole wide because the roots on the newly establishing tree must push through surrounding soil in order to establish. On most planting sites in new developments, the existing soils have been compacted and are unsuitable for healthy root growth. Breaking up the soil in a large area around the tree provides the newly emerging roots room to expand into loose soil to hasten establishment.

2. Identify the trunk flare. The trunk flare is where the roots spread at the base of the tree. This point should be partially visible after the tree has been planted (see diagram). If the trunk flare is not partially visible, you may have to remove some soil from the top of the root ball. Find it so you can determine how deep the hole needs for proper planting.

3. Remove tree container for containerized trees. Carefully cutting down the sides of the container may make this easier.

Inspect the root ball for circling roots and cut or remove them. Expose the trunk flare, if necessary.

4. Place the tree at the proper height. Before placing the tree in the hole, check to see that the hole has been dug to the proper depth and no more. The majority of the roots on the newly planted tree will develop in the top 12 inches of soil. If the tree is planted too deeply, new roots will have difficulty developing because of a lack of oxygen. It is better to plant the tree a little high, 1-2 inches above the base of the trunk flare, than to plant it at or below the original growing level. This planting level will allow for some settling.

5. Straighten the tree in the hole. Before you begin backfilling, have someone view the tree from several directions to confirm that the tree is straight. Once you begin backfilling, it is difficult to reposition the tree.

6. Fill the hole gently but firmly. Fill the hole about one-third full and gently but firmly pack the soil around the base of the root ball. Be careful not to damage the trunk or roots in the process. Fill the remainder of the hole, taking care to firmly pack soil to eliminate air pockets that may cause roots to dry out. To avoid this problem, add the soil a few inches at a time and settle with water. Continue this process until the hole is filled and the tree is firmly planted. It is not recommended to apply fertilizer at time of planting.

7. Stake the tree, if necessary. If the tree is grown properly at the nursery, staking for support will not be necessary in most home landscape situations. Studies have shown that trees establish more quickly and develop stronger trunk and root systems if they are not staked at the time of planting. However, protective staking may be required on sites where lawn mower damage, vandalism, or windy conditions are concerns. If staking is necessary for support, there are three methods to choose among:
staking, guying, and ball stabilizing. One of the most common methods is staking. With this method, two stakes used in conjunction with a wide, flexible tie material on the lower half of the tree will hold the tree upright, provide flexibility, and minimize injury to the trunk (see diagram). Remove support staking and ties after the first year of growth.

8. Mulch the base of the tree. Mulch is simply organic matter applied to the area at the base of the tree. It acts as a blanket to hold moisture, it moderates soil temperature extremes, and it reduces competition from grass and weeds. A 2- to 3-inch layer is ideal. More than 3 inches may cause a problem with oxygen and moisture levels. When placing mulch, be sure that the actual trunk of the tree is not covered. Doing so may cause decay of the living bark at the base of the tree. A mulch-free area, 1 to 2 inches wide at the base of the tree, is sufficient to avoid moist bark conditions and prevent decay.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 36

TREE MAINTENANCE AND PRUNING
Some trees do not generally require pruning. The occasional removal of dead twigs or wood is typical.

Occasionally a tree has a defect or structural condition that would benefit from pruning. Any pruning activity should be performed under the guidance of a certified arborist or tree expert.

Because each cut has the potential to change the growth of the tree, no branch should be removed without a reason. Common reasons for pruning are to remove dead branches, to remove crowded or rubbing limbs, and to eliminate hazards. Trees may also be pruned to increase light and air penetration to the inside of the tree’s crown or to the landscape below. In most cases, mature trees are pruned as a corrective or preventive measure.

Routine thinning does not necessarily improve the health of a tree. Trees produce a dense crown of leaves to manufacture the sugar used as energy for growth and development. Removal of foliage through pruning can reduce growth and stored energy reserves. Heavy pruning can be a significant health stress for the tree.

Yet if people and trees are to coexist in an urban or suburban environment, then we sometimes have to modify the trees. City environments do not mimic natural forest conditions. Safety is a major concern.

Also, we want trees to complement other landscape plantings and lawns. Proper pruning, with an understanding of tree biology, can maintain good tree health and structure while enhancing the aesthetic and economic values of our landscapes.

Pruning Techniques – From the I.S.A. Guideline
Specific types of pruning may be necessary to maintain a mature tree in a healthy, safe, and attractive condition.

Cleaning is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low- vigor branches from the crown of a tree.

Thinning is the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement through the crown. Thinning opens the foliage of a tree, reduces weight on heavy limbs, and helps retain the tree’s natural shape.

Raising removes the lower branches from a tree to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestrians, and vistas.

Reduction reduces the size of a tree, often for clearance for utility lines. Reducing the height or spread of a tree is best accomplished by pruning back the leaders and branch terminals to lateral branches that are large enough to assume the terminal roles (at least one-third the diameter of the cut stem).

Compared to topping, reduction helps maintain the form and structural integrity of the tree.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 37
TREE MAINTENANCE AND PRUNING, continued
How Much Should Be Pruned?
Mature trees should require little routine pruning. A widely accepted rule of thumb is never to remove more than one-quarter of a tree’s leaf-bearing crown. In a mature tree, pruning even that much could have negative effects. Removing even a single, large- diameter limb can create a wound that the tree may not be able to close. The older and larger a tree becomes, the less energy it has in reserve to close wounds and defend against decay or insect attack. Pruning of mature trees is usually limited to removal of dead or potentially hazardous limbs.

Wound Dressings
Wound dressings were once thought to accelerate wound closure, protect against insects and diseases, and reduce decay. However, research has shown that dressings do not reduce decay or speed closure and rarely prevent insect or disease infestations. Most experts recommend that wound dressings not be used.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 38

DISEASES AND INSECTS
Continual observation and monitoring of your tree can alert you to any abnormal changes. Some indicators are: excessive leaf drop, leaf discoloration, sap oozing from the trunk and bark with unusual cracks. Should you observe any changes, you should contact a Tree specialist or Certified Arborist to review the tree and provide specific recommendations. Trees are susceptible to hundreds of pests, many of which are typical and may not cause enough harm to warrant the use of chemicals. However, diseases and insects may be indication of further stress that should be identified by a professional.

GRADE CHANGES
The growing conditions and soil level of trees are subject to detrimental stress should they be changed during the course of construction. Raising the grade at the base of a tree trunk can have long-term negative consequences. This grade level should be maintained throughout the protected zone. This will also help in maintaining the drainage in which the tree has become accustomed.

INSPECTION
The property owner should establish an inspection calendar based on the recommendation provided by the tree specialist. This calendar of inspections can be determined based on several factors: the maturity of the tree, location of tree in proximity to high-use areas vs. low-use area, history of the tree, prior failures, external factors (such as construction activity) and the perceived value of the tree to the homeowner.

The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 39
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
No warranty is made, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees or the property will not occur in the future, from any cause. The Consultant shall not be responsible for damages or injuries caused by any tree defects, and assumes no responsibility for the correction of defects or tree related problems.

The owner of the trees may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the Consultant, or seek additional advice to determine if a tree meets the owner’s risk abatement standards.

The Consulting Arborist has no past, present or future interest in the removal or retaining of any tree.

Opinions contained herein are the independent and objective judgments of the consultant relating to circumstances and observations made on the subject site.

The recommendations contained in this report are the opinions of the Consulting Arborist at the time of inspection. These opinions are based on the knowledge, experience, and education of the Consultant. The field inspection was a visual, grade level tree assessment.

The Consulting Arborist shall not be required to give testimony, perform site monitoring, provide further documentation, be deposed, or to attend any meeting without subsequent contractual arrangements for this additional employment, including payment of additional fees for such services as described by the Consultant.

The Consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information.

This Arborist report may not be reproduced without the express permission of the Consulting Arborist and the client to whom the report was issued. Any change or alteration to this report invalidates the entire report.

Should you have any further questions regarding this property, please contact me at (310) 663-2290.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Smith
Registered Consulting Arborist #464
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #WE3782B
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified- Instructor
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Member
ATTACHMENT 9

PROJECT PLANS
1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
sheet index:

L- 0.00 index & general notesL- 0.01 soil management reportL- 1.00 tree protection and removalBH-2.0 site planL- 3.00 planting planL- 3.01 planting photosL- 3.02 planting elevation vicinity map: not to scale
project location
Index & General Notes
L- 0.00
NTS
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB note: refer to civil plans for
drainage and grading & site walls
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
Soil Management Report
L- 0.01
NTS

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

WALLS TO
REMAIN
FS: 394.26'
(N) 18" DEEP

PLANTER
FFE: 394.5'
UP
FS: 395'
3"
NEW 3'-0" WALL WITH 3'-0"

WROUGHT IRON ABOVE
PL
property line
property line
main house setback
main house setback
tree setback
interior side setback
37'-3"
pet relief
area
accessory building setback
accessory building setback
exst service driveway
to remain 13'-6" wide
tree setback
exst generator
to remain
exst electrical
vault to remain
driveway gate
callbox
exst site walls to remain trash enclosure
property line
property line
exst curb cut
new curb cut
11'
11'
callbox
pedestrian
gate
parking
court
wf wf
2- car
porte- garage
cochere
covered
entry
pl
lw
lw
pl
50'
front yard setback
25'
side yard setback
4'
main house
basement
access
extra plate height setback
rear lawn
pool lawn
lawn
pool
pool deck
hot
tub
baja
shelf
exst tennis
court to
remain
3- car
garage
motor
court
outdoor
dining
outdoor
kitchen
fireplace
pl pl
pl
pl
pl pl pl
terrace
gardner's path
vegetable
garden
exst site walls to remain
27'-6"
exst pooleqpmt to remain
50'
front yard setback
100'
accessory bldg setback
path
wf
tennis
viewing
whittier drive
lexington road
roxbury drive
ffe: 394.5'
fs: 394.46'
fs: 393.3'
fs: 393.13'
fs: 393.22'
fs: 393.4'
entry
gate
exit
gate
100'
fs: 394.5' accessory bldg setback
fs: 394.46'
guest
parking
ffe: 394.5'
up
Y LINE
property line erty p
W 3'-0" W
UGHT
oxbury dr
OU
new curb cut
11'
roxb
fs: 393.22'
property line pe
callbox
exst curb st cut
.4'
TREE PROTECTION:

1. All tree protection shall be reviewed, specified, and conducted under the supervision of a certified arborists.

2. The following provisions shall be adhered to during site development and construction.

2.1. Precautions during site development and construction, include the following.

2.2. Tree drip line perimeter fencing: a fence shall be placed around the drip line of the significant trees insofar as is practical prior to any work, and no construction activities shall be carried out within the drip line except as allowed by permit. a minimum 6' high chain linkfence per landscape designer or 4-foot-high orange polyethylenelaminar safety netting or equivalent strudy fence and posts. refer to tree protection detail per fence location.

2.3. Permits for construction within a drip line of any significant trees shall include: provisions for hand trenching within the drip line; construction of approved tree wells to protect against fill; prohibition of grading cuts and fills within four feet of a tree base;review of any cutting or trimming, or those provisions recommendedby a certified arborist.

2.4. When excavating is to be undertaken within drip line of tree canopy, roots shall be severed cleanly with sharp saw or loppers only at the direction of a certified arborists.

2.5. Sign: affix to fencing as close to eye level as possible, containing the following directions.

No vehicle movement.No storage of building materials or construction trash.No washing of equipment.

Contact Project arborists_____________ and #______________ for inquires.

3. Work is to occur in the fenced areas only under the supervision of a certified arborists.

4. Mulch: two inches of composted mulch spread evenly over a geo-textile fabric through the entire root zone.

5. Irrigation: maintain natural moisture levels.

6. Fertilizers: consult project arborist for best method of applying fertilizers to promote feeder roots closer to the trunk. tree drip line

PLAN VIEW
6-foot high chain link fence.
post installed 2 feetbelow existing grade
constructed of durable
metal "t" or equivalent
per direction fromlicensed arborist,
aeration of roots via
soil injection of
fertilizer to be performedprior to and after
construction.
protected root zone within
the canopy drip line actual
feeder roots extend wellbeyond drip line
SECTION VIEW Note: Refer to tree protection notes for
provisions and precautions.
6' foot high chain
link fence.

EXISTING TREE TO REMOVE REPLACEMENT TREE
TREE # SPECIES STATUS SPECIES SIZE
#14 Coastal Redwood Sequoia Sempervirens Protected Heritage to remove Platanus racemosa 72" box#15 Coastal Redwood Sequoia Sempervirens Protected Heritage to remove Platanus racemosa 72" box#34 London Plane Sycamore Platanus Acerfolia Protected Heritage to remove Platanus racemosa 72" box existing tree to remain(non - protected tree)
TREE LEGEND:
protected heritage
tree to be removed
PL
VE p
ALL
ON
A 0
VE
WITH3'-0"

N ABOVE N ABOV
A
RON
WA
IR N
NEW
WRO
property l oine
50'
front yard ro set
pl
cce assor cey bldg se
100'
et ldg se ry lb o
s
g
ght set
k
ack
50'
yard setback
#58 #59
#56 #57
#55
#16
#17
#22
#20
#10
#15
#19
#26
#25
#24 #23
#53
#27
#52
#28
#30
#41
#51
#50 #31
#49
#35 #39
#40
#4
#3 #2
#37
#42
#43
#11
#13
#5
#14
#7
#1
#12
#32 #34
#48 (E)
#47
#46
#54
new tree protected heritage tree
to remain
#45
tback #21
tree count legendtotal existing trees within the property line: 35 number of protected heritage trees: 30
number of recommended heritage tree removals: 3
number of protected heritage trees to remain: 27
existing street trees outside the property line: 15
no changes proposed to street trees
number of non protected heritage trees: 5
total trees within the property line after completion: 63 total proposed trees to be planted within the property line: 31 ex
#10main
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
L- 1.00
1 16"=1'-0"
Tree Protection &
Removal Plan

TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCE DETAIL
PLAN & SECTION scale: nts
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

WALLS TO
REMAIN
FS: 394.26'
(N) 18" DEEP

PLANTER
FFE: 394.5'
UP
FS: 395'
3"
NEW 3'-0" WALL WITH 3'-0"

WROUGHT IRON ABOVE
PL
property line
property line
main house setback
main house setback
tree setback
interior side setback 37'-3"
pet relief
area
accessory building setback
accessory building setback
exst service driveway
to remain 13'-6" wide
tree setback
exst generator
to remain
exst electrical
vault to remain
driveway gate
callbox
exst site walls to remain trash enclosure
property line
property line
exst curb cut
new curb cut
11'
11'
callbox
pedestrian
gate
parking
court
wf wf
2- car
porte- garage
cochere
covered
entry
pl
lw
lw
pl
50'
front yard setback
25' side yard setback
4'
main house
basement
access
extra plate height setback
rear lawn
pool lawn
lawn
pool
pool deck
hot
tub
baja
shelf
exst tennis
court to
remain
3- car
garage
motor
court
outdoor
dining
outdoor
kitchen
fireplace
pl pl
pl
pl
pl pl pl
terrace
gardner's path
vegetable
garden
exst site walls to remain
27'-6"
exst pooleqpmt to remain
50' front yard setback
100' accessory bldg setback
path
wf
tennis
viewing
whittier drive
lexington road
roxbury drive
ffe: 394.5'
fs: 394.46'
fs: 393.3'
fs: 393.13'
fs: 393.22'
fs: 393.4'
entry
gate
exit
gate
100'
fs: 394.5' accessory bldg setback
fs: 394.46'
guest
parking
ffe: 394.5'
up
back
S TO
N
an
k ac b
ack
11'
entry
gate
wf
p
gard
100' y bl
table
den
1 accessory den
cess
extra pl ext
acces
ex
Y LINE
property line erty p
W 3'-0" W
UGHT
oxbury dr
OU
new curb cut
11'
roxb
fs: 393.22'
property line pe
callbox
exst curb st cut
.4'
existing tree to remain(non - protected tree)
TREE LEGEND:
protected heritage
tree to be removed
PL
VE p
ALL
ON
A WITH3'-0"

N ABOVE
0 VE
A
RON
WA
IR N
NEW
WRO
property l oine
50'
front yard ro set
pl
c
cce assor cey bldg se
100'
et ldg se ry lb
o
s
g
ght set
k
ack
50'
yard setback
#58 #59
#56 #57
#55
#16
#17
#22
#20
#15
#19
#26
#25
#24 #23
#53
#27
#52
#28
#30
#41
#51
#50 #31
#49
#35 #39
#40
#4
#3 #2
#37
#42
#43
#11
#13
#5
#14
#7
#1
#12
#32 #34
#48 (E)
#47
#46
#54
new tree protected heritage tree
to remain
#45
tback #21
tree count legendtotal existing trees within the property line: 35 number of protected heritage trees: 30
number of recommended heritage tree removals: 3
number of protected heritage trees to remain: 27
existing street trees outside the property line: 15
no changes proposed to street trees
number of non protected heritage trees: 5
total trees within the property line after completion: 63 total proposed trees to be planted within the property line: 31 ex
#10main
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
bh-2.00
1 16"=1'-0"
Site Plan
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Notes

1. all trees are tagged by christine london, ltd. 2. tree layout on site by landscape architect. 3. 2" layer of fine leaf post mulch from cal blend soils inc. throughout all planters 4. refer to los angeles county department of public health plan review report for installation of rainwater catchment and irrigation system

5. if the parkway is not maintained during construction, landscape plans and calculations must be revised to include the parkway and submitted for approval

6. compost at a rate of a minimum of 4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of 6 inches into the soil.

7. soils with greater than 6% organic matter in the top 6 inches of soil are exempt from adding compost and 7lling.

8. a minimum 3 inch layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch should not be used

9. all hedges shall comply with bhmc 10-3-2420
total parcel size: 81,108 sq.ft total building footprint: 15,304.9 sq.ft total hardscape area: 24,308 sq.ft total landscape area: 41,495 sq.ft note: refer to civil plans fordrainage and grading & site walls layout notes:

1. any discrepancies with what is shown on the plans and what is occurring in the field shall be brought to the attention of the landscape architect prior to installation.

2. grading and drainage plan per civil engineer.

3. written dimensions override scaled graphics.
property line
property line
main house setback
main house setback
tree setback
interior side setback 37'-3"
pet relief
area
accessory building setback
accessory building setback
exst service driveway
to remain 13'-6" wide
tree setback
exst generator
to remain
exst electrical
vault to remain
driveway gate
callbox
exst site walls to remain trash enclosure
property line
property line
exst curb cut
new curb cut
11'
11'
callbox
pedestrian
gate
parking
court
wf wf
2- car
porte- garage
cochere
covered
entry
pl
lw
lw
pl
50'
front yard setback
25' side yard setback
4'
main house
basement
access
extra plate height setback
rear lawn
pool lawn
lawn
pool
pool deck
hot
tub
baja
shelf
exst tennis
court to
remain
3- car
garage
motor
court
outdoor
dining
outdoor
kitchen
fireplace
pl pl
pl
pl
pl pl pl
terrace
gardner's path
vegetable
garden
exst site walls to remain
27'-6"
exst pooleqpmt to remain
50' front yard setback
100' accessory bldg setback
path
wf
tennis
viewing
whittier drive
lexington road
roxbury drive
ffe: 394.5'
fs: 394.46'
fs: 393.3'
fs: 393.13'
fs: 393.22'
fs: 393.4'
entry
gate
exit
gate
100'
fs: 394.5' accessory bldg setback
fs: 394.46'
guest
parking
ffe: 394.5'
up

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME CONTAINER SIZE QUANTITY MATURE PLANT SIZE SPACING WUCOLS

EXISTING TREES
Platanus acerifolia n/a 9 n/a n/a moderate
Sequoia sempervirens n/a 18 n/a n/a high
ficus nitida n/a 5 n/a n/a moderate
total 32

PROPOSED TREES
Platanus racemosa 72" box 19 60-70'H x 30-40'W per plan moderate Magnolia grandiflora 60" box 3 30-40'H x 20-30'W per plan moderate Magnolia DD Blanchard 60" box 4 30-40'H x 20-30'W per plan moderate Quercus virginiana 'Cathedral' 48" box 5 30-40'H x 20-30'W per plan moderate total 31
SHRUBS
Existing Myoporum parvifolia n/a 4,911 SQ FT n/a n/a moderate Existing Ficus nitida n/a 3,093 SQ FT n/a n/a moderate
Buxus japonica 'Green Beauty' 15 gal 203 sq ft 4-6'H x 4-6'W 24" OC moderate Ficus nitida 24" box 500 sq ft 6-8'H x 4-5'W 30" OC moderate Ilex verticillata 15 gal 776 sq ft 6-8'H x 6-8'W 48" OC moderate Lantana montevidensis 'Alba' 5 gal 2,012 sq ft 1-21'H x 8-10'W 48" OC low Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' 15 gal 516 sq ft 6-8'H x 4-6'W 36" OC moderate Olea europaea 'Little Ollie' 15 gal 2,648 sq ft 6-8'H x 4-5'W 36" OC low Pittosporum crassifolium 'Nana' 15 gal 8,421 sq ft 3-4'H x 3-4'W 36" OC moderate Ceanothus sp. 5 gal 620 sf 3-4'H x 3-4'W 36" OC low
total 24,250 sq ft

GROUNDCOVER
UC Verde Buffalo Grass sod 15,975 sf 1'H x <1'W n/a low total 15,975 sf
VINES
Bougainvillea 'White' 15 gal 5 6-10'H x 6'W per plan low Trachelospermum jasminoides 15 gal 50 6-10'H x 6'W per plan moderate Pandorea jasminoides 'Alba' 15 gal 4 6-10'H x 6'W per plan moderate total 59
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
Planting Plan
L- 3.00
1 16"=1'-0"
Planting Images
L- 3.01
NTS
ˆ E R Z P R Q W G U L Y H
E H Y H U O \ K L O O V F D ˝
W ˛ ˆ ˘ ˇ ˇ
I ˛ ˆ ˘ ˇ ˝ ˙
& K U L V W L Q H / R Q 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB
buxus japonica 'green beauty' olea europaea ‘little ollie’ ligustrum japonicum 'texanum' uc verde buffalo grass
bougainvillea 'white'
lantana montevidensis 'alba'
ceanothus griseus var. horizontalis
'yankee point'
ficus nitida ilex vomitoria pittosporum crassifolium 'nana' trachelospermum jasminoides
platanus racemosa
pandorea jasminoides 'alba' magnolia dd blanchard quercus virginiana 'cathedral' magnolia grandiflora
Landscape Front
Elevation
L- 3.02
1 8"=1'-0"
2370 b o w m o n t d r i v e
b e v e r l y h i l l s, c a 9 0 2 1 0
t: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 6 0
f: 3 1 0 . 2 7 3 . 5 6 9 8
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d.
9/3/2024
1001 N. Roxbury Drive
1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
date description
sheet number
drawn by
scale
project
address
sheet title
north
2023-11-13
2023-10-19 city review-12024-03-082024-04-192024-09-03
city review-2city review-3city review-4
city review-5
MB, PB