Beverly Hills City Council
September 17, 2024

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Masa Alkire, AICP, Assistant Director/City Planner Philip Coronel, Associate Planner
Subject: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 26, 2024

DECISION APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE

REMOVAL OF THREE HERITAGE TREES LOCATED WITHIN FRONT
SETBACK AREAS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1001 NORTH

ROXBURY DRIVE AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW

THE REMOVAL OF THREE HERITAGE TREES LOCATED WITHIN
FRONT SETBACK AREAS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1001

NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE AND DENYING A RELATED APPEAL
Attachments: 1. 7/9/2024 Appeal Petition & Letter dated 7/16/2024

2. Applicant Appeal Responses (Letters dated 7/16/2024, 9/3/2024, and 9/11/2024)

3. Draft City Council Resolution

4. June 26, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report – Without Attachments

5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2062

6. Notice of Public Hearing

7. Public Correspondence

8. Arborist Report

9. Project Plans

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal, and Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

2. Adopt a resolution approving the project and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision (i.e., denying the appeal), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the City’s appeal procedures, the City Council must conduct a de novo public hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision. Under a de novo review, the City Council considers not only the appeal and points raised therein but conducts an independent review of the project application and whether the required findings can be made to approve the project. The June 26, 2024 Planning Commission staff report is provided as Attachment 4 to this staff report and provides an in-depth analysis of the project, its vicinity, and the required findings for approval. This staff report specifically addresses the issues raised in the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.

Planning Commission Discussion
On June 26, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the proposed Tree Removal Permit (TRP) application (Attachment 4). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment including concerns regarding the historic significance of the previous single-family residence, since demolished, and the impact to the environment and garden quality of the city. After discussion and deliberation of the project and the topics raised by the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2062 (Attachment 5) conditionally approving the project with project-specific conditions intended to address concerns expressed by the community.

Appeal Filed
On July 9, 2024, Ellis Raskin of Hanson Bridgett LLP, on behalf of Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision (Attachment 1). Specifically, the appellant identified the following as grounds for the appeal:
1) The Planning Commission’s findings in support of approving the TRP are not supported by evidence.
2) The City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3) The City failed to provide legally required noticing.

The applicant prepared a response to the appellant’s appeal and is provided as Attachment 2.

DISCUSSION
The following is an analysis of the points raised in the appeal. 1) The Planning Commission’s findings in support of approving the TRP are not supported by evidence.

The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission’s findings in support of the Tree Removal Permit do not comply with the requirements of BHMC §10-3-2900 and that the findings are not supported by evidence. The appellant claims that the removal of the protected trees would adversely affect the neighboring properties and/or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area due to irreplaceable environmental benefits. In addition, the appellant states that the removal of the protected trees would adversely Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

affect the garden quality of the City as replacement trees would take many years to reach maturity.

The Planning Commission was able to make the findings and approve the permit based on the evidence provided, with the addition of two project-specific conditions to ensure the trees would be replaced with large, mature trees. Pursuant to BHMC § 10-3-2902, the Planning Commission’s review of the TRP application to allow the removal of three protected heritage trees is based on the following findings:

1. The removal of the protected tree would not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; and

2. The removal of the protected tree would not adversely affect the garden quality of the city.

Since the property is not located on any hillside or topographically sensitive area, the removal of the trees would not affect any erosion and soil retention. Additionally, the Beverly Hills Fire Department reviewed the request and commented that the two Coastal Redwood trees that are the subject of the removal request are recommended for removal in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in which the property is located.

Therefore, the Planning Commission was able to determine that based on these findings, the removal of the protected trees would not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area.

The project site contains a total of 44 trees. Thirty of those trees are located within the front and street side setbacks and has 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, which would classify these trees as protected heritage trees. Of the 30 protected heritage trees, three 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 because they are not protected trees due to their location on the property. The proposed landscaping plan shows that 32 trees would remain on the property with an additional 31 new trees to be planted for a total of 63 trees on the property. The Planning Commission discussed the potential impacts of the removal of mature trees and conditioned the permit to require that the replacement trees for the three heritage trees be of larger size and maturity when planted to ensure that there would not be adverse impacts to the neighborhood and the garden quality of the city.

In order to make the findings, the Commission adopted two project-specific conditions, which are as follows:
• 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 in height at time of installation and a minimum tree maturity height of 70 feet, and which shall be from the plant palette provided by the Applicant in the presented landscape plans. • The replacement trees shall be planted prior to the issuance of building permits for the primary residence.

Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

History of Landscaping at the Site.

In order to provide additional background information to the Council, staff has reviewed the history of landscaping installed on the project site. The following aerial photos from 1938, 1948, 1981, 1994, and 2024 show the changes in landscaping that have occurred over time at the project site.

The current configuration of landscaping at the project site is reflective of a landscaping plan approved on February 26, 1991 that included a garden trellis, covered patio at the tennis court, and new sitewide landscaping. This sitewide landscaping redesign included new water features, hedges, and numerous new trees including the three protected trees that are the subject of this permit. Building permits were issued in 1991 for the construction of the garden trellis and covered patio in addition to the approved landscaping plan. The final inspection was conducted on October 9, 1991.

Figure 1: 1938 Aerial Photo
Source: 2022 Historic Resources Assessment
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

Figure 2: 1948 Aerial Photo
Source: 2022 Historic Resources Assessment
Figure 3: 1981 Aerial Photo
Source: 2022 Historic Resources Assessment
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

Figure 4: 1994 Aerial Photo
Source: 2022 Historic Resources Assessment
Figure 5: 2024 Aerial Photo
Source: City of Beverly Hills Geographic Information System (GIS) 2) The City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The appellant has provided general information on the application of CEQA in their appeal petition and states that the City abused its discretion by approving a Class 4 Categorical Exemption (Minor Alterations to Land) for the project.

On September 11, 2024, the applicant provided a late information letter which includes additional CEQA discussion (Attachment 2). In addition to asserting the project qualifies for the Class 4 exemption, the Applicant’s September 11, 2024 letter also makes the case that the project is eligible for Class 2 (Replacement of Existing Structure) and Class Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

3 (New Structure) exemptions as the project includes construction of a new single family dwelling that qualifies for these exemptions. The applicant has indicated to the City that they would be submitting a new single family home that is presumed to be subject to ministerial review by the City. At this point there is no building permit or formal architectural review application on file with the City therefore staff’s environmental review of the project focused on the Tree Removal Permit. The Council may want to consider if the project also qualifies for the Class 2 and 3 exemptions and, if so, that information could be incorporated into the draft resolution.

In their appeal, the Appellant asserts that the City erred by relying on the Class 4 categorical exemption because the project involves the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. The Appellant cites CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 and argues that the project “does not qualify for the Class 4 exemption because it involves the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees for a non-forestry/non-agricultural purpose.” (July 16, 2024 Appellant letter, at p. 3.) Appellant does not, however, mention paragraph (b) of CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, which is a specific example of activities that are included within the scope of the exemption:
“(b) New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping.” The proposed project includes the removal of one London Plane tree and two Coastal Redwood trees. As found in the Arborist Report (Attachment 8), London Plane trees are not well suited to the southern California environment as compared to native species.

London Plane trees have higher water requirements and require consistent soil moisture to stay healthy. Due to the limited water availability and prolonged droughts, it is more difficult for London Plane trees to adapt to this environment, which causes a decline in tree health. The London Plane tree proposed for removal was also found to be only in fair health by the arborist. The arborist report also states that the two Coastal Redwood trees have higher flammable properties and are not recommended in the Beverly Hills Very high Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) 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.

Further, the appellant states that the removal of the protected trees would have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts. The appeal letter includes a short general statement that “...witnesses have observed that the trees have been used as wildlife habitat; the trees have unique aesthetic benefits; and the trees mitigate the heat island effect in a manner that less-mature trees cannot achieve. Coupled with the other tree removals in the City, the loss of these trees and others is cumulatively significant”. (Attachment 1 - Pg. 3.)
First, the removal of three protected trees out of a total of 30 protected trees on the site clearly would not result in a direct impact on the environment, and would not have a significant direct impact on the environment because the retention of the remaining heritage trees maintain the wooded condition of the project site, which would be further enhanced through the addition of another 31 trees with respect to wildlife habitat and aesthetic benefits. Further, given that the project site would have more trees than currently exist on the site, the proposal would not have any heat island impacts. For the Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

same reasons, the removal and replacement of the three trees would not result in any indirect impacts with regard to wildlife habitat, aesthetics, or heat island effect.

The removal of these three protected trees would not result in a cumulative impact as the project proposes to retain 32 trees within the property with the addition of 31 new trees to be planted for a total of 63 trees on the property. There are also no proposed changes to the street trees. According to the landscape plan (Attachment 9), 24 new trees are proposed within the required front and street side setbacks further supporting the fact that the removal of the three protected trees would not have a cumulative impact. Additionally, City staff conducted a search of discretionary Tree Removal Permits within 1000 feet of the subject property and found only one Tree Removal Permit which was approved for 1023 Roxbury Drive. This nearby request involved only the relocation, not removal, of four heritage olive trees into the front yard setback areas.

Furthermore, the loss of the three protected trees would have little to no significant impacts in the City, as the City manages 23,457 trees according to the City of Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Plan1
.

The appellant also states that the Robertson Boulevard Street Tree replacement contributed to the cumulative impact of tree loss City-wide. This street tree replacement project is approximately 2.25 miles away from 1001 North Roxbury Drive and is located along commercial zoned properties in the eastern side of the City. Section 15300.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that exemptions shall not apply when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. In this case, this Tree Removal Permit does not occur in the same place as the Robertson Boulevard Street Tree replacement in that the projects occur on opposite sides of the City and are located in different zoning districts.

Staff review concludes there does not appear to be a cumulative condition that would disqualify the requested Tree Removal Permit from the use of a Class 4 Categorical Exemption.
3) The City failed to provide legally required noticing.

The appellant asserts that they have been informed that surrounding property owners failed to receive legally-required notices and they were unable to fully participate in Planning Commission proceedings due to lack of notice.

The BHMC noticing requirements for a TRP require that a Notice of Public Hearing needs to be mailed to adjacent property owners whose property rights may be substantially affected by the approval of the requested permit. This BHMC requirement differs from the radius-based noticing requirement for other discretionary permits reviewed by the City. Accordingly, on June 6, 2024, 20 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City mailed the Notice of Public Hearing to the property owners of the following addresses: 1002 Roxbury Drive, 1000 Roxbury Drive, 918 Roxbury Drive, 921 Roxbury Drive, 918 Whittier Drive, 927 Whittier Drive, 9925 Sunset Boulevard, 935 Whittier Drive, 1007 Roxbury Drive, and 1004 Roxbury Drive. Notices were sent both to the property owner’s address of record and to the property itself.

Additionally, while not required by code, three Notice of Public Hearing signs were 1 The City of Beverly Hills Urban Forest Management Plan is available online at:
https://beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/5258/City-of-Beverly-Hills-Urban-Forest-Management-Plan-PDF Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

placed on each street frontage along Roxbury Drive, Lexington Road, and Whittier drive on June 6, 2024. As such, the City provided both the legally required noticing required for TRP and exceeded the requirements through the on-site posted notices.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines2 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the City’s local CEQA guidelines.

Upon review and discussion in Section 2 of the above report, staff believes that 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, staff recommends that the City Council find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 4 Categorical Exemption, and reject the appellant’s appeal of this determination.

In addition, as a separate and independent basis, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, as an infill project because:
uidelines Section 15332, as an infill project because:
(a) it is consistent with the City’s general plan land use designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. Specifically, the project is consistent with general plan land use policies regarding site design and neighborhood identity as well as open space policies regarding trees and the management of landscaping.

The replacement landscaping would contribute to sustainable design by minimizing the number of trees to be removed, manage existing landscaping and not include any changes to the street trees, involve the planting appropriately sized replacement trees to complement the existing development, and maintain the neighborhood identity by planting the majority of new trees within the required front and street side setbacks.
(b) it is in the City of Beverly Hills on a site that is less than five acres in size; (c) it is on a site that has no value for endangered, rare or threatened species given that the site has been developed and maintained as a single-family residence in a built-out neighborhood for decades;
(d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, because it is ultimately one aspect of the replacement of a previously existing single family residence with a new residence that would not have new or substantially greater traffic, noise, air quality or water quality impacts beyond those associated with the prior residence; and
(e) the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services, as evidence by the fact that for decades prior to recent demolition, the site contained a single-family residence.

Further, for the reasons explained above regarding the Class 4 exemption, none of the exceptions to categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. 2 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Meeting Date: September 17, 2024

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on August 28, 2024 to all adjacent property owners and residential occupants from the project site (Attachment 6). On-site postings were also posted on the subject property on August 28, 2024. Additionally, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the hearing date.

Public Comment
As of the writing of this report, staff has received eight public comments in support of the removal of the protected heritage trees. All previously provided public correspondence is included as Attachment 7 to this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellant at the time the appeal was filed.

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
7/9/2024 APPEAL PETITION &

LETTER DATED
7/16/2024
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION

APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLYIN BLACK INK July 9, 2024
Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on June 26, 2024 which decision consisted of:

Approval of Tree Removal Permit No. PL2300506 (for the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive) and California Environmental Quality Act exemption (Class 4 Exemption) The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State all groundsfor appeal. Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper ifnecessary.) See attached letter
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Cindy Gordon, on behalf of Masa Alkire on July 8, 2024 (Department Head(s) Involved) It is requested that written notice ofthe time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to: 777 5. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 :11:Raskin,HansonBridgettLLP Representative for Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC Signature of appealing party Address: 777 5. Figueroa Street, St. 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Address
Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC
401 North Maple Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Ph: (415) 995-5835; Fax: (415) 995-3456 Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid
(For City Clerk’s use) DATE RECEIVED

REV HILLS CITY CLERK
LOG NO.

Written Notice mailed to appellant: 2024 JUL 9 P333
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Involved Department
HansonBridgett PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL (415) 995-5835
DIRECT FAX (415) 995-3456E-MAIL [email protected] July 9, 2024
Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development DepartmentCity of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Tree Removal Permit No. PL2300506 (1001 North Roxbury Drive)
Dear Mr. Alkire:

On behalf of Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC, we respectfully appeal the Beverly Hills Planning Commission’s June 26, 2024 decisions, approvals, and findings concerning Tree Removal Permit No. PL2300506 (1001 North Roxbury Drive). The grounds for the appeal are set forth in this letter. Please note, however, that we reserve the right to present additional evidence and legal arguments prior to the hearing on this appeal.I. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF APPROVING THE

TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
The protected trees proposed for removal are two Coastal Redwoods (botanical name Sequoia Sempervirens) with trunk circumferences of 94” and 107”, respectively, and one London PlaneSycamore (botanical name Platanus Acerfolia) with a trunk circumference of 75”. The PlanningCommission’s findings in support of the Removal Permit do not comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 10-3-2900 et seq., and the findings are not supported by evidence in the record of proceedings.

First, the removal of the protected tree will adversely affect the neighboring properties and/or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area. The City’s findings are premised on the fact that (1) the trees are located in setback areas, and (2) the trees will be replaced. The setback issue is a complete non-sequitur. The loss of the trees will result in significant adverseenvironmental effects through the loss of canopy cover, habitat, and other ecological, aesthetic,and historic benefits. Substantial evidence shows that the trees provide irreplaceableenvironmental benefits, and their removal will adversely affect neighboring properties and the surrounding community. The replacement trees will take many years to mature and will not provide equivalent environmental value.’ Accordingly, the Planning Commission prejudicially1 The Fire Department’s findings are also irrelevant. Removing any canopy cover will reduce fuel.

Accordingly, this is not a justification for making this finding.

Hanson Bridgett LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 hansonbridgett.com 20978022.1
Masa Alkire, AICP
July 9, 2024

abused its discretion when it found that there would be no adverse effects associated with the removal of these trees.

Second, the removal of the protected tree will adversely affect the garden quality of the City. As noted above, replacement trees will take many years to mature. There are only a handful of specimen trees of equivalent age and quality in the city, and the loss of the replacement trees here will have a decades-long adverse impact on the garden quality of the City.

II. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA requires public agencies to disclose and analyze adverse environmental effects of discretionary projects before approving those projects. “[I]t is the policy of the state that publicagencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) CEQA is “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Ibid.)
“The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted insuch manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972)8 CaI.3d 247, 259.)” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390.)
Fundamentally, the purpose of CEQA is to enable decisionmakers and members of the public to make meaningful and fully-informed decisions about new development and land use planning in their community. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)40 Cal.4th 412, 448-450.) As the Court of Appeal explained in Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 704-705, CEQA review procedures generally involve a “three-tiered process:”
“The first tier requires an agency to conduct a preliminary review to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed project. [Citation.] If CEQA applies, the agency must proceed to the second tier of the process by conducting an initial study of the project. [Citation.] Among the purposes of the initial study is to help ‘to inform the choice between a negative declaration and an Environmental Impact Report ‘ElR7. ‘[Citation.] If there is ‘no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment’ the agency prepares a negative declaration. (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(2).) Alternatively, if’ “the initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans ‘would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on theenvironment would occur’ and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment a mitigated negativedeclaration may be used.” ‘[Citation.] Finally, if the initial study uncovers ‘substantialevidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment’ (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(1)), the agency must proceed to the third tier of the review process and prepare a full EIR.... [Citation.]”
20978022.1
Masa Alkire, AICP
July 9, 2024

When reviewing whether a project will have adverse environmental impacts, public agencies must disclose, analyze and mitigate any environmental effects on “human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(4).) In fact, CEQA mandates a finding of significant impact, and thus preparation of an EIR, when substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, shows that a project may have a significantcumulative effect, or has “effects [that] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2), (3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3), (4).) This requirement operates in conjunction with California’s environmental justice statutes, which require CEQA to be applied in a manner that fairly andequitably considers potential disparate impacts on the basis of age, disability, or other protected characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 11135, subd. (a); Id. at § 65040.12, subd. (e).)CEQA and the Guidelines also require a CEQA analyses to disclose and evaluate a project’s cumulative impacts and lead agencies may not, ipso jure, equate individually minor effects withcumulatively minor effects. Rather, CEQA mandates “a finding that a project may have ‘a significant effect on the environment’ “where the “possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b), emphasis added; Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).) “[C]umulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2).) Cumulative impacts may compound or increase other environmental impacts, and a CEQA analysis must inquire into and discuss the incremental impacts of a project when added to closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future development projects taking place over a period of time. (Guidelines, § 15130, 15355, 15358; see North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 682; Kings County Farm Bureau v.

City of Hanford (1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) Even when a combined cumulative impact associated with a project’s incremental effect and the effects of other related projects is notsignificant, the analysis still must “briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail.” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(2).) “A Lead Agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.” (Ibid.)
Here, the City prejudicially abused its discretion by approving a Class 4 Exemption for the Removal Permit. Substantial Evidence in the record of proceedings shows that the removal of these protected trees will have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts. Amongother things, witnesses have observed that the trees have been used as wildlife habitat; the trees provide unique aesthetic benefits; and the trees mitigate the heat island effect in a manner that less-mature trees cannot achieve. Coupled with other tree removals in the City, the loss ofthese trees and others is cumulatively significant.

Accordingly, the City prejudicially abused its discretion by approving a Class 4 Exemption forthe Removal Permit. 20978022.1
Masa Alkire, AICP
JuIy9, 2024

III. FAILURE TO PROVIDE LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICE
Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC is informed that surrounding property owners failed to receive legallyrequired notices and they were unable to fully participate in Planning Commission proceedings due to the lack of notice.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that the Planning Commission’s decision to grant a Removal Permit should be reversed.Very truly yours, Ellis F. RaskinPartner
20978022.1
20985393.2
Hanson Bridgett LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 ELLIS F. RASKIN

PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL (415) 995-5835
DIRECT FAX (415) 995-3456
E-MAIL [email protected]
July 16, 2024

VIA EMAIL
City Council of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 285-1013
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item A-1: Request by Councilmember Mirisch to Consider Reviewing the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Tree Removal Permit at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (Permit No. PL2300506)
Dear Hon. Mayor Friedman and Hon. Councilmembers:

My office represents Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC in connection with the appeal of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission’s June 26, 2024 approval of a Tree Removal Permit (No.

PL2300506) for the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (“Tree Removal Permit” or “Project”). We urge City Council to review this matter to ensure the strongest possible protections for the City’s urban forest and historic City trees. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission’s decision fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality Act.

Review is also necessary to ensure that any work at the 1001 North Roxbury Drive Property is properly conditioned to protect the trees. Yesterday, a crew of workers was observed at the 1001 North Roxbury Drive property cutting down trees. This crew did not install any protective fencing around the protected trees, and workers were observed driving and walking within the dripline of the protected trees. Some other tall trees came crashing down in close proximity to the protected trees shortly after they were cut. This was in violation of Municipal Code section 10-3-2905, which requires fencing and other measures to be placed around protected trees. We understand that the City has issued a stop work order and a notice of violation to the property owners. We therefore urge you to grant review to address these issues and to ensure that the City Council continues to protect the long-term health and vitality of its urban forest. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.

I. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION
There are two key reasons why the Planning Commission’s decision must be reconsidered.

First, the Planning Commission’s findings in support of approving the Tree Removal Permit are legally deficient and are not supported by substantial evidence. Under the City’s Municipal Code, the City may approve the removal of a protected tree only when the removal will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the garden quality of the City. Neither condition is met City Council of Beverly Hills
July 16, 2024

20985393.2
in this case. Substantial evidence shows that the trees provide irreplaceable environmental benefits, and their removal will adversely affect neighboring properties and the surrounding community. Thus, the Planning Commission prejudicially abused its discretion when it found there would be no adverse effects associated with the removal of these trees.

Second, the Planning Commission’s decision to exempt the Project from environmental review violates CEQA.
1 Contrary to the Planning Commission’s findings, the Project does not qualify for a Class 4 exemption because it will remove healthy, mature, scenic trees. Further, substantial evidence in the record of proceedings demonstrates that the removal of these protected trees will have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts, thereby requiring environmental review under CEQA. The Project will remove three mature trees that provide important ecological services, including carbon sequestration, providing habitat for wildlife, and mitigating the City’s heat island effect. Further, the loss of mature canopy cover at the Project site will contribute significantly to the cumulative effect of canopy loss City-wide. As such, the Planning Commission abused its discretion when it granted the Tree Removal Permit without requiring environmental review.

For these reasons, the City council should deny approval of the Tree Removal Permit and require environmental review for the Project.

II. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF APPROVING THE

TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The proposed Project requests the removal of three heritage trees: two Coastal Redwoods (botanical name Sequoia sempervirens) with trunk circumferences of 94 inches and 107 inches, respectively, and one London Plane Sycamore (botanical name Platanus acerfolia) with a trunk circumference of 75 inches. The Planning Commission’s findings in support of the Removal Permit do not comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 10-3-2900 et seq., and the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

Pursuant to Municipal Code section 10-3-2902, the Planning Commission may approve the removal of a protected tree provided that the Commission makes the following two findings:
(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.

Neither condition is met here. First, the removal of the protected trees will adversely affect the neighboring properties and/or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area. The Commission’s findings are premised on the fact that (1) the trees are located in the front setback area of the project site, (2) the trees would be replaced, and (3) the removal of these trees will promote fire safety. The setback issue is non-sequitur: the location of the trees relative to the Project site has no impact on the general welfare of the surrounding area. Further, the 1 The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) is commonly known as “CEQA,” and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs, tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) are commonly known as “the Guidelines”).

City Council of Beverly Hills
July 16, 2024

20985393.2
findings pertaining to fire safety are also irrelevant. Removing canopy cover will reduce fuel regardless of the type of tree being removed. Most importantly, the loss of the trees will result in significant adverse environmental effects through the loss of canopy cover, habitat, and other ecological, aesthetic, and historic benefits. Substantial evidence shows that the trees provide irreplaceable environmental benefits, and their removal will adversely affect neighboring properties and the surrounding community. The replacement trees will take many years to mature and will not provide equivalent environmental value. Accordingly, the Planning Commission prejudicially abused its discretion when it found there would be no adverse effects associated with the removal of these trees.

Second, the removal of the protected trees will adversely affect the garden quality of the City.

As noted above, replacement trees take years to mature, and so the removal of older, established trees will have significant adverse environmental effects. Only a handful of equivalent-aged trees exist in the City, thus the loss of the replacement trees will have a decades-long lasting effect on the garden quality of the City.

For these reasons, the Planning Commission abused its discretion by granting the Tree Removal Permit and making findings that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDING IN SUPPORT OF BYPASSING

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
The Planning Commission’s finding that the Project qualifies for a Class 4 exemption (Minor Alterations to Land) violates CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, as explained below in further detail.

A. The Project does not qualify for a Class 4 Exemption because it involves the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.

The Project very clearly does not qualify for a Class 4 exemption under CEQA. Environmental review procedures under CEQA require public agencies to disclose and analyze adverse environmental effects of discretionary projects before approving those projects. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21080(a).) As part of a preliminary analysis, a public agency must first determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA. (Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park W. Cmty.

Pres. Grp. v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 258.) Here, the Planning Commission determined the Project qualified for the Class 4 exemption under CEQA. But this conclusion runs contrary to the plain language of the Class 4 exemption.

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.” (Cal. Code of Regs, tit. 14, § 15304, emphasis added.) As explained above, the proposed Project involves the removal of three mature heritage trees with the purpose of “accommodat[ing] the new single-family residence and associated improvements.” (See Planning Commission Staff Report (June 26, 2024), p. 3-8.) Accordingly, the proposed Project does not qualify for the Class 4 exemption because it involves the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees for a non-forestry/non-agricultural purpose.

City Council of Beverly Hills
July 16, 2024

20985393.2
The Planning Commission completely ignored the plain language excepting the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees from the Class 4 exemption, instead finding that because the exemption includes the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient landscaping, the Project was necessarily exempt. (See Planning Commission Staff Report (June 26, 2024), p. 3-9; Cal. Code of Regs, tit. 14, § 15304(b).) But again, the plain language of the Class 4 exemption clearly and unambiguously provides that the exemption does not apply in the case of removal of health, mature, scenic trees. Accordingly, the Planning Commission abused its discretion by concluding that the Project qualified for a Class 4 exemption.

B. The Project will have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts, and therefore requires environmental review under CEQA.

The proposed Project will have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts, thereby requiring environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

As noted above, CEQA requires public agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of discretionary projects that do not otherwise qualify for an exemption. The law is clear that public agencies “should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) In enacting CEQA, the Legislature was clear that the act should be “interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390, internal quotes and citations omitted.) Fundamentally, the purpose of CEQA is to enable decisionmakers and members of the public to make meaningful and fully-informed decisions about new development and land use planning in their community. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)40 Cal.4th 412, 448-450.)
When reviewing whether a project will have adverse environmental impacts, public agencies must disclose, analyze and mitigate any environmental effects on “human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(4).) Indeed, CEQA mandates a finding of significant impact, and thus preparation of an EIR, when substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, shows that a project may have a significant cumulative effect, or has “effects [that] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2), (3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3), (4).)
CEQA and the Guidelines also require a CEQA analysis to disclose and evaluate a project’s cumulative impacts. CEQA mandates “a finding that a project may have ‘a significant effect on the environment’ “where the “possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b), emphasis added; Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).) “[C]umulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2).) Cumulative impacts may compound or increase other environmental impacts, and a CEQA analysis must inquire into and discuss the incremental impacts of a project when added to closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future development projects taking place over a period of time.

City Council of Beverly Hills
July 16, 2024

20985393.2
(Guidelines, § 15130, 15355, 15358; see North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 682; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.)
Substantial evidence in the record of proceedings demonstrates that the removal of the three trees will have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts. By requiring a Removal Permit for these trees, it is clear that the City believes heritage trees have environmental value.

Witnesses have observed that the trees have been used as wildlife habitat; that the trees provide unique aesthetic benefit; and that the trees mitigate the heat island effect. Coastal Redwoods in particular are widely considered to serve an important ecological purpose, providing habitat to a number of threatened and endangered species (e.g., the northern spotted owl and steelhead). Coastal Redwoods play an important role in carbon sequestration, storing the most aboveground carbon in heartwood, and also sequestering more carbon on an annual basis than any other tree species.2 Particularly in Beverly Hills, where traffic and urbanization generate significant carbon dioxide, carbon sequestration is a necessity in the wake of climate change. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”) listed the Coastal Redwood as endangered in 2013 after the number of individual trees declines by more than 50 percent over three generations due to logging.3 Thus, there is significant value in protecting this species.

Replacement of individual trees does not immediately mitigate the loss of habitat. Nor would replacement with less-mature trees mitigate the heat island effect as effectively. It is clear, then, that the removal of these trees would have direct and indirect impacts to the environment that cannot otherwise be mitigated.

Finally, the Project makes a cumulatively considerable contribution to the continued loss of mature canopy cover in the City. Just last year, the City of Beverly Hills announced plans to cut down nearly 100 trees to prevent damage to sidewalks and buildings.4 A group of advocates filed for and succeeded in obtaining a preliminary injunction in the Los Angeles Superior Court to stop the City from clear-cutting 36 Ficus trees on Robertson Boulevard without undergoing environmental review.5 But this was after the City had already removed nearly 50 Ficus trees.6 The loss of mature canopy cover at 1001 North Roxbury Drive would thus meaningfully contribute to the cumulative impact of tree loss City-wide.

In sum, the Planning Commission abused its discretion by failing to require environmental review for a Project that clearly will have direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant effects on the surrounding environment.
2 Sillett et al. Aboveground biomass dynamics and growth efficiency of Sequoia sempervirens forests (February 15, 2020) Forest Ecology Management, at p. 15. 3 Kelly, The Listing of Coastal Redwoods as Endangered Under the IUCN Red List: lessons for Conservation (2016) Proceedings of the Coast Redwood Symposium, at pp. 363, 365, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr258/psw_gtr258_361.pdf. 4 DuBose, Why Beverly Hills is Cutting Down Nearly 100 Trees (February 13, 2023) KTLA 5, available at https://ktla.com/news/local-news/why-beverly-hills-is-cutting-down-nearly-100-trees/. 5 Harter, Preliminary Injunction Granted in Robertson Tree Case (August 3, 2023) Beverly Hills Courier, available at https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2023/08/03/preliminary-injunction-granted-in-robertson-treecase/. 6 Waldinger, Robertson Trees Lawsuit Nears Settlement (June 6, 2024) Beverly Hills Courier, available at https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/06/06/robertson-trees-lawsuit-nears-settlement/.

City Council of Beverly Hills
July 16, 2024

20985393.2
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council review this matter at a full public hearing. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the telephone number or email listed above.

Sincerely,
Ellis F. Raskin
Partner
ATTACHMENT 2

APPLICANT APPEAL

RESPONSES (LETTERS
DATED 7/16/2024, 9/3/2024, &
9/11/2024)
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com

FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Silicon Valley
Hong Kong Singapore
Houston Tel Aviv
London Tokyo
Los Angeles Washington, D.C.

Madrid
July 16, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: City Council Study Session Agenda Item A-1 (1001 N. Roxbury - Tree Removal Permit)
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:

We write on behalf of Eric and Nikki Baker, Beverly Hills residents who are building their family home at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive. The Council is set to consider whether to review the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of a Tree Removal Permit (PL2300506) for 3 of the 30 heritage trees on their property.

As an initial matter, the Tree Removal Permit has been appealed, so there is nothing for the Council to “call up.” We respectfully request that the Council hear the appeal on September

10. In all events, there is no reason for the Council to review the Planning Commission’s decision.

There are 30 heritage trees on the property, and 27 of them would be retained under the approved Tree Removal Permit. The Bakers purchased this property because of its urban woodland feel. They worked with their architect to design their home around the site’s existing trees and large setbacks. This is evidenced by the fact that the home is 32 percent smaller than what the Bakers could build as a matter of right. In fact, an earlier design called for replacement of five heritage trees, but the Bakers adjusted their plans to reduce the home size further to retain two additional front-yard heritage trees.

The Bakers’ goal is to retain and enhance the urban woodland quality of their home and the City. The attached diagram shows the massive amount of tree plantings and limited removals.

As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, certain non-native, non-climate adaptive trees on the property would be removed and replaced with native and climate-adaptive trees. In the front yard alone, there will be 37 trees (15 existing and 22 new). Together with the 7 street trees, there will be 44 total trees between the street and the front of the house. This is truly in keeping with the City’s garden feel.

July 16, 2024

The required findings for the Tree Removal Permit pursuant to BHMC §§ 10-3-2901 and 10-3-2902, as set forth in the staff report for the June 26, 2024, Planning Commission hearing, are readily made.
• No Impact to Neighboring Properties. There would be no impacts to neighboring properties. The property is flat, and the removed trees are at a substantial distance from all neighbors. One of the three trees proposed for removal is not visible from the street and is a non-native species with high water requirements that is not climate adapted to Southern California. 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. Moreover, these two front yard trees are conifers (coast redwoods), which are disfavored by the Beverly Hills Fire Department due to their fire risk and are not recommended for planting in Beverly Hills’ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone since they readily spread fire to neighboring trees and buildings; the BHFD supports their removal. (Staff Report, p.

10.) The Planning Commission conditioned replacing all three trees with large mature trees that will reach 70 feet in height.
• No Adverse Impact to Garden Quality of City. Retaining the majority of the existing trees and installing additional plantings will enhance the City’s garden quality.

Planting 31 trees on the property, including 22 in the front yard setback, will enhance the City’s garden quality. Removing two disfavored trees from the front yard does not impact the City’s garden quality. A comparison of the property to its neighboring properties is telling. There will be 65 trees at the Bakers’ home – 37 in the front yard alone. In contrast, 1025 N. Roxbury appears to have no trees at all in the front yard, 1000 N. Roxbury appears to have one or two trees in the front yard, and 917 N.

Roxbury may have one.

The Planning Commission correctly issued the Tree Removal Permit based on the readily-made findings and the findings are well-supported by the evidence in the staff report.

We look forward to responding to the appeal and the Bakers look forward to continuing to plan and build their family home in Beverly Hills.

Very truly yours,
Benjamin J. Hanelin
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Michael Forbes, Community Development Director
Mr. Masa Alkire, City Planner
Mr. Philip Coronel, Associate Planner

Landscape Front
Elevation L- 3.02 18"=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. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive 1001 N. Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210 date description sheet number drawn by scale project
address
sheet title north
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com

FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Silicon Valley
Hong Kong Singapore
Houston Tel Aviv
London Tokyo
Los Angeles Washington, D.C.

Madrid
September 3, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 1001 N. Roxbury - Tree Removal Permit (PL2300506)
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:

On behalf of Eric and Nikki Baker, longtime Beverly Hills residents who are building their family home at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive, we respectfully request that the City Council deny Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s appeal. The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Tree Removal Permit and CEQA findings were correct. The appeal should be denied.

The Tree Removal Permit for three protected trees, only two of which are visible to the public, will allow the Bakers to enhance the property’s landscaping further. 27 protected trees will remain. 31 new climate adapted, mature trees will be planted. There will be at least 65 trees on the property with the new landscape plan, which will use about one third of the water the prior landscaping is estimated to have consumed.

The Bakers will retain and enhance their property’s urban woodland qualities. The Bakers purchased the property because of its urban woodland feel. In fact, an initial request called for replacing five protected trees. The Bakers adjusted their preliminary designs to retain two additional front-yard heritage trees. Note that the northernmost front-yard tree to be replaced is only “protected” because the Bakers have proposed setting their garage back farther than what is required. If the garage was at the minimum front-yard setback, this tree would not be protected and the Bakers could remove it by-right.

The attached Exhibit 1 shows the massive amount of tree plantings. (Exh. 1, p. 3.) There will be 37 total trees in the front yard alone (15 existing and 22 new). Together with the 7 mature street trees, there will be 44 total trees between the street and the front of the house. This is truly in keeping with the City’s garden feel. The attached rendering shows how the front-yard landscaping on Roxbury Drive will be viewed from the adjacent sidewalk. (See Exh. 1, p. 11.) The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Tree Removal Permit was correct. We have provided additional opinions from arborists on the carbon sequestration capabilities of the trees to be removed versus the trees to be planted and tree health. (See Exh. 1, September 3, 2024

p. 9 [Carbon Sequestration]; Exh. 2 [Tree Health Report]; see also Exh. 3 [Arborist Report].) All of this further supports the Planning Commission findings under BHMC § 10-3-2902. • No Impact to Neighboring Properties. There would be no impacts to neighboring properties. The property is flat. The three removed trees are at a substantial distance from all neighbors. One of the three trees proposed for removal is not visible from the street and is a non-native species with high water requirements that is not climate adapted to Southern California. The two front-yard trees 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. Moreover, these two front yard trees are conifers (coast redwoods). Such trees are disfavored by the Beverly Hills Fire Department due to their fire risk and are not recommended for planting in Beverly Hills’ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Beverly Hills Fire Department supports their removal. The Planning Commission conditioned replacing the three trees with large mature trees that will reach 70 feet in height and for the replacements to be planted before a building permit issues. • No Adverse Impact to City’s Garden Quality. Retaining the majority of the existing trees and installing additional plantings will enhance the City’s garden quality. Planting 31 trees on the property, including 22 in the front-yard, will enhance the City’s garden quality. Removing two disfavored trees that are only in “fair” condition from the frontyard does not impact the City’s garden quality. A comparison of the property to its neighboring properties is telling. There will be 65 trees at the Bakers’ home – 37 in the front yard alone. In contrast, 1025 N. Roxbury appears to have no trees at all in the front yard setback, 1000 N. Roxbury appears to have only three trees that meet heritage size requirements in the front yard, and 917 N. Roxbury appears to have no trees at all in the front yard setback. Contrary to Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s assertions, the front yard trees were planted 20 to 30 years ago, as shown in the attached aerial photos. (Exh. 4.) 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. (Exh. 1, pp. 7-8, 10.)1 The Bakers started the City-staff directed process to permit and build their family home over a year ago. It is time to move forward. Time is of the essence. The Bakers’ children continue to grow and the Bakers are anxious to move forward with planning their new home.

The Bakers’ future family home sits on a lot that is just like any other lot in the City. There is no basis to apply a different standard to the Bakers’ request. The Bakers have followed all the City’s rules to the letter and have more than met its spirit.
1 See infra, note 2.

September 3, 2024

We appreciate the Planning Commission’s thorough analysis and unanimous decision.

Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s appeal should be denied.

Very truly yours,
Benjamin J. Hanelin
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Michael Forbes, Community Development Director
Mr. Masa Alkire, City Planner
Mr. Philip Coronel, Associate Planner
September 3, 2024

I. INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Tree Removal Permit and determination that the action was exempt from CEQA, was supported by substantial evidence, consistent with staff’s recommendation, and appropriate and consistent with the law. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s arguments are without merit. We respectfully request that the Council deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.

II. THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
There are 30 protected heritage trees on the property. 27 of them will be retained. The Tree Removal Permit will allow the Bakers to implement a comprehensive landscape plan that will: (1) plant 31 new trees across the property for 65 total trees; (2) plant 22 new trees in the front yard, for a total of 37 total trees in the front yard alone (15 existing and 22 new); (3) replace non-climate adapted tree species with climate adopted and California native trees; and (4) replace grass lawn with low-water groundcover.

The Bakers purchased the property because of its urban woodland feel. They worked with their architect to design their home around the site’s existing trees and large setbacks. This is evidenced by the fact that the home as currently contemplated is 32 percent smaller than what the Bakers could build as a matter of right and covers only 15% of the 80,000 square foot property.

In fact, an earlier design called for replacement of five heritage trees, but the Bakers adjusted their plans to retain two additional front-yard heritage trees. To enhance the large front yard setback, the garage has been placed beyond the 50-foot setback required pursuant to the BHMC section 10-3-2404 setback requirements. Because of this design element intended to enhance the front yard and maintain the property’s gracious front yard and woodland feel, one of the protected redwood trees proposed for removal is in fact outside of the front yard setback, but within the tree setback required under BHMC section 10-3-2901(A)(2). If the garage was at the minimum front-yard setback, this tree would not be protected and the Bakers could remove it byright.

The Bakers’ goal is to retain and enhance the urban woodland quality of their home and the City. The landscaping plans submitted to the City, attached as Exhibit 1, show the massive amount of tree plantings and limited removals. (See Exh. 1, p. 3.) As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, certain non-native, non-climate adaptive trees on the property would be removed and replaced with native and climate-adaptive trees.

III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS IN APPROVING THE TREE

REMOVAL PERMIT ARE WELL-SUPPORTED
The Planning Commission’s findings in support of the Tree Removal Permit fully comply with the requirements of the City’s tree removal ordinance (BHMC Article 29) and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s arguments to the contrary are wrong. (Appeal, pp. 2-3).

September 3, 2024

Under BHMC section 10-3-2902, the City may approve removal of a protected heritage tree when the removal of the protected tree (a) will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area and (b) will not adversely affect the City’s garden quality.

A. No Impact to Neighboring Properties
There would be no impacts to neighboring properties. The property is flat and the removed trees are at a substantial distance from all neighbors. One of the three trees proposed for removal is not visible from the street or the lone adjacent property. This tree, a London Plane, is a non-native species with high water requirements that is not climate adapted to Southern California. The other two trees in the front yard are part of larger stands of like-sized trees. A passerby would be hard-pressed to differentiate the two from the surrounding 15 front yard trees being retained. Moreover, these two front yard trees are conifers (coast redwoods). Conifers are disfavored by the Beverly Hills Fire Department due to their fire risk and are not recommended for planting in Beverly Hills’ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone since they readily spread fire to neighboring trees and buildings; the BHFD supports their removal. (Planning Commission Staff Report, p. 10.) The Planning Commission’s conditions of approval require the Bakers to replace all three protected heritage trees with large mature trees that will reach a minimum tree maturity height of 70 feet.

Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC argues that removing three protected trees and replacing them with 31 new trees would adversely affect neighboring properties and/or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC claims there will be significant adverse environmental effects through loss of canopy cover, habitat, and other ecological, aesthetic and historic benefits because replacement trees will take years to mature and will not provide equivalent environmental value. (Appeal, p. 3.) None of these are impacts to adjacent properties. There is only a single adjacent property to the north. One of the front-yard conifers (No. 14) is approximately 58 feet from the abutting neighbor, and the closer tree (No. 15) is approximately 44 feet from the property line along Roxbury Drive. Between the tree to be removed (No. 14) and the property line along Roxbury Drive, there is a grouping of 11 trees in total. An additional two trees will be planted between the abutting neighbor and this tree to be removed (No. 14). There will be no impact to neighboring properties or the area’s general welfare.

Pictures of the two front yard protected trees to be removed are provided at pp. 5-6 of Exhibit 1. As shown in those pictures, these trees are part of a larger grouping of trees with overlapping canopies. The removal of each tree will hardly be noticeable given that there are six redwoods that will remain adjacent to the southern tree (No. 15) and three redwoods that will remain in close proximity to the northern tree (No. 14). The third tree to be removed, a nonnative London Plane, is not visible from public right of way or from adjoining properties. (See Exh. 1, p. 4.) Further, each of these trees will be replaced with trees that are a minimum of 25 September 3, 2024

feet at planting (Exh. 1, pp. 7-8) and are expected to grow approximately two to three feet per year.2 Exhibit 1 has pictures of the already mature replacement trees. (Exh. 1, pp. 7-8.) The existing tree canopy in the front yard of the property is relatively new. (Exh. 4.) Historic aerial photos from 1980, 1993, and 2022 show that there was no canopy in the front yard of the property in 1980 and 1993. New trees appears in the later 1990s. These are not “oldgrowth” trees.

The Tree Removal Permit would allow the Bakers to add 22 new trees to the front yard for a total of 37 total trees – far from taking away from the front yard canopy, this would add to it as the trees grow at a rate of approximately two to three feet per year which as demonstrated in Exhibit 4 can build up the canopy in a relatively short period of time.

The general welfare of the City will not be impacted. The City’s Fire Department has confirmed that conifers, like the two front-yard trees, pose a fire hazard and risk. As shown in Exhibit 1, the carbon dioxide uptake of the 31 proposed trees to be planted, including the three replacement trees, is more than six times the uptake of the three existing heritage trees to be removed. (Exh. 1, p. 9.) Further, the proposed new landscaping will use substantially less water compared to prior installed landscaping. Removing the protected trees and implementing the proposed landscaping plan to add more trees than currently exist on the property will improve fire safety, improve carbon uptake capability of the landscaping, reduce water usage, and thus benefit the City’s general welfare.

B. No Adverse Impact to the City’s Garden Quality
Retaining the majority of the existing trees and installing additional plantings will enhance the City’s garden quality. Planting 31 trees at the Bakers’ home, including 22 in the front yard setback, will enhance the City’s garden quality. Removing two disfavored trees from the front yard does not impact the City’s garden quality. A comparison of the property to its neighboring properties is telling. There will be 65 trees at the Bakers’ home – 37 in the front yard alone. In contrast, 1025 N. Roxbury appears to have no trees at all in the front yard setback, 1000 N. Roxbury appears to have only three trees that meet heritage size requirements in the front yard, and 917 N. Roxbury appears to have no trees at all in the front yard setback.

And Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC argues that since replacement trees will take years to mature, there will be decades-long impacts to the City’s garden quality. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC is wrong. The replacement trees will be a minimum of 25 feet at planting and are expected to grow approximately two to three feet per year, reaching a minimum tree maturity height of 70 2 https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/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 3, 2024

feet. (Exh. 1, pp. 7-8, 10.)3 Moreover, the trees to be removed and replaced are either surrounded by other trees, or located outside the view of the public right of way. (Exh. 1, p. 4.) For all the reasons discussed above and in the staff report, Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC ’s arguments are meritless. The findings for the Tree Removal Permit pursuant to BHMC § 10-3- 2902 are readily made. The Planning Commission correctly issued the Tree Removal Permit based on these readily-made findings which are well-supported by the evidence in the staff report.

IV. CONCLUSION
On behalf of the Bakers, we appreciate this opportunity to respond to the issues in the 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. We appreciate the City staff’s thorough analysis of the Tree Removal Permit, and look forward to responding to any questions at the City Council hearing.4
3 Ibid.
4 Exhibit 5 is a court reporter transcript from the City Council’s June 21, 2022, hearing concerning the Property.

EXHIBIT 1
1 0 0 1 R o x b u r y D r i v e
Tr e e R e p l a c e m e n t P a c k a g e
C h r i s t i n e L o n d o n L t d .

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 4
1001 Roxbury Drive Tree Replacement Package September 2024 Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s P a g e 2
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
S i t e P l a n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3I m a g e s o f E x i s t i n g N o n C l i m a t e A d a p t e d Tr e e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4I m a g e s o f E x i s t i n g N o n C l i m a t e A d a p t e d Tr e e s i n C o n t e x t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6I m a g e s o f P r o p o s e d C A N a t i v e Tr e e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8I n f o g r a p h i c C o m p a r i s o n o f C a r b o n S e q u e s t r a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n Vi e w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0P e r s p e c t i v e Vi e w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Tree Replacement Package September 2024
S i t e P l a n P a g e 3
1001 Roxbury Drive
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
E x i s t i n g N o n C l i m a t e A d a p t e d Tr e e s # 1 5 S e q u o i a s e m p e r v i r e n s
7 0 ’ H e i g h t 3 0 ’ C a n o p y
# 1 4 S e q u o i a s e m p e r v i r e n s
7 0 ’ H e i g h t 3 0 ’ C a n o p y
# 3 4 P l a t a n u s a c e r c o l i a
7 0 ’ H e i g h t 3 0 ’ C a n o p y
P a g e 4
1001 Roxbury Drive
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
# 1 4 S e q u o i a s e m p e r v i r e n s P a g e 5
14 14
1001 Roxbury Drive
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
# 1 5 S e q u o i a s e m p e r v i r e n s P a g e 6
15 15
1001 Roxbury Drive
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
P r o p o s e d P l a t n u s r a c e m o s a Tr e e s ; 3 0 ’ H e i g h t 1 5 ’ C a n o p y ; 7 2 ” B o x
P a g e 7
1001 Roxbury Drive
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
P r o p o s e d Q u e r c u s v i r g i n i a n a a n d S o u t h e r n m a g n o l i a
P a g e 8
1001 Roxbury Drive
Platanus racemosa
72” Box
Quercus Virginiana
48” Box
Southern Magnolia
60” Box
#34 Platanus acerfolia #14 Sequoia sempervirens #15 Sequoia sempervirens Existing Heritage Trees Proposed for Removal
Proposed Trees for Planting
Qty: 1 Qty: 1 Qty: 1
Height 70’+ 20’+ 40’+ 60’+
Qty: 19 Qty: 5 Qty: 7
Height 20’+ 40’+
1 For large trees sequestration is overtaken by CO2 loss with decay/maintenance.2 CO2 equivalent is estimated by calculating how much atmospheric CO2 is taken in by trees to provide the carbon stored in the tissues of individual trees.*Calculations made with the i-Tree peer-reviewed software suite from the USDA Forest Service to provide urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools. www.itreetools.org/about Carbon Dioxide Uptake
Measurement in Pounds
Carbon Sequestered CO2 Equivalent
Existing Heritage TreesAll Proposed Trees
3,409.48
12,501.44
Quantity: 31Quantity: 3
20,981.36
76,931.60
60’+ 30’+
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
2 0 Ye a r C a r b o n S e q u e s t r a t i o n E s t i m a t e s P a g e 9 1001 Roxbury Drive
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
10’
20’30’40’50’
Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n P a g e 1 0
1001 Roxbury Drive
Tree Replacement Package September 2024
P e r s p e c t i v e Vi e w P a g e 1 1
1001 Roxbury Drive
EXHIBIT 2

TREE REPORT HERITAGE CONDITIONS

PREPARED FOR
Groverbury LLC

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

CONTACT
Suzanne Shepela
310.444.1404
[email protected]
August 28, 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 August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 3
DISCUSSION 3
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 4
TREE CHARACTERISTICS AND DEFECTS 5
APPENDIX A –TREE LOCATION MAP 6
APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS 7
APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF FIELD INSPECTION 14
Botryospheria dothedia Article 15
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 17
The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 3

TREE REPORT HERITAGE CONDITIONS
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, structures, guest house and amenities. This report addresses the current health and conditions of the three (3) Heritage trees #14, #15 and #34 recommended for removal.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Site Address 1001 N. Roxbury Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Location and/or Specific Plan Beverly Hills
Project Description Current Health and Conditions of Heritage Removals Number of Protected Heritage Trees on Site for
Removal
3 DISCUSSION
This property has a collection of thirty Protected Heritage trees. Only three Protected Heritage trees are recommended for removal. The recommended removals are London plane and Coastal Redwood trees. The proposed plan will retain a good portion of trees around the east and southwesterly perimeter, and all street trees including canary pines, tipu and jacarandas. Additionally, most interior perimeter redwoods will be retained, along with some London planes along Roxbury frontage. The plan also involves the removal of only a select few interior trees that will have minimal impact on the overall existing tree collection. By maintaining the existing collection of trees that line the area between the residence and the street this helps to preserve visual screening and ensures that the property upholds the neighborhood tree canopy and the beautification standards of the City of Beverly Hills. Planting a diverse collection of tree species can enhance the resilience of the ecosystem to climate change and other environmental stressors. Different tree species have varying tolerance levels to pests, diseases, and climate conditions, so diversifying the tree canopy can help mitigate risks associated with potential threats to the coastal redwoods.

Years ago an overabundance of mono-cultured trees were installed on this residential property. They are competing with each other for resources, soil space, water availability. The dense competition between each of the trees combined with the very poor soil conditions has encouraged these trees to develop superficial root systems. This is an indication that they have grown in a congested and dense growing space in competition with adjacent trees. They are all in “fair vigor” due to a combination of growing conditions, species, and the effects of drought stress and overcrowding. “Fair vigor” is defined as: Reduced vigor.

Damage due to insects or diseases may be significant and associated with defoliation but is not likely to be fatal. Twig dieback, defoliation, and/or dead branches may compromise up to 50% of the crown. A single defect of a significant nature or multiple moderate defects. Defects are not practical to correct or would require multiple treatments over several years. Major asymmetries/deviations from species norm and/or intended use. Function and/or aesthetics are compromised.

The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 4
Inspection of the canopies showed congested lateral limbs. Many of the canopies have extensive dead wood, due to shading out and decades of competition. Also, some limbs have broken due to decay and wind events. Lastly, the less than optimal “live crown ratio” where the canopy foliage is focused in the upper half of the canopy creates a “q-tip” effect where wind events are more impactful and able to created an elevated “bending moment” where the trees can fail along the trunk, or at the root plate after inclement weather.

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
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. The hybrid, called Platanus x hispanica as most London Plane, are not native and as a result, 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. The Landscaping plan shows the removal of 1 non-native London plane and installation of the more appropriate native Western Sycamore which are climate adapted and are less sensitive to the temperature fluctuations. Once established Western Sycamores can survive low water conditions where as the London plane are not native and have not developed that climate adaptation.

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. They are susceptible to botrysphaeria cankers and I observed, close up evidence of browning and greying on the needles.

Botrysphaeria canker is a fungal disease that infects trees that are already stressed or weakened. It causes cankers and dieback killing tissue in its wake. At the start of this project, these trees were very stressed from the mega-drought. Even though we are experiencing a few years of exceptional rain, redwoods typically require higher water for this region.

These botrysphaeria canker pathogens have been implicated in those planted outside their normal range and those subject to unfavorable growing conditions, e.g., dry soil, compacted soil, wet soils overcrowding, etc.

All of which are present at this site. Please see the attached article referencing this redwood canker at the end of the report. The Landscaping plan shows the removal of 2 redwoods and installation of Oak and Magnolia species to provide increased biodiversity, improved habitat for wildlife, enhanced aesthetic appeal, and resilience to climate change.

The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 5
#14 - Coastal Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) - Protected Heritage • 94” Circumference, Height 70’, Spread 30’, Condition Fair • High water requirements
• The dense competition between each of the trees combined with the very poor soil conditions has encouraged these trees to maintain superficial root systems. • They have grown in a congested and dense growing space in competition with adjacent trees. • Twig/needle die back
• Evidence of botrysphaeria canker
#15 - Coastal Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) - Protected Heritage • 107” Circumference, Height 70’, Spread 30’, Condition Fair • High water requirements
• The dense competition between each of the trees combined with the very poor soil conditions has encouraged these trees to maintain superficial root systems. • They have grown in a congested and dense growing space in competition with adjacent trees. • Twig/needle die back
• Evidence of botrysphaeria canker
#34 - London Plane (Platanus × hispanica) - Protected Heritage • 75” Circumference, Height 70’, Spread 30’, Condition Fair • Experience heat stress during heatwaves or in urban environments with inadequate shade or poor air circulation.
• Canopy structure is poor with previous topping/heading pruning and lack of apical dominance. • London plane trees have moderate to high water requirements, often needing consistent soil moisture to thrive.

TREE CHARACTERISTICS AND DEFECTS
The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 6
APPENDIX A - TREE LOCATION MAP Site Plan
The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 7

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 1 - Redwood #14 Evidence of botrysphaeria canker. These pathogens have been implicated in those planted outside their normal range and those subject to unfavorable growing conditions, e.g., dry soil, compacted soil, wet soils overcrowding, etc. All of which are present at this site. 14 The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 8

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 2 - Redwood #14 Evidence of botrysphaeria canker. These pathogens have been implicated in those planted outside their normal range and those subject to unfavorable growing conditions, e.g., dry soil, compacted soil, wet soils overcrowding, etc. All of which are present at this site. 14 The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 9

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 3 - Redwood #15 Evidence of botrysphaeria canker. These pathogens have been implicated in those planted outside their normal range and those subject to unfavorable growing conditions, e.g., dry soil, compacted soil, wet soils overcrowding, etc. All of which are present at this site. 15 The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 10

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 4 - Redwood #15 Evidence of botrysphaeria canker. These pathogens have been implicated in those planted outside their normal range and those subject to unfavorable growing conditions, e.g., dry soil, compacted soil, wet soils overcrowding, etc. All of which are present at this site. 15 The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 11

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 5 - London Plane Sycamore #34 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. 34 The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 12

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 6 - London Plane Sycamore #34 Sparse canopy and water sprouts. 34 The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 13

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 7 - London Plane Sycamore #34. Note mistletoe impacting the tree, causing degradation on main stems.
34 The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 14

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
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
34 Rear Setback
London Plane
Platanus ×
hispanica
Protected
Heritage 24 75 70’+ 30’+ C REMOVE

REDWOOD CANKER
BRUCE W. HAGEN
Causal agents: Botryospheria dothedia, Seridium species and Cytospora canker Hosts: Coast Redwood, Giant Sequoia, incense cedar, Japanese cryptomeria, Chamercyparis (Port Orford cedar), dawn redwood, other conifers and hardwoods.

Symptoms: Scattered dieback of twigs and branches, occasional top dieback (up to 1/3 of crown), infected branches often exude pitch droplets. Look for reddish-brown ‘flags’ (dead branches) as an indicator. Cankers range from well-defined flattened or depressed dead areas in the bark surounded by raised ‘healthy’ callus tissue (woundwood), or spreading lesions without raised margins. Wood beneath cankers is discolored. Smaller branches are often quickly girdled and killed by the pathogen. Trunk cankers are slower to develop, and less likely to girdle the trunk. Branch cankers can spread to the trunk.

Biology: These pathogens have been implicated in the recent increase in dieback seen in Northern California redwoods, particularly those planted outside their normal range and those subject to unfavorable growing conditions, e.g., dry soil, compacted soil, wet soils overcrowding, etc. By and large, these canker-causing fungi are fairly specific to trees that are exposed to environmental stress or weakened by site disturbance. Fungal fruiting bodies are produced in the killed tissue.

Although spores can be produced throughout the year, most are released from the fruiting bodies during wet weather. Seasonal rain splash is responsible for dispersing spores within trees and to neighboring trees. Other spores may be dispersed by wind during the growing season. Infection commonly occurs through wounds, lenticels, growth cracks in the bark, sunburned or injured tissue. Healthy trees and tissue seem to resist infection.  Botryospheria dothidia is an opportunistic pathogen, commonly attacking trees that are predisposed by environmental stress. The host range is quite broad and its distribution is worldwide. This organism is often associated with perennial cankers that can reinfect other parts of the tree. Rainwater and wind disperse spores.
 Seridium spp. is another opportunistic pathogen favoring stressed trees. It is typically associated with branch and top dieback, elliptical cankers, bleeding, and discolored wood.

Spore production and Disease spread occur predominantly during wet weather. Smaller branches with cankers serve as an inoculum source for disease buildup.  Cytospora canker: is similar to the above in that it is also an opportunistic pathogen favoring stressed trees. This organism can colonize dead and dying branches, which can serve as source of spores for future disease spread. Fruiting bodies extrude orange, thread-like spore masses when wet. These spores are then dispersed by rainwater. Other spores can be dispersed by wind. Moist conditions are needed for germination.

Management:
 In natural stands and planted groves, thin – reduce crowding and competition through selective removal. Ideal spacing for redwoods is about one foot of spacing for each inch of trunk diameter.
 For ornamental trees, maintain health and vigor by providing summer irrigation. Mulch the soil beneath trees to conserve soil moisture.
 Avoid planting redwood outside their normal range. Redwoods require ample summer irrigation and good drainage. They do poorly in site where the soil is compacted, poorly drained or over-irrigated (saturated).
 Prune out and dispose of infected branches and dead tops. Prune infected branches close to the trunk so that no stubs remain.
 Chemical control for this ‘disorder’ has not been investigated and does not appear to be feasible.
 Improving health is far and away the most effective strategy to prevent or manage this disease. Sanitation, the removal and disposal of infected branches, is also important measure to minimize ‘within’ tree disease spread.
 Fertilization is not recommended unless there is a know nutrient deficiency. The addition of nitrogen based fertilizer has been implicated in exacerbating disease problems.

The Tree Resource August 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 17
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
EXHIBIT 3

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]
3-25
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
3-26
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
3-27
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.
3-28
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.
3-29
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 6
APPENDIX A.1 - TREE LOCATION MAP Site Plan
3-30
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 3-31
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 3-32
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 3-33
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
3-34
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
3-35
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 3-36
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
3-37
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
3-38
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 15

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 11 - Redwood #15 - to be removed.
15 3-39
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 3-40
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 17

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 13 - Redwood #16 and #17 - RETAIN
16 17
3-41
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 3-42
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
3-43
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
3-44
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 21

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 17 - Redwood #23 - RETAIN
23 3-45
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
3-46
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 3-47
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 3-48
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 3-49
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
3-50
The Tree Resource June 2024
1001 N. Roxbury Dr. 27

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 23 - Non-protected, behind setback Redwood #36 - REMOVAL 36 3-51
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 3-52
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 3-53
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
3-54
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.
3-55
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.
3-56
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. 3-57
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.
3-58
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. 3-59
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. 3-60
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.
3-61
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.
3-62
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
3-63
EXHIBIT 4
1001 N. Roxbury - 1980
1001 N. Roxbury - 1993
1001 N. Roxbury - 2022
EXHIBIT 5
·1· ·In Re:· · · · · · · · · · · )
·2· ·June 21, 2022 Beverly Hills )
·3· ·City Council Regular Meeting)
·4· ·Agenda Item E-2· · · · · · ·)
·5· ·____________________________)
·6
·7
·8
·9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16· · · · · · · · · · ·AUDIO TRANSCRIPTION
17· · · · OF BEVERLY HILLS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 18· · · · · · · · ·MEETING DATE:· JUNE 21, 2022
19 20
21 22
23· ·Transcribed by:
· · ·JOSIE C. GONZALEZ
24· ·CSR No. 13435
· · ·Job No. 10147068
25 ·1· ·In Re:· · · · · · · · · · · )
·2· ·June 21, 2022 Beverly Hills )
·3· ·City Council Regular Meeting)
·4· ·Agenda Item E-2· · · · · · ·)
·5· ·____________________________)
·6
·7
·8
·9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22· · · · · ·Audio Transcription of CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 23· ·transcribed on August 5, 2024 in San Diego, California, 24· ·by JOSIE C. GONZALEZ, Certified Shorthand Reporter 25· ·No. 13435, in and for the State of California.
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
·2· · · · · · · · · · · · Start of Audio
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
·4· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Let us now go to Item E-2, City ·5· ·Council review of the director of community developments ·6· ·March 2nd, 2022 issuance and approval of a certificate ·7· ·of ineligibility for the residents located at 1001 North ·8· ·Roxbury Drive.
·9· · · · · ·City clerk?
10· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· This is the time and place set for 11· ·a public hearing to consider City Council review of the 12· ·director of community developments March 2nd, 2022 13· ·issuance and approval of a certificate of ineligibility 14· ·for the residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. 15· ·Let the record show that the notice of this hearing was 16· ·published as required by law.· The records and files of 17· ·the community development department and the report of 18· ·the city planner considering this matter shall be
19· ·entered into the record.· Now is also the time for 20· ·council members to enter into the record any
21· ·communications or other evidence not currently in the 22· ·record that council members have received before this 23· ·evening's hearing.
24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Councilmember
25· ·Wunderlich, is there any further information that you'd ·1· ·like to add into the record?
·2· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· No.
·3· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Councilmember
·4· ·Friedman?
·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· No.
·6· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Councilmember Mirisch?
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· No.
·8· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Vice Mayor?
·9· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· I did meet with the appellants 10· ·just to hear their side of the story, the -- the owners. 11· ·The --
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Thank you.· And I -- I have 13· ·nothing to add as well.· So can we please have an oral 14· ·report from our city planner, Ryan Gohlich.· Welcome. 15· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Thank you.· Good evening, Mayor 16· ·Bosse, Vice Mayor Gold, members of the City Council. 17· ·I'm Ryan Gohlich, your director of community development 18· ·and I'll be giving you an overview on the certificate of 19· ·ineligibility for 1001 North Roxbury Drive.
20· · · · · ·The property is shown on the screen here.· The 21· ·image on the left is the front facade as viewable from 22· ·Roxbury Drive, and then you can see the aerial shot on 23· ·the right-hand side of the property sits at the
24· ·intersection of Roxbury Drive, Whittier and also
25· ·Lexington.
·1· · · · · ·The home was originally constructed in 1941 for ·2· ·Mildred Naylor in the Regency Revival Architectural ·3· ·style, and the building was designed and constructed by ·4· ·master architect Carlton Burgess.· Just a brief bit of ·5· ·background here and how we got to the council.· Back in ·6· ·February of this year we -- we circulated to the
·7· ·Cultural Heritage Commission a certificate of
·8· ·eligibility that included a historic assessment report ·9· ·submitted by the applicant's consultant, ESA, and that 10· ·also included a peer review by the city's consultant, 11· ·Jan Ostashay of Ostashay Consulting.· Based on
12· ·circulation of those materials to the Cultural Heritage 13· ·Commission, we did not receive comments at that time. 14· ·And on March 2nd, in my capacity as the director, I 15· ·issued the certificate of ineligibility.
16· · · · · ·Subsequent to the issuance of the certificate, 17· ·Councilmember Mirisch requested that the certificate be 18· ·brought forward to the City Council for discussion about 19· ·whether to call the item up for a review by the council. 20· ·And on March 15th the City Council held a discussion 21· ·about whether to call the item up.· That discussion was 22· ·ultimately continued to April 12th for further
23· ·discussion because at that time there were two
24· ·previously unknown periodicals that were brought to the 25· ·council's attention.· Those periodicals consisted of ·1· ·Luxe Interiors + Design and also Architectural Digest ·2· ·Russia.· Because those articles had been brought up ·3· ·right on the evening of that council meeting, the
·4· ·applicant's attorney at that time waived the timelines ·5· ·in the municipal code for City Council review of that ·6· ·matter and allowed for the discussion to be continued. ·7· ·When we came back on April 12th, the City Council
·8· ·reviewed some additional information about the articles ·9· ·in question and ultimately voted to call the decision up 10· ·for review.· Then on May 10th the City Council set the 11· ·public hearing for this evening, and so that's kind of 12· ·the -- the back history of how we got in front of
13· ·council here.· And this all is about the issuance or -- 14· ·or not of a certificate of ineligibility.
15· · · · · ·So the question is what is a certificate of 16· ·ineligibility?· It is a determination by the director of 17· ·community development or the Cultural Heritage
18· ·Commission, which would be the reviewer in the event 19· ·that I declined to issue the certificate regarding a 20· ·property's eligibility to be locally landmarked.· And if 21· ·granted, the certificate bars the city from initiating 22· ·landmark designation proceedings for a period of seven 23· ·years.· And while the certificate is in effect, a
24· ·property cannot be listed on the local inventory of 25· ·historic properties or subject to the provisions of the ·1· ·municipal code pertaining to designated or eligible ·2· ·resources.· I'm sure we'll probably hear some more ·3· ·discussion about this tonight, but the purpose of the ·4· ·certificate of ineligibility was to offer greater
·5· ·certainty to property owners as to the status of their ·6· ·properties and really create a more streamlined process ·7· ·for getting that more conclusive certainty on what the ·8· ·status of their home is.
·9· · · · · ·When we talk about designation criteria and 10· ·whether a certificate of ineligibility should be issued, 11· ·we go to the municipal code for the eligibility
12· ·criteria.· And I know you've heard us talk about this 13· ·before, we have what I call our A criteria and then our 14· ·B criteria.· This screen shows our A criteria.· And 15· ·under the municipal code in order for a property to be 16· ·landmarked and -- in order for property to be landmarked 17· ·all of the A criteria have to be met.· When we
18· ·originally reviewed the certificate of ineligibility, we 19· ·did determine that the A criteria could be satisfied. 20· ·However, we then have to move on to the B criteria.· The 21· ·B criteria are shown on the screen here, and the
22· ·municipal code requires that only one of the B criteria 23· ·need to be satisfied in order for a property to be 24· ·landmarked.· If -- because we had found that all of the 25· ·A criteria were met, if we had found that one of the B ·1· ·criteria was met then the certificate of ineligibility ·2· ·-- ineligibility would not have been issued.· So upon ·3· ·our initial -- our original review, we found that none ·4· ·of the B criteria were satisfied.· And that's what led ·5· ·to the certificate of ineligibility being issued.
·6· · · · · ·I'm gonna talk now a little bit about the new ·7· ·periodicals that were brought to the council's attention ·8· ·on March 15th.· The first was titled "Hollywood Story" ·9· ·and that was found in Luxe Interiors + Design.· There 10· ·was a Los Angeles print edition that came out in 2015, 11· ·and the editor and writer of that was Caren Kurlander 12· ·and the photography was done by Dominique Vorillon.· The 13· ·second article was in Architectural Digest Russia.· This 14· ·is international version, and this article was titled "A 15· ·House in the Style of the 60s," and this was published 16· ·in fall of 2009.· The Russian translator and editor for 17· ·the Russian version here was Anastasia Romashkevich and 18· ·the photographer was Mikhail Stephanov.
19· · · · · ·After having those publications be brought 20· ·forward to the City Council, we asked our historic 21· ·consultant, Jan Ostashay to do additional research on 22· ·those publications to try to identify the validity of 23· ·those and how they might tie into interpreting the 24· ·municipal code.· Upon Jan's work, she discovered that 25· ·the Architectural Digest article that was presented to ·1· ·the City Council on March 15th was actually a
·2· ·pre-publication mockup.· When we brought that article ·3· ·forward originally the text really didn't make any ·4· ·sense.· It didn't seem to match up with the pictures. ·5· ·And -- and the reason for that that Jan was able to find ·6· ·was that that was a mockup.· Subsequently she has been ·7· ·able to review and has included in your packet a
·8· ·legitimate copy of the Architectural Digest Russia ·9· ·magazine that dates from November of 2009.· Jan also did 10· ·reach out to via e-mail to Architectural Digest Russia, 11· ·to their offices in Moscow.· They are owned by Conde 12· ·Nast, and Conde Nast actually terminated that franchise 13· ·agreement in Russia and closed the office.· So that was 14· ·a little bit of a dead end, but she then was able to 15· ·reach out to -- via e-mail to Dominic Bradbury.· Dominic 16· ·was the writer that was actually mentioned in the
17· ·English summary of the end notes in Architectural Digest 18· ·Russia, and that yielded some helpful information. 19· · · · · ·So to give a little bit of background on Dominic 20· ·Bradbury, Dominic Bradbury actually wrote the initial 21· ·feature article about the interior remodel work and 22· ·backyard for the home.· That is work that was -- was 23· ·performed by Mark Rios in 2008 and 2009.· And as part of 24· ·the writing of that article, the article was sent out 25· ·for syndication by a public relations firm that was ·1· ·hired on behalf of Mark Rios and his architectural firm. ·2· ·And that article was subsequently picked up by various ·3· ·publishers.· Just a little bit of background on Dominic ·4· ·Bradbury; a freelance writer, journalist, lecturer and ·5· ·copywriter who specializes in design, architecture and ·6· ·interiors and has contributed to magazines and
·7· ·newspapers including The Times, House & Garden, World of ·8· ·Interiors, Architectural Digest, Elle Decor and Dwell. ·9· ·And the photography that was associated with the feature 10· ·article was prepared by Richard Powers.· And Richard 11· ·Powers is a professional photographer who specializes in 12· ·architecture, interiors and built environments and took 13· ·those photographs for the future.
14· · · · · ·So now to go a little bit more in depth with 15· ·these publications here, the Architectural Digest Russia 16· ·article.· Again, we've verified that that is a
17· ·legitimate copy, and that actually was repurposed in 18· ·another magazine, Bell magazine in Australia.· That was 19· ·the same article by Bradbury with photos by Powers, and 20· ·subsequent to that Bradbury has actually published 21· ·various versions of the original article that
22· ·accompanies the photographs taken by Architectural 23· ·Digest Russia and that appears in two books.· The first 24· ·is Interior Design Close Up, and the second is The 25· ·Iconic Interior.· Here are just some images from the ·1· ·Architectural Digest to show that this is the -- the ·2· ·actual print edition.
·3· · · · · ·The next publication that is up for review is ·4· ·the Luxe and this is the Hollywood Story in Luxe
·5· ·Interiors + Design.· As noted this was published in ·6· ·2015, and the editor/writer was Caren Kurlander.· This ·7· ·is a little bit repetitive on some of the other
·8· ·information, but what we found also was that this
·9· ·particular article had sort of been adapted and reused. 10· ·We have one online version on the 1st DIBS website and 11· ·then another version called Roxbury Renovation which 12· ·showed up in the neoclassical villa design.· Again, both 13· ·of these subsequent articles were adaptations of the 14· ·original that appeared in Luxe Interiors + Design.· And 15· ·here are images from the Luxe print edition.· You can 16· ·see the front -- front of the residence at the top left 17· ·and then the other photos are of the interior and
18· ·backyard of the property.· And then this is from the 19· ·online version of Luxe.
20· · · · · ·So all of these publications are important 21· ·because they bring us back to the B criteria and the 22· ·item -- the -- the criterion within the B criteria that 23· ·we're really trying to answer is B.2, and the question 24· ·is whether the subject property is an exceptional work 25· ·by a master architect.· And if the answer to that
·1· ·question is yes, then that would preclude the issuance ·2· ·of a certificate of an eligibility.· If the answer to ·3· ·the question is no, it's not an exceptional work, then ·4· ·the certificate of ineligibility would continue to ·5· ·stand.
·6· · · · · ·So the municipal code has lots of definitions ·7· ·and other things that we have to review and apply to ·8· ·these various requests.· I'm not going to read the whole ·9· ·entire definition here, but the municipal code defines 10· ·an exceptional work as -- and I'm gonna -- I am going to 11· ·read the first two sentences.· It must be a remarkably 12· ·superior example of architectural work that has been 13· ·recognized as such by members of the architectural 14· ·community.· At a minimum the work's exceptional quality 15· ·shall have been documented by at least one of the
16· ·following.· The A -- the A and B options we're not 17· ·dealing with this evening because we know that those 18· ·don't apply, but we are dealing with the C option which 19· ·is highlighted in blue here.· And that says that the 20· ·work was substantively discussed or photographically 21· ·depicted in at least two publications.· E.g., a book, 22· ·treatise, trade, magazine, article, film or set of 23· ·photographs made available to the public by an
24· ·institutional archive authored by acknowledged experts 25· ·in the field of architecture.· And so really the
·1· ·question before the council is whether these
·2· ·publications that have been identified meet the
·3· ·requirements of the municipal code to be an exceptional ·4· ·work.· We've provided, again, lots more information in ·5· ·your packet.· You have materials from both the applicant ·6· ·and other interested parties.
·7· · · · · ·Some things for the council to consider in your ·8· ·review is that the original feature article by Bradbury, ·9· ·which seems to be the genesis for all of the subsequent 10· ·articles, was sent out for syndication by a public 11· ·relations firm that was working on behalf of Mark Rios. 12· ·That was for marketing purposes.· Mark Rios is the 13· ·architect that did the interior design work and also the 14· ·exterior landscaping.· When we look at the nature of the 15· ·publications, again, they appear to be updates of one 16· ·another or -- or republications of the originals.
17· ·Within the publications themselves, there are certainly 18· ·some references to the beauty, glamour, the Old
19· ·Hollywood feel of the home itself.· However, there 20· ·doesn't appear to be a specific discussion or detailed 21· ·photography of the exterior architecture which is what 22· ·was done by -- by the master architect Carlton Burgess. 23· ·The articles really do provide an emphasis on the
24· ·contemporary interior remodel work that was done by Mark 25· ·Rios.· Again, because it was in order to look at the ·1· ·work and recognize his work in that regard.· And
·2· ·although the articles do have a photograph, at least one ·3· ·photograph of the exterior of the home in each article, ·4· ·it's -- it's unclear what the purpose of that photograph ·5· ·is, whether it's really just to provide context to the ·6· ·interior work or if it is in fact intended to recognize ·7· ·the work of Carlton Burgess.
·8· · · · · ·So these are all things for the council to ·9· ·consider.· As stated in the staff report, these raise 10· ·--continue to raise questions about whether these
11· ·publications would meet the code definition but really 12· ·at the end of the day it's a question of interpretation 13· ·and whether these articles are found to be valid.· And 14· ·so with that, staff recommends that the council discuss 15· ·the interpretation of the municipal code and render a 16· ·decision on whether the certificate of an eligibility 17· ·for 1001 North Roxbury should be issued or declined. 18· ·I'm available for questions.
19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you, Ryan.· Stay close.· I'm 20· ·sure you will have plenty of questions.
21· · · · · ·So before we hear from the applicant, I will 22· ·call those members of the public who need or want to 23· ·leave early or have any other reason to speak before the 24· ·applicant and wish to provide early public comment.· Is 25· ·there anyone in council chambers that would like to do ·1· ·so?
·2· · · · · ·Okay.· Seeing that there's none, I would like to ·3· ·invite the applicant up to speak, and I do have a
·4· ·speaker card.· Is that Mr. Benjamin Hamlin?
·5· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Hanlon, yes, ma'am.
·6· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Welcome.
·7· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Thank you.· I'm little shorter than ·8· ·Ryan.
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Welcome.
10· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Thank you, Mayor, and good evening 11· ·Honorable Mayor, vice mayor, councilmembers.· Benjamin 12· ·Hanlon of Latham & Watkins.· And actually, before I 13· ·start, Mayor, may I please have 20 minutes.· I -- I 14· ·don't believe I'll take that long.· I don't know how 15· ·quickly or slowly I'll speak.
16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.
17· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I'll try to keep it closer to 15. 18· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Larry, could you 19· ·please address that.
20· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· It's common to give an applicant 21· ·additional time.
22· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Just wanted to make sure 23· ·that every -- everybody feels that they're heard and 24· ·fair.· So, yes, please continue.
25· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Thank you.· Good evening again, ·1· ·Honorable Mayor, vice mayor, councilmembers.· Benjamin ·2· ·Hanlon of Latham & Watkins on behalf of Eric Baker and ·3· ·Dr. Nicole Cooper Baker, the owners of 1001 North
·4· ·Roxbury.
·5· · · · · ·We appreciate the time that you and staff have ·6· ·put into this matter.· This process has been lengthy ·7· ·lasting well beyond the 30-day period the code sets. ·8· ·Despite this, we've learned no more about the house than ·9· ·we knew when the certificate issued months ago.· The 10· ·code's standards have been fairly and evenly applied and 11· ·the city's expert and staff determined the certificate 12· ·should issue.· As you know, we believe the house has 13· ·been has -- been deemed ineligible as a matter of law. 14· ·However, we are here tonight to lay out why we believe 15· ·the council should affirm their certificate.· We think 16· ·the director and the city's expert and every other 17· ·expert who has looked at this got it exactly right.· The 18· ·house is ineligible under the city standards.· In fact, 19· ·Mark Rios, the architect for the last two remodels and 20· ·whose work is featured in every one of the photo spreads 21· ·that have been brought forward agrees the house is not 22· ·eligible.· We ask that you affirm the certificate. 23· · · · · ·As part of the 2015 ordinance reboot creating 24· ·new stringent requirements for what was eligible, the 25· ·city adopted the certificate of ineligibility process. ·1· ·These are the rules today, and the director and the ·2· ·Bakers followed them.· In 2015 the process was described ·3· ·as a simple 30-day administrative -- administrative ·4· ·procedure through which a property owner can ask the ·5· ·city to clear the property and remove any doubt that it ·6· ·can be easily redeveloped.· The process was meant to be ·7· ·predictable.· A property is reviewed against objective ·8· ·standards and if then ineligibility standards are met, ·9· ·then a certificate shall issue.· That's what happened 10· ·here.· The certificate was issued after reports by city 11· ·approved experts concluded the house was not eligible. 12· ·The city's reviewing expert agreed, and there were no 13· ·comments from the Cultural Heritage commissioners after 14· ·it was circulated for their review.
15· · · · · ·So what are these objective standards?· They are 16· ·the same standards as required for landmarking our 17· ·property.· As we just heard from Mr. Gohlich, there are 18· ·two sets, A and B.· Under Code Subsection A each of the 19· ·four listed standards must be met.· Let's set those 20· ·aside for now.· Under Subsection B at least one of the 21· ·six standards must be met.· If not, the property is not 22· ·eligible.· These standards require a property to be more 23· ·than just a nice house.· The standards are intended to 24· ·be objective criteria to determine that there is real 25· ·historic value.· This graphic is from the director ·1· ·certificate.· A property is eligible if it is listed on ·2· ·the National Register, an exceptional work by a master ·3· ·architect, connected to an important individual, an ·4· ·iconic property or proposed for landmarking by the ·5· ·property owner.· These are intentionally high standards. ·6· · · · · ·Since 2015 the city has landmarked only seven ·7· ·homes, each with the properties -- property owner's ·8· ·consent.· And what did the director and city's expert ·9· ·find here?· They agreed that none of Section B's
10· ·standards are met.· It was not even close.· The house is 11· ·not on the National Register and is not an exceptional 12· ·work.· None -- no one of any importance, nationally or 13· ·otherwise, lived there.· The property is not iconic, and 14· ·the owner has not proposed landmarking.· ASM Affiliates, 15· ·another expert from the city's list of approved experts 16· ·agrees.· Mark Rios, the architect who -- who is most 17· ·familiar with the house and who did the major remodels 18· ·also agrees.· The house is not eligible for listing. 19· · · · · ·So begs the question what why are we here if 20· ·this is so clearcut?· Well, in 2009 Mark Rios did a 21· ·major remodel and then Rios' firm sought publicity for 22· ·this work.· Some now suggest that these photographs of 23· ·the furnishings and remodel qualify the house as an 24· ·exceptional work by a master architect.· Respectfully, 25· ·that is not correct.· The code has clear and objective ·1· ·standards for what is an exceptional work by a master ·2· ·architect.· The house does not meet them.· This was the ·3· ·whole point in 2015, clear and objective standards.· So ·4· ·exceptional work by a master architect.· There's two ·5· ·components.· The ordinance defines both.· Let's just ·6· ·briefly touch on what a master architect is.· The code ·7· ·defines master architect as an architect of widely ·8· ·recognized greatness in the field of architecture whose ·9· ·individual genius influenced his or her age.· Carlton 10· ·Burgess, the home's builder, is on the city's list of 11· ·master architects but we submit he's not a real master 12· ·architect.· In 2014 the city's expert recommended
13· ·removing Burgess from the list.· Why?· Well, he wasn't a 14· ·licensed architect.· He never won any awards.· There are 15· ·no scholarly works on him and his work was never the 16· ·subject of any articles.· He was a developer.· One of 17· ·the articles before you tonight even describes the house 18· ·as being built by, quote, an unknown local architect. 19· ·Respectfully, Mr. Burgess was not an architect of widely 20· ·recognized greatness whose individual genius influenced 21· ·his age.· That said, we recognize Burgess is technically 22· ·on the list, but we thought this context was important 23· ·as you consider the other factors.
24· · · · · ·So turning to exceptional work.· We just saw 25· ·this definition.· There's a lot here, not gonna go ·1· ·through it.· It's exacting and contains multiple
·2· ·components all of which need to be satisfied.· First, ·3· ·though, exceptional work has to be a remarkably superior ·4· ·example of architectural work that has been recognized ·5· ·as such by members of the architectural community.· So ·6· ·there's two parts to the standard.· First, the house ·7· ·must be a remarkably superior example of architectural ·8· ·work.· Second, the architectural community has to have ·9· ·recognized it as such.· Let's take the first part.· The 10· ·house must be a remarkably superior example of
11· ·architectural work.· In 2015 this standard was described 12· ·as demonstrably exceptional work.· The house isn't 13· ·remarkable or exceptional.· It is a common form of 14· ·architecture across the city.· We have found no
15· ·publication that has described the architecture at all. 16· ·In fact, there's not a single article about the
17· ·architecture of this house.· Therefore, we think the 18· ·inquiry can stop there.· The first condition hasn't been 19· ·met.· The second condition also fails.· The second 20· ·requirement is that the architecture's excellence must 21· ·have been recognized by members of the architectural 22· ·community.· It has not been.· There is no evidence 23· ·anyone in the architectural community believes this is a 24· ·remarkably superior example of architectural work. 25· · · · · ·The code then goes ahead and lists the minimum ·1· ·standards for how the exceptional quality may be
·2· ·documented.· There are three of them.· Has it won a ·3· ·major architectural award?· No, this house has not.· Is ·4· ·there a substantive discussion in a monograph?· No, this ·5· ·house has never been discussed any -- in any monograph. ·6· ·In fact, there is no monograph on Carlton Burgess.· He ·7· ·was not an architect.· So that leaves us with the third ·8· ·point.· Are there any qualifying articles on the
·9· ·architecture.· Let's break this component down even 10· ·further.· The code sets, again, clear standards for what 11· ·kind of architect -- articles qualify.· First, they must 12· ·include a substantive discussion about the architecture 13· ·or -- or photographically depict the architecture. 14· ·Second, it must be in a qualified publication; a
15· ·treatise or relevant trade, magazine or other qualifying 16· ·work.· Third, the author must be a recognized expert in 17· ·the field of architecture.· And fourth, the piece cannot 18· ·have been written by the work's architect, like a
19· ·promotional or advertorial piece.· An article must 20· ·satisfy each and every one of these four standards. 21· ·None of the articles that have been put forth before you 22· ·today come even close.
23· · · · · ·I'll go through each one in a minute quickly. 24· ·But before I do, I just want to sum up.· So the house 25· ·must satisfy each of the two conditions; exceptional ·1· ·work and recognized as such.· It satisfies neither.· And ·2· ·this is what you would expect.· If a house isn't of ·3· ·superior architectural quality and isn't by an architect ·4· ·of renown, then you are not going to find any qualifying ·5· ·articles, documentary works or architectural awards.· So ·6· ·now to the articles themselves.
·7· · · · · ·The Luxe piece is not about the house's
·8· ·architecture.· It's about Mark Rios' remodel.· That's ·9· ·not surprising because according to Mark Rios, his firm 10· ·placed the piece to promote his work.· And as Mr. Rios 11· ·indicated, he made major changes to the house.· In 12· ·Mr. Rios' letter to you he talked about the changes to 13· ·building mass, doors, window, roof changes and removing 14· ·prior editions and adding new elements.· There's no 15· ·meaningful discussion of the architecture in the Luxe 16· ·article.· The piece is about Rios' interior redesign of 17· ·the house and landscaping and Mr. Bennett's furniture. 18· ·There are 11 pictures.· One single picture shown here 19· ·shows a portion of the front of the house.· The front 20· ·door, really.· The ten others show the interior, the 21· ·furniture and the landscaping.· There is virtually no 22· ·mention of the architecture, not a word about Regency 23· ·Revival style, not a word about its builder Burgess. 24· ·What is discussed is the modernized kitchen, rebuilding 25· ·bathrooms, adding a large terrace to the second floor. ·1· ·A passing partial picture of the facade is not a
·2· ·photographic depiction of the home's architecture.· This ·3· ·is not even close.· We submit to a substantive
·4· ·discussion of anything remotely connected to the house's ·5· ·architecture.· The Luxe piece is also not authored by an ·6· ·acknowledged expert in the field of architecture.· This, ·7· ·frankly, isn't surprising.· Luxe's interior design ·8· ·magazine is about interior design, not -- not
·9· ·architecture.
10· · · · · ·And just lastly, the article attributes the 11· ·house to the wrong decade.· It was built in 1942, not 12· ·the 1930s as the architecture -- as -- as the Luxe 13· ·magazine said.· Like the Luxe piece, the Russia AD piece 14· ·is all about Mark Rios' remodel and David Bennett's 15· ·design choices.· Again, you have a passing image of a 16· ·slice of the home's exterior facade and, again, the 17· ·pieces about the decor and design choices entitled 18· ·"House in the style of the 1960s."· There is not a 19· ·single mention of Burgess, the builder.· There is not a 20· ·single mention of the home's architecture, and the 21· ·home's architecture is not photographically depicted. 22· ·The AD Russia piece simply does not qualify as
23· ·documentation of the home's architecture.· The other 24· ·pieces follow this same pattern.· They're about Mark 25· ·Rios' work, Mr. Bennett's furniture and repeat the same ·1· ·mistake about when the house was built.
·2· · · · · ·As noted, the author of the AD Russia piece ·3· ·recycled his work in a book called "The Iconic Interior, ·4· ·1900 to the Present."· I think the title of the book ·5· ·tells you all you need to know about what this piece is ·6· ·about.· The show -- the photos show the interior
·7· ·furnishings on the front door.· Again, no discussion of ·8· ·the architecture.· The pictorial does not meet the ·9· ·code's documentation standards.· More of the same with 10· ·his next work about interior design.· A cropped image of 11· ·the facade, reference to Mark Rios and many interior 12· ·shots.· Nothing about the architecture.· Nothing about 13· ·the architect.
14· · · · · ·Lastly, some photos from the online website, 1st 15· ·DIBS.· It's an online marketplace selling high-end 16· ·furniture, jewelry and fine art.· So I don't even think 17· ·it's an article or -- or a publication, just a
18· ·promotional blurb.· But even if it were, it doesn't come 19· ·close as well.· Partial exterior shot and, again, dozens 20· ·of shots of the interior.· So it's obvious to -- to me, 21· ·at least as an attorney, why these -- why all the
22· ·experts that reviewed the articles concluded that none 23· ·of them meet the code standards.· But to further confirm 24· ·their conclusions, we asked Ms. Leslie Human what she 25· ·thought.· Ms. Human is an architectural historian with ·1· ·incredible expertise and over 45 years of experience in ·2· ·the field including having coauthored this city's, the ·3· ·Beverly Hills, historic resources survey that was done ·4· ·in the mid 80s.· She -- Ms. Human is on the list of ·5· ·approved cultural resource experts.· Frankly, her
·6· ·reputation is unrivaled.
·7· · · · · ·We received Ms. Human's report late yesterday ·8· ·afternoon, and we have copies -- copies of it for you ·9· ·here.· Ms. Human reviewed the articles discussed here 10· ·tonight.· She concluded that, quote, "The publications 11· ·do not satisfy the intent of landmark criteria on B2 to 12· ·justify the claim of an exceptional work of Carlton 13· ·Burgess."· And why not?· Because neither the
14· ·architecture nor its builder are substantially
15· ·discussed.· The focus is a recent renovation and
16· ·interior design work.· The builder, Carlton Burgess, is 17· ·never mentioned.· No information suggests the authors 18· ·are acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. 19· ·They appear to be generalists.· Ms. Human, like the 20· ·three other experts and staff, have it exactly right. 21· ·The articles do not meet the code standard or intent 22· ·such as to justify a claim of exceptional work.
23· · · · · ·Now, I realize I've mentioned Mark Rios' name a 24· ·lot tonight, and he's already sent you a letter making 25· ·clear his opinion that the house is not eligible.· I'd ·1· ·like to play you a short video so you can hear and see ·2· ·what he has to say.
·3· · · · · ·MR. RIOS:· Hi.· I'm Mark Rios, an architect and ·4· ·a landscape architect.· I would very much like to be ·5· ·with you in person tonight, but I'm at the annual AIA ·6· ·Meeting of Architects in Chicago.· I'm here tonight on ·7· ·my own behalf, not as a representative of any client. ·8· ·I'd like to discuss the potential historic status of ·9· ·1001 Roxbury Drive, which I understand you are
10· ·discussing tonight.· I've had a very long history with 11· ·the property.· I've had the unique opportunity to work 12· ·with two separate owners, David Bennett and subsequently 13· ·Lisa and Josh Greer for a full remodel of the property. 14· · · · · ·All the articles have been presented tonight 15· ·were about my work on the property.· I hope all of you 16· ·know from our past work in Beverly Hills that I'm an 17· ·avid supporter of architectural historic preservation. 18· ·I can fondly list the historic buildings we've helped 19· ·preserve and restore within the city, and we're gonna 20· ·continue to work and protect and add to the city's 21· ·important architectural resources.· When we started 22· ·working on this property almost 15 years ago, my office 23· ·did our own research and found there was nothing
24· ·significant about the original house architecture, and 25· ·realized it was a typical LA house which had really just ·1· ·evolved over time based on its owners without any
·2· ·original architectural position or pedigree.· We worked ·3· ·at that time to edit, to modify, to change, to delete to ·4· ·clean up both the exterior and the interior of the house ·5· ·to give it its sense of completeness and balance and ·6· ·order and symmetry.· We accomplished our goal of giving ·7· ·the house dignity where it may not have originally ·8· ·existed.· We also spent significant effort looking at ·9· ·the site during that initial remodel.· The result, which 10· ·I believe, may also contribute to the misconception that 11· ·this is an historic property.· The prominent, highly 12· ·visible front and side landscape was highly edited and 13· ·simplified to create an illusion of stately grandeur and 14· ·elegance.· And I think we succeeded.· Luxe magazine, 15· ·Architectural Digest and all the other pieces were 16· ·documentation and celebration of the interiors and 17· ·decoration and especially of David Bennett's unique 18· ·furniture collection, not a commentary or validation of 19· ·any part on the architecture.
20· · · · · ·They made no reference to the architecture or 21· ·any discussion of the original builder or architect. 22· ·The articles really have nothing to do with historic 23· ·preservation of the house.· Our communications PR team 24· ·worked with Luxe to place these articles as marketing 25· ·for our firm.· The second remodel project of 1001
·1· ·Roxbury was for Lisa and Josh Greer.· They really love ·2· ·this site; the location and the overall layout of the ·3· ·house.· Most of our prior removal of the exterior was ·4· ·retained.· However, the entire interior space was
·5· ·reconceived and remodeled.· This house was never the ·6· ·result of an overall singular architectural idea.
·7· ·Rather, it's become a perfect example of an evolutionary ·8· ·nature of the house especially in Beverly Hills and Los ·9· ·Angeles, much like a movie set.
10· · · · · ·In conclusion, I absolutely support the
11· ·designation and protection of valuable architectural 12· ·resources from the city of Beverly Hills but 1001
13· ·Roxbury is not one of them.· Thank you very much.
14· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I'll introduce you to Eric Baker 15· ·and Dr. Nicole Cooper Baker.
16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Welcome.
17· · · · · ·MR. BAKER:· Sorry.· Too much dust in the room. 18· ·Honorable Mayor, vice mayor, council members, thank you 19· ·very much for taking the time to consider our issue 20· ·tonight.· We appreciate it.
21· · · · · ·First, I wanted to just take the opportunity to 22· ·introduce ourselves and explain our long connection to 23· ·Beverly Hills.· So I -- my -- myself and my wife are 24· ·both natives.· We were both born here in Beverly Hills. 25· ·I'm actually third generation.· My father moved here ·1· ·with his grandfather back in 1952, so it's a long time. ·2· ·I was born and raised here in the flats.· I grew up in ·3· ·the house that my parents still live in.· It's the same ·4· ·house that I used to walk every day to Hawthorne School ·5· ·from kindergarten through eighth grade.· So -- so a long ·6· ·time.· Go class of 1987.· And I really have great
·7· ·memories of growing up in Beverly Hills, getting my hair ·8· ·cut at Tipperary's, getting my shoes at Harry Harris. ·9· ·You know, playing in all the different sports leagues 10· ·with varying levels of success but still loved playing 11· ·Little League Baseball at La Cienega Park, playing 12· ·basketball at the YMCA.· I also was -- it was amazing to 13· ·see Dr. Winters here tonight because he took care of our 14· ·Boxer dogs growing up.· So our Boxer dogs, Cindy and 15· ·Tracy.· And so going to the Animal Hospital, so we, you 16· ·know --
17· · · · · ·In short, as you can imagine I love Beverly 18· ·Hills.· It's my hometown I can't imagine a better
19· ·community to raise a family.· And so really when my wife 20· ·Nicole and I decided to find a place to settle down and 21· ·raise a family, of course we decided to come home to 22· ·Beverly Hills.· And I'll let my wife speak.
23· · · · · ·MS. BAKER:· That's right.· Good evening,
24· ·Honorable Mayor, Honorable Vice Mayor and Honorable 25· ·council members.· I'm Nicole Cooper Baker, and I'm ·1· ·Eric's wife.· I'm a licensed clinical psychologist.· My ·2· ·specialty is post-traumatic stress disorder so I spend ·3· ·my days working with trauma survivors.· I was also born ·4· ·in Beverly Hills.· I met my best friend for the first ·5· ·time at Roxbury Park when we were four at the drinking ·6· ·fountain.· I remember buying dresses at Pixie Town with ·7· ·my mom, also getting my shoes at Harry Harris and
·8· ·getting ice cream at Thrifty's.
·9· · · · · ·As Eric said, when we decided where we wanted to 10· ·settle down and raise our family, our two little boys 11· ·and our Boxer dog, Beverly Hills was the obvious choice. 12· ·We hope to give our family the same great childhood in 13· ·the same great community that we grew up in.· We
14· ·appreciate the opportunity to have presented our facts 15· ·and be heard so that we can confirm our certificate of 16· ·ineligibility.· Eric and I have followed the process and 17· ·all of the city's rules to the letter.· As we have 18· ·clearly laid out, the facts confirm that the house we 19· ·own is not historic.· Therefore, we hope that the
20· ·council this evening can confirm the director's issuance 21· ·of our certificate and allow us to proceed without 22· ·further delay.· And we thank you very much for your time 23· ·spent studying and hearing our case.
24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Thank you for both 25· ·being here.
·1· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Mayor, that concludes our
·2· ·presentation.· We're happy to answer any questions that ·3· ·the council may have.
·4· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Thank you very much ·5· ·for your presentation.· I will now go to my colleagues ·6· ·for any questions of the applicant.· Not yet?
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Okay.· Could we put ·8· ·the presentation back up for a moment including a slide ·9· ·maybe about halfway or third way through it that listed 10· ·maybe four or five bullets for which the first one was 11· ·something to the effect of whether or not the article 12· ·substantively discuss the architecture.· Okay.· Then 13· ·that -- that one, I think.· Thank you.· Okay.· Yes. 14· · · · · ·So where in the definition does it say -- can 15· ·you point me to the words where it says that the
16· ·architecture had to be substantively discussed?· That 17· ·might be an inference.· You might think it's a logical 18· ·inference, but could you point me to the words where it 19· ·actually says that.
20· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· If I may, Councilmember Wunderlich. 21· ·I'm going to switch to the slide that has the full 22· ·definition.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Sure.
24· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· If you can see my cursor there. 25· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Right.· So --
·1· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· You can see --
·2· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· It was substantively ·3· ·discussed?
·4· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Correct.
·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· So what is it
·6· ·referred to?
·7· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I believe it refers to the
·8· ·beginning of the sentence, which starts "at a minimum, ·9· ·the works exceptional quality shall have been documented 10· ·by at least one of the following."· So I believe it 11· ·refers to the work's exceptional quality.
12· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And -- and so I mean, 13· ·I would suggest that it may be a logical inference but 14· ·it doesn't explicitly say that it had to have been the 15· ·architecture that was substantively discussed in that 16· ·phrase.· Also, I -- it slipped my mind just for a second 17· ·time.· We had asked earlier about any communication. 18· ·And actually I did have a phone call with the property 19· ·owners.· I didn't learn anything new there, which is why 20· ·I didn't really think of it.· But for disclosure, I did 21· ·have a phone call.· They asked to speak to me, and I did 22· ·have a phone call with the property owners.
23· · · · · ·You know, for example, you may have heard that 24· ·people who disagree with you suggests that -- that the 25· ·substantive discussion and the photographically to paint ·1· ·-- depicted are not necessarily linked, that if there ·2· ·was a photograph showing the exterior of the house, the ·3· ·architecture of the house, that that would qualify.· How ·4· ·do you address the point or are you aware of what others ·5· ·have said in that regard?
·6· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I don't know that I've heard their ·7· ·full argument, but Councilmember, I can respond to the ·8· ·point that you're making.· Reading this entire section ·9· ·as a whole, I think the -- the intent was and having 10· ·looked at the legislative history, it was a very
11· ·extensive process, 2014, 2015 before it came to the 12· ·council.· It's clear that what the city was doing was 13· ·setting a higher bar for what qualified as an eligible 14· ·property.· With respect to this specific section, you 15· ·have -- it begins with "a remarkably superior example of 16· ·our -- of architectural work."· The second sentence then 17· ·refers to the work's exceptional quality, so the
18· ·exceptional quality of the architecture.· And then lists 19· ·how that exceptional quality is documented; an award, a 20· ·substantive discussion and a monograph or finally a 21· ·substantive discussion are photographically depicted in 22· ·at least two publications.· I think it would be
23· ·inconsistent with the legislative history to read
24· ·photographically depicted as merely a passing photograph 25· ·without any real attention to the -- to the
·1· ·architecture.· If it was just merely a passing
·2· ·photograph, then you can imagine a situation where you ·3· ·have an article that basically pans the architecture. ·4· ·It might be a bionic knowledge expert, and it might pan ·5· ·the architecture.· But as long as it's photographically ·6· ·depicted, then under that reading it would qualify as an ·7· ·exceptional work, a remarkably superior example.· And I ·8· ·don't think that -- that was ever the intent of the ·9· ·drafters when this was adopted.
10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Do you agree that we 11· ·would be allowed to consider the equivalent of the 12· ·legislative history that we can go beyond the words of 13· ·this piece of paper and consider the documentation of 14· ·the thought process that led to these words?
15· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I believe that the words are clear 16· ·on their face.· I don't --
17· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, you also spoke 18· ·about the legislative history.
19· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Because I think they do --
20· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Our thing first -- 21· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I think they do inform the words. 22· ·I do think that the words are clear on their face, and 23· ·-- and I think when you look at the legislative history, 24· ·they confirm the clarity of these words.
25· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Can you go back to ·1· ·your to your bullets, please.
·2· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Yes, sir.
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· So you also said that ·4· ·the additional publications that were brought forward ·5· ·are not qualified publications.· Is that because they ·6· ·could never be that those publications themselves
·7· ·wouldn't qualify or is that because of the content of ·8· ·those particular articles.
·9· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Councilmember, I think it's
10· ·important to -- to remember first that in order for a 11· ·publication to qualify it needs to meet all four of 12· ·these standards.· It has to be -- the architecture needs 13· ·to be substantially discussed photographically to
14· ·qualify publication, and an expert -- and not the result 15· ·of the architect's work pushing it forward.· With
16· ·respect to the -- the publications themselves, the AD 17· ·Russia peace potentially fall -- fall within this
18· ·category.· I could see an argument on the other side 19· ·that somebody could say yes, AD Russia may -- maybe 20· ·falls within that.· I could argue the opposite. I
21· ·respectfully submit that the Luxe articles, the
22· ·neoclassical design articles, the article -- the pieces 23· ·in the -- in the books -- I don't know who's publishing 24· ·those books -- would not be qualifying pieces.
25· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Let's say that the ·1· ·articles focused on the distinctiveness of the
·2· ·architecture and that they were written by qualified ·3· ·experts, people that you would acknowledge would be ·4· ·qualified experts, are the publications as such that ·5· ·they would have qualified?
·6· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· No, I don't think they would. I ·7· ·don't think 1st DIBS, though, furniture website. I ·8· ·don't think Luxe Interiors which may be a free magazine ·9· ·that exists to promote interior designs would qualify. 10· ·And as to the provenance of these books, the
11· ·neoclassical design, I -- I'm not familiar with who is 12· ·the publisher there.· Similarly with Mr. Bradbury's 13· ·other publication.
14· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· But I'm asking you to 15· ·assume for now that the authors were acknowledged
16· ·experts, so we're getting -- we're -- we're trying to 17· ·make this very specific, the publication itself.· If the 18· ·author was an acknowledged expert and if the focus was 19· ·the architecture, would the publications, in and of 20· ·themselves, disqualify them?
21· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Dealing with the publications that 22· ·we -- we have before us?· Is that -- is that your
23· ·question?
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· A mere type of
25· ·publication, would that disqualify it if the article met ·1· ·the other attributes that the author was an acknowledged ·2· ·expert and the topic focused on --
·3· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Right.· I -- I look back to the -- ·4· ·to the code.· The code has examples, so it -- it says -- ·5· ·sorry -- in at least two publications and it gives ·6· ·examples.· A book, treatise, trade magazine, article, ·7· ·film or set of photographs made available to the public ·8· ·by an institutional archive.· None of -- none of these ·9· ·are photographs made to the -- available to the public 10· ·and institutional archive.· None of them are a treatise, 11· ·certainly not a -- not a film.· Nobody's contending 12· ·that.· Is Luxe magazine a trade magazine or article?· Is 13· ·AD Russia?· Some -- somebody could potentially make that 14· ·argument.· They could.· I think based on the -- but I go 15· ·back to we have to meet all four of that criteria. 16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I understand.· I'm 17· ·just asking about each one individually.
18· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Understood.
19· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· We received some 20· ·information in the presentation about who the authors 21· ·were, and I believe that you're saying that the authors 22· ·are not experts.· The author of at least one of them is 23· ·described as an architectural author.· The photographer 24· ·was described as an architectural photographer, but you 25· ·believe that from what we know about the authors they ·1· ·would not be qualified as architectural experts.
·2· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Councilmember, it's not my opinion. ·3· ·It's Leslie Human's opinion.· She had the opportunity to ·4· ·review the five pieces, to review who the authors of ·5· ·those five pieces were.· And in her opinion she did not ·6· ·conclude that they were acknowledged experts in the ·7· ·field of architecture, and in fact, might be
·8· ·generalists.· But that, I think, is a far cry from ·9· ·somebody who's an acknowledged expert in the field of 10· ·architecture.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Generalist in the 12· ·world of architecture as opposed to an expert.
13· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· This was the distinction --
14· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Or was even beyond 15· ·architecture generalist --
16· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· In the -- in the world of interior 17· ·design, potentially architecture.· But that was Ms. -- 18· ·Ms. Human's conclusion, yes.
19· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Okay.· Thank you. 20· ·That was my questions.
21· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you very much.
22· ·Councilmember Friedman.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· And I, too, need to 24· ·have a correction because I did meet the Bakers.
25· ·However, there was no communication regarding anything ·1· ·that -- other than what's in the evidence, and I
·2· ·apologize for forgetting.
·3· · · · · ·I'd like to ask a couple questions.· If you can ·4· ·go back to the other slide that had the -- the one that ·5· ·was on the screen just before with all the verbiage. ·6· ·Okay.· The word "it," if we go to the code itself
·7· ·regarding the requirements of what a landmark must ·8· ·satisfy and it gives four subparts numbered and then ·9· ·under B it gives another six.· Is -- is it your opinion 10· ·that the "it" that is referred to in that section is the 11· ·same "it" that is depicted under exceptional work? 12· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Councilmember, I think you're 13· ·referring to Section 3212, which sets forth the landmark 14· ·criteria, designation criteria; is that correct?
15· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Correct.
16· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Yes, so I think the -- the "it" in 17· ·both Subsections A and B are referring to the landmark. 18· ·So in defining the landmark the -- the "it" is -- and 19· ·I'm just going to read from Section -- Subsection A, 20· ·from 3212.· "A landmark must satisfy all of the
21· ·following requirements:· It is at least 45 years of 22· ·age."· I think they're the "it" is referring to the 23· ·landmark.· The question that is before the council today 24· ·is whether this property is eligible to be listed as a 25· ·landmark.· The director and every expert to look at this ·1· ·has concluded that it is not eligible.· One of the ·2· ·criteria that you're identifying in 3212 is the
·3· ·discussion or is the criteria an exceptional work by a ·4· ·master architect.· I believe that it's and -- and it -- ·5· ·it appears and I -- so there are, you know, three its ·6· ·used in the definition of exceptional work.· And I think ·7· ·the only logical conclusion is that these its all
·8· ·referred back to at a minimum the work's exceptional ·9· ·quality.
10· · · · · ·So was the work's exceptional quality the
11· ·subject of a major architectural award?· Was the work's 12· ·exceptional quality substantively discussed in a
13· ·monograph?· Was the work's exceptional quality
14· ·substantively discussed in at least two qualifying 15· ·publications that meet all the required standards that 16· ·the code sets forth?
17· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· So let's go back to the 18· ·beginning of it, the definition of an exceptional work. 19· ·Is there any evidence that you have that anyone has 20· ·found it to be of superior -- remarkably superior
21· ·example of architectural work?
22· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· No.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· And when it says
24· ·"recognized as such by members of the architectural 25· ·community," I assume that you have not -- nothing before ·1· ·you that you could tell us that it was a recognized ·2· ·member of the architectural community; is that correct? ·3· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· That's correct.· And to my
·4· ·knowledge, every expert including the city's expert who ·5· ·has looked at it -- at this issue has reached the same ·6· ·conclusion.
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· I have nothing.· No ·8· ·questions.
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Councilmember Mirisch.
10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Thank you.· And I'm not 11· ·gonna start by discussing the meaning of the word "it" 12· ·or the meaning of the word "is" with you, but I will ask 13· ·you when we talk about legislative intent and you talk 14· ·about the drafters, this isn't like we're trying to 15· ·interpret what Ben Franklin or John Hancock or James 16· ·Madison thought.· These are real live people who are 17· ·with us today.· Would you not defer in some ways to the 18· ·people who actually wrote the ordinance?
19· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I think the words that the people 20· ·who were involved at the time that were put down at the 21· ·time in memos, in minutes and in testimony are what's 22· ·valuable.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So you would not -- it 24· ·would not be of value to them as to the -- you're
25· ·interpreting their words in a certain way.· You're -- it ·1· ·sounds like you're saying that your interpretation is ·2· ·the correct one even if it differs from their own
·3· ·interpretation of their own words.
·4· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I believe my interpretation is ·5· ·correct based on the director's interpretation and ·6· ·application of these rules.· I believe my interpretation ·7· ·is correct based on the plain words, and I believe my ·8· ·interpretation is correct based on the memoranda and ·9· ·testimony given at the time in 2014 and 2015 when this 10· ·was being crafted, yes.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Okay.· But you -- you 12· ·did mention specifically -- you used the word drafters 13· ·not framers, which would be like the constitution.· Now, 14· ·from what you said before it sounds like in your opinion 15· ·nothing done by Carlton Burgess could possibly in any 16· ·world, in any sphere, in any way qualify for historic 17· ·designation.· That's what I heard from you; was that 18· ·correct?
19· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· To my knowledge, the only
20· ·recognition Carlton Burgess has ever received as a 21· ·builder or a developer of homes is his appearance on the 22· ·list of master architects in Beverly Hills.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· But if, according to 24· ·you, nothing that he's ever done could possibly qualify 25· ·for historic designation then per force his being on the ·1· ·list would be meaningless or correct me if I'm wrong? ·2· ·How would you look at that?
·3· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· In 2014 the city's expert
·4· ·recommended that Mr. Burgess be removed from the list ·5· ·because he didn't meet any of the criteria that were ·6· ·established for being on the list.· And nevertheless, ·7· ·Mr. Burgess remains on the list.
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So what is -- what ·9· ·potential meaning could that have?· There was a
10· ·consciousness -- that to me would indicate there was a 11· ·conscious decision perhaps to remove him from the list, 12· ·and the decision was made not to remove him from the 13· ·list.· So his remaining on the list, what -- what -- 14· ·what meaning does that possibly have aside from he's a 15· ·name on a list?
16· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I think that's what it means.· He's 17· ·a name on the list.· And for the purposes of the city of 18· ·Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage ordnance, he's a master 19· ·architect.
20· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Now, when this was 21· ·initially presented to us you were not here.· Murray 22· ·Fisher was here, and he made some distinct and concrete 23· ·representations to this council, and I'm wondering if 24· ·maybe on the phone if Murray's available to answer some 25· ·questions.
·1· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Murray is not available this
·2· ·evening, Councilmember.
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· And why?· Because he's ·4· ·the one who initially presented to us.· That was the ·5· ·initial representation to this council.· I think his ·6· ·presence here would be relevant because it would allow ·7· ·us to follow questions that you or Mr. Millstein can't ·8· ·possibly answer.
·9· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· I'm happy to answer any questions 10· ·that you might have, Councilmember.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Okay.· Well -- so at the 12· ·second meeting where we discussed this, and I don't 13· ·remember if you were here, but certainly Mr. Millstein 14· ·was, it was sort of presented that the discovery of 15· ·these articles, was sort of like an 11th hour ploy; is 16· ·that correct?· You know.· On the part of some people who 17· ·brought -- brought these forth at the last minute, that 18· ·was presented sort of as a Hail Mary, last minute ploy. 19· ·Is that -- does this that conform with your
20· ·understanding?
21· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· ASM Affiliates, another expert who 22· ·was retained to look at the historic value of this house 23· ·and determine whether it was eligible or not in a
24· ·supplemental report submitted to -- to the council. 25· ·Laura Kung, the export -- expert stated that she
·1· ·actually was aware of these articles.
·2· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So when was -- that's a ·3· ·good point.· When was the ASM report presented to the ·4· ·council?
·5· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· We presented to -- the report to ·6· ·the council, I think, last week.
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So last week.· So it ·8· ·wasn't presented at the time Murray Fisher -- it wasn't ·9· ·presented at the time we discussed this in the first 10· ·place when it was sort of -- Jill Collins was portrayed 11· ·as this person coming with a last minute sort of thing. 12· ·You're saying that you -- you or people in your team 13· ·knew about it at the time.
14· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· ASM Affiliates, another expert on 15· ·the city's list of approved architects completed a 16· ·report in July of last year.· And in that report they 17· ·concluded that the house was not eligible.
18· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So why wasn't -- why 19· ·wasn't the report shared with the council as part of 20· ·disclosure of everything earlier?· I mean, it was only 21· ·disclosed three days ago.· This has been going on, we've 22· ·heard, for -- for months.· What -- why wait?
23· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Respectfully, Councilmember, we 24· ·believe that there was more than ample evidence before 25· ·the council, before -- I'm sorry -- before the city, ·1· ·before the director to make a determination as to
·2· ·eligibility.· The city's expert reviewed that evidence ·3· ·and concluded that the property was not eligible.· Given ·4· ·that the council has called this up and was conducting a ·5· ·de novo review, we thought that it would be helpful to ·6· ·the council and the public's consideration of this ·7· ·matter to have all the reports that have been prepared. ·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Well --
·9· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· So we --
10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Go on.
11· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· And so we decided to submit that 12· ·report to the council.
13· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Well, I guess I'll have 14· ·a chance later to ask the city's expert if she had seen 15· ·that draft report and that was part of the evidence she 16· ·was considering.· Now, I note that the report was
17· ·prepared for Murray Fisher.· It says that here is -- is 18· ·Murray aware that this was shared with the council? 19· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Murray is no longer representing 20· ·the Bakers.· The Bakers are represented by
21· ·Latham & Watkins.
22· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· I understand that, but 23· ·you know, if this was privileged client information, was 24· ·Murray -- was this -- this says it was prepared for 25· ·Murray.· Was he -- did he give permission to -- to -- to ·1· ·include this in the -- in the -- in the latest report? ·2· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· It was submitted with Murray's ·3· ·knowledge, yes.
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Murray's knowledge. ·5· ·Okay.· All right.· Well, then as said, I -- I -- now, ·6· ·what are -- what are the differences between the ESA ·7· ·report which was submitted and the ASM report which was ·8· ·not submitted?
·9· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Both reports conclude that the 10· ·house is not eligible for listing under the city
11· ·standards.
12· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· For the same reasons or 13· ·for different reasons?
14· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· The ASM report -- the ASM
15· ·Affiliates report concluded that all of Criteria A would 16· ·be met under the ordinance but that none of Criteria B 17· ·would be met under -- under the ordinance which is the 18· ·same conclusion that the city's expert Ms. Ostashay 19· ·reached.
20· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· What does the ESA report 21· ·say?
22· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· The ESA report found that some of 23· ·the criteria under A were not met.· And like the city's 24· ·expert, found that all of the criteria under B were not 25· ·met.
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So the ESA report has ·2· ·just one of the four A criteria that was met whereas the ·3· ·ASM report says they're all met, correct?
·4· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Correct.
·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· And yet the ESA report, ·6· ·which was done after the ASM report was submitted and ·7· ·not the ASM report -- and I can imagine you're gonna ·8· ·have difficulty giving me an answer as to why that was ·9· ·the case because it seems that something was being 10· ·withheld from the council at the time and from our 11· ·experts to be able to make that determination. I
12· ·understand that ASM says that -- which this to me seems 13· ·a little bit -- and, again, I wish Murray were here to 14· ·be able to -- to ask him, but ASM says due to time and 15· ·space constraints in the original report, ASM did not 16· ·list publications found through our extensive research 17· ·if they did not meet the criteria specified in the 18· ·definition.· And then it talks about the articles that 19· ·they found but that they didn't disclose.· And, you 20· ·know, I'm guessing you'll be at a loss to -- again, 21· ·because it wasn't you.· You weren't here.· I don't even 22· ·know if Latham & Watkins had been hired at the time. 23· ·This is a Murray question as to why at the time that 24· ·wasn't disclosed.· And I won't ask you that because I 25· ·don't think you're in a position to answer that.· But ·1· ·for now, these are all my questions.· Thank you.
·2· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Thank you, Councilmember.
·3· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Vice Mayor.
·4· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· Thank you, Mayor.
·5· · · · · ·Are you aware of any report by any expert that ·6· ·your clients engaged or that anybody else engaged which ·7· ·said that the house was historic?
·8· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· No.
·9· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· Not at all?
10· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· No.
11· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· Thank you.
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you, Vice Mayor.
13· · · · · ·You have put on a slide about the 30-day
14· ·administrative procedure.· If you could please put that 15· ·up.· Yes, thank you.· And may I ask, please, for Mr. And 16· ·Mrs. Baker to come up.· Mr. and Dr. Baker.· I apologize. 17· ·Fellow residents.· Thank you.
18· · · · · ·And before I go forward, I -- I loved hearing 19· ·your experiences with growing up in Beverly Hills and -- 20· ·and your love of this community.· So -- so thank you for 21· ·choosing Beverly Hills again.
22· · · · · ·My question to you is what was mentioned that 23· ·this procedure was to provide for predictability, and I 24· ·agree with that.· I -- I do believe that -- that this 25· ·council does want to provide for predictability when ·1· ·people buy a home, and I think that's really what I want ·2· ·to understand what you understood and what you felt when ·3· ·you chose this beautiful home in terms of the
·4· ·predictability that you felt when you chose this home ·5· ·knowing that there was a 30-day administrative procedure ·6· ·and such and you -- if you could walk us through
·7· ·somewhat -- everyone teases me.· I always talk about ·8· ·timeline, but if you could walk us through your timeline ·9· ·when you saw the home and -- and understanding that 10· ·there was a procedure in place and -- and the
11· ·predictability that you fairly are looking for.
12· · · · · ·MR. BAKER:· Sure.· No, and thank you.· And thank 13· ·you for acknowledgement of my lackluster Little League 14· ·career, so I appreciate that.· Yeah, I think one of the 15· ·reasons that we were very excited to come to Beverly 16· ·Hills and we love the community is because there are 17· ·rules and you can -- you can understand there's a
18· ·process and we respect that process.· And so I think we 19· ·knew that -- we knew the age of the home and so we knew 20· ·there would be a process for certificate of an
21· ·eligibility, and so we prepared to follow the rules and 22· ·go through that process and we obviously were very 23· ·confident that the facts -- that -- that we -- our 24· ·diligence that we did was that there would be a positive 25· ·outcome from our perspective of the process, but that we ·1· ·would have to go through a process.· And so we were glad ·2· ·that that's what we did and that the experts and that ·3· ·the city experts confirmed it and -- and here we are. ·4· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· So I think that helps me. ·5· ·So you saw the home and then prior to going into escrow ·6· ·or -- or -- or whatever, you had done your own research ·7· ·in advance of that.· And -- and then assumed that the ·8· ·information that you had had would also coincide with ·9· ·what the director's determination would be?· Is that -- 10· · · · · ·MR. BAKER:· Well, I don't want to get too much 11· ·into the weeds without -- you know, Benjamin can address 12· ·some of it.· But -- but I think, Mayor Bosse, that the 13· ·thing was we understand how the system works in Beverly 14· ·Hills.· We understood the age of the home and we had to 15· ·have her perspective on not that we've done all the work 16· ·at that time but thought it was -- it would be -- it 17· ·would we -- thought it would bear out the way that it 18· ·did.· And I don't know if Benjamin, you --
19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Thank you very much, Dr. 20· ·and Mrs. Baker.· I appreciate that.
21· · · · · ·MR. BAKER:· Thank you.
22· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Mr. and Dr. Baker.· Baker, Baker. 23· ·How's that?· So, Mr. Hanlon --
24· · · · · ·MS. BAKER:· Thank you.
25· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Thank you very much ·1· ·for -- again, for being here.
·2· · · · · ·So what -- what I'm trying to ascertain is, you ·3· ·know, we -- we have an ordinance in place.· We have a ·4· ·reason for this ordinance, and we do want to provide ·5· ·predictability for people who find a home in our city ·6· ·that potentially could be deemed historic or such, ·7· ·culturally historic versus not.· That's why we have this ·8· ·process in place and you used the word in terms of ·9· ·predictability.· So I'm just trying to understand how 10· ·that transpired in -- in -- in this whole -- how we -- I 11· ·understand how we got here today but -- but prior to 12· ·that because this was all supposed to happen in -- in 13· ·the 30-day process.· And I think when somebody looks at 14· ·a home as -- as the owner said, you know, they saw the 15· ·age of the home and such, how confident were you since 16· ·the Bakers are -- are asking that you represent the -- 17· ·represent this answer, that this would turn out the way 18· ·the staff had determined it?· How would you know that, I 19· ·guess, is -- is my question?
20· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· So -- so, Honorable Mayor, I -- I 21· ·think that could be known.· And -- and to be clear, 22· ·Honorable Mayor, I -- Latham & Watkins was not
23· ·representing the Bakers when they purchased the house. 24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.
25· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· But I think where predictability ·1· ·comes in is -- is in two ways.· One is the clear words ·2· ·that have been put on the page and the code.· So you ·3· ·have a series of definitions with a lot of clear
·4· ·explanation of what they mean.· Exceptional work has a ·5· ·lot behind it.· There is multiple ways that it can be -- ·6· ·that a property can be an exceptional work, and I think ·7· ·those details that are in the code is what provides that ·8· ·predictability.· I also think the predictability from ·9· ·the certificate -- comes from the certificate itself 10· ·because that's what the effect of the certificate is. 11· ·It's -- sets for a period of seven years an opportunity 12· ·for the homeowners to think how they might want to use 13· ·the home, to potentially reimagine it, to remodel it but 14· ·to do so in a predictable fashion and to know that 15· ·they're not going to be suddenly subject to the landmark 16· ·ordinance after year two or year three.· I think that's 17· ·also where the predictability comes in and why this is a 18· ·valuable feature of the ordinance.
19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So I think what I'm trying to 20· ·understand is, you know -- and -- and you put this 21· ·before us that it's, you know, through a simple 30-day 22· ·administrative procedure.· The owner of any property 23· ·that has not already been determined to be an eligible 24· ·landmark can ask that the city to be clear that the 25· ·property remove any doubt and it can be easily
·1· ·redeveloped.
·2· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Correct, Mayor.· And -- and I ·3· ·apologize if I wasn't clear.· These words aren't my own. ·4· ·These -- these words come from a memorandum that was ·5· ·provided at the time the ordinance was being prepared, ·6· ·and these are words that were used to describe the ·7· ·certificate of ineligibility process at the time in 24 ·8· ·-- in 2014.
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And to your knowledge, and
10· ·obviously this is something that Mr. Gohlich can respond 11· ·to when it comes time to questions of staff, but to to 12· ·your knowledge have -- has this been altered in any way, 13· ·have these words been altered in any way to your
14· ·knowledge?
15· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· To -- to be clear, Mayor -- and I 16· ·apologize if I wasn't clear, these words are from a 17· ·memorandum written in 2014.· If the question is have -- 18· ·has the code -- have the provisions of the code been 19· ·modified since 20 -- 2015, I believe the answer is no. 20· ·But as you said, Mr. Gohlich is probably a better
21· ·position to answer that question.
22· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Fantastic.· I just received 23· ·a note from my colleague, Councilmember Mirisch.· He has 24· ·one more question for you.· So --
25· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Actually two.
·1· · · · · ·But -- so we had heard before -- and, again, ·2· ·this may have been before you were the picture, but we ·3· ·had heard that the purchase price was negotiated
·4· ·downwards with a significant rebate because of the ·5· ·potential of historical preservation because the house ·6· ·had been built by a master architect.· Is that correct ·7· ·according to your knowledge?
·8· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Respectfully, councilmember, I ·9· ·don't think that's relevant to this evening's
10· ·proceeding.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· That's -- that certainly 12· ·speaks to, you know, when -- when we hear that people 13· ·knew the procedure and they were aware, that certainly 14· ·speaks to their knowledge.· If someone is granted a 15· ·rebate because of potential historical condition of a 16· ·house, then that would indicate that they in some way 17· ·understood that that potential existed.· So if you don't 18· ·want to answer it, that's fine, but I would argue that 19· ·it's -- it's highly relevant for that reason.
20· · · · · ·And then my next question will be you mentioned 21· ·that Marie Fisher knew about the disclosure of the ASM 22· ·report, and -- and I want to ask you specifically did he 23· ·consent to the disclosure of the ASM report?· Simple yes 24· ·or no?
25· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· The only reason I'm pausing is ·1· ·somewhat I find it to be an odd question.· My colleague ·2· ·Mr. Millstein is helping me out.· Ultimately the Bakers ·3· ·engaged ASM and the -- and the Bakers consented to the ·4· ·report being released.
·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· But Murray was -- the ·6· ·report -- on the report we got, at least, it says it was ·7· ·prepared from Murray.· So did he -- I'll ask you again ·8· ·and if you don't want to answer, that's fine.· Did he, ·9· ·Murray, consent to the disclosure of the ASM report? 10· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Murray was made aware of the fact 11· ·that the ASM Affiliates report was being provided to the 12· ·city.
13· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Thank you.
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And I believe I have yet another 15· ·question.
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Just one more
17· ·question.· You spoke about that at least some of the 18· ·articles resulted from listening materials from Mark 19· ·Rios.· Is it your view that each of the articles that 20· ·we're talking about were substantially authored by the 21· ·architect of the work or does the -- the publicity 22· ·materials only cover a subset with the articles?
23· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Councilmember, what -- what I'm 24· ·aware of is -- is consistent with what Ms. Ostashay 25· ·reported in her expert report, that there was an effort ·1· ·by Mark Rios' firm to seek publicity for the work that ·2· ·was done for Mr. Bennett and that they worked to have ·3· ·the articles placed in these various publications.· I -- ·4· ·Councilmember, I'm not aware -- I don't know one way or ·5· ·the other whether Mr. Rios' firm wrote the publications ·6· ·or not.
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Thanks.
·8· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So I believe that is the last of ·9· ·the questions from -- from my colleagues for now.· And 10· ·so you could have a seat.· Thank you.
11· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Thank you.
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And I will now open it up to 13· ·public comment for members in the council chambers that 14· ·would like to address us.· I do have a number of speaker 15· ·cards.
16· · · · · ·I will now call Rebecca Pynoos, please.
17· ·Welcome.
18· · · · · ·MS. PYNOOS:· Thank you.· I'm a long time -- I'm 19· ·glad to see you all here.· I'm a long time resident of 20· ·the city.· I served on your city's inaugural Cultural 21· ·Heritage Commission from 2012 to 2016.· And in July I 22· ·will serve you again as an architectural commissioner. 23· · · · · ·I -- I would like to point out that in years of 24· ·this certificate of ineligibility process this is, I 25· ·believe, the first one to ever come before you.· We have ·1· ·several members of our Cultural Heritage curtain -- ·2· ·Cultural Heritage Commission and our previous Cultural ·3· ·Heritage Commissioner -- Commission who are all in ·4· ·agreement about the overwhelming importance of this ·5· ·property, but I would like to take an opportunity to ·6· ·read portions of a letter submitted by Adel Siegelman ·7· ·who I know as an -- as an authority in architecture. ·8· · · · · ·She says "I'm a long time magazine editor of ·9· ·Architectural Digest in the ROB report and author of 10· ·coffee table books on architecture Palm Springs.· My 11· ·focus has long been on architecture, interior design and 12· ·real estate.· 1001 North Roxbury is an extraordinary 13· ·house on a highly visible corner of one of the most 14· ·famous streets in the world.· You are looking at Lucille 15· ·Ball's house across the street which was also designed 16· ·by Carlton Burgess who was a developer and a builder. 17· ·Many people who were in residential construction after 18· ·World War II were not registered architects.· It is why 19· ·I, as a Cultural Heritage commissioner, thought it was 20· ·so important to put -- to retain Carlton Burgess' name 21· ·on our register of local -- of -- of master architects 22· ·and local architects.· He was incredibly important 23· ·locally.· We are looking at a local preservation
24· ·ordinance.
25· · · · · ·He also designed Jack Benny's house, which is ·1· ·across the street.· There were -- there was a
·2· ·conjunction of these homes that are very important to ·3· ·the city.· So Cliff May was not an architect.· Craig ·4· ·Elwood wasn't an architect.· Frank Lloyd Wright
·5· ·technically wasn't an architect either.· He didn't have ·6· ·a formal degree.· Carlton Burgess deserves as much ·7· ·respect for the houses he built around Beverly Hills as ·8· ·any other master builder.
·9· · · · · ·There seems to be some confusion about the 10· ·home's publication in the article appearing in Luxe. I 11· ·believe the house would have been published in
12· ·Architectural Digest in 1942 around the time it was 13· ·originally completed.· Since I worked at Architectural 14· ·Digest and collected vintage issues, I'm pretty sure 15· ·that since World War II the magazine was published very 16· ·sporadically at the time because advertising would have 17· ·dried up.· The house was published after a lengthy 18· ·renovation by the previous owner with Mark Rios, but 19· ·part of that is the marriage with the historic
20· ·architecture.· It's not just the interior.· It's the 21· ·marriage to this historic Beverly Hills estate.· The 22· ·article was written by Caren Kurlander, an editor at 23· ·Luxe at the time.· I know Caren.· She and I were
24· ·colleagues at Architectural Digest where she started her 25· ·editorial career.
·1· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· If you could just wrap it up and ·2· ·finish --
·3· · · · · ·MS. PYNOOS:· Okay.
·4· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· -- as fast as you can, please. ·5· ·Thank you.
·6· · · · · ·MS. PYNOOS:· Luxe is a respected design resource ·7· ·in the shelter magazine world which is what magazine -- ·8· ·which is what magazines that cover interior design and ·9· ·architecture sector are called.· I don't know what an 10· ·acknowledged expert is in architecture and design world 11· ·looks like to attorneys at Latham & Watkins, but I do 12· ·know Caren Kurlander and Luxe absolutely qualify in the 13· ·design sphere that I have been part of for some 30 14· ·years.
15· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you, Rebecca.· Thank you. 16· ·Appreciate it.
17· · · · · ·MS. PYNOOS:· Thank you.
18· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Jill Collins.· Welcome, Jill. 19· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Hi.· Okay.· Well, I'm gonna love 20· ·not having to carry these around anymore.· Just so that 21· ·you see it in person, the iconic interiors book.· Again, 22· ·the Luxe magazine, David Bennett's copy of the
23· ·Architectural Digest leather bound and we have the villa 24· ·design book that has it pictured inside.· This is a very 25· ·large coffee table book.· These are just four
·1· ·publications that have been recognized.· I have so many ·2· ·letters and I thought that the public comment or the ·3· ·letters would have been read out by now because I know ·4· ·that probably 50 or 60 were submitted.· I don't know ·5· ·what kind of time limit I have because you gave the ·6· ·applicant lots of time.
·7· · · · · ·I do have one, though -- well, I mean, I don't ·8· ·know how much time I have.
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Jill, you have three -- you have 10· ·three minutes like all the other speakers, but we -- we 11· ·will be addressing all the public comments that you're 12· ·talking about; the e-mails and such.
13· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Okay.· Well, this one, which you 14· ·haven't seen, is actually by Larry Schmidt.· Larry 15· ·Schmidt was the project manager for David Bennett during 16· ·the time of the renovation and his -- and I have copies 17· ·for you, for everybody.
18· · · · · ·Honorable -- Honorable Mayor and City Council 19· ·members, I have been employed as David Bennett's estate 20· ·manager since April 2000.· David purchased 1001 North 21· ·Roxbury, Beverly Hills property in September of 2004. I 22· ·was project manager working alongside Mark Rios'
23· ·architectural firm and Fort Hill Construction serving as 24· ·our contractor.· Though we raised the roof at the far 25· ·South Lexington end of the house, which expanded the ·1· ·site crawl space to allow for bathrooms and closets, the ·2· ·footprint of the house was not changed except for
·3· ·modifications to the back of the home which are not ·4· ·visible to the public.· We did switch out the upper ·5· ·fixed windows to operable once, but they were built to ·6· ·match the existing.· Our renovation sensitive --
·7· ·sensitively -- God, can't say the word -- kept to the ·8· ·detailing of the existing home.· So we configured a ·9· ·cleaner landscape design which wouldn't compromise 10· ·architectural integrity.· David felt this was an
11· ·important house on a very prominent corner in Beverly 12· ·Hills.· Out of respect for the street, the neighborhood 13· ·and aware of the familiarity of the house to many in the 14· ·city, we were also very delighted to be able to leave 15· ·the gracious open front yard dotted with Sycamore and 16· ·pine trees and screened -- not screening the yard in or 17· ·the house front elevation by adding heights and gates. 18· ·The house was sold to Josh and Lisa Greer in May 2011. 19· ·Thank you, Larry Schmidt, estate manager to David
20· ·Bennett.· June 19th, 2022.
21· · · · · ·I have a letter from the LA Conservancy. I 22· ·guess I don't have time to read it.· I have a very 23· ·lengthy letter that was submitted by -- sorry -- by the 24· ·Bruckheimers, Jerry and Linda.· They were actually on a 25· ·plane back from Korea from promoting the new Top Gun ·1· ·Maverick film.· It's a very long letter.· They're so ·2· ·upset about this.· They own the historic -- historic ·3· ·Harry Cohen estate.· I have a letter from Diane Keaton ·4· ·that was included in your packet.· I believe Mary
·5· ·Steenburgen also wrote a letter.· There are probably 50 ·6· ·letters from very prominent citizens in our community ·7· ·that feel very strongly about this.· I request the Diane ·8· ·Keaton letter be read out, and I'm having a little ·9· ·problem.· All these people that wrote in under good 10· ·faith, they wrote in 350 words and less and submitted 11· ·their letters.
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· We will be addressing that.· We're 13· ·-- we're --
14· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· I was told they would not be read 15· ·out.· I was told they were gonna be summarized, and a 16· ·lot of these people have direct, you know, connection to 17· ·the house and to the neighborhood and they felt that 18· ·their stories behind just opposing the certificate of 19· ·ineligibility were as important as opposing the
20· ·certificate of ineligibility.· And just -- I'm gonna -- 21· ·I'm gonna leave.· I --
22· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Don't leave.· You'll stay.
23· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· But -- but -- but, you know, I -- 24· ·I still don't understand how you can look at a property 25· ·like this and say gee, this is a great piece of land. ·1· ·Let's tear it apart and build what we want.· I believe ·2· ·the property owners own two other parcels of land. ·3· ·One's a double lot south of sunset.· Another is a single ·4· ·lot.· They got a price reduction knowing --
·5· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Jill, can you please wrap it up. ·6· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Okay.
·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· We have a lot of other speakers ·8· ·that are also commissioners like yourself.
·9· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Okay.· So, you know, I have these 10· ·publications.· I can circulate the letter.· I'll hand it 11· ·over to Huma.· That's from David Bennett.· If anybody 12· ·wants to see any of these publications, I wanted you to 13· ·see the size of them because they are massive.
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.
15· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Thank you.
16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you very much for being 17· ·here, Jill.
18· · · · · ·Josh Flagg.· Welcome, Josh.· Welcome.
19· · · · · ·MR. FLAGG:· Hi, councilmembers.· How are you? 20· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Hi.
21· · · · · ·MR. FLAGG:· I'm Commissioner Josh Flagg.· I have 22· ·a few letters from friends and residents that I wanted 23· ·to share with you.· I wanted to start with Mrs. Aaron 24· ·Spelling.
25· · · · · ·"Dear members of the Beverly Hills City Council. ·1· ·Born and raised in Beverly Hills not far from 1001 North ·2· ·Roxbury Drive.· I implore the council to reconsider ·3· ·demolition.· Such a historic dwelling that has added ·4· ·much value to the culture and character of Beverly ·5· ·Hills.· It is an iconic architectural gem that deserves ·6· ·its place in history.· Built in 1942 it is most grand ·7· ·and welcoming.· It is a phenomenal storybook filled with ·8· ·history of Beverly Hills.· Please reconsider and keep ·9· ·this magnificent estate."
10· · · · · ·I'd like to share from Joan Rivers daughter, 11· ·Melissa Rivers.
12· · · · · ·"Dear City Councilmembers.· I'm completely 13· ·floored and saddened by the idea that 1001 North Roxbury 14· ·Drive may be demolished.· My mother Joan Rivers and I 15· ·walked by this house all the time and talked about how 16· ·fabulous people she used to see at parties there.· We 17· ·also talked about what an incredible and historic home 18· ·this is to our city.· Jack Benny, Lucille Ball, all the 19· ·great stars lived on North Roxbury Drive, one at a time. 20· ·I believe that this property was even owned a one time 21· ·by Walter Winchell.· Many people are only concerned with 22· ·the present and do not embrace the past.· The city of 23· ·Beverly Hills, when I was a child, was a completely 24· ·different environment.· We have lost so many great homes 25· ·and so much great history.· Let us not lose another ·1· ·great one of these homes.· If you ever travel to Palm ·2· ·Beach, if you ever -- if you ever leave the zip code, ·3· ·this never happens.· This is in your hands.· You can ·4· ·make this change now.· It is to start at what some point ·5· ·and it needs to -- it needs to be now.· Otherwise, the ·6· ·deconstruction -- the destruction of our great homes ·7· ·will just continue on forever.· This is truly one of our ·8· ·greatest city landmarks and the rest of the residents ·9· ·will be devastated to see this house go.· Every child 10· ·loves to go trick or treating by this house.· Everyone 11· ·loves the Christmas holiday decorations.· Please, from 12· ·the bottom of my heart, make this change now before it's 13· ·too late.· Melissa Rivers."
14· · · · · ·From Martin Lawrence Bullard, who is
15· ·Architectural Digest AD 100 cover of the magazine. 16· ·Elton John's interior designer, et cetera, et cetera. 17· · · · · ·"Dear whoever it may concern, it is one of the 18· ·saddest things that in our city we do not respect the 19· ·history of our architecture and the beautiful historic 20· ·homes that have grounded and formed the visual fantasy 21· ·of Beverly Hills.· To see that yet another important and 22· ·beautiful home, 1001 North Roxbury, is slated to be torn 23· ·down to build a modern McMansion is just devastating. 24· ·As an internationally acclaimed interior designer, I 25· ·find it especially sad to lose such a gem.· Why are we ·1· ·not protecting these landmark buildings?· Why is the ·2· ·city allowing us, the very soul, to be torn out of ·3· ·Beverly Hills?
·4· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And if you could just wrap up your ·5· ·comments, Josh, please.
·6· · · · · ·MR. FLAGG:· I can wrap it up or shall I do on to ·7· ·the Suzanne Somers letter or Richard Weintraub or -- ·8· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Josh, your -- your time is up.· So ·9· ·if you could just tell us the letters that you have and 10· ·just summarize real quick, that would be great.
11· · · · · ·MR. FLAGG:· We have Mrs. Bernie Brillstein.· We 12· ·have the neighbor next door, Steve Lewis at 1007
13· ·Roxbury.· We have Mrs. Peter Falk.· We have Carrie 14· ·Brillstein, and we have Mrs. Barbara Lockhart who did 15· ·the Beverly Hills Hotel Chasins as well as Ledonne to 16· ·name a few as well as Bob Byer, former CEO of Trust 17· ·Company of the West as well as Alison Martino as well as 18· ·Kelly Day, Mrs. former Robert Day.· Jill Black and I 19· ·think that -- oh, Dr. Dropinski.
20· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you, Josh.· And if you could 21· ·leave those with --
22· · · · · ·MR. FLAGG:· I've circulated with Huma.
23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Fantastic.· Thank you. 24· ·Thank you for being here.
25· · · · · ·MR. FLAGG:· Thank you.
·1· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Sarah Blanchard, please.· Welcome. ·2· · · · · ·MS. BLANCHARD:· Thank you so much.· After
·3· ·hearing the wonderful comments that have just preceded ·4· ·me, I don't have that much to say.· But I will say this, ·5· ·I was very involved in the Jimmy Stewart estate and was ·6· ·with Sotheby's at the time, and was devastated when I ·7· ·was at a party at Sotheby's and heard that the man next ·8· ·to me was ripping the house down including the magical ·9· ·garden.· But this house -- that house was devastating 10· ·and as everybody's commented on, and I've -- I -- I feel 11· ·that the history of the city is so important and to see 12· ·the city -- to see these beautiful homes -- and the home 13· ·we're discussing is a beautiful home.· And you can call 14· ·it historically important or you can make up reasons why 15· ·it's not, but you can look at this home and see the 16· ·quality and the elegance and the way it sits on the lot. 17· ·There are few homes in Beverly Hills that have that 18· ·feeling about it.· And for it to be torn down for -- 19· ·because somebody spent 37 million on it, it just makes 20· ·me irate.· I think we need to get more respectful about 21· ·the history and the architecture of the city.· Thank you 22· ·so much.
23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Thank you for being 24· ·here.· Mr. George Millstein, did you want to speak? 25· ·Okay.· Thank you.· Nicole Baker?· You're okay?· Thank ·1· ·you.· Whoops.· Eric Baker?· Yes.· Brian Pinkett.
·2· ·Welcome.
·3· · · · · ·MR. PINKETT:· Honorable Mayor, vice mayor and ·4· ·councilmembers, good evening.· My name is Brian Pinkett. ·5· ·I'm an architect partner at Landry Design Group.· I'm ·6· ·also a member of the National Trust Historic
·7· ·Preservation, the Los Angeles Conservancy and on the ·8· ·board of the Southern California Chapter of the
·9· ·Institute of Classical Architecture and Art.
10· · · · · ·I have been designing homes in Beverly Hills for 11· ·almost 30 years and at Landry Design Group we have the 12· ·utmost respect for the preservation of the work of 13· ·master architects.· In fact, we have respectfully
14· ·remodeled and renovated homes designed by Paul Williams 15· ·and Frank Gehry.· The city's historic preservation 16· ·ordinance seeks to recognize exceptional examples of 17· ·architectural works.· I reviewed the city's ordinance. 18· ·The expert technical reports and city staff reports on 19· ·this property, taking everything into account it's clear 20· ·that the house does not meet the city's own criteria set 21· ·forth in Section 1033212 landmark designation criteria. 22· ·There's a detail -- there's a detailed list of
23· ·requirements used to determine the property is deemed a 24· ·landmark.· What I noticed when I was reviewing it and 25· ·what kept coming back to me as an architect is at
·1· ·Subsection B, Item 2 where it says it's an exceptional ·2· ·work by a master architect.· Okay.· The city's own ·3· ·definition of master architect reads as follow:· "An ·4· ·architect, a widely recognized greatness in the field of ·5· ·architecture whose individual genius influences his or ·6· ·her age.· While widely recognized greatness in the field ·7· ·of architecture who individually -- with individual ·8· ·genius influenced his and her -- of his and her age ·9· ·could be considered subjective.· The term architect is 10· ·not."
11· · · · · ·Carlton Burgess was a builder and is a
12· ·non-architect who is on the city's master architects 13· ·list.· Many articles refer to him as a builder, even a 14· ·master architect.· However, after doing my own research 15· ·with the California State Architects Board, an architect 16· ·means a person who is licensed to practice architecture 17· ·in this state under the authority of this chapter. 18· ·Carlton Burgess does not show up as ever being licensed 19· ·architect in the state of California.· Paul Williams, he 20· ·shows up as deceased.· They keep a record of all the 21· ·architects.· But more importantly based on all the 22· ·criteria, the city staff found that the home at 1001 23· ·North Roxbury is not eligible for landmark status, and I 24· ·respectfully request the City Council affirm the city 25· ·staff's findings and conclude that the city's
·1· ·eligibility standards to be deemed landmark are not met. ·2· ·Thank you.
·3· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you, Mr. Pinkett.· We have a ·4· ·question for you.
·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Just a quick one.· We ·6· ·heard before that Frank Lloyd Wright was not licensed as ·7· ·an architect in California.· Would that influence your ·8· ·thoughts about his works here?· Would they not qualify ·9· ·because he wasn't technically licensed?
10· · · · · ·MR. PINKETT:· Based on your own words he would 11· ·not qualify.· However, there may be exceptions because 12· ·of his stature of publication, his community
13· ·contributions to his designs of his architecture. I 14· ·mean, Frank Lloyd Wright and John -- and Mr. Burgess are 15· ·two different spectrums.
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Okay.· Thank you.
17· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you very much.· Stephen 18· ·Shapiro.· Welcome.
19· · · · · ·MR. SHAPIRO:· Mayor and City Council, my name is 20· ·Stephen Shapiro.· I've been in the real estate business 21· ·since 1976 in Beverly Hills.· Currently I own Westside 22· ·Estate Agency at 210 North Cannon Drive for 23 years and 23· ·lived on Walden Drive for over 20 years, and obviously 24· ·I'm here to speak on behalf of 1001 Roxbury.· I've 25· ·learned it's no longer my understanding that an
·1· ·certificate of ineligibility was issued on the house and ·2· ·now it's suggested that it was wrongly issued.· The ·3· ·house is not eligible for listing because it doesn't ·4· ·meet the city's high standards for landmarking.· The ·5· ·city should not start reinterpreting the standards of ·6· ·the code or you'll be creating a great deal of
·7· ·uncertainty in the real estate market.· The code was ·8· ·developed in 2015 with very strict standards of which ·9· ·homes were eligible, and the city has worked to
10· ·tightened these standards to give homeowners certainty 11· ·and not ambiguity.· Depending on what you do tonight, it 12· ·may become a requirement for all home sales to get a 13· ·certificate of ineligibility before the transaction even 14· ·closes.· This would be very bad this would delay these 15· ·transactions in a material way and this would needlessly 16· ·create major problems for buyers and sellers.
17· · · · · ·I am here to urge you to affirm the staff's 18· ·decision and affirm the certificate of ineligibility. 19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.
20· · · · · ·MR. SHAPIRO:· Thank you.
21· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Mr. Craig Corman.· Welcome.
22· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· As the chair -- and I have a number 23· ·of things to respond to in the applicant's presentation. 24· ·Can I have more than three minutes or should I just give 25· ·you three minutes, then you can call me back as -- ·1· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· I think just to keep the process, ·2· ·I'll give you three minutes and then I'm sure if my ·3· ·colleagues have questions they can call you up.· Thank ·4· ·you very much.
·5· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Thank you.· So first of all, I just ·6· ·wanted to make sure that each of you had received a copy ·7· ·of former Commissioner Noah Furie's submission on this ·8· ·matter.
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Yes.
10· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Okay.· Good.· Don't have to go over 11· ·that.
12· · · · · ·So I think the important thing right now is to 13· ·step back and have an overview of what's really at issue 14· ·here.· A certificate of ineligibility proceeding is not 15· ·a landmark proceeding.· The -- the idea is not to
16· ·determine tonight whether the house should be
17· ·landmarked.· And the -- the -- the -- the -- actually, 18· ·the issue is not whether it -- it might be landmarked or 19· ·it possibly could be landmarked the question is whether 20· ·anyone could reasonably conclude that all the elements 21· ·have been made, that anyone could reasonably conclude 22· ·that it should be landmarked.· Not that it should be, 23· ·not that it will be, but could anyone reasonably do 24· ·that.· In other words, it's a prima facie -- prima facie 25· ·analysis.· Is there evidence on each individual element ·1· ·and?· I think that's important to know because that ·2· ·informs what the certificate of ineligibility program ·3· ·really is all about.· It's like a summary judgment ·4· ·proceeding, and it was designed not to identify
·5· ·properties that have high historic merit.· It was
·6· ·designed to weed out properties that no one cared about ·7· ·so that people could -- could redevelop those
·8· ·properties.· And that is true.· It was designed to be a ·9· ·quick -- a quick -- a quick process.· And to do that we 10· ·had to come up with objective standards in a famously 11· ·subjective area.· And the standard we chose was whether 12· ·something with their work -- and it's not whether the 13· ·exceptional quality of the work was subtly discussed or 14· ·photographically depicted, it was whether the work is 15· ·substantially discussed or photographically depicted. 16· ·It's a rough correlation whether anyone has ever cared 17· ·about the home.· It's not designed -- the publication 18· ·requirement is not designed to establish whether
19· ·something's historic.· It's designed to establish
20· ·whether something -- the absence of those publications 21· ·shows that it's not historic.· I think that's really 22· ·important.
23· · · · · ·I think that -- that when we talk about -- there 24· ·have been a number of -- of -- of statements tonight 25· ·where that all the experts have said that it's not worth ·1· ·preserving.· All the experts said -- even the -- the -- ·2· ·the -- the city's historic consultant.· That's not true. ·3· ·First of all, when you look at the criteria, the A ·4· ·criteria talk about they're -- whether it's an important ·5· ·work, whether it's a remarkable example of a specific ·6· ·style, the -- the report that Councilman Mirisch asked ·7· ·the applicant's attorney about tonight, which had not ·8· ·been provided to the city until last Wednesday, confirms ·9· ·that actually it is worth preserving on all the A
10· ·factors.· And the certificate of ineligibility that the 11· ·staff issued was -- was never issued on the grounds that 12· ·it wasn't susceptible of being preserved.· It wasn't 13· ·worth preserving.· It was only issued because of the 14· ·ostensible lack of publications which we now know is not 15· ·true.· And -- and I think that's the -- the critical 16· ·thing to know at this point in time.
17· · · · · ·Jan Ostashay's report -- and I know I don't have 18· ·much time -- Jan Ostashay's report which said no, we 19· ·should -- we should -- the certificate should issue was 20· ·-- was -- was based solely on the lack of publications, 21· ·not on whether the -- the property is worthy of
22· ·preserving.· And -- and so that's why I think it's 23· ·important you dig down deep and talk about the
24· ·publications themselves and whether they qualify.· And 25· ·as commissioner -- former Commissioner Furie said in his ·1· ·-- in his submission, and as I said before, you know, ·2· ·it's really an on/off switch.· It's was the work subtly ·3· ·discussed.· And not substantially discussed.· They have ·4· ·an expert who said "oh, these publications don't count ·5· ·because the work -- the works weren't substantially ·6· ·discussed."· It's not substantially.· It's
·7· ·substantively.· And the idea was it's just not listed in ·8· ·in an index.· So if it's describing the property as one ·9· ·of the publications does --
10· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Craig?
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes, I know.· Well, I'm -- I'm 12· ·looking at the thing so I'm not sure what's going -- All 13· ·right.· So I'll -- I'll -- I'll be quiet.
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Stay close.· I'm sure there might 15· ·be some questions for you.· Thank you very much.
16· · · · · ·William Mungall.· William Mungall, is he here? 17· ·Wonderful.· Thank you.· Welcome.
18· · · · · ·MR. MUNGALL:· Thank you.· Good evening,
19· ·Honorable Mayor, vice mayor and councilmembers.· I'm an 20· ·architect here in Los Angeles and been working for 20 21· ·years in this -- working on projects in Beverly Hills 22· ·and been before you previously.
23· · · · · ·I think that it's a very sort of dangerous road 24· ·to not look at what all of these experts have said about 25· ·these publications.· None of the publications that ·1· ·they're talking about appear to be anything that is ·2· ·actually historic.· It's all about the interior design. ·3· ·It's exactly what our firm does.· We take the photos. ·4· ·We bring it to our PR people.· We get them put around ·5· ·and published and, you know, that's how it -- how it ·6· ·works.· So the fact that it's been picked up by other ·7· ·books and, you know, the -- the neoclassical book -- I ·8· ·mean, it's -- that's about, like, some details that ·9· ·aren't even really relevant to the actual house.
10· · · · · ·The exterior of the house completely, you know, 11· ·by the architects own words, has been completely
12· ·renovated.· And, you know, windows changed.· All kinds 13· ·of things done to it.· I agree that there's a lot of 14· ·beautiful houses out there.· A lot of them should, you 15· ·know -- but it's -- it's the eye of beholder.· And, you 16· ·know, all these people may have great memories of
17· ·walking past the house, but that doesn't necessarily 18· ·qualify it as a historic, you know, preservation
19· ·landmark piece that should be, you know, prevented from 20· ·having the clients be able to do what they want with the 21· ·lot.
22· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Thank you for being 23· ·here.· The last speaker card that I have at this moment, 24· ·so if there's anybody else in council chambers that has 25· ·not addressed this that would like to speak, please fill ·1· ·out a speaker card.· And that is Suzanne -- and I
·2· ·apologize if I'm not pronouncing the last name correct ·3· ·-- Shepela.· All right.· Thank you.· Welcome.
·4· · · · · ·MS. SHEPELA:· Good evening, Honorable Mayor, ·5· ·vice mayor and councilmembers.· I've recently had the ·6· ·opportunity to review some of the materials relating to ·7· ·the residence located at 1001 North Roxbury.
·8· · · · · ·As I understand from the information the house ·9· ·was built in 1941 with an architect by builder --
10· ·without an architect by builder, Carlton Burgess.
11· · · · · ·Oh, sorry.· Can you not -- I'll pull it down. 12· · · · · ·I'll start over.· The house was built in 1941 13· ·without an architect by builder, Carlton Burgess.
14· ·Mr. Burgess is not mentioned in any architectural
15· ·publications as an architect of any note, which makes 16· ·sense since he was not an architect nor is Mr. --
17· ·Mr. Burgess an architect or widely recognized greatness 18· ·and field of architecture whose individual of genius 19· ·influenced his or her age, which in this city's
20· ·definition is a master art -- of a master architect. 21· ·The house has been remodeled over the decades numerous 22· ·times and most recently by Mark Rios as we saw in the 23· ·video.· The articles I've seen all focus on their models 24· ·by Mr. Rios around 2010 to 2015.· The articles do not 25· ·focus at -- at all on any issues relating to the
·1· ·architectural -- the actual architecture of the house ·2· ·and making no reference to Mr. Burgess himself.· In my ·3· ·view there is nothing to suggest that there is anything ·4· ·architecturally remarkable about this house.· The
·5· ·article is in no way can be considered a scholarly or ·6· ·substantive -- substantive discussion of anything
·7· ·relating to the architecture.· So thank you very much. ·8· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· We have a question for ·9· ·you.
10· · · · · ·MS. SHEPELA:· Yes.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Yes, let's assume that 12· ·the architect of this exact same house were not Carlton 13· ·Burgess but Paul Williams.· Would that change your 14· ·opinion?
15· · · · · ·MS. SHEPELA:· But it wasn't.
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· That's not my question. 17· ·If this -- let's say that information came out, you know 18· ·what, it wasn't.· It was actually Paul Williams.· Would 19· ·that change your opinion?
20· · · · · ·MS. SHEPELA:· Based upon the information that 21· ·Mr. Burgess and this house, that's how I'm seeing it. 22· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Okay.· So it wouldn't? 23· ·If --
24· · · · · ·MS. SHEPELA:· No.
25· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· If it was Paul Williams ·1· ·it would still -- Okay.· Thank you.
·2· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you very much.· Is there ·3· ·anybody else in council chambers that has not spoken ·4· ·that would like to address us?· Okay.· Thank you very ·5· ·much.
·6· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· There's someone there. ·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Oh, wait.· There was?· Oh, okay. ·8· ·I'm sorry.· I didn't see.· Please -- I'm sorry?· Oh, are ·9· ·you on this item?
10· · · · · ·MALE SPEAKER:· Oh, well, I'm -- I'm asking you 11· ·questions about the rent increase --
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Oh, we're not at that item yet. 13· ·I'm sorry.
14· · · · · ·MALE SPEAKER:· Oh, you're not there?
15· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Not yet.· I'm sorry.· Yeah, thank 16· ·you.
17· · · · · ·Okay.· Do we have any members on the phone or 18· ·video that would like to address us?
19· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· We do have one caller.· Carol 20· ·Grohman Meyers.
21· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Welcome.
22· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· We hope she's still there.· She's 23· ·been on for a while.
24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Welcome.
25· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· We can go to written comments and ·1· ·if she calls back --
·2· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Yes, please.
·3· · · · · ·MS. GROHMAN MEYERS:· Is it there?· Am I on there ·4· ·now?
·5· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Yes, we can hear you.· Welcome. ·6· · · · · ·MS. GROHMAN MEYERS:· Hello?
·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Yes, we can hear you.· Welcome. ·8· · · · · ·MS. GROHMAN MEYERS:· Welcome.· I know I have ·9· ·three minutes so I'll talk fast.· Good evening, Mayor 10· ·Bosse, Vice Mayor Gold and Councilmembers.· My name is 11· ·Carol Grohman Meyers, and I've lived in Beverly Hills 12· ·since the earliest childhood and I was raised at 1008 13· ·North Roxbury Drive.· So obviously my reason for the 14· ·call is the 1001 Roxbury property.
15· · · · · ·I'm very aware of the house because my childhood 16· ·friend Kenny Cole lived there with her family who owned 17· ·Cole of California, the iconic swimsuit company.· And I 18· ·was at that home so many times and we saw Esther
19· ·Williams swim there multiple times and also be filmed 20· ·there.· And I don't know whether or not anybody's aware 21· ·of the fact that the Cole family was even there because 22· ·I've never even heard them mentioned.· In fact, also as 23· ·a child when I used to walk with our family friend Jimmy 24· ·Stewart and his two dogs and my dog, we would see this 25· ·film crew there and wander in and there was Esther ·1· ·Williams again.· So the house has some kind of -- a ·2· ·different vibe to it than anybody's actually led anybody ·3· ·to believe.· And the Cole house looks exactly the same ·4· ·as it did then with some very little modifications on ·5· ·the outside.
·6· · · · · ·So when I heard John Mirisch speak about it at ·7· ·the council meeting last week and voiced his disdain for ·8· ·the person who had prepared the report on 1000 Roxbury ·9· ·and he said referring to the -- to the report that he 10· ·didn't trust it, the bell went off in my mind when I 11· ·heard that.· And bravo to you, John.· Since I find John 12· ·Mirisch to be an honorable and trustworthy person, I 13· ·felt the whole scoop on 1001 Roxbury Drive has not been 14· ·given.· They have never to my knowledge even named the 15· ·Cole family as residents of that address, and I think 16· ·shame on them.· I guess they never expected somebody 17· ·like me who was raised there and grew up on Roxbury 18· ·Drive to be alive and kicking and being so vocal.· Well, 19· ·here I am.· I only live a few blocks away now, and I 20· ·pass by 1001 Roxbury on a continual basis.
21· · · · · ·So enough of anybody who's trying to ignore the 22· ·existence of it and the iconic history of it.· 1001 23· ·North Roxbury was plainly overlooked on purpose to 24· ·somebody's gain and reports are often elevated or
25· ·concealed or ignored and -- and passed over purposely. ·1· ·Please dig deeper with this and have a new look at 1001 ·2· ·Roxbury with different eyes on it now, which could ·3· ·reveal a different outcome.· Thank you so much and thank ·4· ·you for your time.· Goodnight.
·5· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you for calling.· Do we have ·6· ·any other e-mails or --
·7· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· We -- we have written comments. ·8· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Written comment, please.
·9· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· And as was mentioned, they are 10· ·going to be summarized due to the voluminous number of 11· ·comments we have received.
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.
13· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· Eric, please go right ahead.
14· · · · · ·ERIC:· Provided with includes both in the
15· ·numerical tally of the comments received for this
16· ·particular item for tonight's meeting in recommending 17· ·both keeping the certificate of ineligibility as well as 18· ·those against that includes a list of the names of all 19· ·of the submitters for each category as well as selected 20· ·key quotes that seem distinctive to describe the
21· ·opinions of those individual positions.· And with -- 22· ·assuming the council finds that acceptable, I'll proceed 23· ·to read those.
24· · · · · ·The summary of the tally of the comments that we 25· ·received, again, specific to tonight's item, there were ·1· ·16 comments written seeking to keep the certificate of ·2· ·ineligibility and 14 against with 1 remaining neutral. ·3· ·The items for keeping the certification of ineligible -- ·4· ·ineligibility were submitted by the following
·5· ·correspondence.
·6· · · · · ·Joanie Wellisch, Lynn and Les Bider, Josh
·7· ·Friedman, Russell Fogarty, Todd Hasson, Michael
·8· ·Eisenberg, Monty Abramov, Gerald Friedman, Sherman ·9· ·Gardner, Judy and Allen Levine, Jackie Winnick, Ellham 10· ·Ellie Samadi, Jan Block, Darren Franks, J. Todd Riley 11· ·and Nahal Rasmi.
12· · · · · ·And so there's a page or two of some of these 13· ·quotes directly from the -- the e-mails that we
14· ·received.· They read as follows:
15· · · · · ·"The city has clear objective standards for what 16· ·is and is not eligible for listing under the city
17· ·ordinance.· This house does not meet those standards. 18· ·The picture of Mark Rios' extensive remodels for David 19· ·Bennett have -- that have been repeated in free
20· ·magazines, websites and self-published books are not 21· ·about the home's architecture.· They're about Mark Rios 22· ·and his work.· The passing picture of the home's front 23· ·is an afterthought.· Please don't allow -- to allow a 24· ·few loud voices to convince you that this house is 25· ·historic in any way.· Please affirm staff's issuance of ·1· ·the certificate.
·2· · · · · ·In 2015 when the city's historical -- historic ·3· ·preservation ordinance was adopted, the mayor at the ·4· ·time very specifically stated, quote, one of the goals ·5· ·was to have predictability and for people to know in a ·6· ·reasonable time if their house is a potential landmark, ·7· ·End Quote.· It is unfair to every Beverly Hills'
·8· ·resident and of course particularly to us and all the ·9· ·other residents on our street, North Roxbury Drive, 10· ·north of Sunset Boulevard, for the City Council to 11· ·arbitrarily decide that both the intent and the letter 12· ·of that -- of an ordinance should be ignored.· We urge 13· ·you to follow the procedures in the ordinance that was 14· ·adopted in 2015 and issue the certificate of
15· ·ineligibility.
16· · · · · ·A few years ago the city updated the historic -- 17· ·historic preservation ordinance.· A key component of 18· ·this update was to raise the bar for what was -- what 19· ·constituted a historic property.· This made a lot of 20· ·sense.· Beverly Hills has a number of stately homes that 21· ·many people have grown fond of over the years, but the 22· ·City made the wise choice of establishing clear and 23· ·objective standards so that property owners would be 24· ·free to adopt -- adapt and evolve their homes to meet 25· ·their changing needs.· This is why it would be an
·1· ·absolute catastrophe for the city if the city did
·2· ·anything but sustained staff's decision to exempt the ·3· ·house at 1001 Roxbury from the city's ordinance.· It is ·4· ·greatly appreciated when the City Council prevents the ·5· ·destruction of a beautiful residence when a less than ·6· ·beautiful house is planned for the lot.· There probably ·7· ·could have been more of this in years' past.· This is ·8· ·not the case here.
·9· · · · · ·The Bakers are planning to take down a beautiful 10· ·old non-historical facade and put up an even more
11· ·beautiful new home that will increase property values. 12· ·There is nothing architecturally significant about the 13· ·current home that would give it landmark status and 14· ·place it on the National Register.· If people want to 15· ·change the city's cultural heritage ordinance going 16· ·forward to make it a lower hurdle, then that is a debate 17· ·that should be -- should be -- should be had going 18· ·forward, but you can't change the rules after the fact 19· ·and penalize those homeowners.· I'm concerned that the 20· ·City Council's actions in delaying a certificate of 21· ·ineligibility on the property of the 1001 North Roxbury 22· ·sets a dangerous precedent that could impact many
23· ·resident -- residential property owners.
24· · · · · ·My clients, both buyers and sellers, expect 25· ·certainty in their real estate transactions.· The city's ·1· ·historical preservation ordinance is very specific about ·2· ·how certificates of ineligibility are granted and the ·3· ·timeframe for a decision.· I understand that the
·4· ·applicant fully complied with it.· I understand the ·5· ·property owner meticulously abided by the ordinance and ·6· ·that the city is own historical consultant agreed with ·7· ·the property owner's consultant that the residence has ·8· ·no historical significance according to the city's ·9· ·guidelines.· What does it say to buyers and sellers in 10· ·the city if the council can arbitrarily change the rules 11· ·in the middle of the game?· I urge the City Council to 12· ·remove the uncertainty about the process and that delay 13· ·for that -- the delay in issuing a certificate of
14· ·ineligibility is causing.
15· · · · · ·Furthermore, there are hundreds of houses in 16· ·Beverly Hills that have been the sites of parties with 17· ·celebrities to politicians and other influential people. 18· ·However, that does not mean that the property is
19· ·historically significant.· Can anyone point at -- point 20· ·to an event of cultural significance related to this 21· ·house?· Like the dozens of homes that preceded it
22· ·through the city's process, the home of 1001 North 23· ·Roxbury is also ineligible.· It is not an exceptional 24· ·work or a mark -- or a remarkably superior example of 25· ·architecture.· Its architecture has not been substantial ·1· ·-- substantively discussed or photographed.· To the ·2· ·dismay of my viewing, the City Council meetings you've ·3· ·ignored the Commission and one or two council persons ·4· ·swayed the council to review and delay after delay in ·5· ·making a decision.· Please do not change the rules after ·6· ·the decisions by the Commission.
·7· · · · · ·Let us please allow the Bakers to move forward ·8· ·with their plans of building a new family home for them ·9· ·and their parents in their lovely city.· I understand 10· ·that the city has strict standards for what it considers 11· ·historic.· The house does not meet them.· Please don't 12· ·burden the property with further process.· The city 13· ·staff got it right when they found the house was not 14· ·historic the first time, and it looked at this.· Please 15· ·find the same and issue the certificate of
16· ·ineligibility.· The Bakers have followed your process to 17· ·the letter and have been delayed for nearly a year now. 18· ·I respectfully request that the council affirms the 19· ·certificate of ineligibility and let them move ahead. I 20· ·have no doubt that the house they could -- they build 21· ·will be one the city which is proud of.· The facade is 22· ·pleasing, but it looks like many, many other homes in 23· ·our city.· It is important to recognize our past, but it 24· ·is also important not to allow historic preservation to 25· ·be used improperly or to frustrate property rights.· The ·1· ·city's experts looked at the house and found that it ·2· ·should be exempted from listing.· I agree and ask that ·3· ·the council do the same.· According to the articles, the ·4· ·house was built in the Paul Williams style.· Paul
·5· ·Williams was a truly great architect and left his mark ·6· ·on the city through his many homes of various designs ·7· ·and styles, but this house was not built by Paul
·8· ·Williams, just an imitation of his work."
·9· · · · · ·And to proceed with the arguments against the 10· ·certificate of ineligibility.· Excuse me while I take a 11· ·drink of water.· So the argument against the -- the 12· ·commentators included Tom Gregory, Mary Steenburgen and 13· ·Ted Danson, Victor Kong, Aileen Comora, Richard M. 14· ·Marian Manion, Stella Hall, Alison Martino, Robert 15· ·Switzer, Rich Waldow, Oliver and Zoe de Givenchy, Bari 16· ·Milken Bernstein, Marcy Kelly Brubaker, Adrian Scott 17· ·Fine, Maralee Beck.· Also, Noah Furie submitted but 18· ·offered no position but would like the Cultural Heritage 19· ·Commission to review further.
20· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Huma, I think
21· ·corrections -- I -- I read it Zoe Givenchy said that 22· ·she's a friend of the Bakers and she supports their 23· ·position.· So --
24· · · · · ·CITY CLERK:· Duly noted.· Okay.
25· · · · · ·ERIC:· Okay.· In the summary of some of the ·1· ·comments, the key points from the comments on that side. ·2· · · · · ·"1001 North Roxbury is what Hollywood's first ·3· ·stars longed for.· I can't imagine learning that -- ·4· ·tearing it down or altering it.· The house is more than ·5· ·an expensive home on a marvelous lot.· 1001 Roxbury is ·6· ·the thing that makes people work harder, strive together ·7· ·and push forward towards their dream.· There has to be a ·8· ·place, a house, that stands as a monument to the best ·9· ·example of the pre-war Hollywood dream.
10· · · · · ·There is an appeal to whatever the flavor of the 11· ·day can imagine, but there -- there has to be a magical 12· ·place left on a wonderful street in an idyllic town that 13· ·beckons people to push themselves toward all they can 14· ·imagine.· 1001 North Roxbury is a beacon.· Our
15· ·respectful renovation was without concern for cost.· The 16· ·house is solid and well executed.· I just wish I still 17· ·lived there.· The home of the 1001 North Roxbury is one 18· ·of the most charming historic gyms in Los Angeles.· It 19· ·is facing possible demolition, which would be yet
20· ·another loss to a city that must come together to save 21· ·its historic treasures before they're lost for good. 22· ·The world will note or remember what we say here, but if 23· ·we consecrate our city's heritage through our
24· ·institutions and our landmarks, you may do a great 25· ·service not only today but for generations to come. ·1· · · · · ·These past few months we've seen our people come ·2· ·together to oppose a robber baron.· These town folks ·3· ·make me proud to be a part of Beverly Hills.· Let's not ·4· ·burn another library of Alexandria.· If our present -- ·5· ·preservation efforts succeed, then Beverly Hills will ·6· ·indeed be a wonderful life.· We now have to fight to ·7· ·keep one of the last magnificent examples of what
·8· ·Beverly Hills estates used to be 1001 North Roxbury ·9· ·Drive.
10· · · · · ·As a local architect specializing in for many 11· ·decades and works inspired by classical and vernacular 12· ·historic architecture including renovation projects of 13· ·period houses throughout Southern California and in the 14· ·city of Beverly Hills, I believe that this residence is 15· ·worthy of preservation.· 1001 North Roxbury is an
16· ·eclectic architectural gem inspired by the colonial 17· ·revival and Regency revival periods.
18· · · · · ·Licensed or not, Burgess created significant 19· ·residents of architectural character on a par with noted 20· ·architects like Paul Williams and Robert Reisenberg that 21· ·should be preserved.· As a preservation mind of
22· ·residents of Beverly Hills, I would like to help
23· ·preserve this elegant and historic home at 1001 North 24· ·Roxbury Drive.· I strongly oppose the issuance of a 25· ·certificate of ineligibility for this property.
·1· · · · · ·We need more appreciation of the finer things. ·2· ·Once the generation that remembers this type of
·3· ·architecture and appreciates it passes away, more will ·4· ·be destroyed very sad to call this progress.· Roxbury ·5· ·Drive will never recover from the loss of this house nor ·6· ·will the entire city.· Please do the right thing." ·7· · · · · ·Then a specific recommendation from the Beverly ·8· ·Hills Heritage.
·9· · · · · ·"When considering Item E-2, Beverly Hills
10· ·Heritage strongly urges the council to vote in favor of 11· ·revoking the certificate of ineligibility and instead 12· ·find that the 1001 North Roxbury Drive meets the
13· ·critical -- criteria necessary to receive landmark 14· ·status.· Many would agree it is iconic.· Star-seeking 15· ·tourists and visitors and residents still flock to the 16· ·1000 block of North Roxbury where the homes of Lucille 17· ·Ball and Desi Arnaz still stand next to Jack Benny's 18· ·next door to Peter Fox.· They take pictures, then turn 19· ·and photograph 1001 still beautiful in its exterior as 20· ·the golden age of Hollywood.· In passing the historic 21· ·preservation ordinance, we intended that all possible 22· ·historic resources be considered by the commissioner and 23· ·council before being lost to the wrecking ball.· You 24· ·have the chance to give this building and part of the 25· ·city's long past a fair shot."
·1· · · · · ·And then finally, again, in a more neutral tone ·2· ·from Noah Furie, "I take that position on whether 1001 ·3· ·Roxbury is actually worth preserving as a historical ·4· ·resource.· I'm only saying that in my opinion.· The ·5· ·publications of the house are sufficient to warrant ·6· ·discussion of the house at the Cultural Heritage
·7· ·Commission level with an opportunity for the community ·8· ·to give its full and complete input."
·9· · · · · ·And that concludes the summaries of this
10· ·particular item's public comments.
11· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you very much, Eric.· You 12· ·probably need more water.· I do want to say --
13· · · · · ·ERIC:· (Inaudible) harder.
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Yeah, exactly.· Councilman Mayor 15· ·said it something harder.
16· · · · · ·I do wanna say on record that we were provided 17· ·all the letters and thus, the entire council did read 18· ·all of the letters.· I also wanted to address the
19· ·caller.· I did see that the applicant did provide in 20· ·October 2021 a historical resource assessment, and it 21· ·has all of the owners of the properties starting from 22· ·1941.· The owner was -- I'm sorry.· It's just very small 23· ·and it's -- it's hard to -- to see.· I guess Mildred 24· ·Naylor, and it does list the Coles as owners starting in 25· ·1986 through 1987 and then again the Coles in 1994, ·1· ·2002, 2005 and 2006.· So I just wanted to address the ·2· ·caller who was concerned about the Coles not being ·3· ·listed.· Based on the report that was provided to us, it ·4· ·has every single owner from the first owner of 1941 and ·5· ·the last owner being -- yes, but it -- it -- it says ·6· ·2000 and -- has Lisa Greer -- I think the last owner ·7· ·2015.· So it does -- it does list the Coles, so I just ·8· ·wanted to address the caller.
·9· · · · · ·I will now go to my colleagues for any further 10· ·questions you might have of anybody.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Is this anybody or 12· ·just the public now?
13· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· It's just -- it basically -- 14· ·further questions from the councilmembers, anybody. 15· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Including --
16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Including --
17· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Just because the 18· ·script allows us to staff a little bit later on.
19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Not the script that I have.· You 20· ·might have a different script than I do.· My -- mine 21· ·says the council, then the applicant can respond.
22· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· So I can ask that -- 23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· You can ask anybody, yes.
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· So we've had quite a 25· ·few comments, both pro and con, their certificate. ·1· ·Within those -- and this is leading up to a question. ·2· ·Within those that were many from people who were
·3· ·distraught that the house might be torn down and
·4· ·remodeled, and we received a variety of letters like ·5· ·that.· And so I'll pose this as an open question to ·6· ·anyone who might be able to point me to this.· From ·7· ·those letters or from those comments it seems to me that ·8· ·most, if not all of them, addressed our A criteria.· And ·9· ·I'm not aware of any of those addressing the B criteria. 10· ·We have both the A criteria and the B criteria.· So can 11· ·anyone point me to any of those letters that we received 12· ·or comments that we made that actually address the B 13· ·criteria.· And by the A criteria, I mean ones that speak 14· ·about -- that it possesses high artistic or aesthetic 15· ·value.· It retains substantial integrity.· It has
16· ·continued historic value to the community.· Things like 17· ·that.
18· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And before you answer that, Ryan, 19· ·it does provide in the script to ask the questions now 20· ·or later.· So how would you like to handle that?· Larry? 21· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· So you can ask either staff or the 22· ·public questions now.· There's then opportunity for 23· ·rebuttal testimony.· As you're aware, we changed that 24· ·several years ago so that it will involve applicant's 25· ·rebuttal, public rebuttal to the applicants, et cetera ·1· ·until there's no more rebuttal and then there is another ·2· ·opportunity to ask questions based on the rebuttal ·3· ·evidence.
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And -- and -- and ·5· ·just a little bit more context.· You know, I asked what ·6· ·I viewed as some probing questions of the applicant, and ·7· ·I'm continuing to ask what I view is probing questions. ·8· ·And I can understand why people would be upset about the ·9· ·house being torn down, and I'm questioning whether or 10· ·not that upset is based just on the A criteria and we 11· ·have in front of us both A criterion B criteria.
12· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· I believe your assessment is 13· ·correct, Councilmember Wunderlich.· I've -- I've
14· ·reviewed I believe most -- I'm not sure if I had all of 15· ·the letters because they came in at different times, but 16· ·I believe most of them speak generally to the -- to the 17· ·A criteria maybe not by name but they speak to the -- 18· ·the value of the home, to the neighborhoods, the quality 19· ·of it.
20· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· That it's a beautiful 21· ·house, it remains integrity?
22· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Correct.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Aspects like that? 24· ·Yeah.· And, Craig, are you willing to entertain some -- 25· ·some questions?
·1· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· And, again, I'm trying -- I'm -- ·2· ·similarly Noah's submission specifically deal with the B ·3· ·criteria publications.
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Okay.· So -- so -- so ·5· ·I'll start with that one then.· I mean, Noah mentions ·6· ·one of the articles.· The coffee table book that he says ·7· ·does address the -- substantively the architecture.· Do ·8· ·you know what he's referring to?
·9· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yeah, there's --
10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I'm looking at it in 11· ·front of me right now.
12· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yeah, it's absolutely -- it
13· ·discusses -- and, again, it only has to substantively 14· ·discuss the work or photographically depict the work. I 15· ·mean, it's true.· There were comments made that in 2015 16· ·we raised the bar on landmarking, and that is generally 17· ·true.· We also lower -- we had a very low -- low bar. 18· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I'm -- I'm looking at 19· ·it on my iPad right now.· It has the picture.
20· · · · · ·MS. SHEPELA:· It has a full page.
21· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· But we had a very low bar on the 22· ·certified eligibility -- ineligibility program.· The 23· ·idea being we still want most of these houses to go to 24· ·the Cultural Heritage Commission so the Cultural
25· ·Heritage Commission with their expertise, with the -- ·1· ·with our -- with our historic consultant Jan Ostashay ·2· ·weighing in with a complete and unbiased report, full ·3· ·community input so that when the ultimate issue, whether ·4· ·something should be landmarked comes to council, they ·5· ·have -- you have the benefit, the full benefit of
·6· ·everyone's input.· The certificate of ineligibility ·7· ·short circuits that whole process.· And that's why the ·8· ·bar was set low on the publication requirement.· That's ·9· ·also the reason we have two publications, not one, 10· ·because the bar was so low.
11· · · · · ·So -- so let me -- let me read look up a snippet 12· ·from one of the books.· And it says "it is a glamorous 13· ·house befitting its heritage set within a neighborhood 14· ·of Hollywood legends including Lucille Ball and Jack 15· ·Benny.· Sitting on a double lot, opened the street 16· ·without any hedges or fencing, it is a well-known
17· ·fixture in this part of Los Angeles designed by an 18· ·unknown local architect in the style of Paul Williams, 19· ·architect to the stars.· The 1100 square meter 12,000 20· ·square -- 12,000 square foot house of white painted 21· ·brick sits in generous grounds complete with a swimming 22· ·pool, tennis court and guesthouse."· That subtly
23· ·discusses the house.
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, that's your 25· ·opinion.
·1· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· It may not be a substantial
·2· ·discussion, but that was never the point.
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· So I -- I posed this ·4· ·question last time, and let me pose it again.· So it ·5· ·happens that my house, which is over 45 years old and ·6· ·retains most of its original character, was featured on ·7· ·the front page of the Wall Street Journal when we put in ·8· ·drought tolerant landscaping.· And it had a nice picture ·9· ·of the front of the house.· You can see the exterior of 10· ·the house.· So I don't remember who wrote the article, 11· ·but just assume for this question that the person
12· ·actually was an architectural expert and that the
13· ·article mentioned that it was a Spanish style house that 14· ·retained the character from 1926 and has been well 15· ·preserved.· Would that article about my house have 16· ·qualified?
17· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes, but that's why we have a 18· ·requirement for two publications.
19· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Okay.· So somebody 20· ·else picked up the -- that -- but in your view that 21· ·would qualify?
22· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes.· Yes.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Even though the 24· ·article had nothing really to do with the architecture? 25· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· No.
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· It was the
·2· ·landscaping we were putting in.
·3· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Because it showed the house in a -- ·4· ·in a favorable light as an exemplar of something he was ·5· ·writing about.· Now, I'm not sure that -- that -- it's a ·6· ·-- mostly the journal is circle -- circulation
·7· ·publication.· I'm not really sure that the writer of ·8· ·that would have been an architectural writer.
·9· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I'm just asking you 10· ·to assume.
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes, but -- but if that were the 12· ·case, yes.· But, again, that's why we have two -- two 13· ·publication requirements.· The whole purpose of this 14· ·program is not to -- is not to let arguably -- arguably 15· ·historic properties be demolished.· The whole purpose is 16· ·to allow inarguably unhistoric properties to be
17· ·demolished without, you know, by right.· That's the 18· ·hope.· So this has gotten flipped on its head here. 19· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Are you aware of any 20· ·documentation that we have in writing today which
21· ·describes that the two publications were supposed to be 22· ·low benchmarks?
23· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· No, I'm not aware of any writing to 24· ·that effect.· That's correct.
25· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· We've been speaking ·1· ·about the legislative history.· What's the legislative ·2· ·history of the iconic property criteria, different ·3· ·criteria?
·4· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· It is, and the idea behind that was ·5· ·that there are certain properties that have become so ·6· ·identified with Beverly Hills to the world at large, ·7· ·they are part of our identity, part of our -- I don't ·8· ·know if we want to call it soul or -- or -- or
·9· ·identity --
10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, let's take the 11· ·witch's house as an example.
12· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· That is a perfect example.
13· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, you know, I 14· ·would say that the witch's house is well known for 15· ·people who know it well.· Does the world at large really 16· ·know the witch's house?
17· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, I think it's well known. I 18· ·mean, I --
19· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I think it should 20· ·qualify as an iconic property.
21· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· It's a house that tourists visit 22· ·regularly because they're aware of it.· It's on the map. 23· ·This -- it's called the Spadaro House, I think is what 24· ·it's called.· But -- or -- or -- or Michael's house if 25· ·we know Michael.· But -- but -- but that's, you know -- ·1· ·and -- and -- and let's go back to -- and people visit ·2· ·all the time.· And that's another aspect of this house ·3· ·over on Roxbury Drive.
·4· · · · · ·I talked to Ben Boss who lives across street ·5· ·from this house in the old Lucille Ball house, and I ·6· ·really called him because I wanted to ask him point ·7· ·blank based on Mr. Rios' letter, has the house really ·8· ·changed.· And he didn't -- he lived there 28 years.· The ·9· ·house hasn't changed, hasn't changed from the street. 10· ·They changed the landscaping.· They moved some trees. 11· ·They had some beautiful tulip bushes they took out.· He 12· ·was very clear, but the house itself has not changed. 13· ·So Mr. Rios' statement that they nipped and tucked and 14· ·did all this stuff over the years, I mean, yeah, in the 15· ·back and the side but not a from this -- from the
16· ·street.
17· · · · · ·But -- but let's go to the iconic destination. 18· ·So he -- he also, after you told me this, the
19· ·conversation flipped.· He says "Is there anything you 20· ·can do about those darn tour buses?"· And I said "What 21· ·do you mean?"· He said "They stop every two minutes in 22· ·front of my house, and -- and they -- all they do -- and 23· ·they -- they stop and they take pictures."
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Lucille Ball and 25· ·people like that is part of the architecture.
·1· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes, but she said "They stop and ·2· ·take pictures, and they took pictures of my house.· They ·3· ·pictures of Jack Benny's house next door, and they turn ·4· ·around take a picture of this house because it's so ·5· ·beautiful."· So -- so --
·6· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· But the issue is not ·7· ·whether or not it's beautiful.
·8· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, no.· So what I'm saying was ·9· ·this is the problem with a certificate of ineligibility 10· ·situation.· It's possible this house has risen to the 11· ·level of iconic status.· It's possible given what we now 12· ·know.· How many tour buses go down there, people
13· ·photographing that house, you know, but we have not done 14· ·a full analysis of that.· Certificate of ineligibility 15· ·would prevent if you -- if you grant it tonight, would 16· ·prevent us from over analyzing that.
17· · · · · ·Now, if you don't grant the certificate of 18· ·ineligibility, let's be clear, the house doesn't get 19· ·landmarked.· It's just is now available for discussion 20· ·at the Commission level and later the council level and, 21· ·again, with the full input of our historic assessment, 22· ·you know, as consult -- consultant Jan Ostashay.· It may 23· ·be that under further investigation this is an iconic 24· ·house because the amount of people who have visit it, 25· ·seen it, loved it, photographed it.· Maybe posted it on ·1· ·Pinterest.· I don't know, but we won't know that unless ·2· ·we have the ability to investigate.· And if you grant ·3· ·the certificate we will never have that ability.· If you ·4· ·don't grant the certificate, we will have that ability. ·5· ·It may be iconic.· May not be, but we'll certainly find ·6· ·out.
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· But you also say that ·8· ·these criteria were meant to be a low bar, but I'm -- ·9· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Criteria of the publications. 10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, why the
11· ·publications are supposed to the others?· For example, a 12· ·person of great importance, that's a pretty tough
13· ·standard.· It's someone whose names and exploits were 14· ·widely known across America during his or her lifetime 15· ·and whose widespread fame continues through to the 16· ·present day.· I mean, that's truly a --
17· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· No.· As I said earlier, there was a 18· ·-- there was -- there was -- there were some statements 19· ·around that in 2015.· We raised the bar for landmarking, 20· ·and I said that is to some extent true.· And it's true 21· ·in those instances, and I can explain why we did that. 22· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Okay.· Explain. 23· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Do you want me to explain?
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, why it's pretty 25· ·tough in some criteria but a low benchmark in others. ·1· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, because that's for actual ·2· ·landmark status.· The publication is simply a way to -- ·3· ·to -- to -- to -- to implement the certificate of
·4· ·ineligibility program.· In other words, it's one thing ·5· ·to raise the standard on -- on becoming landmarks.· It's ·6· ·another thing to have a low bar on what houses you'll ·7· ·never consider.· That's my point.· We set a low bar on ·8· ·houses we will never consider.· And -- and -- and the ·9· ·idea was behind the publication requirement.· If a house 10· ·hadn't been published twice by anyone with some
11· ·expertise, it's a pretty good guess that no one cares 12· ·about that house and it can be torn down.· But if it has 13· ·been published twice by people with some background, 14· ·then there's a pretty good indication that it may be. 15· ·It doesn't mean it is.· Doesn't mean it is.· And so 16· ·that's why that bar is low because it's simply a way to 17· ·weed out houses that are in arguably not historic.· But 18· ·most of the houses that are potentially historic, if 19· ·they really are potentially historic, they're supposed 20· ·to come to the Commission and the council.· That's the 21· ·point of the certificate of ineligibility program.· It's 22· ·not designed to weed out houses that are arguably, you 23· ·know -- arguably, you know, historic.
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And let me ask a 25· ·couple questions of Larry.· Larry has to wake up.· Look ·1· ·at me.
·2· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I was up.
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· He was not asleep. ·4· ·He just wasn't looking at me.· What are we allowed to ·5· ·consider?· Are we -- can we go beyond the language ·6· ·that's in our statute, the landmark designation
·7· ·criteria?· Can we consider the -- the equivalent of the ·8· ·legislative history?
·9· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· So --
10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Are we limited to the 11· ·words that make up our statute?· Can we consider the 12· ·various interpretations of -- provided of the
13· ·legislative?
14· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· You're -- you're limited to the 15· ·words.· Now, the legislative history can shine a light 16· ·on your interpretation of the words.
17· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· But it's fair for us 18· ·to use legislative history to help us with the
19· ·interpretation of the words?
20· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Where the words aren't clear, it's 21· ·fair to use legislative history.· The legislative
22· ·history isn't just, Craig --
23· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· No, it's not.
24· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Who -- who was a substantial author 25· ·of them.· It is what the council was thinking at the ·1· ·time.· So I'm not sure that you really have a quote, ·2· ·unquote, legislative history that you can look at.· You ·3· ·-- you have some aspects of the legislative history. ·4· ·You can certainly take into account various people's ·5· ·testimony about the legislative history, but I don't ·6· ·think you should rely on one person's interpretation. ·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I think Larry is ·8· ·right.· Are we aware today of written documentation that ·9· ·would help us?· Our minutes are often pretty skimpy of 10· ·what council was thinking.
11· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· The minutes are one thing.· The 12· ·testimony from the time of the hearings is another 13· ·thing.· Certainly you can take into account Craig's 14· ·testimony as -- as well as others, but basically you're 15· ·talking about what the council was thinking at the time. 16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And do you agree with 17· ·Craig that if we were not to issue the certificate, then 18· ·the next potential step would be for a full
19· ·consideration by the Cultural Heritage Commission as to 20· ·whether or not the house could be landmarked?
21· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Well, I'm not sure that -- we can 22· ·get to that if you -- if -- if that's the decision of 23· ·the council.· I'm not sure that the Cultural Heritage 24· ·Commission would be the appropriate place to have this 25· ·considered considering the testimony that we've heard ·1· ·already.· There -- there -- there's -- there is some ·2· ·indication that they have made up their minds.
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· I -- I can tell you -- I ·4· ·can tell you I have not made in my mind.
·5· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I appreciate that.· And Craig has ·6· ·-- Craig has been clear.
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And so it would come ·8· ·-- the next step would come back to City Council?
·9· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I'm not sure how -- how -- how 10· ·would -- that would be resolved.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And we've had
12· ·additional documentation and -- Okay.· Thanks, Craig. 13· ·This -- this next one is for Ryan.
14· · · · · ·We -- we've had additional documentation,
15· ·additional information about publications that may or 16· ·may not be relevant.· What does our peer reviewer, our 17· ·internal expert now think about those documentations? 18· ·And do they rise to the level of the documentations 19· ·that's -- that are called for in the criteria?
20· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· When we use our peer reviewer 21· ·we're really using her -- especially in this -- in this 22· ·circumstance we're using her to do the background
23· ·research, gather the factual data on, you know, where 24· ·did this article come from?· Who was the author?· Are we 25· ·able to substantiate that?· Really, we try to keep the ·1· ·role of interpreting the code to city staff and then of ·2· ·course in this case it's the council's, but we try to ·3· ·separate those two facets of the review.
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, with the most ·5· ·recent information we have about the articles that ·6· ·mentioned the house, does staff has a -- have a view as ·7· ·to whether or not or our expert have views to whether or ·8· ·not they rise to the level of the -- that would fulfill ·9· ·the criteria?
10· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· So from the staff perspective, I 11· ·think clearly there are arguments on both sides of it. 12· ·And -- and we've heard from people that were involved in 13· ·the drafting of it.· And this is something that, you 14· ·know, we do on a regular basis as staff.· As we look at 15· ·the -- the text of the code and we put the pieces
16· ·together, and when I do that I -- I lean more towards 17· ·the publications not qualifying.· But that has to do 18· ·with the fact that really the publications were not put 19· ·together or -- or distributed for the purpose of
20· ·recognizing the work of Carlton Burgess.· They were put 21· ·together for the purpose of recognizing the work of Mark 22· ·Rios.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Thank you.· This is 24· ·my --
25· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Councilmember
·1· ·Friedman.
·2· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Thank you, Mayor.· The ·3· ·question I had, I think Larry answered, but I'll give ·4· ·him just a moment.
·5· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I apologize.· I didn't hear that ·6· ·you were asking me a question.
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· It's okay.· I was -- I ·8· ·was waiting for you.· In terms of the -- the term
·9· ·legislative history, and I think you've clarified that 10· ·already, it's -- it's -- the Commission worked on an 11· ·ordinance and then it came to City Council for their 12· ·review and (inaudible) it, but there is no documentation 13· ·as to what the intent of the council members were at the 14· ·time in terms of passing it.
15· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Well, there -- there -- there is -- 16· ·I -- I don't know that there is on this issue, but there 17· ·is the minutes and there are the -- there are the -- the 18· ·hearings and et cetera.
19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Aren't a few of us members that 20· ·served on the council?
21· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Yeah.· Yes, and some -- and some of 22· ·you can speak to hey, this was my legislative intent. 23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Exactly.
24· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· But that doesn't mean that it was 25· ·someone else's legislative intent.
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Okay.· But -- but it's ·2· ·-- it's a -- it's a different -- the intent --
·3· ·legislative intent is that of the council as opposed to ·4· ·the legislative intent of the Commission.
·5· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Correct.
·6· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Those are really the ·7· ·only questions I have.
·8· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Councilmember Mirisch, ·9· ·please.
10· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Thanks, Craig.· Some 11· ·questions for you.· Okay.· We -- we -- you're the -- one 12· ·of the drafters, so we've heard on numerous occasions 13· ·what, from your perspective, the legislative intent was 14· ·and how it was meant.· When we initially discussed this 15· ·there were no publications.· Now there are a number of 16· ·them.· In your opinion, as one of the drafters, pretty 17· ·simple, does this meet the criteria as you drafted them? 18· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes.· And let me also say that 19· ·every other Cultural Heritage Commission, current or 20· ·former, who's weighed in on that subject had said the 21· ·same thing.· And so -- and -- and I think that's -- and, 22· ·you know -- and with all due respect to Ryan's statement 23· ·just a few minutes ago, the only way you can say well -- 24· ·and I think we all recognize, these articles were
25· ·published, and they were published independently of each ·1· ·other.· And -- and -- and -- and the only question is ·2· ·whether they substantively discuss or photographically ·3· ·depict the work.· Okay?
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Hold on.· I'd like the ·5· ·mayor to hear this.· Okay.
·6· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Those -- those are the only two ·7· ·requirements.· There's no requirement that the
·8· ·publication would have to be primarily about the
·9· ·exterior.· There's no -- that it has to be primarily 10· ·about the -- the -- the -- the architect.· It has to 11· ·mention the architect.· There have been a lot of
12· ·concepts layered on top of these -- this language that 13· ·somehow -- they think it makes -- makes the -- makes the 14· ·language make more sense to the person who layers it on. 15· ·But those impediments were never in the language.
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· We've heard from
17· ·Mr. Hanlon that basically it's meaningless to have 18· ·Carlton Burgess on the list because he wasn't well 19· ·known.
20· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· He was well known in the community. 21· ·It's a local ordinance, and if -- and anyone who doesn't 22· ·think that he was a really good architect really needs 23· ·to take a second look at the George Burns house up on 24· ·Maple, the Jack Benny house across street in on Roxbury 25· ·and this house.· These are beautiful examples of a -- of ·1· ·a traditional home that Paul Williams would have been ·2· ·proud of.· And he worked with Paul Williams early on in ·3· ·his career, by the way.
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Let me ask you, is ·5· ·there a little bit maybe of architectural snobbery here? ·6· ·Like name, you know, brand.
·7· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, there may be part of it. ·8· ·They're also -- they -- they want to read what they want ·9· ·to read.· They think the person is world famous to 10· ·qualify because that's obviously a high bar that Burgess 11· ·doesn't meet.· So when they say that, that's what
12· ·they're saying.
13· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Isn't that -- isn't it 14· ·possible for a no name person to create a masterpiece? 15· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes, just like it's possible for an 16· ·architect to be an architect stop being a licensed 17· ·architect and Craig Ellwood and Cliff May are class 18· ·examples.· Are we suddenly no longer be able to landmark 19· ·a classic Cliff May or Craig Ellwood because they
20· ·weren't licensed?· That was never the intent.· I don't 21· ·think anyone would ever say that was the intent.
22· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Hang on there, and let 23· ·me ask Jan Ostashay to please come up for a second, who 24· ·is the city's consultant.· And initially in the first 25· ·report there were no publications so you weren't able to ·1· ·find that it met, according to you, the B criteria, ·2· ·correct?
·3· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· That's correct.
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Now there are
·5· ·publications, four of them.· You're the city's expert. ·6· ·Does it meet the criteria?
·7· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Well, as Ryan said, my job was -- ·8· ·at this point was to collect the material and this -- my ·9· ·report reflects that finding and the materials and about 10· ·the authors.· The authors are well qualified, Dominic. 11· ·So they do satisfy the -- the criteria.
12· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Okay.
13· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Excuse me.· As far as
14· ·interpreting exceptional work, it's semantics to me from 15· ·my --
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Semantics.· But we've 17· ·heard from Craig who was one of the drafters, the way he 18· ·interpreted it.
19· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· So I'm a historic
20· ·preservationist.· I've been doing this over 25 years. 21· ·And looking at the criteria and interpreting that and -- 22· ·and reading what exceptional work is but then connecting 23· ·the dots back to the landmark criteria, A and B, my 24· ·findings for A was it set -- the property satisfied all 25· ·of A.· And under B, B2 specifically is what we're
·1· ·talking about, is that it -- the criteria is is it an ·2· ·exceptional work by a master architect.· So then the ·3· ·nexus of that is to go down and read what the definition ·4· ·of master architect is or -- and exceptional work. ·5· ·Master architect, we already know that he's included in ·6· ·the city's list of master architects so that's already ·7· ·-- that box is already checked off.· To go to
·8· ·exceptional work, but again considering that it's by a ·9· ·master architect, Carlton Burgess, you go and look at 10· ·the definition.· And then when you're reading that 11· ·definition, you're considering Carlton Burgess and his 12· ·light and his work.
13· · · · · ·So in reviewing the materials that were just 14· ·recently uncovered, there's photographs.· Primarily one 15· ·of the exterior for context view, and then the rest of 16· ·it is all interior or the remodel of the backyard.· And, 17· ·again, as people have mentioned, there's no discussion 18· ·of the -- of the work associated with Carlton Burgess. 19· ·So -- so that component, that overall arching context of 20· ·the criteria in light of exceptional work, it -- it 21· ·doesn't satisfy it.· Now, if you take the literal sense 22· ·of that definition of exceptional work out of context, 23· ·these materials do satisfy that definition.· So -- 24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· So let me go back to 25· ·Craig who said that we have a low bar.· You may be ·1· ·having a higher bar.
·2· · · · · ·Craig, how do you interpret that because -- ·3· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· I can only say that when we were ·4· ·looking at this and we were looking at a program that ·5· ·the -- the -- the -- the publication requirement is in ·6· ·there primarily for the certificate of ineligibility ·7· ·program because it's an objective criteria, not
·8· ·subjective.· And it's -- is it a publication?· Is the ·9· ·person that -- does it have expertise?· That's it.· So 10· ·-- so, you know, I understand what Jan's saying because 11· ·if you look at it from a preservation standpoint, you're 12· ·always looking for the key to the -- or the link to the 13· ·-- the historic nature of the property, but that wasn't 14· ·the idea because the -- the -- the publication
15· ·requirement isn't -- no one is going to landmark a house 16· ·based on publications.· That's not the purpose of the 17· ·publication requirement.
18· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Right.
19· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· It's to create a low bar below 20· ·which nonhistorical properties can escape the system. 21· ·But above that low bar, we wanna have a discussion.· And 22· ·that -- you know, look.· It's just common sense.· And 23· ·anybody who looks at this house and says it doesn't 24· ·deserve a conversation, I don't know where we are with 25· ·that because common sense tells you from all the -- all ·1· ·the -- the -- the -- the -- the -- the public responses ·2· ·and stuff, this deserves at least a conversation.· The ·3· ·fact that it's been published so many times, it may not ·4· ·be about the house, the exterior.· It may not be about ·5· ·Carlton Burgess.· It may not be primarily about the ·6· ·interiors, but it's certainly showing the house where -- ·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Isn't it also possible ·8· ·that that, maybe the Rios' interior led people to
·9· ·discover the exterior of the house like as a hidden gem? 10· ·I mean, it -- there's so many ways to come --
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· We won't know unless we actually 12· ·take a look, and the problem of the certificate of 13· ·ineligibility program is it cuts off that -- that
14· ·inquiry completely at the front without any ability for 15· ·any of us to look at --
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· So let -- let -- let's 17· ·go back to B5.· And I know Councilmember Wunderlich had 18· ·suggested before that it perhaps could meet the criteria 19· ·of iconic.· We see letters from Oscar winning actors, 20· ·and -- and this sort of thing and people were talking 21· ·about their memories.· You mentioned people taking 22· ·pictures of it.· It's, you know, one of the most
23· ·photographed houses be it's across the street from Lucy 24· ·but people take pictures of it because of its own
25· ·inherent beauty.· Why -- why couldn't this perhaps ·1· ·qualify as iconic?
·2· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, it could but we haven't -- we ·3· ·haven't done the work.· And one of the things that I ·4· ·wanted to do, but I had no -- I didn't have the
·5· ·technical savvy to do it is you can do a Google search ·6· ·based on text, but I don't know how to do that similar ·7· ·search based on images.· We could do an image search on ·8· ·the net and find out how many --
·9· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· You mean like from 10· ·Instagram and --
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes.· Pinterest, Instagram,
12· ·Snapchat, Facebook.· You name it.· I don't know.· It 13· ·could be -- there could be two.· There could be 2,000. 14· ·We don't know.
15· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Well, we also hear 16· ·about people talking, you know -- we heard about stories 17· ·and, you know, this is people telling stories of their 18· ·childhood and their connection to the community.· And, 19· ·you know, prominent people.· People, you know, like 20· ·Jerry Bruckheimer and so on and so forth that we heard. 21· ·That's something that has come to us now since the 22· ·initial.· These are new -- this is new evidence that we 23· ·have now about people talking about their memories. I 24· ·actually called up something a couple days ago or last 25· ·week, and we asked did anyone comment.· Nobody did. ·1· ·Here, clearly, there are a lot of people commenting and ·2· ·-- and that sort of -- it seems like it is something ·3· ·that touches the emotions of a lot of people.· And, you ·4· ·know, what -- what is iconic if not that?
·5· · · · · ·Now, let me ask you that when we initially ·6· ·brought this up and you were here as well, we -- we only ·7· ·had the -- the one since discredited report.· The ASM ·8· ·report was nowhere to be found.· Why -- why wasn't that ·9· ·available -- made available initially when we were 10· ·discussing this the first time?
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· You know, that's -- that's a very 12· ·good question.· And you asked a question of the
13· ·applicant's counsel, which was also very interesting. 14· ·And that was did Murray Fisher consent to the disclosure 15· ·of that -- of that report.· Regardless of what the 16· ·applicant said after hemming and hawing, the report was 17· ·addressed to Murray Fisher.· It's clearly attorney work 18· ·product doctrine.· It's his protected product, and he 19· ·has to consent to disclose or there has to be a
20· ·different ground for it to be disclosed.· And there may 21· ·be a different ground, and I'll get to that.· Because if 22· ·you -- if you look at the -- if you look at the -- the 23· ·report, you know, it was handed in very late and
24· ·apparently the people who drafted the report found the 25· ·two publications that Jill Collins found and then was ·1· ·attacked on March 15th for having found.· And -- but it ·2· ·wasn't -- they somehow didn't make it into the report ·3· ·even though the report is supposed to be a full and fair ·4· ·disclosure of everything the person finds.· And the ·5· ·proper way, and I think Jan would -- would -- would ·6· ·agree with this.· The proper way would have been since ·7· ·the articles were clearly about the house, disclose it ·8· ·but say why they don't relate --
·9· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Why didn't -- why 10· ·didn't they just say hey, we found these.
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· We don't know because -- and they 12· ·also -- and it's also normal practice to -- to list the 13· ·publications you consulted when preparing your report. 14· ·Somehow these didn't make it into their -- even their 15· ·appendix of the publications they looked at out of -- 16· ·out of, quote, time and space constraints, unquote. 17· ·Now, there were no time constraints because the
18· ·certificate of ineligibility application wasn't even 19· ·handed in until, what, five months later.· And there are 20· ·space requirements in an historic assessment.· You have 21· ·unlimited -- unlimited pages.· So none of that makes 22· ·sense, but I will say this, and you -- I think everyone 23· ·should ask themselves this question.· You know, if they 24· ·got this report in July of 2021 and -- and -- and by its 25· ·terms, on its face it said they were eligible for
·1· ·certification of ineligibility that was the conclusion ·2· ·of the ASM report.· So why did they go out and pay ·3· ·another $20,000 for another historic assessment report ·4· ·that they then used for their -- for their application ·5· ·and put this in a file cabinet?
·6· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Well, is it -- is it ·7· ·possible that because the initial report found that all ·8· ·the A criteria had been met, whereas the second report ·9· ·found that only one of four A criteria had been met? 10· ·Was that to -- to make it more of a slam dunk or
11· ·something or --
12· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· You know, without talking we don't 13· ·know, but -- but -- but -- but the report did say they 14· ·were -- they were entitled.· And, you know, by going out 15· ·and getting a second report, you don't know if the next 16· ·person's going to say the A criteria has been met or 17· ·not.· There's no -- there's no guarantee.· Now, they did 18· ·go to this person who's notorious for doing slam -- you 19· ·know, slam dunk reports so maybe they thought they were 20· ·gonna get something, but there's no way of knowing that. 21· · · · · ·The point is they had a report that would do 22· ·what they needed to do, but for some reason they didn't 23· ·want to use it.· And -- and I think that, you know, the 24· ·second -- the amendment to that report, which was just 25· ·prepared 11 days ago was very instructive because it ·1· ·says that -- the authors of that report admitted that ·2· ·they actually knew about the Luxe Magazine article and ·3· ·the Architectural Digest back in July in 2021.· And -- ·4· ·and throughout this entire process, it -- it's apparent ·5· ·that the applicant team, somebody on that team knew ·6· ·about this publication.· They kept casting doubt on the ·7· ·-- on the -- on the publications.· We were struggling ·8· ·with whether the Architectural Digest mockup version ·9· ·that we had at the April 12th meeting, was authentic and 10· ·whether we should consider it.· They knew that there was 11· ·a real article they never stood up here and said oh, by 12· ·the way, that article you're wondering whether it really 13· ·is legitimate, there is a copy.
14· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· So why -- why come 15· ·clean now if they buried it before?· Why all of a sudden 16· ·June 10th a year later?· Because I agree with you with 17· ·-- you know, you would think that they would have said 18· ·we found these.· We don't think we're -- they're
19· ·relevant.· We could have asked Jan or some other experts 20· ·to look at it and say what do you think, but we didn't 21· ·know.· So if they intended to bury it, why come clean 22· ·now?
23· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, that's a good question
24· ·because actually by -- by coming clean now they produce 25· ·a report which undermines their -- their -- their
·1· ·arguments that the house lacks integrity and isn't worth ·2· ·preserving, right?· They came -- I think -- I think you ·3· ·have to look at it -- and this is why the answer to the ·4· ·question of did Murray consent to the disclosure of the ·5· ·document is interesting because the only other basis ·6· ·that I know of -- and this is speculation.· The only ·7· ·other basis that I know of for someone for -- for an ·8· ·ethical attorney and there's no question Latham and ·9· ·Watkins is an ethical law firm.· They're one of the best 10· ·law firms in the city, the country, if not the world. 11· ·They know that they can't ethically disclose someone 12· ·else's attorney work product if they haven't consented 13· ·unless it's some other exception.· The most common 14· ·exception to that, of course, the crime fraud exception. 15· ·And I think -- I think what happened here is, and it's 16· ·conjecture --
17· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· What kind of exception 18· ·was that?
19· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· The crime fraud exception.
20· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· What is a crime fraud 21· ·exception?
22· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, it's to see if report is part 23· ·of a fraud or a crime against someone.· And I think what 24· ·happened here was -- and, again, it's pure conjecture, 25· ·but I think if it fits the facts --
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Conjecture --
·2· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, but what fits the facts is -- ·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Craig, but -- but
·4· ·conjecture is throwing in things that -- that really ·5· ·shouldn't even be considered.
·6· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, then --
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· We -- we do know that ·8· ·we -- there -- there was a report from almost a year ago ·9· ·that we didn't see until a couple weeks ago.· It was 10· ·buried.
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· And -- and --
12· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· But that's a fact. 13· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· And the -- and the authors knew of 14· ·these applications.· That was ever disclosed.
15· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· So facts are facts, 16· ·right?· When you -- when you start saying this is
17· ·conjecture then I -- it -- it just starts ringing a bell 18· ·in my head.
19· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· That's fine, but -- but -- but the 20· ·truth is that you cannot, as an ethical attorney,
21· ·disclose someone else's work product because you know 22· ·unless it -- unless it's up to an exception.
23· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Doesn't -- doesn't -- 24· ·isn't it the client who has the authority?
25· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· No.· No.· The attorney work product ·1· ·doctrine apply is -- is owned by the attorney, not the ·2· ·client.· So, you know, you can make it what it is, but ·3· ·there's no question that there were publications that ·4· ·were hidden from this council -- from -- from -- from -- ·5· ·from staff and from the -- from the council until very ·6· ·recently.· And I have no doubt that -- that -- that, you ·7· ·know, that -- that Latham -- Latham and Watkins
·8· ·disclosed this report because they felt obligated -- ·9· ·ethically obligated to do so.· There's no question in my 10· ·mind.· But, again, I don't know for sure.
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· It makes it difficult to 12· ·assess things if we don't have all the information.· And 13· ·I get it you could have said well, we might have been 14· ·able to and we maybe should have, maybe there's another 15· ·way of -- of -- of finding the articles.· But if they 16· ·knew about them, shouldn't they have let us know so we 17· ·could have made that assessment?
18· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, I -- I think so.· I mean, I 19· ·think that's part of the problem, and I -- and I
20· ·understand the applicant, you know, and I believe the 21· ·applicant said tonight that -- that -- she said they 22· ·followed all the rules and everything was supposed -- I 23· ·believe that she believed that.
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Right.
25· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· I don't think she had any idea that ·1· ·there was there was material information hidden from -- ·2· ·from staff and from the council.
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Okay.· All right.· Thank ·4· ·you, Craig.· That -- that's all I have for now, Mayor. ·5· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Vice Mayor?
·6· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· I have no questions.
·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· So I was told that a ·8· ·Victor Kong would like to address us.· Welcome.
·9· · · · · ·MR. KONG:· Thank you very much.· I have a letter 10· ·here from the LA Conservancy.
11· · · · · ·"Dear Honorable Members of the Council, on 12· ·behalf of Los Angeles Conservancy thank you for the 13· ·opportunity to express our concern over the proposed 14· ·issuance and approval of a certificate of ineligibility 15· ·for 1001 North Roxbury Drive.· A strong case has now 16· ·been -- been demonstrated that this historic residence 17· ·indeed meets the high bar and established criteria by 18· ·the city of Beverly Hills for identification and local 19· ·landmark designation.· The Conservancy strongly believes 20· ·the subject property retains sufficient integrity of 21· ·original design and further is eligible for local
22· ·landmark designation under both criteria A and B.
23· ·Sufficient documentation establishes this as a historic 24· ·resource.· Therefore, a certificate of ineligibility is 25· ·not merited.
·1· · · · · ·Constructed in 1942 for Mildred Naylor, the ·2· ·Regency Revival style residence is an excellent example ·3· ·of the work of master architect Carlton Burgess of which ·4· ·he is included on the city of Beverly Hills' official ·5· ·list of master architects.· Per your municipal code, the ·6· ·subject property also meets the test as an exceptional ·7· ·work by Burgess as evidence, and the record demonstrates ·8· ·that this property has been published at least twice or ·9· ·more in various sources.· Therefore, properties eligible 10· ·for local designation under A and B should not be issued 11· ·a certificate of ineligibility.· In the case of the 12· ·subject property, it meets all requirements under
13· ·criteria A and at least one under criteria B,
14· ·exceptional work by a master architect.
15· · · · · ·Under -- unlike any other city that we are aware 16· ·of, the city of Beverly Hills has established a
17· ·preservation program relying on criteria that requires 18· ·an unusually high level of documentation and research to 19· ·demonstrate baseline historic eligibility.· While the 20· ·Conservancy continues to believe this approach to be 21· ·arbitrary and not in accordance with best practices and 22· ·standards of historical preservation, it is currently 23· ·the established process and protocol that needs to be 24· ·followed.· Given this property meets the high bar and 25· ·test, there should be no reason other than to conclude ·1· ·data certificate of ineligibility is not warranted in ·2· ·this case.· With the eligibility of this residence as a ·3· ·historic property established, we respectfully request ·4· ·you rescind the previously issued certificate for 1001 ·5· ·North Roxbury Drive.· Thank you for your attention." ·6· · · · · ·I also have a letter from LA Conservancy board ·7· ·member Diane Keaton to Mayor Bosse and fellow City ·8· ·Councilmembers.
·9· · · · · ·"I have previously owned two homes on Roxbury 10· ·Drive.· I simply love the history of the area let alone 11· ·the street.· Now I am pleading with you.· We cannot let 12· ·1001 North Roxbury be yet another catastrophe to our 13· ·city.· This charming and historic home needs to be 14· ·preserved for us and future generations.· Linda Dishman, 15· ·my friend entire list leader of LA Conservancy has 16· ·successfully saved some of the greatest establishments 17· ·and homes.· I'm a proud board member with her and admire 18· ·her tenacity and heart.· This is no exception either. 19· ·I've toured this house in the past and admired and 20· ·remained in awe of its beauty, and it would be a tragedy 21· ·for this to be a statistic of demolition that is not 22· ·only unnecessary but also devastating.· Please hear my 23· ·plea to preserve this house and keep it as a jewel in 24· ·our beloved city.· Please read my letter in hopes that 25· ·we don't make a mistake on this home.· I oppose the ·1· ·issuance of a certificate of ineligibility for 1001 ·2· ·North Roxbury Drive.· It must be saved.· Thank you. ·3· ·Diane Keaton."
·4· · · · · ·So in conclusion, this is a democracy and we ·5· ·have won the court of public opinion.· Thank you so ·6· ·much.
·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you very much.· Ryan, if you ·8· ·don't mind coming up, please.· Thank you.· So what is -- ·9· ·and, again, if you want to answer this or if Larry wants 10· ·to answer this.· In terms of what is before us today, 11· ·because I've heard a lot of -- a lot of comments and a 12· ·lot of opinions.· One of which is whether or not, you 13· ·know, the home is being photographed at you know movie 14· ·stars, you know, type of thing.· There are many homes in 15· ·our city that are photographed as part of the -- the 16· ·movie stars' homes.· Movies have been filmed in many 17· ·homes, for example, and that wouldn't in any way be 18· ·something that would be before us.· So in terms of what 19· ·is before us this evening there's the A and the B. 20· · · · · ·We had this conversation before, and I think 21· ·this council has shown the community when this came 22· ·before us that we were willing to look at it again, 23· ·which is why we're here.· And at that time the
24· ·termination was there wasn't any initially.· There 25· ·wasn't anybody -- any -- any Bs which was the
·1· ·periodical.· And then since that period of time,
·2· ·periodicals, articles have appeared.· Is the discussion ·3· ·about the content of these stories, is that what we're ·4· ·talking about?· Is it the -- the fact -- I mean, because ·5· ·it's already determined that whether or not he was a ·6· ·licensed architect or not, he's on the list.· So what ·7· ·are we supposed to hone in on in terms of the decision ·8· ·before us this evening?
·9· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Excellent question.· The -- the 10· ·ultimate decision is -- is whether to issue the
11· ·certificate or not, obviously is -- is the end piece of 12· ·this.· Because this is a de novo hearing, you're able to 13· ·look at all of the factors that play into that.· So I 14· ·would say that the A criteria are available for you to 15· ·consider.· The B criteria are available for you to 16· ·consider.· I think that everybody by and large here 17· ·agrees that the A criteria can be satisfied.· And so 18· ·really to -- to hone in on it, I think we're talking 19· ·about the B criteria.· And -- and in particular it's the 20· ·question of is this an exceptional work by a master 21· ·architect, and that takes us to the definition of -- of 22· ·exceptional work and whether the publications qualify 23· ·because we know that the other -- the other categories 24· ·for meeting the exceptional work, those do not exist. 25· ·We're really talking about do we have two publications ·1· ·that satisfy the code requirements.
·2· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· And -- and that -- that ·3· ·goes to the question, Jan, if you don't mind coming back ·4· ·up, please.
·5· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Yes.
·6· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Thank you for all the ·7· ·hard work you do for our city, and thank you for your ·8· ·value of preservation.· I think everybody here values it ·9· ·because we formed this Commission exactly for that 10· ·purpose.· Many of us grew up here and -- and value 11· ·exactly what Beverly Hills is about.· But you answered 12· ·the question in terms of the architect, but you also 13· ·talked about the periodicals, the articles themselves. 14· ·So do you agree with Ryan?· Do you not feel that it's 15· ·the content because the content emphasizes the interior? 16· ·Is that why you feel that B does not qualify?
17· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Yes, actually.· Again, it's the 18· ·kind of Nexus of the -- of the criteria A and B to the 19· ·terms.· And the term that we're looking at specifically 20· ·under B2 is exceptional work by a master architect.· So 21· ·in looking at the reasoning of being historic -- and -- 22· ·and let me just clarify too, when I'm doing peer reviews 23· ·or even historic assessments, I'm not looking
24· ·necessarily for it to be historic.· I'm always on the 25· ·fence.· Sorry.· I'm a little dry after a couple hours. ·1· ·But I'm -- I'm always sitting on the fence.· And when I ·2· ·do peer reviews of somebody's work, I'm looking whether ·3· ·or not there's -- I call it show me the money to say ·4· ·whether or not it's historic or not historic.· So I have ·5· ·to do all that background research and look at each of ·6· ·the criteria.· So speaking of iconic, I've already gone ·7· ·through, and I can't tell you how many places I've ·8· ·searched to look for photographs to see if it was iconic ·9· ·because I have to see if what I'm peer reviewing is I 10· ·discount it or I consider it.· So I'm -- I'm looking at 11· ·it, like I said, from both directions of being not 12· ·potentially historic or potentially historic.
13· · · · · ·But with that, then I'm reading the code and 14· ·applying the code and understanding the criteria that 15· ·this is for historic significance.· And so exceptional 16· ·work, I'm looking at it from reasoning of it being 17· ·architectural, significant from an architectural merit, 18· ·Carlton Burgess being the master architect.· And even in 19· ·my research, I wasn't thinking of looking at
20· ·contemporary work to make it historic.· Now, sometimes 21· ·we have.· We even, you know, looked at historic
22· ·properties that were built only, you know, less than ten 23· ·years ago.· But nonetheless, there wasn't enough -- 24· ·there wasn't in these articles that I reviewed and 25· ·collected to show that there was a nexus between the ·1· ·master architect the architectural merit and the
·2· ·criteria.· And, again, if you just excerpt out the ·3· ·exceptional work definition, these publications do ·4· ·satisfy the literal sense because they don't specify ·5· ·exteriors.· They don't specify interiors.· They don't ·6· ·specify the architect.· So on that merit, the articles ·7· ·do.· So ultimately it's kind of throwing it back to you ·8· ·as the reviewing body interpreting these -- these
·9· ·criteria.
10· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· So the articles do not 11· ·reference the architect, correct?
12· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Correct.
13· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· The articles primarily focus on 14· ·the interiors and the outdoor landscaping?
15· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Yes, particularly in the back. 16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.
17· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· That you can't see from the 18· ·public right-of-way.
19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· They do give context by showing 20· ·the outside of the house.
21· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Right.· And portions of the 22· ·narrative does set the context for which one would find 23· ·in the back and then throughout the house.
24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So with that being said, why is it 25· ·that you do agree with the interpretation of Mr.
·1· ·Gohlich?· Is it because if the article talked about the ·2· ·architecture, if the article mentioned the architect? I ·3· ·mean, where is the nuance for you as to -- because as I ·4· ·understand, you agree with the recommendation of Ryan of ·5· ·why, you know, in -- in these articles.· It does not ·6· ·satisfy that.· So I'm just trying to understand what ·7· ·that nuance is for you.
·8· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Sure.· Well, as far as interior ·9· ·work is when we do historic assessments -- again,
10· ·whether we're discounting, looking for potential
11· ·ineligibility or potential of legibility, we don't 12· ·consider interiors.· We look at exteriors of properties. 13· ·So the articles highlighting the interiors are great, 14· ·but from somebody going to do a historic assessment, 15· ·there's certain things I can glimmer from it.
16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So if the article talked about, 17· ·again, like the archway or, you know, something that was 18· ·more about the actual architecture of the home, that -- 19· ·that would fit into what --
20· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Even if whatever Rios might have 21· ·done from an architectural perspective, I mean, it was 22· ·mostly from the interior, remodeling and the landscape 23· ·elements.· And from the overarching of doing the
24· ·historic assessment, again, I want to stress that it's 25· ·not necessarily looking for it to be historic or
·1· ·ineligibility but just considering whether property has ·2· ·potential or not.· We -- we don't necessarily include ·3· ·the interiors.
·4· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSS:· So as a preservationist, as you ·5· ·know, I -- I -- I feel that everybody is very emotional ·6· ·about preservation and very emotional about this home, ·7· ·whether it's -- it's beauty, whether it's -- it's
·8· ·memories, whether we're talking about the luau in
·9· ·Beverly Hills or Will Wrights in Beverly Hills or the 10· ·five cent ice cream scoop that I had.· I mean, the 11· ·nostalgia, you know, when I think of Swiss Chalet on 12· ·Rodeo Drive that's no longer there.· I mean, so there's 13· ·so much emotion to this and especially for somebody who 14· ·makes -- I mean, it's -- it's who you are.· It's what 15· ·you do everyday.· How are you able to decipher between 16· ·that -- that feeling?· I mean, everybody -- everybody's 17· ·so emotional about this.· Rightly so because it -- it -- 18· ·it -- you know, nobody wants to -- to lose, you know, 19· ·their -- their -- their childhood, their history.· All 20· ·of that.· And -- and so how -- how do you decipher that 21· ·because it's just innate?· You know, I -- I think it was 22· ·Craig who said, you know, the soul.· I mean, I -- I'm 23· ·all about the soul, and I think our city, what makes us 24· ·so special is our soul.· However, you know, how do you 25· ·decipher between that and recognizing what our job is? ·1· ·You know, to me -- you know -- and -- and, you know, ·2· ·when -- when you have a judge who, you know -- when you ·3· ·have a jury and they have to look at a case, they can't ·4· ·make their decision based on their emotion.· They have ·5· ·to make their decision based on certain laws and rights. ·6· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Exactly.
·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Not emotion.
·8· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Exactly, yeah.
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Somebody gets -- totally another 10· ·extreme, but you know, somebody gets murdered or
11· ·something terrible happens and your emotion is one 12· ·thing.· And so, you know, for you how -- how do you -- 13· ·how do you separate that?· How do you separate the 14· ·emotion versus what's in front of you and what you have 15· ·to look at?
16· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Well, if I didn't I wouldn't be a 17· ·historic preservation consultant.
18· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.
19· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Or a very good one.
20· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.
21· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Because I have to be non-biased. 22· ·I have to be on that fence and then a matter of
23· ·collecting information one way or another.· And it -- I 24· ·must say, it comes with experience because when I first 25· ·started out, I was like nailbiting going oh -- and I did ·1· ·a lot of CEQA documents and most of the CEQA projects ·2· ·were to demolish historic properties.· And of course in ·3· ·the rung of things with historic, historic always came ·4· ·down at the bottom as opposed to jobs or something else. ·5· ·And so my CEQA documents always had to say there was an ·6· ·adverse impact because you're going to demolish a
·7· ·historic property.
·8· · · · · ·But ultimately, I had to follow the law.· I had ·9· ·to follow the legal ramifications of whatever the code 10· ·was; state, local, federal codes to make that
11· ·determination.· And I need to make sure it was sound 12· ·enough so that from a legality perspective nobody could 13· ·punch holes in it.
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Got it.· So your interpretation of 15· ·the law, which is what we're talking about, the As and 16· ·the B, and really why we're here is because of these 17· ·articles.· Your interpretation of the law regarding 18· ·these articles, you -- you don't feel that they rise to 19· ·the level of the historic preservation and that -- so 20· ·you -- that is why you agree with Ryan?
21· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· Correct.· From it -- from -- from 22· ·the law.· And this is at the local level only.
23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.· No, I understand.
24· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· This is only applying Beverly 25· ·Hills criteria.
·1· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.· Okay.· Thank you.
·2· · · · · ·MS. OSTASHAY:· For this property.
·3· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· One last question to Ryan.
·4· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· And then I have a
·5· ·question.
·6· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Sure.· Of course.
·7· · · · · ·So the -- the -- the Roxbury corner where I -- I ·8· ·think -- I think each home was a Burgess home or -- ·9· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· There -- there are three.
10· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Three?
11· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Yes.
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· There's the one that we're talking 13· ·about.· Then there's --
14· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Jack Benny.
15· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.· And so the -- the -- just 16· ·because I wrote down the address, 1000 Roxbury.· The 17· ·Lucille Ball home.· I -- I too know the owners.· Our 18· ·kids were friends.· I grew up here, and I remember that 19· ·famous Lucy episode when they climbed over the fence and 20· ·all of them -- I even remember -- many of us probably 21· ·remember when Lucille Ball came here to City Hall
22· ·because of all the tour buses and made a joke that she 23· ·turned on the sprinklers when -- so is your
24· ·interpretation that that home has been altered?
25· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· That home has been fairly
·1· ·substantially altered, yes.
·2· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So do you feel that that home has ·3· ·-- when you look at the photos of, you know, when it was ·4· ·the original Burgess home, when Lucille Ball lived in it ·5· ·versus now with the current owners, do you feel that it ·6· ·has maintained that same integrity?
·7· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· So we've not done a full analysis ·8· ·of that but just the quick look at it it does not appear ·9· ·to retain integrity.
10· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Then there's another home. 11· ·I guess it's on the south -- what is it?· The south -- 12· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Is that the Jack Benny 13· ·home?
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.· That -- that -- right.· Or 15· ·directly across the street.· That home --
16· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Well, to me I think it's
17· ·immediately north of the --
18· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.
19· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· It -- it would be 1002. 20· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So there was another home that was 21· ·turned down, I think, right?
22· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· There is.
23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And that was a Burgess home as 24· ·well?
25· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· No, it was not.
·1· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· It was not.· Okay.· So --
·2· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· I think it was the Jimmy ·3· ·--
·4· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Maybe it's correct.· It was the ·5· ·Jimmy Stewart house.
·6· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And that did not have a master ·7· ·architect; is that why?
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· No, we did.· It was ·9· ·before we had it was historic preservation.
10· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Well, do you know what the history 11· ·is on that one?
12· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· It was demolished, and it was 13· ·demolished well before our -- our preservation program. 14· ·I don't believe that it had a master architect, but 15· ·regardless it predated our program.
16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Got it.· Okay.· And I guess -- 17· ·where did Larry go?· We -- we have clearly heard from a 18· ·few of our Cultural Heritage Commission -- commissioners 19· ·that -- that they disagree with the interpretation of -- 20· ·of Ryan Gohlich.
21· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· And Jan.
22· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· I'm sorry?
23· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· And Jan.
24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And Jan.· So with that being said, 25· ·what -- what would be the -- you know, because I -- you ·1· ·know, I did hear Craig Corman say well, you know, it ·2· ·doesn't -- you know, even if we -- this wouldn't mean ·3· ·necessarily that it would be landmarked.· It would go ·4· ·back to their Commission.· But, you know, clearly we ·5· ·have heard from a few of the commissioners that they ·6· ·disagree with -- with this analysis.· So there's already ·7· ·some interpretation that has been made.· So -- and I -- ·8· ·and I know that Councilmember Wunderlich mentioned that ·9· ·to you, and that's -- before he did it -- that's what I 10· ·-- you and I thought alike.· What would be the fair 11· ·process to applicants because clearly there's already a 12· ·disagreement with an interpretation.
13· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Well, I don't think it's a matter 14· ·of disagreeing with Brian or disagreeing with Jan, but I 15· ·think that given the comments that have been made, I 16· ·think there would be some question about returning this 17· ·to the Cultural Heritage Commission.· What will be the 18· ·process if the council directs that it should -- that 19· ·the certificate of eligibility should be overturned then 20· ·I we would have to figure out what the process is -- 21· ·what the --
22· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· And then last question to 23· ·you, Larry, you know, when I -- when I asked Jan, you 24· ·know, that -- what -- this has happened many times when 25· ·we have issues in front of us.· We really -- what's on ·1· ·the agenda, and what's on the agenda tonight is this ·2· ·certificate of ineligibility and the A box and the B ·3· ·box.· I think we all agree that, you know, all the As ·4· ·were checked and I think the -- the one item is the B. ·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· But we -- wait.· We ·6· ·don't agree.· The applicants think only the first day ·7· ·was and that the last three were not, according to the ·8· ·report they submitted.
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· But -- but I guess where I 10· ·-- I think why we are here initially was because at -- I 11· ·don't remember if it was the last meeting or two
12· ·meetings ago.· We were -- there were some articles 13· ·brought to us, and we felt that we owed it to all of us 14· ·to interpret those articles, and that's -- and -- and we 15· ·have now since interpreted the articles.· And when I 16· ·asked Jan, she felt that the articles did not rise to, 17· ·you know, level to disagree with Ryan.· And so I guess 18· ·my question to you, Larry, is that what we're -- are we 19· ·-- are we here to interpret those -- yes, are we here to 20· ·interpret those articles to decide if that, you know -- 21· ·because I remember when we had -- you know, had this 22· ·conversation before, Ryan, you had said that if there 23· ·were articles that were, you know, that focused on the 24· ·architecture that perhaps then you would have checked 25· ·off one and B.· But since your interpretation was the ·1· ·articles did not, that is why you didn't.
·2· · · · · ·So I guess to you, Larry, just like the question ·3· ·that I was saying to Jan when -- when one goes to a jury ·4· ·and -- and a judge and the judge says here are the laws. ·5· ·You have to -- you know, this is how you make your ·6· ·decision.· It's not based on emotion.· It's not based -- ·7· ·it's -- it's based on these certain criteria.· So my ·8· ·question to you is are we here to look at the criteria, ·9· ·and the criteria in front of us right now is the
10· ·interpretation of (inaudible)?· I mean, Vice Mayor is 11· ·saying yes, but is that what you think?
12· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Yeah, I mean, the whole certificate 13· ·of ineligibility is before you.
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.
15· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· That said, as you pointed out, the 16· ·debate seems to be -- be -- excuse me -- Criteria C 17· ·which is the one that we've been discussing.· Although 18· ·--
19· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And -- and -- and I don't think 20· ·I've heard the debate about Burgess even though -- about 21· ·Burgess being a master architect.· You know, whether he 22· ·was a licensed architect or a contractor, I think the 23· ·debate has been which was why two meetings ago or last 24· ·meeting ago these articles were brought to us because, 25· ·you know, it -- you know, Ryan at the time had said that ·1· ·there were -- there was no articles and then there were ·2· ·articles found.· And then we took the time to go
·3· ·interpret the articles.· One was in Russian, and one was ·4· ·in a magazine that we to determine if we wanted to count ·5· ·them as a magazine.· You know, those were the issues ·6· ·that we were talking about.· So I'm wondering is that -- ·7· ·is that where we are tonight?· Is that what we are here ·8· ·to discuss?· Because what -- what I wanna make very ·9· ·clear is this is not about -- for me, this is not about, 10· ·you know -- I mean, it's clear it's a beautiful home. 11· ·It's clear that we, you know, want to preserve our city. 12· ·It's clear we want to -- you know, I mean, for me I wish 13· ·I could bring back so many things of our history that 14· ·are no longer here.· So it's not about emotion for -- 15· ·it's -- it's about what we are supposed to be looking 16· ·at, not the emotion behind it but the law.· And that's 17· ·what I'm trying to get from you as our attorney.· What 18· ·is it that we are supposed to be focusing on?
19· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· So, again, you -- you can focus on 20· ·anything, but the debate really seems to be about the 21· ·articles, right, and whether the articles qualify. 22· ·Although it does say, at a minimum, you have to meet one 23· ·of the street criteria and one of those criterias is the 24· ·articles.· The debate tonight has centered around the 25· ·articles.· So if you're -- so while I say yes, you can ·1· ·consider everything including Criteria A --
·2· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Well, for me, I'm not gonna
·3· ·consider whether tour buses are going by their house ·4· ·because they are going by my street constantly, and I ·5· ·don't think our house is historic.· So I -- you know, so ·6· ·to me tour buses is -- is not -- not something to
·7· ·consider.
·8· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· That --
·9· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And I've heard that here tonight. 10· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Well, okay.
11· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So to me, I think it's the
12· ·criteria that is part of the ordinance here.
13· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· You certainly are to consider the 14· ·ordinance.· That's all you can consider.· That -- that's 15· ·the criteria.
16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.
17· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· The text of the ordinance.
18· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And so then my question to you, 19· ·Larry or Ryan, regarding the articles.· Because Jan 20· ·answered it, but I'm gonna ask both of you now.· The 21· ·articles focus on the interior of the home primarily and 22· ·some of the renovations of the exterior.· That's -- 23· ·that's -- I've -- I've read the articles, and that's -- 24· ·that's how I interpreted it as well.· So based on the 25· ·ordinance interpretation legally, the way you see it, ·1· ·the way you see it, you -- again, doesn't mean you're ·2· ·the decisionmaker.· I'm not saying that you are, but ·3· ·your interpretation is because those articles and -- and ·4· ·-- and Jan answered when I asked her -- because those ·5· ·articles are focusing on the -- you know, the -- the ·6· ·nice furnishings, the interiors, the -- you know, the ·7· ·beautiful landscaping.· You know, Mark Rios himself said ·8· ·that he, you know, commissioned those articles for ·9· ·promotion of his business.· I mean, is that what the 10· ·trigger -- or let me reframe it.· What -- if you could, 11· ·you know, give me an example, Ryan, of an article that 12· ·would have -- what would have been a content -- context 13· ·in an article that would have triggered for you yes, 14· ·this does qualify?· Maybe that might be simpler for you 15· ·to answer.
16· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Sure.
17· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Maybe or maybe not.
18· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· I can start with that, and I 19· ·think, you know, if it was -- let's say then there have 20· ·been a number of books that have been published about 21· ·the homes of Beverly Hills.· Let's say it was the
22· ·book -- you know, the historic homes of Beverly Hills 23· ·and there was a piece on this particular home that had 24· ·numerous photographs of the exterior to show some of the 25· ·detailing and -- and the style that it's been done in or ·1· ·if there was some discussion about the home, about the ·2· ·reasons why it's a special home by Carlton Burgess.· So ·3· ·that's -- that's one way to look at it.· I think to go ·4· ·back to the first question.· And I will say this is a, ·5· ·you know, very difficult call and -- and really -- you ·6· ·know, I do the same thing that Jan does.· Try to look ·7· ·objectively at what the -- the code is, and -- and ·8· ·reasonable people can disagree.· But I think for me what ·9· ·is the most determining factor is when you look at the 10· ·screen here for B2, it -- it -- it's not just that it's 11· ·an exceptional work.· It's an exceptional work by a 12· ·master architect.· And then when -- when you go to the 13· ·definition of exceptional work, you get into the
14· ·publications.· But the publications aren't just about an 15· ·exceptional work.· They're about an exceptional work by 16· ·a master architect.
17· · · · · ·Well, Carlton Burgess didn't do the interior of 18· ·the home.· He did the exterior of the home, and so all 19· ·the photographs and -- and those articles are really 20· ·about the interior of the home.· They're not about the 21· ·work that Carlton Burgess did.· And so that's what has 22· ·me steer more towards it not meeting this definition. 23· ·But, again, I acknowledge reasonable people can disagree 24· ·on how to interpret it.
25· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Thank you.· Sure.
·1· ·Absolutely.· Councilmember Wunderlich and then
·2· ·Councilmember Mirisch, more questions.
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· An analogy has been ·4· ·made to summary judgment.· And as I understand it, in ·5· ·summary judgment the standard that a judge uses, the ·6· ·look at the facts, most favorably from the perspective ·7· ·of the party opposed summary judgment.· At trial the ·8· ·judge uses a different standard.· At trial the judge ·9· ·would use the preponderance of the evidence.· But for 10· ·summary judgment the judge would use the standard of 11· ·looking at this most favorably from the party opposed to 12· ·what's being asked for, can I move forward with it. 13· · · · · ·If that were the standard here, now we're being 14· ·asked to consider whether or not we should grant a 15· ·certificate of ineligibility.· Does that analogy hold 16· ·that we should look at it -- assume the facts most 17· ·favorably from the side of the people who were saying 18· ·that the certificate should not be granted in a fuller 19· ·discussion as to whether or not the house actually would 20· ·be landmarked, that it would be the preponderance of the 21· ·evidence but would it be appropriate for us to apply 22· ·with the analogy to summary judgment, the different 23· ·standard for our decisionmaking tonight?
24· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I appreciate -- I believe although 25· ·I -- I -- I'm not sure that Craig mentioned summary ·1· ·judgment, but it could have been someone else.· I don't ·2· ·think that's -- I appreciate that it's an analogy, but I ·3· ·don't think the analogy would carry as far as you've ·4· ·carried it.· Which is you should -- there's a different ·5· ·standard.
·6· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I'm asking the
·7· ·question, different standard.
·8· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· Yeah, I -- I don't think there's -- ·9· ·I don't think there's an evidentiary standard that's 10· ·applicable.· So you have the question before you
11· ·tonight.· The evidentiary standard of a summary judgment 12· ·motion isn't applicable.
13· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Or that assumption 14· ·should be made -- a different assumption should regulate 15· ·-- should be made whether we're regarding the facts 16· ·through a lens most favorable for one party or the other 17· ·versus the preponderance.· Here, to focus it
18· ·specifically, we have the question of whether or not 19· ·these publications qualify.· I mean, one could make an 20· ·argument that they qualify, and one could make an
21· ·argument that they don't.· You know, we may have reviews 22· ·about where we shake out on that issue.· Is the
23· ·standards such that we should lean towards doing that 24· ·decision most favorably towards one side at this point 25· ·in time whereas at the time period of the fuller
·1· ·discussion that we're looking for the preponderance of ·2· ·the evidence.
·3· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I -- I don't think -- no, I -- I ·4· ·don't think that there's anything that instructs you to ·5· ·look at it through a different evidentiary lens than any ·6· ·other decision that's before the city.
·7· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Or at the time period ·8· ·in which instead of determining a certificate of
·9· ·ineligibility, we'd be determining whether or not the 10· ·property should be landmarked?· Same -- we would look at 11· ·the evidence in the same fashion whether or not we're 12· ·determining a certificate of ineligibility or
13· ·determining whether or not the property should be
14· ·landmarked?
15· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· No, definitely not. 16· ·We're not making the determination whether the property 17· ·rises to the level today.· We're -- we're making it -- 18· ·and Craig made that clear.
19· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, that's what I'm 20· ·asking Larry.
21· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Yeah.
22· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· The -- the -- the -- the issue is 23· ·whether this meets the criteria of a -- for a
24· ·certificate of ineligibility.· On that issue you don't 25· ·have any guidance to say you should view the evidence ·1· ·differently than any other decision that's before you. ·2· ·If you determine that it doesn't meet the -- the
·3· ·standard for a certificate of ineligibility, then
·4· ·there's a different question which is whether it should ·5· ·be landmarked or not.
·6· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Right.· So it's possible ·7· ·--
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Let me finish.· So ·9· ·how about Craig's point about that if we grant a
10· ·certificate of ineligibility in the -- with the
11· ·opportunity of having the fuller discussion of
12· ·landmarking that -- that is cutting it off before we 13· ·have that discussion.
14· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I -- I tend to agree with Craig, 15· ·but if you issue a certificate of ineligibility, then 16· ·you won't have that subsequent discussion.· But your 17· ·decision tonight is -- is whether or not this qualifies 18· ·for certificate of ineligibility and you don't view the 19· ·evidence any differently than you would any other
20· ·decision that comes before you.
21· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· In point of fact, the criteria 22· ·are in front of us.
23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.
24· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· We either meet or don't meet 25· ·the standards.
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Right.
·2· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Well, that would be ·3· ·true for the summary judgement standard --
·4· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· No.· No.
·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· It's a subject to
·6· ·interpretation as we heard both from Ryan and Jan
·7· ·Ostashay.
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And what I was asking ·9· ·was does the analogy of summary judgment hold?· In 10· ·summary judgment versus trial, it's the same criteria 11· ·but the judges instructed in one situation to view it 12· ·most favorably from one side's perspective.· So it's the 13· ·different standard, not the criteria.
14· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· I don't think -- I don't 15· ·-- I don't think --
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And Larry's telling 17· ·me that no, that that is not the situation.
18· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· But that doesn't mean 19· ·that you -- you -- it doesn't mean that you wouldn't err 20· ·on the side of caution because of the irrevocability of 21· ·that decision.· And I think that's -- that's the issue. 22· ·As we heard from Craig, the standards are different for 23· ·issuing or not issuing a certificate of eligibility 24· ·versus -- versus actually landmarking it.· So were you 25· ·done?
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Yes.
·2· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Okay.· So I did actually ·3· ·have questions of -- of Craig.· And actually Jill -- ·4· ·Caren -- about Caren Kurlander and -- let's wait until ·5· ·-- we're gonna take a break because some councilmembers ·6· ·aren't here.· I'd like them to hear.
·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So we'll take a break. ·9· ·Yeah.· Well, whenever they're ready.
10· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· And Councilmember Mirisch has some 11· ·questions.
12· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Yes, I did.· Thank you. 13· ·And I wanted to hear Jill and Craig's perspective.· One, 14· ·on Caren Kurlander but also, again, you work hand in 15· ·hand with Jan and you heard some -- well, you can -- by 16· ·the letter of the law, but -- but this could be this. 17· ·That sort of thing.· I want to get your take on that, 18· ·please.
19· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Just in my opinion, if the house 20· ·was not in Beverly Hills and if it was not in that house 21· ·would it have even been published?· It was published 22· ·because it was this amazing house in Beverly Hills 23· ·that's known the world over.· Every publication has a 24· ·photograph of the exterior of the house.· If it wasn't 25· ·that house, it -- it wouldn't be valid.· If -- if a news ·1· ·story happens and -- and it's on an AP service or wire ·2· ·service and 50 other wire services pick it up, does that ·3· ·mean that the next time it's picked up it's any less ·4· ·valid?· It's important that it's in all these
·5· ·publications.· It doesn't matter why at this point, that ·6· ·that Mark Rios has come out and said whatever he said. ·7· ·It's the fact that it was a house in Beverly Hills that ·8· ·was world renowned.· Beverly Hills, everyone looks to. ·9· ·It was picked up in Asia.· It was picked up in
10· ·Australia, in Hong Kong, in the United states because of 11· ·the pedigree.
12· · · · · ·Now, you're all arguing whether or not this 13· ·house is important or should be, you know, saved.· We're 14· ·just dealing tonight -- the only thing we're talking 15· ·about is the issuance of the --
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Right.· And we're also 17· ·talking about publications.· And I'd like to ask -- 18· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Yeah, the publications.· But I'm 19· ·just saying we're just talking about that.· If -- it's 20· ·nothing else.· All of you at the last City Council 21· ·meeting, all of you at 2:00 in the morning said we love 22· ·this house.· We want to save this house if it meets the 23· ·criteria.
24· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Right.· And -- and we 25· ·heard from the mayor, this -- let's not be emotional ·1· ·about it even though we're emotional about our
·2· ·community.· But we've also heard about plain reading, ·3· ·and I'll ask probably Craig because he's a lawyer.· The ·4· ·plain -- it's point blank.· Wouldn't the plain reading ·5· ·suggest that you can't issue the certificate because ·6· ·there are two plus publications?· End of story.
·7· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· That also showed the exterior of ·8· ·the house.
·9· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· That's for Craig.
10· · · · · ·MS. COLLINS:· Go ahead.
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· So I mean -- I mean, I think there 12· ·-- there seems to be an agreement even among -- between 13· ·Ryan and the commissioners and Jan that the publications 14· ·meet the facial language of the ordinance, of the
15· ·statute of the definition.· What's happened is though, 16· ·Jan, is interpreting it and Ryan's interpreting it in -- 17· ·in a way that well, we think -- we think there has to be 18· ·something more.· There has to be some connection between 19· ·the architect or the architecture and the publication. 20· ·So -- and -- and I respect that because that's -- that's 21· ·their jobs.· But I think Mayor Bosse, I think, really 22· ·started to put kind of a fine -- find an element on it 23· ·when you said "Okay, Ryan.· What would be a qualifying 24· ·publication?"· "Well, it's sort of this and that, and 25· ·it's -- you know, I'd like it to have more of a
·1· ·reference to the architecture, more of this."· Well, how ·2· ·much more?· So then how much --
·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· So -- so then, Craig, ·4· ·something that was meant to be objective all of a sudden ·5· ·becomes subjective.
·6· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yeah.· And -- and I think -- and I ·7· ·think -- I don't want to be alarmed here, but I think ·8· ·there is a real danger of what's going on here tonight ·9· ·because if you start layering on to the just the facial 10· ·language of the ordinance, it has to either be more 11· ·about the exterior.· How much more?· It has to be about 12· ·the architect.· How much about the architect?· Well, if 13· ·-- if -- if it was -- it was a result directly or
14· ·indirectly of a press release, well, you know what, 15· ·there are thousands of houses, thousands -- tens of 16· ·thousands of houses or buildings built every year.· Do 17· ·you think that the publishers of the Architectural 18· ·Digest and other coffee table books walk the streets 19· ·night and day looking for those homes?· No, they come to 20· ·their attention through press packets that people who 21· ·were involved in the house send out and -- and -- and 22· ·that's how they get attention.· And yes, do they do it 23· ·for money?· Absolutely.· The publisher publishes for 24· ·money.· They find problems they think are attractive. 25· ·They publish for money and -- and the architects do it ·1· ·because they feel like they'll get another job.· But the ·2· ·fact there's a -- a monetary gain doesn't strip the ·3· ·legitimacy of -- of -- of -- of the independent
·4· ·publication decisions.· It's like, you know -- the fact ·5· ·that a newspaper publishes for money doesn't strip a ·6· ·First Amendment protections.· It's just the way the ·7· ·world works.
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Don't historical
·9· ·consultants work for money or do they work for free 10· ·maybe?
11· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yeah.· So -- so my point is if we 12· ·start layering on these different non-code but maybe in 13· ·some ways common sensical one would say, you know, 14· ·requirements, what's gonna happen?· Well, it's gonna be 15· ·a roadmap for every owner of a historic property in this 16· ·city to file for a certificate of ineligibility.· When 17· ·publications come up, they're gonna nitpick them.
18· ·They're gonna say well that publication doesn't qualify 19· ·because it's not enough about the exterior.· It only 20· ·mentions your architect once and only in passing.· It's 21· ·this or it's that.· And these decisions are all going to 22· ·be driven underground.· They're gonna be handled by 23· ·lawyers and staff behind closed doors without Cultural 24· ·Heritage Commission input, without community input, 25· ·which may have with Jan Ostashay's input, not the
·1· ·council's input.· And that's the opposite of
·2· ·transparency which is what this council is all about. ·3· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Well, Craig, isn't there ·4· ·the possibility that, again, that if an applicant going ·5· ·forward gets an unfavorable report they'll bury that and ·6· ·go to the next person on the list and the next person on ·7· ·the list and bury all of them until they get the result ·8· ·that they want?
·9· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Well, that's another thing we need 10· ·to deal with, but -- but I'm this time at the decision 11· ·tonight.· I mean, there's a real policy decision that 12· ·needs to be addressed and that is the minute you start 13· ·layering these other requirements into the -- the -- the 14· ·basic code language, you know, where does that leave the 15· ·ordinance, the whole program?· Because it's --
16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Okay.· Craig, how do 17· ·you address this then?· Read it from the beginning. 18· · · · · ·"A remarkably superior example of architectural 19· ·work."· So it's talking about architectural work.· The 20· ·next sentence refers to the exceptional quality.· So the 21· ·exceptional -- the work's exceptional quality.· So 22· ·that's referring to the architectural work's exceptional 23· ·quality, correct?· You use the word work in the prior 24· ·sentence.
25· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yes.
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And then it's saying ·2· ·the work's exceptional quality.· It's talking about the ·3· ·architectural work.
·4· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Right.· So --
·5· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Then it begins to ·6· ·talk about it.
·7· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Yeah.
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· So it is referring to ·9· ·the architectural work.
10· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· That's correct because --
11· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And so it, the
12· ·architectural work, was substantively discussed.
13· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Right.
14· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· And if you have a 15· ·publication that's talking about the interiors, how is 16· ·that substantially discussing the architectural work? 17· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Okay.· So -- so some of these 18· ·publications do not discuss the exterior.· I agree. I 19· ·read into the record a snippet from one of the
20· ·publications which discusses the house not the interiors 21· ·but the house itself.· That is a substantive discussion. 22· ·The other articles do not substantively discuss it, but 23· ·they photographically depict it.· And that's the other 24· ·-- that's the other criteria.· It's an or.· It's not an 25· ·and.· And that's the whole point.· It's either/or.· This ·1· ·is a low bar, guys.· This is -- that's the whole point. ·2· ·That's why we need two of them, not one.· We could have ·3· ·done three.· I don't know.· But -- but it's clear that ·4· ·if -- someone was saying earlier well, it must refer to ·5· ·the exceptionality of the work.· No, it is the
·6· ·architectural work because the exceptionalities of the ·7· ·(inaudible) major architectural work.· The -- the work ·8· ·is the subject of major architectural work.
·9· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· Craig, it wasn't "or."· It's 10· ·conjunctive.· It says it was substantially discussed and 11· ·photographically.
12· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· It's or.· This is wrong.· Who's -- 13· ·where is this from?
14· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· No, C.
15· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· It was substantially 16· ·discussed and --
17· · · · · ·MR. CORMAN:· Or photographed.· Right.· Right. 18· ·Right.· Yeah, I'm talking about in monograph.· That -- 19· ·that -- the -- the and isn't a monograph.· Sorry.
20· ·You're right.· But -- but you -- but it's -- it's
21· ·discussed or photographically depicted in two or.
22· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Thank you.
23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Thank you.· I think that's 24· ·it for questions at this moment.· Thank you.
25· · · · · ·Okay.· So does the applicant wish to provide a ·1· ·response and closing remarks?
·2· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Thank you very much, Honorable ·3· ·Mayor, vice mayor, councilmembers.· I think everything ·4· ·to be said has been said.· We have nothing further to ·5· ·say.· No rebuttal.· Thank you.
·6· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you very much.· Is there ·7· ·anyone else who would like to be heard on this matter? ·8· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· I think that was in response to the ·9· ·applicant's nonresponse, so I don't think that --
10· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Right.· I know.· I'm going back. 11· ·I'm -- wait.· Not yet.· No.· Sorry.· Back to the
12· ·applicant.· Would you like to provide any rebuttal 13· ·testimony or whatever?· I'm just giving the option.· No, 14· ·it's --
15· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· There's nothing to rebut. 16· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· I'm still staying on the script so 17· ·nobody will say that I didn't.· Okay.
18· · · · · ·MR. HANLON:· Thank you for the opportunity, 19· ·Honorable Mayor.· No.
20· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· And are there any members 21· ·of the public that would like to provide any rebuttal 22· ·testimony?· It doesn't matter.· I'm asking -- Okay.· All 23· ·right.· Fine.
24· · · · · ·Okay.· So then it says applicant audience
25· ·rebuttal until there is no further testimony, which is ·1· ·where we are.· And applicant has last chance to submit ·2· ·rebuttal testimony.· Right.· Okay.· So are there any ·3· ·further questions of staff or members of the public from ·4· ·the council?· No?· Guess what?· The hearing is now ·5· ·closed.· Yes.· Okay.
·6· · · · · ·Let's go to discussion or any comments from ·7· ·members of the council and direction.
·8· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· So first, I think ·9· ·this statute needs reconsideration.· I think in many 10· ·people's minds the A criteria are the ones that
11· ·correspond to what we would like to preserve, but we 12· ·also have a set of B criteria.· And I am not thinking 13· ·that the B criteria do a particularly good job of honing 14· ·in on what it is that we're looking for.· So that's not 15· ·what's in front of us tonight, but going forward I think 16· ·the statute has to be revised.· I question whether two 17· ·publications is a good proxy for an exceptional work. 18· ·Is every good work published in at least two places? I 19· ·don't know.· I don't think that's a good proxy for what 20· ·it was intended to be.· I can't say what was the
21· ·legislative history or how City Council the time made 22· ·its decision.· I wasn't here then.· If a -- if a
23· ·criteria like that had been proposed to me, in my mind, 24· ·and if I were the decisionmaker at that time, I would 25· ·want it to be linked to it addressing what would seem to ·1· ·be the primary issue, the architectural work and not ·2· ·just to merely mention the architecture and show a ·3· ·picture of the exterior but really be primarily about a ·4· ·different topic that that should qualify.· So I wouldn't ·5· ·have liked the -- thinking now, I wouldn't have liked ·6· ·the two publications standard at all.· But if that was ·7· ·adopted and if I had been the decisionmaker, I would ·8· ·have linked it to the architectural quality of the work. ·9· · · · · ·But even going on, if you look at the other 10· ·criteria that have to do with notable people, I -- I 11· ·think those also would have to be revised.· A person of 12· ·great importance?· I mean, one of those things is that 13· ·the person was widely known across America during his or 14· ·her lifetime and whose widespread fame continues.· I did 15· ·a little Google search of people who were not well known 16· ·in their lifetime and it includes Vincent Van Gogh, 17· ·Emily Dickinson, Edgar Allen Poe, Gregor Mendel, Henry 18· ·David Thoreau and the list goes on and on for people who 19· ·truly would be momentous people but were not recognized 20· ·in their lifetimes.· So I don't think that criterion is 21· ·accomplishing what we like.· And then the criteria for 22· ·somebody of great local prominence is that person has 23· ·had a public street or public park named after him. 24· ·Again, I don't think that's the criteria we have, so I 25· ·think there's a lot of reasons why this statute has to ·1· ·be revisited.· But let's get more on topic for what ·2· ·we're trying to do here tonight.
·3· · · · · ·The people who are distressed, I believe they're ·4· ·distressed because it's a beautiful house and because it ·5· ·satisfies the A criteria and those are the points
·6· ·they're making why it's so absolutely satisfies the A ·7· ·criteria, but they're not really addressing the B
·8· ·criteria.· What I'm personally struggling with at the ·9· ·moment is that destruction is forever.· Should we bring 10· ·this back for a separate discussion not regarding the 11· ·certificate of ineligibility but whether or not the 12· ·property should be landmarked.· Well, that costs money. 13· ·That costs time.· That costs effort, but that's a lesser 14· ·cost than -- than destroying something because
15· ·destroying something is forever.
16· · · · · ·Even though Larry is telling me that there isn't 17· ·a different standard to be applied in this situation, I 18· ·do see analogies with making a decision at the time 19· ·period of a summary judgment decision.· I do see some 20· ·similarities with this situation where for the sake of 21· ·making that screening decision, one considers it viewing 22· ·the facts most favorably from the perspective of the 23· ·party opposing the motion.· I do think it's a stretch to 24· ·say that these publications qualify under C because I 25· ·don't think the architecture is being substantially ·1· ·discussed.· Photographed, there is a picture of the ·2· ·house but it's the -- you know, it's the photo -- even ·3· ·the photographs are not really focusing on the
·4· ·architecture of the house.· So I do think it's a
·5· ·stretch.· But if you ask me to view it most favorably, ·6· ·you asked me to push that phrase.· So it would it be ·7· ·possible to view it as the publications qualify.· Well, ·8· ·if you asked me to push it, well, possibly they might ·9· ·qualify.
10· · · · · ·So let's put it to you this way.· I mean, Larry, 11· ·how certain are you that there aren't separate
12· ·considerations involved in a situation in which we're 13· ·deciding on a certificate of ineligibility that makes it 14· ·impossible to have the full consideration of whether or 15· ·not the house should be landmarked?· I mean, is there a 16· ·logic that says that we do push the language as far as 17· ·we can to permit something to go on to the greater 18· ·discussion at which case we view that language more from 19· ·the -- from what is the predominant evidence say about 20· ·the language as opposed to if you push that language to 21· ·see whether or not it would tolerate a conclusion that 22· ·would say that the publications are appropriate
23· ·publications.· If you ask me can that language tolerate 24· ·it, I would say the language can tolerate it.· If you 25· ·asked me in my particular view what is the preponderance ·1· ·of evidence say, then I would say well, in my view I ·2· ·don't think the language does support that those are ·3· ·qualifying publications.· But pushed to the limit, they ·4· ·possibly could.
·5· · · · · ·MR. WIENER:· So clearly this is going to be your ·6· ·decision, but if you ask me whether you have any
·7· ·instruction on how you should interpret this criterion, ·8· ·I would say no, you don't have instruction as to how you ·9· ·should interpret this criterion.· You should interpret 10· ·this the way you would interpret any other decision that 11· ·comes before the city.
12· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Let me struggle with 13· ·this a little bit on eternally and listen (inaudible). 14· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Okay.· Thank you.· So, 15· ·you know, my view of the summary judgment analogy -- and 16· ·I'm -- I'm not all certain that it applies into -- to 17· ·this type of situation because this is a de novo
18· ·hearing.· And quite frankly, anything is possible. I 19· ·think it has to be more than something that is just 20· ·possible in order to even meet the standard of a summary 21· ·judgment.· At least that's -- that's my interpretation 22· ·of it.· No, I look to the words.· Words have meaning. 23· ·Words -- words are there for a specific purpose.· And, 24· ·you know, number two of the B criteria says that it is 25· ·an exceptional work by a master architect.· And I agree ·1· ·that even though Mr. Burgess was not necessarily a ·2· ·licensed architect, I think that that portion of it is ·3· ·satisfied.· He is on the master architect list.· And, ·4· ·you know, for me, that -- that -- that's sufficient but ·5· ·then I go to the words exceptional work.· And
·6· ·exceptional work is specifically defined.· It says a ·7· ·remarkably superior example.· Not a good example, not a ·8· ·great example.· It's a remarkably superior of
·9· ·architectural work that has been recognized as such by 10· ·members of the architectural community.· So in further 11· ·language they're talking about -- as Bob pointed out 12· ·before, they're talking about architectural work and 13· ·then it says at a minimum the works, and I'm assuming 14· ·that that means the architectural work, is of
15· ·exceptional quality.· And I haven't seen any evidence of 16· ·it being of exceptional quality.
17· · · · · ·And then in Subpart B, not C, but Subpart B that 18· ·it was substantially discussed and photographically 19· ·depicted and in a monograph, which I don't think there's 20· ·evidence of that.· And then we get to C in two
21· ·publications.· So the fact that it is it -- and, again, 22· ·it's the word "it."· I believe that is referring to the 23· ·architectural work.· And the architectural work in my 24· ·opinion has not been discussed.· It happened to have 25· ·been in -- in my opinion, in the magazines as a point of ·1· ·reference, but it clearly was talking about the interior ·2· ·and the -- the work that Mr. Rios did.· Mr. Rios gave us ·3· ·his opinion, and it was placed in those publications, I ·4· ·believe, as a result of him wanting to showcase the work ·5· ·that he did.· But it really doesn't discuss the
·6· ·architecture.· And if you take everything together, I ·7· ·just don't see that the B criteria is going to be met as ·8· ·being an exceptional work.· Even heard our peer review ·9· ·consultant when pushed, that she felt that it did not 10· ·meet the standard of being an exceptional work.· So I'm 11· ·-- I am going to be of the opinion that the certificate 12· ·of ineligibility has been met, and I would go along with 13· ·supporting that.
14· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Are you ready yet, 15· ·Councilmember Wunderlich or you want to wait further? 16· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· No, I value hearing 17· ·the input from you guys.· So I'd like to --
18· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So you want to wait until
19· ·everybody?· Okay.
20· · · · · ·Councilmember Mirisch?
21· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· Thank you.· We didn't 22· ·discuss in such great detail the B5 criteria, which is 23· ·iconic.· And from my perspective, this is not just the 24· ·tour buses go by and people take pictures.· It's -- it's 25· ·a lot more than that.· And some of the richness of some ·1· ·of the letters that we've heard from -- from -- from ·2· ·people who themselves could be considered iconic I think ·3· ·are important for us to consider.· And so I would simply ·4· ·like to -- because to me this expresses my position a ·5· ·lot and -- and why I feel that it would not only meet ·6· ·the B2 criteria but also to B5, and I want to read this ·7· ·letter from Jerry Bruckheimer and Linda Bruckheimer. ·8· ·And they actually requested that the letter is read ·9· ·aloud at the meeting today.
10· · · · · ·Then they write "As the owners of the historic 11· ·Harry Cohn estate, we have serious concerns about the 12· ·future of our neighborhood.· Seemingly, Beverly Hills 13· ·has jumped on the demolition bandwagon and saving our 14· ·community's unique historic homes is a low priority. 15· ·One by one these icons are falling prey to the wrecking 16· ·ball.· This time the target is 1001 North Roxbury Drive, 17· ·a stunning estate that has none of the earmarks of a 18· ·teardown.· How much evidence do we need to stop this 19· ·process once and for all?· This Regency style home was 20· ·designed by master architect Carlton Burgess and later 21· ·John Elgin Woolf.· It is elegant and stately surrounded 22· ·by mature Sycamore trees and it is steeped in old
23· ·Hollywood history.· Celebrities such as Cary Grant, Bob 24· ·Hope, Katherine Hepburn and Errol Flynn lived in homes 25· ·designed by Woolf.· By any standard, it is the
·1· ·quintessential Beverly Hills mansion.· One that has ·2· ·added grace and character to the star-studded
·3· ·neighborhood since the early 1940s.· The new owner, ·4· ·however, hates everything about the place but the ground ·5· ·it was built on.· Instead of searching for land to ·6· ·develop or the perfect house to restore, the remedy all, ·7· ·an all too frequent one, was to set its sights on 1001 ·8· ·North Roxbury Drive, purchase it for a whopping sum and ·9· ·destroy it.· This is absolutely insane.· Just imagine 10· ·wrecking balls and bulldozers obliterating the entire 11· ·corner of Roxbury and Lexington and the term tone deaf 12· ·takes on new meaning.· Losing yet another architectural 13· ·treasure would be unthinkable and heartbreaking under 14· ·any circumstances, but it is even more shocking during 15· ·this era when our environment has taken center stage and 16· ·efforts to conserve, preserve and recycle are critical 17· ·to our well-being.· If we are concerned about the
18· ·cultural heritage of Beverly Hills, this destructive 19· ·trend has to stop.· We can start right now by denying 20· ·the issuance of a certificate of ineligibility for 1001 21· ·North Roxbury Drive.· If this spectacular home is a 22· ·candidate for demolition, then what in the world is 23· ·next?· Is everything up for grabs?· Rescuing this one 24· ·estate is by no means a cure.· Currently there is a mad 25· ·dash for exceptional real estate.· This has unleashed an ·1· ·invasion of buyers who have no regard for the long ·2· ·history and spirit of Beverly Hills.· They swoop into ·3· ·neighborhoods, pinpoint desirable locations and then ·4· ·make their move to quote, reimagine, unquote the
·5· ·property.· Any flimsy excuse seems to supply an
·6· ·excellent reason to demolish.· Not enough room for a ·7· ·family kitchen or olympic sized swimming pool, a pest ·8· ·infestation, faulty plumbing.· You name it.· They stop ·9· ·at nothing often -- often hiring advisors and experts 10· ·who declare a property architecturally insignificant. 11· ·They even size up former residence to see how they stack 12· ·up on a roster of big wigs.· Once they are successful in 13· ·procuring the desired demolition permit, they often 14· ·build oversized structures that stick out like sore 15· ·thumbs and look dated ten years later.· But why should 16· ·the whimsy of one property owner overshadow the rights 17· ·and quality of life for all the others?· The Harry Cohen 18· ·estate, our own historic property, was owned by the 19· ·founder of Columbia pictures.· It could have easily been 20· ·another victim of the same pattern.· Built in 1927 in 21· ·the shadow of the brand new Beverly Hills Hotel, it was 22· ·not a cultural heritage landmark when we purchased it. 23· ·As such, it would have been much easier to tear it down 24· ·but we were horrified that anyone would even consider 25· ·that.· We fell in love with the house we bought and were ·1· ·determined to return it to its former glory.· After ·2· ·completion, we elected to pursue the landmark
·3· ·designation knowing the value of this classification and ·4· ·the tremendous pride of ownership that comes with
·5· ·restoring a home that has a revered spot in Beverly ·6· ·Hills as extraordinary history.· We didn't realize until ·7· ·months later that if the underbidder for the Cohn
·8· ·property had been successful, they intended to demolish ·9· ·it.· Shockingly, we were told it would have been a 10· ·breeze to do so.· Common sense alone tells us
11· ·something's wrong here.· If we are intent on preserving 12· ·our historical treasures, we cannot have policies that 13· ·make it harder to restore homes than to knock them down. 14· ·We have already lost so many notable estates that are 15· ·gone forever.· One would hope that we've learned our 16· ·lesson, but that doesn't seem to be the case.· Right now 17· ·is the time to reverse this.· For over 100 years Beverly 18· ·Hills has maintained a worldwide reputation for beauty. 19· ·Character and authenticity.· This status requires
20· ·vigilance and stewards to protect this delicate mosaic 21· ·of properties.· Each individual lost diminishes the big 22· ·picture and all too soon Beverly Hills will be
23· ·unrecognizable.· The proposed demolition will only make 24· ·things worse.· If successful it would serve as a welcome 25· ·mat to future buyers whose intentions will end up
·1· ·destroying the very characteristics that define historic ·2· ·Beverly Hills.· We must all work together to ensure that ·3· ·this does not happen.· We have great confidence that ·4· ·this goal can be accomplished.· Our experience with the ·5· ·city of Beverly Hills, and most particularly the City ·6· ·Council, was outstanding.· We were so appreciative for ·7· ·the fine thoughtful work they contributed to our
·8· ·restoration project and the gratitude they expressed ·9· ·upon its completion.· They've seen the agony and the 10· ·ecstasy of preservation, and we are well aware of the 11· ·ultimate benefits that impact our entire community.· We 12· ·hope that experience in the spectacular results achieved 13· ·will be a reminder of what's possible if we keep our eye 14· ·on the big picture.· Let's take a breather and consider 15· ·a game plan that will fortify our commitment to protect 16· ·the legacy of Beverly Hills not only for ourselves but 17· ·for future generations.
18· · · · · ·But first things first, please take another 19· ·close look at this beautiful estate.· The property that 20· ·has added beauty and dignity to the corner of Roxbury 21· ·Drive and Lexington Road for decades.· It is not
22· ·abandoned nor is it a pile of rubble.· It is not an 23· ·eyesore.· Does this truly look like a candidate for 24· ·demolition?· We strongly urge you to just say no.· Your 25· ·vote against the certificate of ineligibility for 1001 ·1· ·North Roxbury Drive will be the first important step in ·2· ·the right direction.· It will also be a decision you ·3· ·will ultimately be proud that you made.· Thank you for ·4· ·your attention to this important cause.· Linda and Jerry ·5· ·Bruckheimer."
·6· · · · · ·And -- and I -- I agree.· I -- I think one of ·7· ·the main purposes of our ordinance is to try and match ·8· ·historic properties or potentially historic properties ·9· ·with the right owners.· And the Cohn estate was an 10· ·example where that worked.· This is an example where it 11· ·didn't, and we did hear, as said, that, you know -- we 12· ·did hear that for potential historic nature of it was 13· ·actually a bargaining chip that caused the applicant to 14· ·get a -- a reduction in price.· But clearly it didn't 15· ·work because here is a -- an example of a beautiful 16· ·estate and the ideal owner would have been someone who 17· ·was going to love it and value it for that.
18· · · · · ·The -- the other thing I would like to do is, 19· ·you know, I would like to quote from Noah Furie's
20· ·letter.· Because from my perspective, Noah was one of 21· ·the authors of the ordinance and we've heard different 22· ·interpretations from people who are interpreting it 23· ·where this is from the horse's mouth and we heard that 24· ·along with what Craig Corman had to say.· And from my 25· ·perspective, again, listening to Noah makes it clear ·1· ·that the plain language applies.· And as we heard even ·2· ·from Jan Ostashay, if we just look at the plain language ·3· ·and don't try and overinterpret it, it would meet the ·4· ·criteria.· And so from my perspective, this is important ·5· ·for people to understand.
·6· · · · · ·So Noah writes "First, it's important to
·7· ·understand the genesis of the publication requirement ·8· ·and how it was designed to specifically work hand in ·9· ·glove with the certificate of ineligibility program. 10· ·The certificate of ineligibility program was added in 11· ·2015 in response to resident concerns that the ordinance 12· ·was creating too much uncertainty over what they could 13· ·or could not do with their property as a quick and easy 14· ·way to clear properties for redevelopment that no one 15· ·ever considered important.· To make it work quickly and 16· ·easily in a field largely reliant on subjective
17· ·determinations, we added an objective element to the 18· ·definition of exceptional work, i.e., a requirement that 19· ·the property be the subject of at least two publications 20· ·or one publication in the case of a monograph about an 21· ·architecture to be even deemed potentially historic and 22· ·publication in the case of a monograph about the
23· ·architect" -- sorry -- "and thus subject to review by 24· ·the CHC and council.· The thinking was that if a
25· ·property had been so published, that would be a good ·1· ·indicator people had considered the property important ·2· ·and thus potentially worth preserving.· But if it had ·3· ·not been so published, then that would be a good
·4· ·indicator people had not viewed the property as
·5· ·important.· In crafting the publication requirement, ·6· ·however, we realized certain publications might not ·7· ·indicate a property was noteworthy at all.
·8· ·Specifically, the mere mention of a property in a
·9· ·comprehensive index of an architect's life would tell us 10· ·something about its potential significance nor would the 11· ·fact someone with no understanding of architecture 12· ·happened to discuss it or post a photo of it on a social 13· ·media account.· That's why we ultimately added two 14· ·simple criteria for acceptable publications.· One, they 15· ·had to either substantially -- substantively discuss, 16· ·i.e., not just mention the property or contain a
17· ·photograph of it and two, they had to be offered.
18· ·Meaning written, edited, photographed or published by 19· ·someone with a background in architectural design or 20· ·history.· We felt these two simple additions would give 21· ·us more of an assurance that publication would roughly 22· ·correlate to at least some noteworthiness because
23· ·otherwise someone with knowledge in the field would not 24· ·have taken the time to single the property out for 25· ·discussion or exhibition.
·1· · · · · ·To be clear, we did not care about the academic ·2· ·quality of the publication.· In fact, we specifically ·3· ·rejected such a criteria early on as being too rigorous. ·4· ·We also didn't care whether the publication was
·5· ·primarily or exclusively about the protectable exterior. ·6· ·In fact, we specifically included trade magazines, ·7· ·Architectural Digest and its competitors were what we ·8· ·specifically had in mind even though they were often ·9· ·more concerned with the interiors of properties.· As I 10· ·indicated above, the point of the publication
11· ·requirement was not to help identify properties of high 12· ·historic merit but to help weed out at the
13· ·administrative level properties with no real historic 14· ·value whatsoever.· That's why the requirement is so 15· ·rudimentary.· If it's a publication by anyone with 16· ·architectural expertise that actually discusses a
17· ·property no matter how briefly or contains a photograph 18· ·of the property, no matter how small, it will satisfy 19· ·the requirement.· I repeat, it will satisfy the
20· ·requirement.· Indeed, we require two publications not 21· ·just one because we set the quality bar so low when it 22· ·came to what would be acceptable.· To layer other
23· ·requirements on top of those rudimentary findings would 24· ·not be what anyone intended and could well cripple the 25· ·historic preservation program.· The truth is there are ·1· ·not that many publications of even the most prominent ·2· ·houses in Beverly Hills and to further require a
·3· ·publication to be altered by someone who has a degree in ·4· ·architecture or appear in a scholarly treatise on
·5· ·architecture or be primarily or exclusively concerned ·6· ·with the design of the exterior of the structure would ·7· ·create such a high bar that we would almost certainly ·8· ·lose properties well worth preserving without even so ·9· ·much as a discussion at the Cultural Heritage Commission 10· ·or the council.· With all of the above in mind, it's my 11· ·opinion that the publications before the council all 12· ·satisfy the ordinance requirements.· The Russian
13· ·Architectural Digest article, the Luxe magazine article, 14· ·the 1st DIBS online article and the neoclassical villa 15· ·design coffee table book all photographically show the 16· ·front of the house while the iconic interior 1900 to the 17· ·present coffee table book substantively discusses the 18· ·exterior of the house and photographically shows its 19· ·front.· Additionally, the Russian Architectural Digest 20· ·article, the Luxe article and the iconic interior were 21· ·all written and photographed by experienced
22· ·architectural writers and photographers and were
23· ·prepared for publication by experienced architectural 24· ·editors, the 1st DIBS article in the neoclassical villa 25· ·design likewise appear to have been edited by people ·1· ·with experience in the field.
·2· · · · · ·Staff has raised the question of whether the ·3· ·fact that the publications can all in some way, shape or ·4· ·form be traced back to a press packet generated by the ·5· ·architect slash designer of one of the renovations of ·6· ·the house means they should all be treated as a single ·7· ·publication repeated multiple times.· In my opinion, ·8· ·each of the publication stands on its own for purposes ·9· ·of our ordinance.· First, each decision to publish was 10· ·made independently of the others and each publisher 11· ·chose to edit the materials as they saw fit.· Second, as 12· ·I think Jan Ostashay will tell you, with literally 13· ·thousands of buildings being built every year, it's not 14· ·uncommon for buildings to first come to the attention of 15· ·architectural publishers, the oppressed materials
16· ·generated by the architects of the buildings but that 17· ·doesn't diminish the importance of the editor's
18· ·discretion in deciding which properties are significant 19· ·enough to publish articles about.· And third, while I 20· ·understand three of the publications incorporate
21· ·elements of the architect's press packet, two others the 22· ·Luxe and 1st DIBS articles are based on a completely 23· ·separate site visit so there are at least two
24· ·publications no matter how you slice it.· Staff has also 25· ·raised the fact that none of the publications mentioned ·1· ·Carlton Burgess by name.· We never even considered ·2· ·including that as one of the criteria back in 2015.· As ·3· ·long as the publication substantively discussed or ·4· ·photographically depicted the property itself, that's ·5· ·all we cared about.· Again, I can't stress enough that ·6· ·we weren't interested in requiring an in-depth
·7· ·discussion of the property, only something more than a ·8· ·mere listing in an index."
·9· · · · · ·So that -- that was Noah's comment and that 10· ·expresses very well why I believe that this meets the 11· ·criterias.· Now, I want to make it clear that from my 12· ·perspective this isn't about individuals, and this is 13· ·certainly not personal.· This, from my perspective, is 14· ·about community.· I think it is fantastic that the 15· ·Bakers have roots here and that they have expressed the 16· ·fondness for our city.· You know, we share much in 17· ·common.· We all -- or at least a couple of us -- walked 18· ·to school at Hawthorne.· Probably put on clean up by 19· ·Dr. Rowan.· We got clothes at Rudnick's.· We got shoes 20· ·at Harry Harris', and we got ice cream at Thrifty's. 21· ·But there are plenty of teardowns in town, and there are 22· ·plenty of places where the -- the Bakers or anybody 23· ·could -- could build their dream home from scratch.· And 24· ·to me, this is also about more than this individual 25· ·property.· It is about historic preservation itself in ·1· ·our city.
·2· · · · · ·Now, we've heard from some people that because ·3· ·it was by Carlton Burgess it can't possibly be historic. ·4· ·And to me, this is one of those cases of lying eyes. ·5· ·It's not just me.· My -- for years my sister and other ·6· ·people have always said this is their favorite house in ·7· ·Beverly Hills.· This is what they think of when they ·8· ·think of Beverly Hills.· And that's one of the reasons ·9· ·why I think that it -- it would match the iconic
10· ·description.· You know, Carlton Burgess may not have 11· ·gotten his due at the time, but let's also remember that 12· ·Vermeer was omitted from surveys of Dutch art for almost 13· ·two centuries.· Does that mean that Vermeers are
14· ·worthless or not exceptional works or not masterpieces? 15· ·My concern is if the certificate is upheld what does 16· ·this mean for historic preservation in Beverly Hills 17· ·going forward?· And that is a rhetorical question.· Yes, 18· ·I do think we need to tighten and fix the criteria so 19· ·this doesn't happen again, and I think we need to do it 20· ·in a way so that in the future we match historic homes 21· ·like this with owners like the Bruckheimers, like the 22· ·Zaslavs, like other people who appreciate that.· Because 23· ·once these houses are gone, they're -- they're gone 24· ·forever.
25· · · · · ·But that said, I do feel that we clearly have ·1· ·met the A criteria as even the ASM group who was hired ·2· ·by the applicant admitted, but I also think that we -- ·3· ·we meet not only the B2 criteria very clearly and
·4· ·cogently expressed by Noah Furie's letter but also the ·5· ·iconic and not just because buses go by.· And I think ·6· ·that the Bruckheimers expressed also very well why this ·7· ·could be considered iconic.· In addition to the letters ·8· ·we've gotten from so many other people who -- who say ·9· ·like my sister just what this property has meant to 10· ·them, how it has embodied for them what Beverly Hills 11· ·is, how it is basically reflected a kind of an elegance 12· ·that is unique to our city.
13· · · · · ·Reading through Mark -- what -- what Mark Rios 14· ·said he seems to think of all architecture as a film 15· ·set, and it seems for him even though he says historic 16· ·preservation is, you know, something he in theory
17· ·supports, it's -- it's really only in theory.· I don't 18· ·think historic preservation in any real sense of the 19· ·word exists for him.· And in fact, he -- he -- he told 20· ·us both in his letter and on his video that the exterior 21· ·had been substantially changed and that according to 22· ·him, the house had lost its integrity.· Well, we then 23· ·heard from Larry Schmidt that the facade, which is what 24· ·we're talking about, had not been substantially changed. 25· ·So clearly it maintains its integrity and sadly it seems ·1· ·that Mark Rios does not.· But another point to me that ·2· ·bothers me is that -- and we discussed it very briefly, ·3· ·and the applicant's representative ducked it, and that ·4· ·the applicant's representatives and likely with no ·5· ·knowledge of the applicant themselves probably just ·6· ·wanting to give them a favorable response, but they were ·7· ·not forthright with the city and they withheld critical ·8· ·information from the city.· They buried a report.
·9· ·Again, it may not have even been the current lawyers. 10· ·Certainly I don't believe it happened with knowledge of 11· ·the applicant, but they buried a report and withheld 12· ·critical information from the city.· And to me, that 13· ·seems unethical and it sets a terrible precedent.
14· · · · · ·I'll -- I'll close by saying I -- I feel we are 15· ·and have been losing the soul of our community bit by 16· ·bit.· That's why one of the first things that I pushed 17· ·for when I got on the council back in the day was to 18· ·establish a historical preservation ordinance and to 19· ·create a Cultural Heritage Commission.· The joke in real 20· ·estate circles back then was that historic preservation 21· ·Beverly Hills style was taking a picture of a building 22· ·before you tore it down.· And that feels to me like 23· ·we're going -- going back to that, and that we are -- 24· ·this -- we are destroying in some way our own identity 25· ·and we're losing the soul of our community bit by bit. ·1· ·I think it is okay to bemoan this through the dual ·2· ·lenses of emotion and objectivity because I think in ·3· ·this case they go hand in hand.· And I think this is ·4· ·ultimately about our home.· And as I've often said, home ·5· ·is a sacred place.· And it's not just the individual ·6· ·house that we live in.· It's our community.· And I think ·7· ·this is a sad day for Beverly Hills.· We cannot bring ·8· ·back the things that were destroyed, as mentioned by our ·9· ·mayor.· We -- there are many things that I think we 10· ·would love to have back from the Beverly Theater, to Wil 11· ·Wright's to Rudnick's, many places that are inclined in 12· ·the fabric of our memories.· But what we can do is we 13· ·can protect what we have, and I -- I -- I fear that 14· ·today will go down in history as a moment when we failed 15· ·our community, when failed our children and our
16· ·grandchildren but also our parents and grandparents. 17· ·From my perspective, 1001 Roxbury is indeed a remarkably 18· ·superior work.· It is iconic, and this isn't and can't 19· ·be a case not only of my lying eyes but of the lying 20· ·eyes of everyone who wrote in and everyone who feels 21· ·that losing this will be something that is not only a 22· ·moment of sadness for our community but of regret and 23· ·something that we will never get back.· Thank you. 24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Councilmember Wunderlich is ready 25· ·to go down.
·1· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· I am ready.
·2· · · · · ·So I agree that this is a sad day for Beverly ·3· ·Hills.· I agree that this is a day that we will regret. ·4· ·I think it's horrible that this house, which is a
·5· ·beautiful house, might be destroyed.· But I don't get to ·6· ·just mandate that.· On City Council what we have to do ·7· ·is enforce the rules we have in place.· I think we have ·8· ·to urgently move to change the statute.· I think we have ·9· ·to have a statute that protects what we want to protect, 10· ·and I would want to protect this house.· But
11· ·Mr. Bruckheimer's letter, very passionate, very well 12· ·written, it's addressing the A criteria.· It is not 13· ·addressing what's necessary in order to meet our current 14· ·definitions.· And I do not find it compelling that these 15· ·publications meet the -- the criteria that we have in 16· ·front of us.· And I -- I wish it were otherwise.· I wish 17· ·this house was being preserved.· But with the statute 18· ·that we have in front of us, it seems to me that to 19· ·enforce the statutes we have, to enforce the rules that 20· ·we have, we do have to grant their certificate of
21· ·ineligibility and I hope that the future City Council 22· ·will very quickly move to change the statute so that 23· ·this doesn't happen again.
24· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· Vice Mayor?
25· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· Thank you, Mayor.
·1· · · · · ·I think it's clear that this is a nice house. ·2· ·There's a lot of history that surrounds that area, that ·3· ·many people are passionate about it.· And unfortunately ·4· ·at the moment that's irrelevant.· And I -- I will say up ·5· ·front that I agree with probably everybody that we have ·6· ·to do some work on this ordinance, but at the end of the ·7· ·day it's our ordinance.· And if we're not gonna uphold ·8· ·our own rules, then I think it's really impossible for ·9· ·us to expect anybody else to uphold our rules.· So it is 10· ·the ordinance.· It is what is in front of us, and it is 11· ·the basis upon which we have to make this decision. 12· · · · · ·Further to that and with all due respect to 13· ·Mr. Corman and to Mr. Furie, their -- their intent, 14· ·legislative intent, while informative really doesn't 15· ·change -- really doesn't change the ordinance.· And -- 16· ·and in fact, if there was a legislative intent in
17· ·creating the ordinance, the legislative intent was to 18· ·develop some clarity for people who are buying homes and 19· ·who want to know if this home could be made historic. I 20· ·think that in -- in that it's unrealistic to expect that 21· ·in that determination they would take into account 22· ·whatever somebody's legislative intent would be.· In 23· ·buying the house, they're gonna depend on our ordinance 24· ·and the application of that ordinance to the property, 25· ·and based on that make a decision about what it is that ·1· ·they want to do.· So I think we're faced with based with ·2· ·the ordinance as written.· I think we've heard -- first ·3· ·off, we've not heard from any expert that says the house ·4· ·is potentially historic.· We've not heard that.· We have ·5· ·heard from our expert that she doesn't think it meets ·6· ·the B level criteria.· And I would agree with that. I ·7· ·think that the plain language here without torturing the ·8· ·language to come out differently, the plain language ·9· ·says that there needs to be two -- two articles which 10· ·discuss the architecture.· And in this case I would 11· ·expect it to be the external architecture because we're 12· ·talking about historic preservation and the internal 13· ·design does not apply.· So in order for us to understand 14· ·this, we have to assume, and I think it's clearly
15· ·written, that this is about the external architecture. 16· ·And I -- I don't think that any of the publications that 17· ·have been presented to us to this point speak to that in 18· ·any form of substantive or an authoritative way.
19· · · · · ·So I think the language is clear.· I think our 20· ·decision may be painful, but it too is clear.· And I 21· ·think we have no option based on our own language, our 22· ·own law, but to uphold the decision of the director. 23· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you, Vice Mayor.
24· · · · · ·Frank, can you come up here for a moment? I 25· ·have heard so much this evening.· Just for clarification ·1· ·regarding this home, I think there were some -- some ·2· ·letters that were read in today.· If -- if the council ·3· ·did uphold your recommendation, this particular property ·4· ·is that under the central area?· Is it under design ·5· ·review?
·6· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· Yes, it is.
·7· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· So the -- the notion that I had ·8· ·heard that if this house was in any way demolished, ·9· ·there is still a process that it has to go through? 10· · · · · ·MR. GOHLICH:· That's correct.· Any new home on 11· ·the property would be subject to design review.
12· · · · · ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Thank you.· I just wanted to 13· ·clarify that because I -- I had heard a few letters that 14· ·was suggesting otherwise.
15· · · · · ·I have to say for me this is -- as I'm the one 16· ·talking about the emotionality of it, I have -- anybody 17· ·who has seen me, funnily enough our city manager said 18· ·"do you need -- do you need something to drink?· Do you 19· ·need some water?"· I am very emotional about -- about 20· ·this evening.· I'm very emotional about so much of what 21· ·I heard tonight.· I think when we're talking about the 22· ·soul of our community and we're talking about the soul 23· ·of home, I think what bothers me the most of what I've 24· ·heard this evening aside from the fact that of course I 25· ·love this home.· I don't think anybody wouldn't love ·1· ·this home.· It's a beautiful home.· But as much as I ·2· ·love the home, I think what we all love about our home ·3· ·is the people in it.· And when I'm hearing -- what I've ·4· ·heard tonight has really cut to my soul because it's -- ·5· ·in some of the letters and some of the conversations and ·6· ·some of the comments today, it felt like it was a very ·7· ·us and them.· And it felt as though if one interpreted ·8· ·the A and B criteria differently than -- than Ryan and ·9· ·Jan did then we weren't preservationists, that we didn't 10· ·care about the soul of our community, that we didn't 11· ·care about the history.· And that's a fact -- factual 12· ·lie that is not accurate.· And I just find that wrong, 13· ·and I find that the antithesis of our community and 14· ·every single person that loves this community, every 15· ·single person that sits on this dais and every single 16· ·person that is here way past midnight loves our city, 17· ·loves the history of our city and values the integrity 18· ·of it.
19· · · · · ·And I -- I do want to say this is -- you know, 20· ·many of my colleagues had the opportunity of speaking to 21· ·Bakers.· This is the first time that I'm talking to you 22· ·or -- or meeting you, and I just, again, want to say to 23· ·you that I thank you -- thank you for choosing Beverly 24· ·Hills again.· And, you know, when we first -- when we 25· ·interview people to go on a Commission -- forget about ·1· ·being on council -- but when we interview people to be ·2· ·on a Commission one of the -- one of the questions we ·3· ·used to ask -- we don't ask it anymore, but one of the ·4· ·questions was can you vote against a friend.· And this ·5· ·home is a friend.· And from my perspective, you know, ·6· ·when you're sitting in these seats you have to make some ·7· ·really tough choices.· It's so easy to criticize.· It's ·8· ·so easy to really kind of put one's own projection, but ·9· ·I have to say that all of us have really, really worked 10· ·hard on this.· And, you know, to the Cultural Heritage 11· ·Commission, this community values you.· This council 12· ·values you.· And the fact of the matter is we've put a 13· ·lot of time and energy and soul and heart into this 14· ·decision.· This has not been made lightly by any of us. 15· ·And to in any way suggest that if we have a different 16· ·interpretation that in any way we value the historic 17· ·fiber of our community is absolutely insulting and -- 18· ·insulting to all of us, quite frankly, not just to all 19· ·of us sitting up here but insulting to us as a community 20· ·because we are a community that bands together.· And 21· ·what is before us is what we have to make our decision 22· ·on.
23· · · · · ·And to those who helped frame this ordinance -- 24· ·and I'm one of them and another colleague that I'm 25· ·sitting up here with was the liaison with me along with ·1· ·Craig Corman and Noah Furie.· So we all worked on it ·2· ·together, and it was many years ago.· And it wasn't ·3· ·perfect, clearly, because we're standing here today and ·4· ·it wasn't perfect.· But, you know, I also -- you know, ·5· ·we've always said in the past we don't believe in bait ·6· ·and switch, and we don't believe in rewriting the rules. ·7· ·And when we talked about, you know -- when -- when I ·8· ·started this conversation and we talked about, you know, ·9· ·the 30-day administrative procedure for predictability, 10· ·that was something we all put there for all of us.· And 11· ·I feel, you know, especially -- you know, I'm not an 12· ·expert, but I did ask the expert who, you know -- you 13· ·know, I -- I do agree that all of the A criteria for me 14· ·has been met.· But when we were talking about B2 and -- 15· ·and, you know, even for me, you know, when I was reading 16· ·this I actually called Ryan over the weekend because 17· ·when I read in this that he wasn't a licensed architect, 18· ·you know, that was just my first thought was wait a 19· ·minute.· And he explained it to me, and it was clearly 20· ·discussed.· So to me, you know, that's not the issue for 21· ·me.· I think what, you know -- when few months ago when 22· ·commissioners brought forward to us, you know, some 23· ·articles about it, it was the articles that took us on 24· ·this track.· If those articles weren't brought forward 25· ·we wouldn't be here tonight.· So to now suggest anything ·1· ·other than that is to me disingenuous.· That is why ·2· ·we're here tonight because of those articles and the ·3· ·interpretation of those articles.· You know, at one ·4· ·point they weren't in English and at one point, you ·5· ·know, there was discussion about if those articles have ·6· ·any validity.· To me, they do.· They have validity. ·7· ·They're real articles.· But for me, the fact of the ·8· ·matter -- the way I interpret it and the way the expert ·9· ·interpreted it is the article really is not referencing 10· ·what we -- the way I see it the interpretation of -- of 11· ·-- of -- what B2 is about.
12· · · · · ·I do agree that we -- we should look at at this 13· ·ordinance again, put this order in some place many, many 14· ·years ago.· And as we -- as we've seen, as -- as those 15· ·who are in this room that help write it, you know, we -- 16· ·we can fine tune some of it.· But I -- I have to say, 17· ·the saddest part of it is the divisiveness that I've 18· ·seen and I've heard in this room that somehow or other 19· ·that somebody who interprets this differently means that 20· ·they value in any way the historic preservation of the 21· ·city any less than someone who interprets it
22· ·differently.· And I find that has been beyond just this. 23· ·I think that has been the decay of what we've seen these 24· ·last few years.· Somebody disagrees with you.· You're 25· ·the enemy, and that's why we've had some decay in the ·1· ·soul of -- of humanity.· And I've seen that here
·2· ·tonight, and it really -- that's what makes me sad, and ·3· ·that's what makes me emotional.· And yes, I love this ·4· ·home.· I live a few blocks away, and I walk by it every ·5· ·day.· But what is -- my job is I have to make hard ·6· ·decisions and sometimes in our lives we have to make ·7· ·hard decisions based on what we are supposed to be ·8· ·doing.· And -- and for me that is being a good council ·9· ·person because you can count on the fact that they're 10· ·going to make a decision not because they're your
11· ·friend, not because of a celebrity letter.· They're 12· ·making it because of the rules that are in front of 13· ·them, and that's what I'm proud of, doing what we're 14· ·supposed to be doing.· And if we need to fix something, 15· ·we will do so.· And I do want the owners of this home to 16· ·know and I do want this community to know that the soul 17· ·of who we are, that's why we love this community.
18· ·That's why you talked about why you chose to -- you 19· ·know, what made us who we are.
20· · · · · ·So with that, I will entertain a motion.
21· · · · · ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· I move that the City Council 22· ·approved the issuance of a certificate of ineligibility 23· ·for the residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive 24· ·based on the required findings.
25· · · · · ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· And I'll second it. ·1· ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Okay.· Roll call, please.
·2· ·CITY CLERK:· Councilmember Wunderlich?
·3· ·COUNCILMEMBER WUNDERLICH:· Yes.
·4· ·CITY CLERK:· Councilmember Friedman?
·5· ·COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN:· Yes.
·6· ·CITY CLERK:· Councilmember Mirisch?
·7· ·COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH:· No.
·8· ·CITY CLERK:· Vice Mayor Gold?
·9· ·VICE MAYOR GOLD:· Yes.
10· ·CITY CLERK:· Mayor Bosse?
11· ·MAYOR BOSSE:· Yes.
12 13
14· · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
15· · · · · · · · ·End of Audio
16· · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 ·1· · · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
·2
·3
·4· · · · · ·I, Josie C. Gonzalez, a Certified Shorthand ·5· ·Reporter in and for the State of California, do hereby ·6· ·certify:
·7
·8· · · · · ·That the foregoing audio file was reported by me ·9· ·stenographically to the best of my ability and later 10· ·transcribed into typewriting under my direction; that 11· ·the foregoing is a true record of the audio file.
12 13· · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name 14· ·this 19th day of August, 2024.
15 16
17· · · · · · · · · · · ·______________________
· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·JOSIE C. GONZALEZ
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25

355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com

FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Silicon Valley
Hong Kong Singapore
Houston Tel Aviv
London Tokyo
Los Angeles Washington, D.C.

Madrid
September 11, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 1001 N. Roxbury - Tree Removal Permit (PL2300506)
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:

On behalf of Eric and Nikki Baker, longtime Beverly Hills residents who are building their family home at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive, we respectfully request that the City Council deny Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s appeal. We write separately from our letter dated September 3 to address Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s claim that the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Tree Removal Permit was not exempt from CEQA. The Planning Commission got it exactly right. The permit is exempt from CEQA. The appeal must be denied.

The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Tree Removal Permit and determination that the action was exempt from CEQA was supported by substantial evidence, consistent with staff’s recommendation, and appropriate and consistent with the law. In addition to qualifying for a Class 4 categorical exemption from CEQA, as the Planning Commission found, the Tree Removal Permit also qualifies for Class 2 and 3 categorical exemptions. No exceptions to the application of categorical exemptions apply. Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC’s arguments are without merit.

We appreciate the Planning Commission’s thorough analysis and unanimous decision.

We respectfully request that the Council affirm the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.

Very truly yours,
Benjamin J. Hanelin
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Michael Forbes, Community Development Director
Mr. Masa Alkire, City Planner
Mr. Philip Coronel, Associate Planner
September 11, 2024