WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Dear Honorable Members of the Beverly Hills City Council, Your commissioners conducted a thorough and transparent review of this project regarding a tree permit at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive, engaging in a lengthy process to study every detail. We place commissioners in these positions because we trust them to handle such matters with expertise and integrity, which they did! Their unanimous decision was based on thoughtful consideration, a clear understanding and fair application of the rules.
At the end of the day, this is the Bakers' property, their private property. This is not public land, a commercial development or a property with any special designation – it is the same as any other lot in the city. We understand that some community members are still disappointed that the previous house on this lot was (lawfully and fully in accordance with city process) removed. The property owners have followed the process, adhered to the rules, and should be allowed to build accordingly. Now the city needs to follow its own rules. The idea that this project is even still being debated is troubling. They are replacing the 3 trees with the largest possible trees, demonstrating that the means and commitment to the community are there. They will have a veritable forest on this lot when they finish. This is not a matter of environmental harm or community interest; it’s a matter of someone doing everything by the book, only to be stonewalled by personal preferences and baseless objections.
The job of the City Council is to act in the best interest of the community, not to pander to special interests or personal agendas. I urge you to honor the work of the Planning Commission, respect the process, and allow this family to proceed with the development of their home without further delay.
Sincerely,
Amy Conroy
.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3CB3CC70-6A55-46CD-AC4D-ECA51BB7EA25 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Camille Hooks Shannon
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:54:27 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Members of the City Council:
We are writing regarding the appeal for 1001 North Roxbury Drive in support of the Baker family. Our understanding is that:
The Bakers have worked respectfully with the city for years and followed all the correct processes to move forward with their project.
The Planning Commission has already unanimously approved a permit allowing the Bakers to remove 3 out of 30 protected trees.
The Bakers have gone to great pains to preserve as many protected trees as possible and are planning to plant dozens more trees to make the property even more lush - a net additional 40 + trees.
Given the facts above, we see no reason why the project should be delayed further.
In our view, it’s important that when residents work with the city to ensure they are following the correct procedures for approval, they are not continually delayed in moving forward with their renovations. We're sure many homeowners in Beverly Hills would agree with this point of view.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Camille Hooks
Mason Hooks
Sierra Drive
Sept 15, 2024
Dear Honorable Mayor Friedman, Vice Mayor Nazarian, and Council Members Wells, Corman and Mirisch.
As a longtime resident of Beverly Hills and a partner in the Beverly Hills-based real estate firm, the Westside Estate Agency, I have a deep understanding of this city’s real estate landscape. In addition to my role in real estate, I also develop residential properties throughout Beverly Hills.
The interests behind this pending appeal (made by a nameless LLC) do not reflect the long-term well-being of our community. The desirability and premium value of Beverly Hills real estate have been carefully cultivated through decades of wise and consistent leadership by this City Council. This leadership has fostered a unique community, characterized by its graceful, tree-lined streets, impeccably maintained roads, and outstanding city services—all of which are supported by a stable, reliable process that property owners depend on when building or renovating their homes.
The strength of Beverly Hills property values is closely tied to the confidence in our city’s processes, which in turn feeds back into the community through property taxes.
When decisions are made unanimously at the commission level, it is essential that the City Council stand by its appointees and staff. To do otherwise would undermine the certainty of good governance that is critical to maintaining a healthy and thriving real estate market.
Consider the scenario of a buyer looking to invest millions of dollars into a home in Beverly Hills—without confidence in the process, would they proceed? A lack of predictability and the threat of overturned decisions (driven by the personal agendas and vendettas of a few angry community members) at the council level would give buyers reason to pause.
This particular project is high-profile and has drawn significant public attention. Going against the findings of both staff and commission, further derailing the process of these rule-abiding property owners, will send shockwaves throughout the real estate community, raising doubts about the integrity of governance. It is crucial that you deny the appeal to uphold the stability and reliability that Beverly Hills property owners, residents, and investors have come to expect.
Your decision is vital to preserving the value of our community and the investments that contribute to its continued success. Thank you for your time and consideration. Your leadership is both needed and appreciated.
Respectfully,
Fred J. Bernstein
Sept. 15, 2024
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
As a member of the Beverly Hills community and a long-time Beverly Hills resident, I urge the Beverly Hills City Council to support the unanimous findings of the Planning Commission in granting the Bakers’ permit to remove 3 trees. The Planning Commission and staff thoroughly studied and properly determined that the Bakers’ landscaping plan- which will result in the planting of over 30 trees and preserving 27 of 30 protected trees- will have no harmful impact on neighboring properties and in fact will enhance the overall garden quality of the City. Their findings are supported by the City’s own staff.
The Planning Commission made the right call in its unanimous decision in favor of the Bakers’ tree removal permit. Please deny the appeal and let the Bakers proceed with their home project.
Best regards,
Bari Milken Bernstein
Docusign Envelope ID: BA764C6B-CE4C-4371-ACBB-96F0A7392E3C ⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important From: Adrianne Tarazon on behalf of WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Please save the trees in Roxbury
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:21:57 AM
Good morning,
Please see public comment received below.
Thank you,
Adrianne Rosas
Executive Assistant to the City Council
City of Beverly Hills
Phone: (310) 285-1013 | Email: [email protected] www.beverlyhills.org
From: marey barthoff >
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 1:07 AM
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL <[email protected]> Subject: Please save the trees in Roxbury
Dear everyone,
Please count me in with all hoping to save the 3 trees at 1001 N. Roxbury? I have lived in BH for a half century & consider all three of them good friends Thanks, M. Barthoff
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Philip Coronel
To: City Clerk; Huma Ahmed
Cc: Masa Alkire; Cindy Gordon
Subject: Fw: 1001 North Roxbury Drive - Tree Removal Permit City Council Hearing Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 4:52:50 PM
Attachments: Outlook-BH logo
Outlook-BH logo
Hi Huma,
We just received this correspondence for the appeal hearing for tomorrow's City Council meeting.
Philip Coronel
Associate Planner | City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
310.285.1173 | [email protected]
NOTE: Planning applications and project resubmittals are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittals are not considered received by the City until such submittal is acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. If you have questions regarding the status of your planning application, please call 310-285-1000 and ask to speak to a planner. If you have questions about the status of your project resubmittal, please reach out to your assigned planner directly.
From: Lenore Greenberg < >
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 4:50 PM
To: Philip Coronel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1001 North Roxbury Drive - Tree Removal Permit City Council Hearing Dear Mr. Coronel,
As I stated in my original email to be submitted to the planning committee regarding the request by the owner of 1001 N. Roxbury to allow trees on his property to be removed, I raised my objection but found that the request was allowed by the City. I am pleased that an appeal to the City's decision is being considered and I again send my objection to the removal of said trees. Beside the fact that these are majestic, mature trees that should be cherished, particularly the California Redwoods, the size and bulk of the proposed residence is out of proportion to the neighborhood and large trees are needed to add grace to the structure.
Please submit this letter at the meeting of the planning committee meeting on September 17th on my behalf.
Lenore Greenberg
north of 1001 N. Roxbury)
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 1:47 PM Philip Coronel <[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon,
You are receiving this email because the City’s records indicate that you are on the interested parties list for the Tree Removal Permit located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. On August 6th, 2024, the City Council set the appeal hearing date to September 17, 2024.
Attached you will find the formal notice.
Philip Coronel
Associate Planner | City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
310.285.1173 | [email protected]
NOTE: Planning applications and project resubmittals are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittals are not considered received by the City until such submittal is acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. If you have questions regarding the status of your planning application, please call 310-285-1000 and ask to speak to a planner. If you have questions about the status of your project resubmittal, please reach out to your assigned planner directly.
The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
September 5, 2024
To Whom it May Concern,
I’m providing this letter on behalf of the project at 1001 Roxbury, Beverly Hills, CA. I’m providing this information in relation to the characteristics and climate requirements of two tree species: the California Coastal Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and the London Plane (Platanus x hispanica).
The California Coastal Redwood is limited to the mild habitats of California's northern coasts and Oregon, where they receive year-round precipitation in the form of rainfall in winter and condensed fog in summer.
This species is notably maladapted to the conditions found in Southern California, primarily due to insufficient rainfall and prolonged dry seasons. Such environmental stressors can exacerbate vulnerabilities, allowing secondary pathogens, such as Botryosphaeria canker, to compromise their health, ultimately resulting in decline and mortality.
The native range of California Coastal Redwood is outside the environmental conditions of Southern California, where it is an inappropriate tree for planting in urban areas.
The SelecTree website (https://www.selectree.calpoly.edu) has been developed under my leadership at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo and provides data and characteristics of tree species to help guide the public and industry professionals in their knowledge and selection of trees. The SelecTree website also provides information regarding the coastal Redwood and its Water Use Rating as “high”. It is also noted with Disease and pest susceptibility: Armillaria, Phytophthora, Cypress Canker, Root Rot and Beetle Borers, Redwood Bark Beetle when water stressed or in poor growing conditions, such as urban environments.
The London Plane (Platanus x hispanica )is a hybrid species derived from cross-pollination between Platanus occidentalis and Platanus orientalis, originally imported from Europe. The variant commonly observed in California, Platanus x hispanica, is not indigenous or native to this region and is poorly suited to the climatic conditions of Southern California. Consequently, it too faces threats from various pests and pathogens, which exploit the stress conditions under which this species must grow.
As we continue to experience increased temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and longer periods of heat, it’s imperative that we select trees that are more climate resilient. The use of trees that are not climate adapted can reduce their longevity, increase use of water, pesticides, and higher maintenance costs, along with loss of long-term canopy potential.
I respectfully provide this information to allow decision makers to better understand the challenges that trees experience in less than hospitable environments. Additionally, encouraging the use of those species that can benefit the urban canopy for decades to come.
Best,
Matt Ritter, PhD - Biological Sciences Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 This map identifies the "Tree Range" of species, showing where they perform based on the climate they require, including temperatures and rainfall.
"California's Native Trees" with the yellow coastal range identified for Sequoia sempervirens 21136238.1
September 17, 2024
City Council of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 285-1013
Re: Appeal of 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:
Maple Leaf Ventures has asked me to review the proposal to remove protected trees at the property located at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive in the City of Beverly Hills.
I am ISA Board Certified Master Arborist (No. NY5636B), and I am a former Urban Forest Supervisor for the City of Santa Monica. I have experience developing and implementing urban forest management strategies on both a local and a city-wide scale.
The protected trees proposed for removal are two Coastal Redwoods (Sequoia Sempervirens) with trunk circumferences of 94” and 107”, respectively, and one London Plane Sycamore (Platanus Acerfolia) with a trunk circumference of 75”. I understand that the trees have been found to be in fair health. I also understand that the Coastal Redwoods are proposed to be removed because of “the close proximity to the proposed single-family residence, which raises concerns for the foundation as the roots of the tree could potentially cause future damage to the foundation[.]” (See Planning Commission staff report at p. 3-8). Similarly, I understand the London Plane Sycamore “is proposed for removal as it is in close proximity to the proposed pool deck and terrace at the rear of the property.” (See Planning Commission staff report at p. 3-8).
I. IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND IMPACTS TO THE GENERAL WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
Preliminarily, it is important to consider that the replacement trees that are proposed for this project will take many years to mature to the same size as the trees that would be removed. The applicant is proposing that the existing protected trees be replaced with various trees and shrubs, including two 48” box Quercus Virginiana “Cathedral” trees and one 60” box Magnolia Grandiflora. Until the trees reach full maturity, the public will not benefit from the same ecosystem services or level of canopy cover that exists today.
The loss of these mature trees is yet another significant contribution to the cumulative city-wide loss of mature trees in the city’s urban forest, which will result in adverse environmental effects.
These adverse effects include, for example, loss of habitat for species that nest in mature trees, increased heat island effects, and aesthetic impacts to the city.
I also understand that the city has taken the position that the removal of the protected trees will “promote fire safety.” (Planning Commission staff report at p. 3-10.) Coastal Redwoods are relatively resilient to fire, and I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed replacement trees will be safer than existing trees during fires. 21136238.1
II. IMPACTS THE GARDEN QUALITY OF THE CITY.
Whenever mature trees are replaced by immature trees, there will be impacts to the garden quality of a city. Canopy cover will be reduced, aesthetics will change, and the public will not be able to interact with trees at the location in the same way. In this case, although the protected trees will be replaced by new trees and new landscaping, the essential “look and feel” of the urban forest landscape in and around the 1001 N. Roxbury property will be changed for many years.
III. CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
Loss of mature canopy cover is a region-wide issue throughout the greater Los Angeles area. A 2017 study found that canopy loss in the Los Angeles area ranged anywhere from 14-55%, with no single area spared from these impacts.1In Santa Monica, for example, city-wide tree canopy coverage declined between 2014 and 2022, largely due to development projects that removed mature trees.2 My understanding is that redevelopment projects in Beverly Hills have also led to the cumulative loss of mature canopy cover both in that city and at a region-wide level.
My understanding is that the City of Beverly Hills replaces an average of approximately 50 publicly-managed trees every year.3 Last year, the city also announced plans to remove 48 mature Ficus trees on Robertson Blvd.4 Many mature trees are also removed on private properties in Beverly Hills and surrounding jurisdictions (including other mature trees at 1001 N.
Roxbury). All of these tree removals result in cumulatively significant region-wide environmental impacts due to the loss of the canopy cover. As noted above, the impacts include for example, loss of habitat for species that nest in mature trees, increased heat island effects, and aesthetic impacts to the city. Impacts also include the loss of retention of stormwater, increased susceptibility to erosion, and other impacts.
Because of their age, character, and contributions to supporting the urban forest, I believe that the loss of the protected trees at 1001 N. Roxbury will be a significant contribution to the cumulative loss of canopy cover in Beverly Hills and the broader Los Angeles Region.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
/s/ Wister Dorta
Wister Dorta
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist (No. NY5636B)
1 See https://spatial.usc.edu/l-loses-trees-green-cover-usc-dornsife-researchers-ask/. 2 See https://www.santamonica.gov/sustainable-city-plan/open-space-and-land-use/urbanforest. 3 See June 2024 staff report from Ken Pfalzgraf at p. 2:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=76&event_id=6728&meta_id=60496
7. 4 See https://beverlypress.com/2024/01/beverly-hills-conducts-eir-on-robertson-trees-project/.
I N V E S T M E N T S
-Sept 16, 2024
To Whom It May Concern,
As a long-time Beverly Hills member of the community, graduate of Hawthorne and Beverly Hills High School and now a property owner, I wanted to support development plans for 1001 North Roxbury Drive. You could not ask for a more established and respected Beverly Hills family than the Bakers- this family has been in BH since 1952 when Eric's grandfather moved to Beverly.
I have known the Bakers for well over two decades and civic minded people who will support the BH community long-term. They have a top landscape architect, a world renown arborist and a commitment to set the standard for new home builds. Theirs will be a forest of a residence, adding to the urban canopy and enhancing the garden quality of the city.
The Planning Commission voted to approve their permit 5-0. The city staff has recommended adoption of their plan.
This, as I said, is a just cause. I join the Bakers and many others in urging you to deny this appeal. The family will not let the City of Beverly Hills down.
JHANSON
. • Beverly Hills, California 90212
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Amy-Louise Kiddie
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 1:09:06 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Sept 16, 2024
Esteemed Members of the City Council,
I have lived on North Roxbury Drive for 5 years and my family and I are delighted to welcome the Baker family back to Beverly Hills and onto North Roxbury Drive. We eagerly await the completion of their tasteful development on our street. This development will - no doubt - enrich the garden quality of our street, increase the urban canopy and increase our property values. The staff and Planning Commission got it exactly right when they approved the permit to remove 3 trees. Any further delay to this project makes no sense.
Thank you for your service to the City and for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marc Boyan
North Roxbury Drive
AMY KIDDIE
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
TO PAUL SUMMERS, RAHUL CHOPRA & MARC BOYAN
*Please note that my emails are monitored intermittently between the hours of 8am-5pm GMT Monday-Friday
London
Elsley Court
20 - 22 Great Titchfield Street
W1W 8BE
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Cc: 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 11-Lester Friedman; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 10:14:03 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
We have been residents of Beverly Hills for over 10 years and currently reside at in Beverly Hills. We are delighted to have Nicole and Eric Baker and their family in the neighborhood. Over the years, we have observed how diligently they have worked to conform with all city regulations, permitting process and have exceeded all environmental standards.
When I read about this appeal and reviewed the process the Bakers have been through regarding the removal of three trees, I felt the need to weigh in.Their property, though larger in scale and on a lovely, stately street, is no different than mine or yours.It does not have any special designation to set it apart from every other residential property in Beverly Hills.
From what I understand, they have chosen to build a significantly smaller home than the current code would permit in order to protect as many existing trees as possible.Therefore, rather than requesting to remove numerous trees so that they could build a huge home, they are only seeking permission to remove three trees.
The trees they have requested to remove have been studied thoroughly by the staff, the PC and several well-respected arborists a correct and unanimous ruling delivered. These are not old growth trees, are not indigenous and are not-climate adapted.In fact, these three trees have been deemed to be poorly suited to the current climate.The Bakers are replacing these three trees with comparable trees that are indigenous and mature, and their plan will add dozens of mature trees along with a tasteful palette of other plantings to the landscape.
What is happening to them could happen to you or to me, and that should concern you too as it should concern every property owner in Beverly Hills.
Please turn down the appeal and let the Bakers continue to build their family home.
Respectfully,
Darren Saville
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Jerald Friedman
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; John Mirisch; 12-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 8:07:33 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
I write to echo the sentiments expressed by several of you on the dais at the first hearing in June regarding the permit to remove 3 trees at 1001 North Roxbury Drive —this is private property. The Bakers’ project involves the development of a family home on private residential land that they legally own. This is NOT commercial property, nor is it public property - it is a family residence being built on a lot that is no different than any other lot in the city. The rules for residential development in Beverly Hills are clear, and the Bakers have adhered to them in full.
If we start allowing personal preferences/feelings/agendas to influence how the rules are applied, it sets a dangerous precedent. The message this sends is that no residential property in Beverly Hills is safe from arbitrary meddling, regardless of how closely the law is followed.
The integrity of our city's governance is built on fairness and equity, and we must ensure that these principles are upheld.
I urge the council to apply the rules equitably, as you have done so well in the past, and allow this family to move forward with building their home.
Best Wishes,
Jerald Friedman
Resident of Beverly Hills for over 40 years
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Joshua Friedman
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 5:37:49 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Sept 14, 2024
Dear Esteemed Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of the allowing the Baker family’s project to proceed. I grew up with Eric Baker, in Beverly Hills, have known the Baker family nearly my entire life. They are and have always been upstanding members of this community. They have gone above and beyond to follow every rule, working closely with the city officials for three years so far, to ensure their project is in full compliance with the relevant laws and codes.
The unanimous 5-0 decision by the Planning Commission speaks volumes about the quality of their proposal.
The appeal appears to be based on nothing more than an unhappy person (not even sure if it’s a community member, appeal having been filed by LLC) trying to derail a legitimate project. This is not how we expect to be governed in Beverly Hills. Property rights and fairness are fundamental to our community. This project is no different from any other residential property in the city, and it should be treated as such.
I respectfully request that the council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the baseless appeal.
Thank you for your service to our city.
Respectfully,
Josh Friedman
Team Beverly Hills Alum
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
https://ddec1-0-en-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query? CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk; Ira Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 12:22:33 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Septembers 15,2024
Dear Members of the City Council,
We are writing to express our heartfelt support for our son and daughter-in-law who are building a family residence at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. Our family has a long history in Beverly Hills, and we feel deeply connected to the community. Malcolm has called Beverly Hills home since 1952 when he moved here with his parents. He went on to graduate from Hawthorne and Beverly Hills High. We have lived on North Alpine Drive since 1974. Beverly Hills has been the backdrop to many milestones in our lives, and it is a place we love and cherish.
Both our son and daughter-in-law grew up in Beverly Hills-buying shoes at Harry Harris, getting ice cream at Thrifty's and trick or treating up and down the streets of Beverly Hills Eric walked to school at Hawthorne every day.
Both Eric and Nikki left Beverly Hills for college, graduate schools and professional school careers. We were so happy when they made the wonderful decision to return to Beverly Hills to raise their children, a move that brought us tremendous joy. We are thrilled to have our grand children grow up here, just as their parents did.
As they work to complete their new family home on Roxbury Drive we are filled with great excitement and anticipation.
This home represents not just a place to live but also a dream come to life for our growing family. We are eager to see them settle in, as grandparents, we look forward to spending time with our children and grandchildren in this beautiful new home. WE know this home will be in our family for generations to come and will become a beautiful addition to North Roxbury Drive.
We kindly ask for ypur continued support in helping this dream come to fruition, and we hope to be able to enjoy many years together in Beverly Hills, a place that has ben our family's home bfor generations.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully.
Norma and Malcolm Baker
North Alpine Drive
Sept. 16, 2024
Dear Mayor Friedman, Vice Mayor Nazarian, and Honorable Council Members Wells, Corman, and Mirisch,
My family has been in Beverly Hills for four generations, beginning with my greatgrandfather Ben Maltz, who helped found City National Bank, and my grandfather Bram Goldsmith, who left an indelible legacy as a philanthropist and community leader.
As residents of Beverly Hills, my family and I have seen firsthand how the leadership of this city—through its elected oPicials, commissions, and dedicated staP—has made our community a wonderful place to live. We are deeply appreciative of your commitment to keeping our neighborhoods safe, gracious, and vibrant.
We are writing to express our concern regarding the recent appeal filed against the owners of 1001 North Roxbury, following a permit that was approved by the Planning Commission in a unanimous 5-0 vote. The facts of this matter, as we understand it, revolve around minor modifications to their property (a permit to remove 3 trees) and include a landscaping update that significantly improves water conservation, adds dozens of mature and indigenous trees to the urban canopy and furthers the robust environment of the lot—an outcome that aligns with our city’s values and ongoing commitment to environmental responsibility.
We find it troubling that a matter so seemingly straightforward, with clear benefits both to the homeowners and the broader community, is being called into question. The decision to grant the permit was made through a thorough process, and to reverse it now would set a concerning precedent. The family at 1001 North Roxbury is facing an undue burden, one that could easily befall any of us—their lot holds no unique designation and the rules around it are no diPerent from yours and mine.
We respectfully ask that you deny the appeal and uphold the original permit decision.
Thank you for your time and for your continued ePorts to serve and protect the integrity of Beverly Hills city governance.
Respectfully,
Brian Goldsmith
Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Sunny Sassoon
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; [email protected]; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 N Roxbury Dr
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2024 11:15:07 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor Friedman, Vice-Mayor Nazarian, Councilmembers Mirisch, Corman and Wells,
One reason my family and I choose to live in Beverly Hills is the good governance that our City is known for – and that includes respect for property rights which give the property owner the ability to use their property as they wish, within the limits of the law and the city’s code.
Good governance involves clear and predictable rules for property owners when building or renovating. It’s also important to apply these rules equally to all.We know that each of you believe in these basic principles.
The Bakers have worked closely with city officials for at least 3 years following all regulations and the Planning Commission unanimously granted them a permit to remove 3 trees, which will be replaced with over 40 new trees.
We are confused as to why the correctly issued, unanimous decision was appealed (by an LLC with no name!).
It appears this nameless/faceless appeal is based on someone’s personal preferences or an agenda that has nothing to do with trees, the property, or its owners.
We therefore urge the Council to uphold the original decision.
We thank you in advance for your service.
Best regards,
Sunny + Debbie Sassoon
Thanks,
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Michael Hooks
To: City Clerk; 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; [email protected]; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Cc:
Subject: 1001 N Roxbury
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2024 7:36:57 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Mayor Friedman, Vice-Mayor Nazarian, Councilmembers Mirisch, Corman and Wells, Victoria and I have lived in Beverly Hills for over 35 years, and we take great pride in the city.
We have generally found the city to be well managed. We have completed our own construction projects and worked through the permitting process and appreciate the general thoroughness and professionalism of that process.
We are writing because we are concerned that the approach with respect to 1001 N Roxbury has devolved into a process that troubles us as homeowners. Our understanding is that Beverly Hills’ staff and Planning Commission devoted significant effort and time into studying the owners’ permit request and issued a 5/0 vote in June to grant the homeowners a permit to remove 3 trees. Given the unanimous decision, the City Council’s revisiting the commissioners’ decisions shows a lack of trust/confidence in the Planning Commission’s judgement. We believe that citizens who go through the planning commission process should be able to rely upon those decisions unless there is clear malfeasance.
In addition to the process concerns, we believe the underlying facts provide no justification for the review. Indeed, we believe:
There are no negative impacts to the neighborhood or garden quality of the city.
The city’s canopy will be expanded when dozens of environmentally appropriate trees are planted.
The property will have over 50 significant trees on it when landscaped.
The air in the neighborhood will be improved by the additional trees.
We should be encouraging homeowners to invest in their properties rather than imposing unfair costs and delay on them. This process is not what we have come to expect in Beverly Hills.
Best regards,
Michael + Victoria Hooks
Beverly Hills CA 90210
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: David Nathanson
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 6:29:36 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Sept 14, 2024
Dear Honorable Members of the Beverly Hills City Council, As a former resident and long-time property owner in Beverly Hills, I am writing in support of Nikki and Eric Baker. I have known the Bakers for over 20 years and can vouch for their integrity, civic responsibility, and commitment to the Beverly Hills community.
I know the city takes pains to protect and maintain the vibrant, green canopy of the community to the benefit of its many constituents. Nikki and Eric have shown great care in designing their new home around the many protected trees and in keeping with the community interest.
It is my understanding that the city staff spent months analyzing the site and their plans and UNANIMOUSLY recommended approval of the requested permit to remove 3 trees and further, concluded that their landscape design conforms to the city code. I sympathize and agree with the Baker’s position that after going through such a thorough process, that the permitting system is being misused with this appeal. Please deny the appeal. It is the right decision and, importantly, restores trust in City’s own commissioners, staffers and process.
Sincerely,
David Nathanson
21153792.1
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]
September 15, 2024
VIA E-MAIL
City Council of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 285-1013
Re: Appeal of 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:
As you know, 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”). For the reasons set forth in this letter, we respectfully urge the City Council to uphold this appeal and to deny the application to remove the irreplaceable heritage trees at the 1001 N.
Roxbury property.
The City’s tree removal procedures were carefully crafted to balance environmental protections, potential community impacts, and design considerations for new development on private property. (Beverly Hills Mun. Code, § 10-3-2900 et seq.) Tree removal permits are not granted automatically. Instead, City decisionmakers must carefully examine potential environmental impacts, and tree removal permits cannot be approved when the removal will adversely affect neighboring properties, the public welfare, or the garden quality of the City. (See Beverly Hills Mun. Code, § 10-3-2902.) When it is possible to redesign a proposed development to avoid or mitigate these adverse impacts, the City should require design changes.
This letter will show that the proposed tree removals at the 1001 N. Roxbury Project do not comply with the City’s strict standards for tree removals. The findings required by Municipal Code Section 10-3-2902 cannot be made here. Furthermore, the proposed tree removals are not exempt from environmental review under CEQA and the Guidelines.1 For these reasons, we urge you to take this opportunity to protect the City’s urban forest and to save these trees.
Additionally, this letter responds to legal arguments provided in comment letters from the Project applicant’s legal counsel dated September 3 and September 11, 2024. The applicant has failed to identify substantial evidence to support the issuance of the tree removal permits or any CEQA exemption. The tree removal permit and CEQA exemption should be denied. 1 The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) shall be referred to as “CEQA,” and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs, tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) shall be referred to as “the Guidelines.”
City Council of Beverly Hills
September 15, 2024
21153792.1
I. BACKGROUND REGARDING THE AUTHOR OF THIS LETTER
To contextualize the legal arguments and findings in this letter (and in the prior letters I have submitted), I would like to take a moment to describe my background and qualifications. I am a partner at the law firm Hanson Bridgett LLP with a specialization in environmental and land use law, including matters involving CEQA and urban forestry issues. I have authored a number of articles on California urban forestry policies, including “Urban Forests as Weapons Against Climate Change: Lessons From California’s Global Warming Solutions Act" (47 Urb. Law. 387 (2015)) and “The Definitive Guide to Tree Disputes in California” (21 Hastings W.-N.W. J. Envtl.
L. & Pol’y 113 (2015)).
I am a former member of the City of Santa Monica’s Urban Forest Task Force, and I am also the former Chair of the Santa Monica Planning Commission. Between 2017-2020, I also served as a member of the City of Santa Monica’s Urban Forest Task Force Heritage Tree Subcommittee.
In 2019-2020, I was appointed to serve on a City of Santa Monica working group that drafted the framework for an ordinance to protect trees located on private property. Like many other communities in the greater Los Angeles area, Santa Monica has been experiencing ongoing loss of city-wide canopy cover, mostly due to the loss of mature trees on R1 properties. The goal of our proposed ordinance was to mitigate the loss of mature canopy cover in our city.
I regularly advise stakeholders on issues related to urban forestry law and policy, as well as strategies for preserving mature trees and developing urban forests that will thrive in the decades ahead. As part of my work, I review the latest data and trends regarding the loss of urban forest canopy cover in the greater Los Angeles area.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND BACKGROUND REGARDING THIS APPEAL The protected trees proposed for removal are two Coastal Redwoods (Sequoia Sempervirens) with trunk circumferences of 94” and 107”, respectively, and one London Plane Sycamore (Platanus Acerfolia) with a trunk circumference of 75”. The protected trees would be replaced with new trees and landscaping, including two 48” box Southern Live Oak (Quercus Virginiana) ‘Cathedral’ and one 60” box Southern Magnolia (Magnolia Grandiflora). The loss of these irreplaceable mature trees will contribute to the ongoing loss of mature trees on a region-wide basis, and the immature replacement trees will take many years to replace the ecological benefits provided by the existing mature trees.
Maple Leaf Ventures brings this appeal on behalf of all City and regional residents interested in the protection of the City’s urban forest, fair enforcement of the City’s laws, and the full disclosure and mitigation of adverse environmental effects pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Maple Leaf Ventures and its supporters advocate for responsible community development that promotes sustainability, public safety, and environmental justice.
III. NO TREE REMOVAL PERMITS SHOULD BE GRANTED UNTIL FULL PROJECT
PLANS ARE PROVIDED TO THE CITY
While the applicant has provided a conceptual site plan for the new single-family home that is proposed at 1001 N. Roxbury, the record does not contain detailed architectural plans that show why it is not possible to re-design the Project to avoid impacts to the protected trees. In fact, without specific architectural plans, it is not possible to verify the full extent of potential City Council of Beverly Hills
September 15, 2024
21153792.1
environmental impacts associated with both the Project and the proposed tree removals. Nor is it possible to verify that there will be no unusual circumstances associated with the project that create adverse environmental impacts, or any of the other criteria that trigger the exceptions to CEQA’s categorical exemptions. (See Guidelines, § 15300.2.) Accordingly, Maple Leaf Ventures respectfully submits that the consideration of any tree removal permits is premature at this time, and no permits should be considered or approved until the City and the public have the opportunity to review a full set of Project plans.
IV. THE CITY AND THE PROJECT APPLICANT HAVE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE
THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS REQUIRED TO APPROVE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (BEVERLY HILLS MUN. CODE, § 10-3-2902)
Preliminarily, Maple Leaf Ventures incorporates by reference its prior appeal letter and July 16, 2024 comment letter, which are included as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 (respectively) in Maple Leaf Ventures’ concurrently-submitted compendium of evidence. Those letters, as well as the analysis provided below, shows that substantial evidence in the record does not support the findings necessary to approve the tree removal permit at issue here.
It also bears emphasis that the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan directs the city to limit the removal of mature trees whenever possible. “With private property owners managing most of the City’s tree canopy, the ordinances that govern trees on private property must be directed towards meeting the City canopy goals by limiting the removal of healthy mature trees when possible[.]” (Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills, p. 7, emphasis added; Exhibit 3.) Removal of mature trees should be limited “[b]ecause it can take 30-40 years to replace canopy cover when a large tree is removed[.]” (Id., Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Beverly Hills, p. 25.) These guiding principles should be followed here.
A. The removal of the protected trees will adversely affect neighboring properties and the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area The City and the Project applicant attempt to justify the first of the two required findings by claiming that there will be no impacts to soil stability or retention and that the replacement trees will improve fire safety. All of these assertions are either wrong or non-sequiturs.
The applicant has failed to rebut the fact that mature trees (like the protected trees slated for removal here) provide a range of ecological benefits that cannot be replicated when those trees are replaced by younger trees. (See, e.g. Exhibit 4 [study explaining that “Biodiversity offsets often see young trees planted to offset the loss of older trees. Le Roux et al. (2015) demonstrated in urban parklands that many small trees do not accumulate the same number of bird species as a few large trees do.”].) Mature trees result in reduced energy costs by mitigating the heat island effect and by providing a wide range of other ecosystem services, and those benefits cannot be reproduced by replacing mature trees with immature trees. (See Exhibit 5 at p. 33; Exhibit 6 at p. 1776; Exhibit 7 at p. 3 [“canopy goals cannot be achieved immediately by planting immature trees”]; Exhibit 8 at p. 388 [“Vegetation structure is the most consistent predictor of garden avifauna, and management by householders and community groups should focus on the provision of habitat complexity by retaining tall and mature trees[.]”].) Evidence in the record supports the conclusion that these mature trees should be City Council of Beverly Hills
September 15, 2024
21153792.1
retained to ensure that they continue to provide habitat, shade, and other crucial ecological benefits to the City.
According to the September 3, 2024 letter from the applicant’s attorney (at p. 2), the replacement trees will take at least 15 years to reach the height of the existing trees: “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.” In other words, it will take a minimum of a decade and a half for the replacement trees to provide the same ecological benefits to the community.
The assertion that there will be no soil or stability impacts should not outweigh the wide range of adverse impacts that will result due to the loss of ecosystem services and other environmental benefits over a period of at least 15 years. Furthermore, the assertion that the replacement trees will provide fire safety benefits is not supported by evidence. Coastal Redwoods (Sequoia Sempervirens), in particular, have been well-documented to be extremely resilient during fire events. (See Exhibit 9.)
If the City Council is inclined to deny this appeal, then at the very least the tree removal permits should be conditioned to require the replacement of the mature heritage trees with other mature trees of the same size, age, and species. Alternatively, if it is feasible to relocate the trees on the Project site, then the City should require that as a condition of approval.
B. The removal of the protected tree will adversely affect the garden quality of the City
The applicant and the City have failed to show that substantial evidence supports the second of the two required findings for issuing tree removal permits. The evidence in the record supports a finding that there will, in fact, be substantial adverse impacts to the garden quality of the City as a result of replacing mature trees with immature replacement trees. Immature trees do not provide the same aesthetic benefits as mature trees, and they simply do not have the same “look” or “feel” as mature trees. (See Exhibits 3-8, supra.) Immature trees do not provide the same ecological benefits. (Ibid.) As discussed in further detail in the next section of this letter, when viewed in conjunction with the cumulative effect of region-wide canopy cover loss across the greater Los Angeles region, the loss of these three heritage trees will adversely affect the garden quality of the City.
V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT THE TREE
REMOVALS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
Contrary to the appellant’s contentions in their latest correspondence, the Project is not eligible for any of the classes of categorical exemptions (not Class 1, not Class 3, not Class 4, etc.). A CEQA exemption must be denied if significant cumulative impacts from projects of the same type will result (Guidelines, § 15300.2(b)). Here, the evidence shows that the Project will provide a substantial contribution to adverse cumulative environmental effects, including the region-wide loss of urban forest canopy cover.
But first, it is important to review the applicable legal principles. The CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are City Council of Beverly Hills
September 15, 2024
21153792.1
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (Guidelines, § 15355.) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or more than one project. (Guidelines, § 15355(a).) Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. (Guidelines, §15355(b).) A cumulative impact is an impact created by the combination of the project together with other projects causing related impacts. (Guidelines, § 15130(a)(1).) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental effect of the project when added to other past, present, and probable future projects. (Guidelines, §§ 15065(a)(3), 15130(b)(1)(A), 15355(b).) This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Id., §15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1228; see also Guidelines, §15355(b).)
The purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis is to avoid considering projects in a vacuum, because failure to consider cumulative harm may risk environmental disaster. (Whitman v.
Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408, citing Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway (2d Cir 1975) 524 F.2d 79). Without this analysis, piecemeal approval of several projects with related impacts could lead to severe environmental harm. (Golden Door Props., LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 527; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 720; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed’n v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306.) The applicant’s September 3 and September 11 letters do not provide a complete and accurate description of the standards that agencies must use when determining whether a project contributes to cumulative, region-wide environmental effects. An agency may not conclude that a cumulative impact is insignificant solely because the project’s contribution to an unacceptable existing environmental condition is relatively small. In Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718, the CEQA review concluded that a proposed cogeneration plant’s air emissions were not a significant cumulative impact, based on a determination that the plant’s emissions would be less than 1 percent of area emissions of the relevant pollutants. The court held that this conclusion improperly focused on the projectspecific impacts and did not properly consider the collective effect of the relevant projects on air quality. The court characterized the EIR analysis as a “ratio theory” that masked the seriousness of the cumulative problem; under such a theory, the larger the existing problem, the more likely that any proposed project would have an insignificant impact.
The court in Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, came to a similar conclusion. The EIR in that case reasoned that, because the noise level around two schools was already beyond the maximum specified by Department of Health guidelines, an expected addition of 5 decibels of traffic noise from development envisioned by the proposed specific plan would have an insignificant impact. The court rejected this approach, finding that it trivialized the project’s impact. The relevant issue, in the court’s view, was not the relative amount of project-generated traffic noise compared with existing traffic noise. Rather, the key question was whether the additional traffic noise should be considered significant in light of the serious existing noise problem. Because the EIR did not consider this issue, the court found its discussion of noise impacts inadequate. The court in Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1123, reached a similar result.
City Council of Beverly Hills
September 15, 2024
21153792.1
In Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, the court invalidated amendments to the CEQA Guidelines that provided that an EIR could find a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact “de minimis” if environmental conditions would essentially be the same with or without the project. The court reasoned that the relevant question is not how the project’s effect compares to a preexisting cumulative effect, but whether the project’s incremental effect should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative condition. The court also observed that “the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” At the same time, the court noted that this does not necessarily mean that any incremental contribution to an existing cumulatively significant environmental condition, no matter how small, must always be treated as a significant cumulative impact; the one-additional-molecule rule is not the law. CEQA requires that the lead agency analyze the question by assessing both whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (103 Cal.App.4th at 120.) Here, there is not just evidence of other large-scale removals of tree removals in the City (see Exhibit 10), but also cumulative region-wide canopy loss (see Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 12).
Based on the standards articulated in the relevant legal authorities, even a small contribution to this tremendous region-wide effect must be studied and (if possible) mitigated. The unique loss of the ecological and aesthetic benefits of the trees at issue here should be disclosed and evaluated in an appropriate CEQA document.
Very truly yours,
Ellis F. Raskin
Partner
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Modi Wiczyk
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 4:56:14 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Honorable Mayor Friedman, Vice-Mayor Nazarian, Councilmembers Mirisch, Corman and Wells,
My family and I have lived on Roxbury Drive for 16 of the past 22 years, spanning 3 different residences. We love this street! Naturally, we want to preserve the architectural and landscape/softscape quality of the neighborhood itself, as well as clear and consistent rules for residents in the city of Beverly Hills.
We are not fans of this appeal and are hoping you will reject it. The Bakers have gone to great lengths to follow the city’s rules and processes and have been approved (unanimously) by City Staff and Planners for a routine request to remove 3 trees (while replacing them with literally dozens more). We are as protective of this street as anyone, but not irrationally so and certainly not to make like difficult for people who are following the rules.
We like to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, whether as the owners or the neighbors. We think it would be fair that you protect those property owners who follow your laws, and observe your regulations. Just because neighbors have a sentimental attachment to something, it doesn’t mean they should bend the law to make our street conform to their personal preferences. That isn’t fair.
Hopefully you will nix this appeal.
With best regards,
Modi Wiczyk
Judie Fenton – Miles Lee
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
September 13, 2024
Dear Honorable Mayor Friedman, Vice-Mayor Nazarian, Councilmembers Corman, Mirisch and Wells,
The issue of the trees at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive is taking up time and effort from the Council’s agenda. And you also know that it is a rare occasion for Judie and I to speak out on any subject in a written communication in this manner. Judie and I urge you to turn down the appeal of the Planning Commission’s 5-0 approval vote to allow the Bakers to remove the specified three trees from their property.
The appointed commissioners worked diligently, with the community's best interests at heart. They deserve to have their decisions respected. Appeals are part of the process, but we feel strongly that in this situation, taking in the totality of the situation, there is no reason for the City Council to validate the appeal. The Planning Commission made their findings and it should be respected and upheld.
The Bakers have rights as property owners. We feel that they should be granted their permits and allowed to move forward.
Thank you for the time and dedication you all give to the City of Beverly Hills.
Sincerely,
Judie Fenton
Judie Fenton
Miles Lee
Miles Lee
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Jordana Yechiel
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Subject: 1001 Roxbury
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 3:00:08 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Sept. 15, 2024
Dear Esteemed Council Members,
My name is Jordana Reuben Yechiel and my home is on North Rexford. I have known the Baker family for many years, they were one of the first families that welcomed my family and meand made us feel at home when we moved from London to Los Angeles. We were thrilled for them when they purchased the lot at 1001 North Roxbury drive and have been impressed by their care for the environment, respect for the rules and neighbors, and their great taste as they work to develop the site for their future family home (which we eagerly await as gracious and lovely addition to the neighborhood).
The inappropriate derailment and ongoing delay of their process that we are seeing here sends a disturbing message to residents and future home buyers. It says that even though one followsrules, one can still be harassed, delayed, called up, and publicly made to justify the most minor of decisions while being forced to spend exorbitant amounts of time and money just for the rightto build a home on your own property. It deeply concerns me. It sends a destabilizing message to the real estate market. If we can’t rely on the good faith following of the city’s own rules to build on our private property, then why would someone want to spend the millions it requires to buy here? This should concern you too. What is happening to the Bakers could happen to any one of us in the city, their lot is no different than yours or mine.
Please turn down this appeal.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on this matter and for your generous service to the city.
With regards,
Jordana Reuben Yechiel
Rexford Drive 90210
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: Asif Satchu
To: City Clerk
Cc: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:10:19 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Mayor Friedman, Vice Mayor Nazarian, and Honorable Council Members Wells, Corman and Mirisch,
Our family has resided in Beverly Hills for the past 15 years. Over this time, we have benefited from the tremendous work conducted by leaders like you, various city commissions, administrators and city employees. Our neighborhood is vibrant and safe largely because of the efforts of these people. We are grateful for all the work (often done on a volunteer basis) that has made our neighborhood so special.
You have a tough task at times trying to balance the various voices and opinions of residents. We rarely write letters like this but are doing so because we know the owners of 1001 North Roxbury to be good neighbors, and we are quite concerned with the fact pattern (as we understand it) regarding an appeal against a granted permit. We believe this to be a very straightforward case and are concerned with a potential reversal of the approval.
The permit that the owners applied for was issued in a 5-0 Planning Commission vote 4 months ago and consists of relatively minor alterations to their home. The owners’ new landscaping plan includes replacement of only 3 (non-native, not climate adapted) trees plus over 40 more trees which use less water, are more fire-resistant, and are California-native. Their proposed landscape plan uses about 1/3 of the water that the prior landscaping is estimated to have consumed. This seems like an improved environmental outcome that is being hindered by subjective assessments and at the expense of the property rights of owners. That is a slippery slope which we should all guard against.
Indeed, the property at 1001 N. Roxbury (apart from being large) is in no way different from any other lot in the city. What is happening to this family could happen to any of us. Please deny the appeal.
Thank you for your consideration and once again we appreciate the work you provide for our community.
Sincerely,
The Satchu Family
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
From: andy licht
To: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; 14-Mary Wells Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 N. Roxbury appeal
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 11:59:08 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City Council Members:
It has come to my attention that there will be a hearing Tuesday regarding the decision to allow removal of trees from 1001 N. Roxbury. As a six-year member of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission, I was affectionately referred to as the "tree hugger" of the commission. That being said, I am in favor of affirming the Commissions 5-0 vote to allow for the removal of three trees from the Roxbury site.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision to demolish the prior structure or agrees or disagrees about the removal of the trees is not what is relevant here to me.
This is about the City's process. When I was a commissioner (and from my observations, still to this day), commissioner's spend an inordinate amount of time reading, analyzing and listening to testimony about projects prior to rendering a decision. It is a difficult and time-consuming task. When there is a unanimous decision, it is likely to be the correct decision. What message do you want to send to commissioners, residents and homeowners that these decisions are not binding? The State of California defines planning commissions as "...the final authority over a variety of discretionary development applications." Beverly Hills has a clear and successful process. Let's not damage it. Please reject the appeal.
Sincerely,
Andy Licht
Andy
Licht
licht entertainment
| suite 200
beverly hills, ca 90212