c! LY AGENDA REPORT Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Director of Community Development Meeting Date: June 29, 2017 Item Number: f i

Transcription

1 c! LY AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: June 29, 2017 Item Number: To: From: f i Honorable Mayor & City Council Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Director of Community Development Subject: HEARING DATE FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION S MAY11, 2017 DECISION DENYING A HILLSIDE R-1 PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN 1,500 CUBIC YARDS OF EARTH MATERIAL TO BE IMPORTED OR EXPORTED FROM A SITE IN THE HILLSIDE AREA THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A STREET THAT IS LESS THAN TWENTY FOUR FEET (24 ) WIDE. Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition 2. Planning Commission Resolution No RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council schedule an appeal of the Planning Commission s decision denying a Hillside R-1 Permit to allow more than 1,500 cubic yards of earth material to be imported or exported from a site in the Hillside Area that is immediately adjacent to a street that is less than twenty four feet (24 ) wide for the property located at 1260 Lago Vista Drive for the City Council meeting on August 8, DISCUSSION On May 11, 2017, the Planning Commission denied a Hillside R-1 Permit to allow more than 1,500 cubic yards of earth material to be imported or exported from a site in the Hillside Area that is immediately adjacent to a street that is less than twenty four feet (24 ) wide for the property located at 1260 Lago Vista Drive. The Hillside R-1 Permit denied by the Planning Commission would preclude the property owner from exporting not less than 2,498 cubic yards of in-ground, compacted earth material. On May 18, 2017, Benjamin Reznik, a representative of the property owner, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission s decision. Page 1 of 2

2 Meeting Date: June 29, 2017 PROCESS Pursuant to Beverly Hill Municipal Code Section , the procedure for appeals of Planning Commission decisions to the City Council is a two-step process. The matter is first placed on the Council agenda for review of the evidence presented in the appeal petition. If the evidence and information presented in the appeal is the same as was presented to the Planning Commission, the Council can then set a public hearing to consider the appeal. However, if the appeal petition contains new information, the Council may order that the Commission rehear the matter. Planning Staff and the City Attorney s Office have reviewed the appeal petition and do not believe that new information beyond that already considered by the Planning Commission is presented therein. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council formally schedule this matter for a formal public hearing on August 8, 2017 to consider the appeal. Notice of the hearing will be provided pursuant to the Municipal Code requirements, and to staff s list of interested parties. Susan Healy Keene, AICP Director of Community Development iziw /alt_ Appro 9d y Page2of2

3 CD 0 ECD

4 . A PPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITh THE CITY CLERK S OFFICE WITi 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION APPEAL TO City Council COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT C LEARL Y IA1 BLACK INK May 18, 2017 In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Planning Commission (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on 2017: which decision consisted of: The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State grounds for appeal. Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. (Ice extra paper ij necessary.) _4yjj Date SEE ATTACHMENT, The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: Ryan Goblich, Assistant Director. Community Development Department (Department Head(s) Involved) on May 11,2017 Date It is requested that written notice of the time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council he sent to: Benjamin Reznik of JMBM 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th FIr., Los Angeles CA Name Address T. (310) Telephone Number & Fax Number Fee Paid $,23loD (For City Clerks use) DATE RECEIVED LOG NO. 21x17 Written Notice mailed to appellant: Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney. Community Development Involved Department..,1) r- -c - a ri OL<c

5 bmcorñ Benjamin M. Reznik Direct: BMRiJMBM.CDM 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, California (310) (310) Fax May23,2017 VIA hand DELIVERY Hon. Liii Bosse, Mayor, and Hon. Members of the Beverly Hills City Council City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA Re: 1260 Lago Vista Drive Hillside R-1 Permit (PL ) APPEAL OF MAY 11, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Dear Mayor Bosse and Hon. Members of the Beverly Hills City Council: Our office represents the owner of 125$ and 1260 Lago Vista Drive, Beverly Hills, (the Property ) in connection with its application to construct one new single-family home in full compliance with the Hillside R-1 Penmit requirements. We submit this letter in support of applicant s appeal of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission s May 11, 2017 decision - as set forth in its yet to be published resolution (the Resolution ) - to deny applicant s Hillside R-1 Permit to export 2,498 cubic yards of soil (the R-l Permit ). This denial was premised on an improper interpretation of the Hillside R- 1 Permit standards, as well as: (i) irrelevant and arbitrary considerations inapplicable to the requested R-1 Permit; (ii) blanket assumptions of substantial adverse impacts not supported by evidence in the record; and (iii) an arbitrary refusal by the Planning Commission to consider the effectiveness of applicant s proposed safety measures specifically crafted to address those impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Commission action constitutes an abuse of discretion, a clear violation of applicant s due process rights, and an improper application of Beverly Hills Municipal Code ( BHMC ) Section (the Ordinance ). Applicant therefore requests the City Council grant this appeal, and overturn the Planning Commission denial of the R-1 Pennit. PROJECT BACKGROUND The owner proposes to construct a new single-family home on an irregularly shaped.91 acre lot. The new home will be 28-8 in height, and will include a cumulative floor area of 10,228 square feet in full compliance with city codes. The project was originally conceived and proposed in August of 2015 as a fully by-right two-story home with basement. A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations I Los Angeles San Francisco Orange County

6 Beverly Hills City Council May23,2017 Page 2 Due to the highly irregular shape of the lot, the project as designed requires the export of 2,498 square feet of earth materials. In August of 2016, while the project plans were undergoing plan check review, the City Council modified the hillside rules in several respects, including reducing the cumulative amount of earth export that triggers a need for an R- 1 Permit on a street that is less than 24 feet in width from 3,000 cubic yards to 1,500 cubic yards. The new Ordinance also contained separate provisions that regulate the size of development pads, landform alterations, and grading. The intent of the proposed Ordinance was not to stop all large hillside development, but to require certain projects to undergo a more thorough City review, and to assure that associated neighborhood impacts would be offset by mitigation measures instituted as conditions of approval which otherwise could not have been required for a by-right development. Although applicant s project was submitted and fluily accepted for plan check before the adoption of the Ordinance, the City determined that the project was nevertheless subject to it, and applicant was required to apply for a Hillside R-1 Pennit in order to authorize its proposed hauling along a short quarter-mile segment of Lago Vista Drive. After already incurring substantial delays in plan check, applicant proceeded to file for the necessary supplemental R- 1 Permit. The request was first scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on february 9, In preparation for this hearing, planning staff prepared a staff report recommending approval of the R-1 Permit with conditions, fmding that the conditions of approval addressed the hauling impacts on the homes located along the 1,500 foot long stretch of Lago Vista Drive. These measures included, but were not limited to, the use of 8 flag persons coordinating traffic and haul trucks along the short route, as well as limited hauling hours between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The staff report prepared for this hearing concluded that, in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any substantial adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or sfreetscape. (Staff Report, February 9, 2017, Page 10.) The hearing scheduled for February 9, however, was continued on multiple occasions to allow for additional conununity involvement, public input, and to accommodate City elections. The application was finally heard by the Planning Commission on April 19, Although nothing about the project had changed between february 9 and April 19, the April 19, 2017 staff report was revised such that it no longer included a staff recommendation for project approval. The reason for withdrawal of the recommendation was that there was a great deal of interest and opposition to the home since issuance of the February 9 staff report. The Planning Commission conducted a long public hearing, and after taking multiple hours of testimony on issues relating to the design of the home and its basement, the composition of the exported soils, and the general dangers and inconveniences of hillside development, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution denying applicant s request for the export of soil. On May 11, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted the resolution of denial prepared by staff. To date, this resolution has still not been made public, and thus applicant is

7 Beverly Hills City Council May23,2017 Page 3 unable to address the exact text of the resolution in this appeal. Applicant now brings this appeal requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commissions erroneous denial, and provide applicant with a fair hearing that is properly limited to standards and criteria set forth in the controlling Ordinance. A. The City may only deny applicant s R-1 Permit if it finds that the proposed hauling will cause a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The project complies with all provisions of the City s zoning and building code, including all hillside regulations except that it seeks to export more than 1500 cubic yards of soil. As such it is subject to review and a public hearing as to the export of soil pursuant to BHMC (A), which provides as follows: Import And Export Of Material: The reviewing authority may issue a Hillside R-1 permit that: 1) allows the import or export of material from a site to exceed the standards set forth in section of this chapter, and 2) establishes the total amount of material that may be imported or exported from a site in the Hillside Area, if the reviewing authority finds that the import or export will not create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. As part of this detennination, the reviewing authority shall consider the street widths and street configuration in the neighborhood. The reviewing authority shall also consider haul routes, scheduling, phasing and safety precautions proposed in the Hillside R-1 pennit application. (BHMC (A)) As set forth in this section, an R-1 Permit for exporting in excess of 1500 cubic yards may only be denied if substantial evidence supports a finding that the export activity will create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The required factors and considerations that must be evaluated by the City are clearly set forth within BHMC (A) and include the relevant street widths, street configurations, haul route, scheduling, phasing and the safety precautions proposed by applicant. Issues pertaining to the size and design of the home are irrelevant and not material to this application, and cannot form a basis for the City to deny the R-1 Permit for export of soil. The Planning Commission completely disregarded these express limitations and instead hijacked the Ordinance and used it as justification and a basis for granting itself broad authority and discretion to review aspects of this project not relevant to the R-1 Permit for export of soil. Among such extraneous, irrelevant and erroneous considerations were the size and design of the home and its basement, the amount of bedrock underneath the home, the character of the proposed home, and consideration of whether the project complies with the City General Given the City s failure to timely release the Planning Commission s adopted resolution before the expiration of the appeal period, applicant reserves the right to modify, revise, and expand on the arguments set forth in this letter in advance of the City Council s hearing on this appeal.

8 Beverly Hills City Council May23,20l7 Page 4 Plan. All of these considerations, discussed at length by the Planning Commission, demonstrate clear error in considering the only issue before the City; i.e., whether the export activity will create a substantial adverse impact. The Planning Commission s extensive commentary on grading, for example, is completely disconnected from its authority to analyze the hauling activity. Grading is regulated by completely different sections of the BHMC not implicated by this approval, in particular, BHMC Section(s) and (B), and thus it is inappropriate for the City to use its authority to regulate hauling, as an alternative avenue for regulating grading. The scope of the City s review under this Ordinance is intended to be narrow and limited to the impacts from exporting more than 1500 cubic yards of soil, as confirmed in the original February 9, 2017 staff report. B. The Planning Commission finding that applicant s hauling will cause a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood is not supported by substantial evidence. In addition to considering completely irrelevant factors, the Planning Commission s denial of applicant s R-1 Permit relied on sweeping conclusions and findings unsupported with any evidence in the record. Fundamental legal principals mandate that any findings made by the Planning Commission must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, meaning facts or expert opinions supported by facts that are sufficiently reliable to have solid evidentiary value; expressions of subjective concerns and personal beliefs, however, do not constitute substantial evidence. Newberry Springs Water Ass h v County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 CA3d 740; Perley v Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 CA3d 424. Likewise, speculation, argument, and unfounded conclusions do not constitute substantial evidence. Pala Band of Mission Indians v County of San Diego (1998) 68 CA4th 556, 571; Citizens Comm. to Save Our Village v City of Claremont (1995) 37 CA4th 1157, The Planning Commission s denial of applicant s R-1 Permit failed to cite or rely on any evidence supporting a finding that applicant s proposed hauling activity will create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Instead, the denial relies primarily on factors and considerations that have nothing to do with applicant s proposed hauling activity. For example, the Planning Commission s Resolution discussed hillside development policies in the General Plan, the scale and mass of the existing residence, grading activities, and the perceptions of the proposed new home s design. These issues have absolutely no relevance to the question of whether the import or export will create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In failing to identify any actual evidence supporting a fmding that the hauling activity will produce a substantial adverse impact on the neighboring community, the Commission s denial of applicant s permit was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

9 Beverly Hills City Council May 23, 2017 Page 5 C. The Commission failed to adequately analyze, or even consider, whether applicant s proposed safety measures off-set the purported adverse impacts. Perhaps the most arbitrary aspect of the Planning Commission s action was its complete refusal to analyze, or even acknowledge, the several safety precautions and measures proposed by applicant to fully off-set any adverse impacts created by the hauling activity. The BHMC requires that the Commission shall [] consider haul routes, scheduling, phasing and safely precautions proposed. Thus, the BHMC imposes upon the City a mandatory duty to analyze any proposed safety precautions and evaluate whether and to what degree those measures off-set potential impacts. As noted above, this analysis was performed in the original February 9, 2017 staff report, which concluded that these measures adequately off-set any substantial adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. In considering applicant s R-l Permit, the Planning Commission completely failed in this respect, and denied the R-l Permit based on blanket statements that there exist certain segments of the route with limited visibility around corners andlor the potential for conflicting uses between hauling trucks and other vehicles. These conditions, which are typical of nearly every hillside street in the City, cannot aloiie constitute a basis to deny the permit, but instead are considerations that must be balanced in relation to applicants proposed safety measures. At no time did the Commission ever consider whether the proposed measures address those impacts. To the extent the Resolution referenced applicant s proposed safety measures at all, they were included in an attempt to comply with the Ordinance in form only, without any substantive analysis or consideration. The Planning Commission however, chose to ignore all mitigating factors and proposed safety precautions, including the haul route s topography, applicant s proposed scheduling, phasing, and the multiple safety precautions and safety measures. For example, absent from its Resolution is any actual consideration of the following critical details: (i) the proposed route travels over a substandard street for less than 1,500 feet, (ii) it will include six flaggers along that path - as well as an additional two flaggers at the Lago Vista Drive and Coldwater Canyon intersection and, (iii) applicant has agreed to haul only between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The failure of the Planning Commission to consider these measures in contravention of the BBMC, also results in a failure to explain how the measures fall short and/or what impacts remain unaddressed. This means it is impossible for an applicant to know what measures would mitigate any perceived impacts, leaving the door wide-open for the City to abuse this Ordinance as an avenue for subjective decision making and bias. D. The Planning Commission s denial of applicant s R-1 Permit constitutes a violation of applicant s substantive and procedural due process rights. Due to the potential for vague laws to be arbitrarily enforced and inconsistently applied, due process protections have been established to require laws that fail to fairly inform a person of what is prohibited or permitted, be deemed unconstitutionally vague. Kolender v

10 Beverly Hills City Council May 23, 2017 Page 6 Lawson (1983) 461 US 352, 357, 103 S Ct As explained by the United States Supreme Court, a law violates due process if it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits. Hill v. Colorado (2000) 530 U.S. 703, 732. The Court in Thibodeau elaborated on this concern, explaining that this nile is grounded in a constitutional principle that individuals should receive fair notice or warning when the state has prohibited specific behavior or acts. Thibodeau v. Portuondo (2d Cir. 2007) 486 F.3d 61, 65. Statutes, therefore, must provide explicit standards for those who apply them to avoid resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discrinthiatory application. Graynedv. City ofroclcford (1972) 408 U.S. 104, In the recent case Cunney v. Board of Trustees of the Village of Grand View (2d Cir. 2011) 660 F.3d 612, 625, the court found an ordinance regulating building height to be unconstitutionally vague, and the Court explained that the most fundamental protections of due process[,]... [is] that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of... statutes, and that [a]ll are entitled to be infonned as to what the State commands and forbids. (Id at 620.). In this instance, the Court explained that the property owner s due process rights were violated because the ordinance failed to give specific notice of how a permit applicant should design his site plan so that the proposed building complies with the restriction. The Court further explained that the ordinance provides no standard that can be objectively applied to determine if the conduct at issue... complies with the ordinance s restrictions. (Id at 622.) Here, in denying applicant s R-1 Permit, the Planning Commission stated expressly that it was not the responsibility of the Commission to prove the existence of a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood in applying the Ordinance, but instead, it was the applicant s burden to prove the non-existence of a substantial adverse impact. In this instance, the applicant proposed several measures to mitigate various impacts identified by staff hi denying the R- 1 Permit, however, the Commission did not identify any additional unmitigated adverse impacts, nor did it specify what specific impact the hauling would create that justified its denial. Instead, the Planning Commission used the process to issue a blanket denial of the project itself on grounds wholly irrelevant to the proposed hauling activity. Since no applicant can ever know what substantial adverse impacts are being assumed by the Planning Commission, and given that the Planning Commission asserts that there is no requirement that it identify Those impacts to an applicant, no applicant can ever bow what measures may be proposed to off-set these assumed impacts. Since it is impossible for an applicant to prove the non-existence of a non-disclosed substantial adverse impact, a denial of the request constitutes a violation of applicant s procedural and substantive due process rights.2 2 The City s denial of applicant s proposed new single-family homewould also be a violation of the California Housing Accountability Act (the HAA ). Government Code Section in this instance, the plan-check application for the proposed single-family home was deemed complete by the City on May 26, At that time, the home complied with all applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design

11 Beverly Hills City Council May 23, 2017 Page 7 Conclusion The intent of the R- 1 Permit approval process is to assure hauling operations are performed safely; it is not to disallow hauling over 1,500 cubic yards in all cases, nor is it to allow the City unbridled discretion to deny a single-family home because neighbors do not like the home s design or have a personal grudge against its owner. The Planning Commission s action of denying applicant s permit constituted a clear misapplication of the Ordinance, an inappropriate use of the Planning Commission s authority to consider issues completely unrelated to applicant s request, and a violation of applicant s procedural and substantive due process rights which protect against arbitrary, biased, and subjective decision making. We respectfully request therefore that the City Council overturn the Commission s decision, and approve applicant s R-1 Permit.3 BENJAMIN M. REZNIK DANIEL F. FREEDMAN of Jeffer MangeLs Butler & Mitchell LLP CC: Ryan Gohlich, AICP, Assistant Director, Community Development, City of Beverly Hills Cindy Gordon, AICP, Associate Planner, Community Development, City of Beverly Hills review standards in effect at that time. Accordingly, the City may not deny applicants proposed single-family home absent a showing of the necessary findings as required by the HAA, and a failure to set forth such findings would constitute a violation of the HAA. We reserve the right to supplement this letter and appeal with additional grounds of appeal and evidence supporting the grounds set forth herein. II!4h?1

12 0 0 Co CN C Co ci 0 -Jo C C U-

13 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION Of THE CITY Of BEVERLY HILLS DENYING A HILLSIDE R-1 PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPORT Of EARTH MATERIAL IN EXCESS OF 1,500 CUBIC YARDS WITHIN A five-year PERIOD IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION Of A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE family RESIDENCE THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A STREET THAT IS LESS THAN TWENTY FOUR FEET (24 ) WIDE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1260 LAGO VISTA DRIVE determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the city of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and Section 1. Maggie Cookman of Crest Real Estate, representative of Sagebrook Investments, LLC (the Applicant ), has submitted an application for a Hillside R-1 Permit to allow export of earth material in excess of 1,500 cubic yards within a five-year period in association with the construction of a new, two-story single-family residence that is immediately adjacent to a street that is less than twenty four feet (24 ) wide on the property located at 1260 Lago Vista Drive (the Project ). Section 2. The Project consists of the demolition of an existing, two-story single-family residence and the construction of a new, two-story single-family residence with a basement and subterranean parking. maximum proposed height of The cumulative floor area is 10,228 square feet with a The Project also includes a pool, a deck, and retaining walls. A code compliant accessory structure is proposed to be located filly within the rear setback on the northeastern portion of the property. The project would include site grading and export of not less than 2,498 cubic yards of in-ground, compacted earth material. When

14 excavated from the site, the 2,498 cubic yards could increase and swell to approximately 3,328 and up to 3,600 cubic yards of uncompacted earth material export; therefore, the number of truck trips necessary to export the earth material, including a significant amount of bedrock, would be between 27$ and 370 trips. Section 3. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.( CEQA ), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to Section of the Guidelines, a project that is disapproved or rejected by a public agency is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds the denial of the Project to be exempt from further environmental review. Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on January 30, 2017 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, and posted on the property. On February 9, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain at the request of the interested neighbors, and with concurrence of the applicant. The Project was subsequently re-scheduled for a special meeting of the Planning Commission on April 19, Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on April 6, 2017 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property and other interested parties, and posted on the property. On April 19, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the application at the duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting, and at the conclusion of deliberation, the Planning

15 Commission, by unanimous vote, directed staff to prepare a resolution memorializing denial of the Project because the Planning Commission could not make the required findings. Section 5. In reviewing the request for a Hillside R-1 Permit, the Planning Commission considered the following criteria: 1. Whether the import or export will create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission may approve the Hillside R-1 Permit if it finds that the export of earth material will not create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Section 6. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows regarding the Hillside R-1 Permit: 1. General Plan Policy LU 2.3, regarding Hillside Development, seeks to maintain the natural landforms that define the City and require that development on hillsides and in canyon areas be located, designed, and scaled to respect the natural topography and landscape. General Plan Policy LU 5.1 Neighborhood Conservation seeks to maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of life of the City s residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City s identity, economic value, and quality of life. The existing single-family residence is of a scale and mass similar to those in the immediate vicinity, and is built in a manner that is respectful of the natural topography, landscape, and neighborhood character in the area. The proposed Project consists of demolishing the existing single-family residence, expanding the 3

16 size of the level pad, significant excavation to accommodate the proposed residence, exporting not less than approximately 2,498 cubic yards of earth material, and potentially more than 3,600 cubic yards including a swell factor, and constructing a new two-story single-family residence with a basement. A portion of the basement would be visible from the street, which would result in the perception of a three-story structure when viewed from various vantage points. Overall, the Planning Commission finds that the increased scope of grading (including removal of substantial quantities of bedrock), export, construction activity, and resulting residence associated with the Hillside R- 1 Permit would materially alter, in a way that is readily perceptible, the natural landforms, topography, character of the neighborhood, and quality of life in a manner that is inconsistent with the abovementioned General Plan Policies. These General Plan inconsistencies demonstrate that the Project s export and underlying grading activities will create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. With respect to hauling activities associated with the grading and export of earth material, the Planning Commission has considered the noise associated with both the excavation and the transportation of the earth material from the site. The Planning Commission finds that the noise associated with bedrock removal, as well as the quantity and frequency of construction-related heavy hauling trips resulting from the additional grading and export of earth material is inconsistent with the use and enjoyment of adjacent residential properties in the surrounding neighborhood, and thus would cause a substantial 4

17 adverse impact due to the narrow width of Lago Vista Drive (22 in width), street curves with limited to no visibility (one of which is located immediately adjacent to the site), and the existing use of the street for residentially-oriented services. Additionally, the frequency and size of the heavy hauling trucks would cause increased safety risks and substantial vehicular delays on Lago Vista Drive and Coidwater Canyon Drive, the latter classified as a major collector thoroughfare in the City. Moreover, the Planning Commission is not persuaded that the mitigation proposed by the applicant will adequately ameliorate the impacts of the project on the neighborhood. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will have a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. further, the Planning Commission finds that the Project is inconsistent with applicable General Plan policies. Thus, the Planning Commission cannot make the required finding that proposed export would not create a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution. Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary findings to approve the Project, and hereby denies the requested Hillside R- 1 Permit. /1/ I/I 5

18 Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City, Adopted: May 11,2017,árshid Joe h6 shan hair of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Attest: S an ohhch, MC tary of the Planning Commission Approved as to form: Approved as to content: David M. Snow Assistant City Attorney y ohlich, AICP sistant Director / City Planner Community Development Department 6

19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY Of BEVERLY HILLS ) I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on May 11, 2017, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Corman, Licht, Vice Chair Gordon, Chair Shooshani None None Commissioner Block Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission City of Beverly Hills, California