Planning Commission Report

Transcription

1 çbevrlrly City of Beverly Hills Planning Division 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA TEL. (310) FAX. (310) Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Subject: Project Applicant: Recommendation: April 12, DABNEY LANE Tree Removal Permit (PU ) Request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove four Heritage trees located within a front yard setback and a street side yard setback. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission will also consider adoption of a Categorical Exemption for this project. Richard Leyva, Leyva & Wilde, Inc., on behalf of Saeed Nourmand, property owner That the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive testimony on the project; and 2. Adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Tree Removal Permit. REPORT SUMMARY A request has been made for a Tree Removal Permit to remove four Heritage trees located within a front yard setback and a street side yard setback of the property located at. The Tree Removal request is being made pursuant to a private agreement between the 430 Dabney Lane property owner (Foliage Owner) and the 410 Chris Place property owner (View Owner). A View Restoration application (PL ) was filed by the View Owner, and subsequently withdrawn in September 2017 after the two parties reached a private agreement for the removal of the view-disrupting trees. Chapter 8 of the zoning code (View Restoration) requires a Tree Removal Permit to be obtained in accordance with Article 29 (Regulation of Trees on Private Property) for removal of a protected tree pursuant to an agreement between a View Owner and a Foliage Owner. The project does not require any other entitlements to be granted by the Planning Commission. This report provides a description of the request and analyzes key project components including the type, size, and location of the trees identified for removal and the proposed replacement trees. Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff concludes that approval of a Tree Removal Permit will not result in significant adverse impacts to the neighboring properties; the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; and, the garden quality of the City. Attachment(s): A. Required Findings B. Draft Resolution C. Arborist Report D. Public Notice E. Landscape Plans (provided as a separate attachment) Report Author and Contact Information: Cynthia de Ia Torre, Associate Planner (310) cdelatorre@beverlyhills.org 101

2 ierly Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 2 of 10 BACKGROUND File Date Application Complete CEQA Determination Permit Streamlining January 17, 2018 February 15, 2018 Class 1 Categorical Exemption for removal of trees that do not conform to the City s View Restoration ordinance, and planting of new trees that will comply with the City s ordinance. Additionally, an exemption pursuant to Section (b)(3), which states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Take action on project within 60 days of CEQA determination. Applicant(s) Owner(s) Representative(s) Saeed Nourmand Saeed Nourmand Richard Leyva, Leyva & Wilde, Inc. Prior PC Action Prior Council Action None None PROPERTY AND NEIGH Property Information Address Assessor s Parcel No. Zoning District General Plan BORHOOD SETTING R-1 Single-Family Residential Low Density Existing Land Use(s) Lot Area Year Built Historic Resource Protected Trees/Grove Adiacent Zoning and Land North East South Single-Family Residential Approximately 20,700 SF per the LA County Assessor Map Originally built in 1958 designed by Master Architect, Lundberg, Armet & Davis Designed by a Master Architect; potential historic resource Four Heritage trees Uses R-1 One-Family Residential R-1 One-Family Residential R-1 One-Family Residential 102

3 (9 Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 3 of 10 West Circulation and Parking Adjacent Street(s) Adjacent Alleys Parkways & Sidewalks R-1 One-Family Residential Dabney Lane / Loma Vista Drive N/A Dabney Lane Parkway: 5 each side Loma Vista Drive Parkway: 5 each side Parking Restrictions Nearest Intersection Overnight parking is prohibited Loma Vista Drive & Dabney Lane Neighborhood Character The subject property is located on Dabney Lane, north of Doheny Road, at the corner of Loma Vista Drive and Dabney Lane in Trousdale Estates. The City of Beverly Hills annexed Trousdale Estates 596 single-family residential lots on July 26, Major grading, including removal of most existing foliage, was completed to create flat building pads. View preservation standards were included in many, if not all, of the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions documents (CC&Rs), placed on the Trousdale tracts beginning in Although the CC&Rs expired in 2000, much of the content and intent of this document was incorporated by the City Council into the City s Zoning Code in The property is approximately 20,700 square feet in size and is located on the southeastern corner of the intersection at Dabney Lane and Loma Vista Drive. The site is currently developed with a one-story single family residence, attached garage, and pool built in A remodel of the existing residence, including additions and a new basement is currently in plan check. The surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of one-story single-family residences. The lot sizes along Dabney Lane and Loma Vista Drive are generally consistent in shape and vary between 20,700 square feet to 44,431 square feet in size; the average lot size is 25,784 square feet. The streetscape is moderately landscaped and a majority of the properties maintain visibility from the street. 103

4 LLS C Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 4 of JO PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant seeks to remove a total of seven trees on the project site. Four of the seven trees are protected Heritage trees and require a Tree Removal Permit for removal. Three of the four Heritage trees are located within the 15-foot front yard setback and one of the trees is located within both the front and street side yard setbacks. The protected trees are shown in the table and corresponding landscape plan below. 4 Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine) Figure 1 Aenalof Project Site (Foliage Owner) Courtesy of Google Maps Tree Number Species Native Circumference Location Color Legend No 49 Front Yard Setback 5 Pinus No 77 Front Yard halepensis Setback (Aleppo_Pine) 6 Pinus No 88 Front Yard halepensis Setback (Aleppo_Pine) 7 Pinus No 113 Front and Street halepensis Side Yard (Aleppo Pine) Setback Table I Protected Trees Proposed for Removal 104

5 Tree Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 5 of 10 - Figure 2 Removal Plan* Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) (Definitions), a Heritage tree is defined as any tree not listed on the City s official list of native trees with a primary trunk circumference of 48 or more, measured at a height of 4-6 above natural grade. None of the trees associated with this request (Aleppo Pines) are listed on the City s list of native trees; however, due to the size of the trees and their location within the required 15-foot front and street side yard setbacks, they are considered Heritage trees and are protected by the City s tree protection ordinance. I BHMC (Tree Removal Permit) 105

6 Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 6 of JO Figure 3 Image of Tree #4 Figure 4 Image of Trees #5, #6, and #7 106

7 tls C Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 7 of 1 0 Requested Entitlements. As proposed, the Project requires the following entitlement: Tree Removal Permit: The applicant seeks a Tree Removal Permit to remove four Heritage trees located within front and street side yard setbacks. Pursuant to BHMC , the Planning Commission may approve the removal of a protected tree under any circumstance. GENERAL PLAN2 POLICIES The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some policies relevant to the Planning Commission s review of the project include: Policy LU 2.1 City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors. Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City s distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces. Policy LU 5.1 Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City s residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City s identity, economic value, and quality of life. Policy LU 6.1 Neighborhood Identity. Maintain the characteristics that distinguish the City s single-family neighborhoods from one another in such terms as topography, lot size, housing scale and form, and public streetscapes. Policy OS 6 Visual Resource Preservation. Maintenance and protection of significant visual resources and aesthetics that define the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) in accordance with the requirements of Section of the Guidelines. Specifically Subsection H, which relates to maintenance of existing landscaping associated with an existing single-family residence. In the case of the proposed project, maintenance consists of the removal of trees that do not conform to the City s View Restoration ordinance, and planting of new trees that will comply with the City s ordinance. Additionally, the project appears to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. 2 Available online at httr:// 107

8 C Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 8 of 10 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION Type of Notice Requited Period Actual Period Requited Actual Date Date Newspaper Notice n/a n/a n/a n/a Mailed Notice 10 Days 13 Days 4/2/2018 3/30/2018 (Adjacent Property Owners) Property Posting n/a n/a n/a n/a Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 4/5/2018 4/5/2018 Website (Agenda) 72 Hours 7 Days 4/5/2018 4/5/2018 Public Comment As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comments regarding the project. ANALYSIS3 Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary application requested by the applicant. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided as Attachment A to this report, and may be used to guide the Planning Commission s deliberation of the subject project. In reviewing the requested entitlement, the Commission may wish to consider the following information as it relates to the project and required findings. Loss of Protected Trees. The proposed project would result in the loss of four Heritage trees located within the front yard, adjacent to Dabney Lane, and the street side yard, adjacent to Loma Vista Drive. Trees are considered to be protected when they are a native species with a trunk circumference of 24 or greater or a non-native species with a trunk circumference of 48 or greater (i.e., Heritage trees) and are located either within the required front yard or street side yard or between the existing and/or proposed residence and the street, if that distance is greater than the required front and street side yard setbacks4. The four protected trees are considered Heritage trees as they are not a native species but have a circumference of 48 or greater. Removal of protected trees requires discretionary review by the Planning Commission to ensure that such removal will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area and that the garden quality of the City is not adversely impacted. The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission, in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony, may teach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternate findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 4BHMC O1 A.1 &A.2 108

9 clls Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 9 of 10 Trousdale Estates is unique in that it is renowned for views of the Los Angeles basin. The CC&Rs, which were used to create today s development standards for Trousdale Estates, reflect the need for preservation of views in this area and the maintenance of the unique character of the neighborhood. Maintaining the four protected Pine trees would adversely affect neighboring properties, located above the project site, that have a view of the Los Angeles basin as the 45 -tail trees are located within a view corridor oriented toward the Los Angeles basin. While the trees qualify as Heritage trees due to their size and location, Pine trees are also on the City s nuisance tree list5 because they meet the following criteria: grow rapidly and exceed a height of at maturity; cannot be topped off easily and repeatedly pruned to maintain appropriate heights; and are known fire hazards. According to the arborist report first submitted as part of the View Restoration request, Pine trees are not ideal candidates for pruning due to their physical characteristics and canopy structure. Due to the Pine trees massive trunks, trimming them to a maximum height of 15 would result in a severe tree topping effect that would lead to the eventual death of the trees. Additionally, Pine trees are susceptible to bark beetle infestation, especially during warmer months. Consequently, repeated pruning would not be feasible since the pruning would have to be limited to winter months when bark beetles are less active. Lastly, in terms of the health of the trees, the overall condition of the trees is fair, with the exception of tree #7, which is in a fair to poor condition. Tree Replacement and Landscaping. A total of seven trees are proposed to be removed from the project site, inclusive of the four Heritage trees subject to the Tree Removal Permit request. Removal of the Pine trees would not adversely affect the surrounding area nor to the garden quality of the City because the applicant proposes to mitigate the loss of the trees with four, 48 box trees that will be maintained at a maximum height of 15 (see Attachment E). Within the front yard area, five Fruitless Olive trees (48 box size) are proposed to be planted, along with three Japanese Maple trees (36 box size) outside of the front yard area, as part of a landscaping plan to offset the loss of the four Heritage trees proposed for removal. Staff recommends that two, rather than three, trees be planted in the front yard area close to the street side yard setback in order to provide adequate spacing between the trees in this location and to allow for healthy growth of the replacement trees. Planting two trees in this location is an appropriate measure that will prevent potential crowding of the root systems belonging to the proposed trees. While the new trees will not reach the height or maturity of the existing Heritage trees, the proposed landscaping plan will allow for the protection of the environment and the preservation of the character of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood. Nuisance trees are not recommended to be newly planted in Trousdale. Other nuisance trees include Eucalyptus, Italian Cypress, Ficus, Canary Island Date Palm, King Palm, and Queen Palm (View Restoration Guidelines). 109

10 çierly (,) Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Page 10 of 1 0 As such, it is not anticipated that the removal of the four Heritage trees will adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare and safety of the surrounding area. NEXT STEPS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt a resolution conditionally approving the requested Tree Removal Permit. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions of approval. 2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings. 3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines. Report Reviewed By: Ryr(Ghlich, AICP, City Planner I Assistant Cd9pinity Development Director 110

11 IL2 c,) Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Attachment A Required Findings 111

12 Tree Removal Permit 1. The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area. 2. The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the garden quality of the City. 112

13 Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Attachment B Draft Resolution 113

14 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE FOUR HERITAGE TREES LOCATED WITHIN A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 430 DABNEY LANE (PL1$00475). determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and Section 1. Saeed Nourmand, (the Applicant ), has submitted an application for a Tree Removal Permit to remove four Heritage trees located within the front yard setback and a street side yard setback of the property located at (the Project ). The Tree Removal request is being made pursuant to a private agreement that resulted from the View Restoration process between the property owner (the Foliage Owner ) and the 410 Chris Place property owner (the View Owner ). A View Restoration application (PL ) was filed by the View Owner, and subsequently, withdrawn in September 2017 after the two parties reached a private agreement for the removal of the view-disrupting trees. Chapter 8 of the zoning code (View Restoration) requires a Tree Removal Permit to be obtained in accordance with Article 29 (Regulation of Trees on Private Property) for removal of a protected tree pursuant to an agreement between a View Owner and a Foliage Owner. Section 2. The Project consists of the removal of four Heritage trees located within a front yard setback and a street side yard setback. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) , a Heritage tree is defined as any tree not listed on the City s official 114

15 list of native trees with a primary trunk circumference of 48 or more, measured at a height of 4-6 above natural grade. The trees proposed for removal include the following: Tree Number Species Native Circumference Location 4 Pinus halepensis No (Aleppo Pine) Front Yard Setback Pinus halepensis No 77 Front Yard Setback (Aleppo_Pine) Pinus halepensis No 88 Front Yard Setback (Aleppo_Pine) Pinus halepensis No 1 13 Front and Street (Ateppo Pine) Side Yard Setback Aleppo Pines are not considered native species; however, as each identified tree has a circumference of 42 or greater, they are considered Heritage trees and subject to the City s tree protection ordinance. 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. The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) in accordance with the requirements of Section of the Guidelines. Specifically Subsection H, which relates to maintenance of existing landscaping associated with an existing single-family residence. In the case of the proposed project, maintenance consists of the removal of trees that do not conform to the City s View Restoration ordinance, and planting of new trees that will comply with the City s ordinance. Additionally, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section (b)(3), which states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment

16 Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on March 30, 2018 to adjacent property owners whose property rights may be substantially affected by the approval of the requested permit. On April 12, 2018, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting. Section 5. In reviewing the request for a Tree Removal Permit, the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project: 1. The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; and 2. The removal of the protected tree will not adversely affect the garden quality of the City. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Tree Removal Permit: 1. The proposed project will result in the loss of four Heritage trees located within the front yard, adjacent to Dabney Lane, and the street side yard, adjacent to Loma Vista Drive on a site in Trousdale Estates. Trousdale Estates is unique in that it is renowned for views of the Los Angeles basin. The CC&Rs, which were used to create today s development standards for Trousdale Estates, reflect the need for preservation of views in this area and the maintenance of the unique character of the neighborhood. Maintaining the four protected Pine trees would adversely affect neighboring properties, located above 3 116

17 the project site, that have a view of the Los Angeles basin as the 45 -tall trees are located within a view corridor oriented toward the Los Angeles basin. While the trees qualify as Heritage trees due to their size and location, Pine trees are also on the City s nuisance tree list for Trousdale Estates because they meet the following criteria: grow rapidly and exceed a height of at maturity; cannot be topped off easily and repeatedly pruned to maintain appropriate heights; and are known fire hazards. Therefore, the removal of the four Heritage trees will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare and safety of the surrounding area. 2. A total of seven trees are proposed to be removed from the Project site, inclusive of the four Heritage trees subject to the Tree Removal Permit request. Removal of the Pine trees would not adversely affect the surrounding area nor the garden quality of the City because the Applicant proposes to mitigate the loss of the four trees with four, 48 -box trees that will be maintained at a maximum height of 15. Within the 15 front yard area, five Fruitless Olive trees are proposed to be planted, along with three 36 -box Japanese Maple trees outside of the front yard area as part of a comprehensive landscaping plan in conjunction with the remodel of the residence. Staff recommends that two, rather than three, trees be planted in the front yard area close to the street side yard setback in order to provide adequate spacing between the trees and allow for healthy growth of the replacement trees. Planting two trees in this location is an appropriate measure that will prevent potential crowding of the root systems belonging to the proposed trees. While the new trees will not reach the height or maturity of the existing Heritage trees, the proposed landscaping plan will allow for the protection of the environment and the preservation of the character of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the 4 117

18 removal of the four protected, Heritage trees will not adversely affect the garden quality of the City. Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby grants the requested Tree Removal Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscape plan shall be revised to eliminate one of the 48 -box Fruitless Olive trees proposed in the front yard area close to the street side yard setback. 2. This approval is for those plans submitted to the Planning Commission on April 12, 2018, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the Community Development Department. The tree removal and planting plan shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. 3. The proposed trees shall be maintained at a maximum height of Minor amendments to the approved project shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. A significant change to the approved project, as determined by the Director, shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. 5. APPEAL. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk s office. Decisions involving subdivision maps must be appealed within ten (10) days of the Planning Commission Action. An appeal fee is required. 6. RECORDATION. The resolution approving Tree Removal Permit shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this 5 118

19 resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of the resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 60 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 60 days, this resolution approving the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a request by the Applicant, grant a waiver from the 60-day time limit if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state, or local law that would affect the Project. 7. EXPIRATION. Tree Removal Permit: The exercise of rights granted in such approval shall be commenced within three (3) years after the adoption of such resolution unless otherwise extended in accordance with the provisions of Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. 8. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in City enforcement actions seeking any and all remedies, including seeking recovery of City s costs associated with any such enforcement actions. 9. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project

20 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: April 12, 2018 Lori Greene Gordon Chair of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Attest: Ryan Gohlich, AICP Secretary of the Planning Commission Approved as to form: Approved as to content: David M. Snow Assistant City Attorney Ryan Gohlich, AICP Assistant Director / City Planner Community Development Department 7 120

21 Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Attachment C Arborist Report 121

22 The Tree Resource Lisa Smith, Registered Consulting Arborist #464 November 2$, 2016 Saeed Nourmand Beverly Hills, CA Dear Mr. Nourmand, This letter is in regards to your property at, and the trees on your property that are obstructing a neighbor s view of the Los Angeles Basin. The purpose of this report is to identify and document the trees that you have agreed to remove from your property per the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance. SITE HISTORY & SUMMARY The subject property is located in the Trousdale Estates area of Beverly Hills, which was initially developed to optimize the views of the Los Angeles Basin. As Trousdale has matured, select areas of the tree canopy have impeded some of the views that were the original intent of the community. In response, the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance was created in 2011 to address the issue of views that have been impaired by foliage growing on a neighbor s property in Trousdale Estates. In accordance with this ordinance, I understand you have agreed to remove seven (7) trees from your property that are obstructing a neighbor s view of the Los Angeles Basin. TREE CHARACTERISTICS AND SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located on the corner of Loma Vista Drive and Dabney Lane, with a wide circular driveway and front entrance oriented towards Dabney Lane. There are three (3) trees in the rear yard of the property requested for removal and four (4) trees in the front setback of the property. These four (4) trees are Aleppo Pine (Pinus hatepensis) trees, each with a trunk circumference of over 48 inches. Due to the trunk size of these trees and their location in the front setback of the property, they are considered Protected Heritage trees by the City of Beverly Hills

23 Poor Tree Location Map. Trees #4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are Heritage Trees in the front setback of the residence. Tree #8 is less than 48 in trunk circumference and is not Heritage size. Trees #1, 2, and 3 are located in the tear yard of the property and are not Protected by the City of Beverly Hills. Summary of Field Inspection Tree Location Species Status DBH Circ. Retain or (1k) Condition () Remove I Backyard Chinese Elm Ulmus paniifolia Nonprotected 20@2 63 Poor Remove 2 Backyard Silk Oak Grevillea robusta Nonprotected Fair Remove 3 Backyard Silk Oak Grevillea robusta Nonprotected Fair Remove Front Setback Aleppo Pine Pinus halepensis Heritage Fair Remove Front Setback Aleppo Pine Pinus halepensis Heritage Fair Remove 6 Front Setback Aleppo Pine Pinus halepensis Heritage Fair Remove Front Setback Aleppo Pine Pinus halepensis Heritage Fair - Remove 8 Front Brazilian Pepper Non- Setback Schinus terebinthilolius protected Fair Retain Front Setback Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Heritage Fair Retain 2 123

24 SUBJECT TREES The property is in the jurisdiction of the City of Beverly Hills and guided by the Regulation of Trees on Private Property BHMC (Ordinance No ). This Ordinance defines Protected Trees as Heritage size trees, Native trees, or Urban Groves in the front setback of the property. Chinese Elm #1 and Silk Oaks #2 and #3 do not fall into any of the three categories of Protected Trees are not considered Protected by the City of Beverly Hills. These trees are recommended for removal due to view obstruction. There are two (2) Brazilian pepper trees (#8 and #9) in the front set back of the property that have been documented for the purpose of this report but are not obstructing your neighbor s view and will be retained. Aleppo pines #4, #5, #6, and #7 are Heritage size trees in the front set back of the property. This collection of trees is obstructing your neighbor s view. Unfortunately, due to their individual species characteristics, these trees are not appropriate candidates for pruning techniques, like crown reduction, necessary to restore the View Owner s Protectable View. These trees are recommended for removal. Meppo Pine (Pinus hatepensis) The four (4) Aleppo Pines in the front setback of the property are Hertitage size and are considered Protected by the City of Beverly Hills. The Aleppo Pine is one of several pine species prevalent in the Los Angeles area. The City of Beverly Hills now considers pines in general to be ccnuisance Trees per the Landscape Standards for Trousdale Estates published under the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance in 2011 and does not allow new pines to be installed in the Trousdale Estates area. The four (4) subject Heritage Aleppo Pines are approximately forty-eve feet (45 ) tall. The structure of the canopy does not show satisfactory locations for pruning the tree back to a dedicated height one foot (1 ) above height of the Foliage Owner s roof. Due to the structure of these trees, there are no pruning options appropriate for managing the height of these trees. and these trees are recommended for removal and replacement with a more appropriate species with a maximum height of 30 or under. Please see the attached Photo Appendix for photographs of the subject trees

25 The ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The four (4) Protected Heritage Aleppo pines in the front set back and three (3) Non-Protected trees in the rear yard of this property are recommended for removal in compliance with the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance. Though it is unfortunate to lose these trees, there are also factors that make this an excellent opportunity to remove and replace them. Regarding the installation of new trees on this property, the landscape standards of Trousdale Estates recommend the following criteria for new tree selection: Grow to a maximum size that would not likely result in disruption of a view (maximum height of feet); Can be easily and repeatedly pruned to maintain appropriate heights; Are appropriate to the climate and water conditions of Beverly Hills and would not negatively impact to slope stability. Appropriate species for this area include Crape Myrtle (Ltgerstroemia indica), Western redbud (Cercis occidentatis,), or pineapple guava (Acca settowiana). CONCLUSION The recommended restorative action for this case is to remove trees that are too large and overgrown to be successful candidates for crown reduction and retention. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) Respectfully submitted, Lisa Smith Lisa Smith Tree Resource Registered Consulting Arborist #464 ISA Certified Arborist #WE3782 ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Member of American Society of Consulting Arborists 4 125

26 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions No warranty is made, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees or the property will not occur in the future, from any cause. The Consultant shall not be responsible for damages or injuries caused by any tree defects, and assumes no responsibility for the correction of defects or tree related problems. The owner of the trees may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the Consultant, or seek additional advice to determine if a tree meets the owner s risk abatement standards. The Consulting Arborist has no past, present or future interest in the removal or retaining of any tree. Opinions contained herein are the independent and objective judgments of the consultant relating to circumstances and observations made on the subject site. The recommendations contained in this report are the opinions of the Consulting Arbotist at the time of inspection. These opinions are based on the knowledge, experience, and education of the Consultant. The field inspection was a visual, grade level tree assessment. The Consulting Arborist shall not be required to give testimony, perform site monitoring, provide further documentation, be deposed, or to attend any meeting without subsequent contractual arrangements for this additional employment, including payment of additional fees for such services as described by the Consultant. The Consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information. This Arbotist report may not be reproduced without the express permission of the Consulting Arborist and the client to whom the report was issued. Any change or alteration to this report invalidates the entire report

27 The Tree Resource November 2016 APPENDIX - PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTO 1. The subject Pdeppo Pines on the corner of the property at Dabney Lane. Photo Appendix 127

28 The Tree Resource November 2016 PHOTO 2. Shows Brazilian pepper trees #8 and #9, which are in the front setback of the property. These trees are included in this report because of their location in the front set back of the property. They are not blocking the neighboring view and will not be removed. Photo Appendix 128

29 The Tree Resource November 2016 PHOTO 2. Shows Silk oak #2 and #3 and Chinese elm #1 in the rear yard of the property. Photo Appendix 129

30 çierly Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Attachment D Public Notice 130

31 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING HEARING DATE: April 12, 2018 TIME: LOCATION: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard Commission Meeting Room 280A Beverly Hifis City Hall 455 North Rexford Drive Beverly Hifis, CA (cross Street: Loma Vista Drive) The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, at its REGULAR meeting on Thursday, April 12, 2018, will hold a public hearing beginning at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove four (4) Heritage trees located within the front and street side yard setbacks for a property located in Trousdale Estates at 4.Q Dabney Lane. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code , the Planning Commission may issue a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of a protected tree under any circumstance if it is determined that the removal of the tree will not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety or the surrounding area and will not adversely affect the garden quality of the City. A Heritage tree is a protected tree not listed on the City s official list of native trees but with a primary trunk circumference of 48 or more. This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project appears to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) in accordance with the requirements of Section of the 131

32 Guidelines. Specifically Subsection H, which relates to maintenance of existing landscaping associated with an existing single-family residence. Additionally, the project appears to also be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which states that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The four Heritage trees are proposed to be removed in accordance with the municipal code, and would be replaced by 48 -box trees in similar locations. Any interested person may attend the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the Commission. Written comments also maybe submitted prior to the public hearing to the Planning Division, via mail: attn. Cynthia de la Torre, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Pt Floor, Beverly Hills, CA Written comments may also be submitted via to cdelatorre@beverlyhills.org. Any written comments received by Wednesday, April 4, 2018 will be attached to the agenda report regarding this item. Any comments received after April 4, 2018, but prior the public hearing, will be distributed to the Commission under separate cover. Please note that any comments received prior to or during the public hearing will be considered as part ofthe public record. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Commission s action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Cynthia de la Torre, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at (310) , or by at cdelatorre@beverlybills.org. Copies of the project plans and associated application materials are on ifie in the Community Development Department, and can be reviewed by any interested person at 455 North Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA Sincerely: Cyna de la Torre, Associate Planner Mailed: March 29, 2018 J In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Commission Meeting Room 280A is wheelchair accessible and is equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired. If you need special assistance to attend this meeting, please call the Planning Division at (310) or b TrY (310) Please notify the Planning Division at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting if you requite captioning service so that reasonable arrangements can be made. ( 132

33 ierly Planning Commission Report April 12, 2018 Attachment E Landscape Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment) 133