During a July 16 study session, the Beverly Hills City Council was split over whether to review a Planning Commission decision allowing the removal of three heritage trees at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive, the former site of a historic home beloved by many residents.
If the plan goes forward, crews will remove two Coastal Redwoods and one London Plane Sycamore from the property, though they will also have to plant three replacement trees before the building permits are issued, according to a staff report. Of the 44 trees on the property, 30 are designated as “protected,” including the three slated for removal.
However, an attorney for Maple Leaf Ventures, LLC, filed a July 9 appeal of the Planning Commission decision, claiming it was not supported by evidence, violates the California Environmental Quality Act and that surrounding property owners were not properly notified of the June 26 Planning Commission hearing.
Although the council will have to hear that appeal before deciding on the Planning Commission approval, there was some disagreement about whether that approval should be reviewed at all.
While Mayor Lester Friedman, Vice Mayor Sharona Nazarian and Councilmember Mary Wells were not in favor of “calling up” the Planning Commission’s decision before hearing the appeal, Councilmembers John Mirisch and Craig Corman said the council should look closer at the project’s merits because the property has such rich cultural value.
The property was formerly home to a regency revival house built in 1941 by master architect Carleton Burgess, and it was demolished in 2022 after a heated public campaign to save the historic residence.
StubHub Co-Founder Eric Baker purchased the home for more than $39 million in 2020, and in 2021, Baker requested that the city issue a certificate of ineligibility, certifying that the home does not have historic value and paving the way for it to be raised.
Corman, who served on the Planning Commission before being elected to the council, said the council should be careful about reviewing commission decisions, which can erode the public’s trust in commissions. He also noted that the property owner has claimed there is no need for the council to call up the matter because of the pending appeal.
“I believe our decision to call up a matter is not dependent on the existence or absence of an appeal petition,” Corman said. “It should be decided on the facts, and in particular on whether we either wonder whether an error might have been made, or whether the matter in question has such special importance to the entire community that the community should be given every opportunity to weigh in.”
He recognized that while only two community members spoke during the study session and during the June 26 Planning Commission meeting where the tree removal was approved, items frequently attract more public comment when they move from a commission to the council’s formal agenda, and he has already received multiple calls about the tree removal.
“For all these reasons, I would call up the tree removal permit decision, and furthermore, I believe we should assiduously vet every aspect of the project as it moves forward,” Corman said.
Mirisch, who asked to discuss the matter during the study session, seconded Corman’s statements, and said that as a matter of principle, he believes the council must approve a project before approving the removal of trees on the property.
In 2022, Mirisch was the sole councilmember to dissent from a council decision affirming that the regency revival house was not historic.
Ellis Raskin, attorney for Maple Leaf Ventures, agreed that the matter should be called up by the council. He said that the city has lost substantial portions of its urban forest in recent years, and the project, which calls for replacement trees that would take decades to mature, “is a significant loss on the community and city.”
Raskin declined to identify the owners of Maple Leaf Ventures.
Nazarian encouraged the property owners to find a solution that reflects the community’s concerns, but at the end of the day, she said it’s their property and they should be allowed to build accordingly.
“I support and appreciate these incredibly amazing trees,” Nazarian said. “I’d like to see the largest possible trees be replaced instead of them, and I know that there are steps being taken for that.”
Friedman added that he is “loathe” to call up a Planning Commission decision that was unanimously approved, and said the appeal renders the issue basically moot.
The appeal decision is scheduled for Sept. 10.
