Panel Opposes Annexing L.A. Street : Safety: Concerns over fire and police access prompted plans to absorb Hillgreen Drive, but costs of the shift may prove to be a roadblock.

A proposal that Beverly Hills annex 10 homes in a Los Angeles cul-de-sac hit a snag last week when the smaller city’s Public Works Commission unanimously recommended against the annexation because it would cost the city more than $200,000.

Los Angeles has already voted to give up the properties on Hillgreen Drive because of public safety concerns. The cul-de-sac, at the southern edge of Century City, is accessible only via Beverly Hills. Residents have long complained that firefighters and police officers have great difficulty finding the street.

Real estate professionals estimate that adoption of a Beverly Hills address would instantly increase the value of each home by at least $150,000. Residents would also have access to the city’s vaunted school system and municipal services.

Beverly Hills Public Works Supt. Dan Webster said in a report that the principal items in the estimated $200,000 it would cost the city to absorb Hillgreen Drive were installation and hookup of water and sewer lines and the repaving of the street.

An additional $150,000 would be required at the same time to replace nearby worn out Beverly Hills pipes. The cost of providing police, fire and other services has not been calculated yet.

Other Los Angeles neighborhoods adjacent to Beverly Hills have attempted to join themselves to the affluent city in past years, only to be blocked by Los Angeles’ unwillingness to give them up.

This time, however, Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky agreed to sponsor the detachment. Political foes promptly accused him of doing a favor for Hillgreen homeowner Abe Knobel, a campaign contributor. Knobel is a key member of a committee studying the controversial proposal by 20th Century Fox to expand its nearby studio property.

Yaroslavsky bitterly disputes the charges, saying his decision is based on public safety concerns alone. His spokeswoman, Katharine Macdonald, said Thursday that Yaroslavsky had no stake in the annexation and had no objection to whatever Beverly Hills decided.

The matter was before the Beverly Hills Public Works Commission because the City Council had asked the panel to study the costs of taking in the Hillgreen homes and to recommend a policy. Based on those costs, “We recommended that annexation would not be appropriate,” said Mark Egerman, chairman of the panel, in an interview.

Webster emphasized that the commission vote was advisory only and that it was too soon to know if it would carry any weight in the final staff plan being prepared by the Planning Department. The annexation matter will be taken up later by the Beverly Hills Planning Commission. The final ruling--a political decision, Webster said--will be made by the City Council.

Hillgreen property owner Knobel said he had not been aware of Thursday’s meeting and thus was not able to tell commissioners that the homeowners are prepared to bear the costs of hooking up with the city. Knobel said the decision to oppose annexation was made under “false pretenses. The facts are not being addressed.”

Knobel said Beverly Hills City Council members had also been quoted as criticizing the annexation without knowing the facts. Criticisms revolve around the cost and the precedent that could be set by taking in the homes.

Though the Public Works Commission is not charged with deciding the validity of the public safety issue, some members had positions on that as well. Commissioner Betty Harris said in an interview: “There seems no reason to annex the property. The public safety issue has to explode. It’s a myth.”

Since word of the proposed Hillgreen expansion has spread, Harris said she had heard from owners of about 15 other homes bordering the city who would like to become part of Beverly Hills.

“They have just as much right as Hillgreen,” she said.