Vote on Controversial Annexation Delayed

The Beverly Hills City Council, faced with a roomful of residents strongly supporting a controversial annexation of a group of homes located on a Los Angeles cul-de-sac, ducked the thorny issue Tuesday night.

The five council members, three of whom are seeking reelection April 14, said they needed more information before deciding.

“The City Council is just playing politics” by delaying a vote until after the election, fumed Beverly Hills resident Joan Marcy after the hearing. “Now we’ll know how to vote.”

The hearing was called to allow Beverly Hills residents the chance to discuss whether there were benefits to Beverly Hills in accepting 10 properties on Hillgreen Drive in Los Angeles and portions of two others that straddle the boundary line.

Until Tuesday night, those benefits had been deemed minimal by Beverly Hills administrators. At an earlier meeting, council members also were highly skeptical about the annexation proposal.

Hillgreen Drive, at the southwest corner of Beverly Hills next to Century City, originally intersected with Pico Boulevard. It was turned into a cul-de-sac in the 1960s, when Century City was built, to cut down on traffic.

Residents, as well as fire and police vehicles, must drive through Beverly Hills to reach their homes.

Based on assertions that the Los Angeles homes are difficult for police and firefighters to locate in emergencies, Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky agreed last year to support the switch of cities.

If the annexation is approved, homeowners stand to gain a minimum of $150,000 on their property values, just by having their address change from Los Angeles to Beverly Hills.

Until this week, critics of the annexation in Beverly Hills seemed to be prevailing with an argument that the switch simply gave a windfall to the Hillgreen Drive homeowners but would bring little or no benefit to Beverly Hills.

But at Tuesday’s hearing, annexation proponents were out in force.

About 85 people sporting green ribbons stood early in the meeting to show the council which side they were on. Abe Knobel, the Hillgreen resident coordinating the annexation effort, said his group had 140 ribbons and ran out as latecomers arrived.

“They’re finally listening to the real issues,” Knobel said.

The pitch by Beverly Hills residents generally ran to two themes: the vulnerability of the neighborhood to rash action by Los Angeles, such as opening up the cul-de-sac and exposing the area to commuter traffic, and the need to acquire a Los Angeles alley behind Hillgreen to protect them from miscreants.

“This is a geographic anomaly . . . that is begging for resolution,” Beverly Hills resident Steve Albert said.

A resident on the Beverly Hills portion of Hillgreen Drive, Alberta Stahl, said: “The only thing protecting us is a six-inch-high strip of concrete (the cul-de-sac border). It’s not enough.”

In all, 38 people spoke in favor of the annexation, including several of the Los Angeles residents who want their homes in Beverly Hills. They did not speak for themselves, but read letters of support from Beverly Hills residents.

Nine speakers derided the annexation as a boondoggle for a few Los Angles homeowners.

“No one coerced people to purchase these properties in Los Angeles,” Julia Joseph said. “All they have to do is purchase at market rate one of the multitude of homes available in Beverly Hills.”

At the outset of the hearing, Beverly Hills City Manager Mark Scott outlined the staff’s reasons for recommending against proceeding with the annexation, based on limited staff and other city priorities, budget problems and the lack of compelling reasons to annex.

Scott noted that other Beverly Hills-adjacent ares have far more pressing problems with paramedic service. Quoting a Fire Department official, Scott said, “It is more circuitous to get to Hillgreen from the Beverly Hills station than from the Los Angeles station.”

Scott also said there is no reason to believe that Los Angeles would try to open up the cul-de-sac. If that were proposed, Beverly Hills could fight it through legal channels, he said. As a last resort, a barrier could be built at the current city boundary, officials said.

During their discussion, council members seemed a lot more equivocal on the merits of annexation that they were just weeks ago. Councilman Bernard Hecht is the lone council member who has come out for approval, provided those seeking annexation pay the costs. They have agreed to do so, and have also offered a $500,000 “gift” to the city, payable when they sell their homes.

Councilman Robert Tanenbaum spoke against the annexation, stressing concern over the precedent the city would set by welcoming the Los Angeles properties. Other Los Angeles residents clamoring to get a Beverly Hills address have contacted the city and are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the Hillgreen annexation effort.

“The public safety issue is not one in which annexation is a panacea,” Tanenbaum said. “Nothing will change. There are not sanctuaries from crime.”

Councilman Max Salter said if Los Angeles is willing to give Beverly Hills the alley property, the city should jump at the chance to take it, although it is unclear whether Los Angeles would turn over the property or only control of it.

The council decided to explore the possibility of making an agreement with Los Angeles never to open the cul-de-sac.

Annexation Effort Residents of 12 homes on Hillgreen Drive, a Los Angeles cul-de-sac next to Century City, are attempting to persuade Beverly Hills to annex their street.