AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Masa Alkire, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Cindy Gordon, AICP, Project Manager – Current Planning
Subject: AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
ESTABLISHING AN ALTERNATIVE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROJECTS
SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5, AND
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE 2021-2029 CITY OF BEVERLY
HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT
Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2086 (without exhibits)
2. Draft Ordinance, inclusive of exhibits
3. Required Zone Text Amendment Findings
4. City Council Staff Report (January 28, 2025)
5. Planning Commission Staff Report (March 27, 2025)
6. Planning Commission Staff Report (May 5, 2025)
7. Public Correspondence – received as part of City Council public hearing
8. Public Correspondence – received as part of Planning Commission Study Session (March 27, 2025) and Public Hearing (May 5, 2025)
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s review and recommendation, staff recommends the City Council:
Move to waive the full reading and introduce and read by title only the ordinance entitled “AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
ESTABLISHING AN ALTERNATIVE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROJECTS SUBJECT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5”, and
WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
Adopt an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the 2021- 2029 City of Beverly Hills Housing Element.
This ordinance is being considered as part of a City-initiated effort to establish a housing development overlay zone with an alternative ministerial approval process that could be applied to properties meeting certain eligibility requirements (hereinafter, referred to as a “ministerial permit process”). The ministerial permit process would be limited to projects that submitted applications pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d), generally referred to as “Builder’s Remedy” projects.
INTRODUCTION
On January 28, 2025, the City Council held a study session (Attachment 4) to consider whether a ministerial permit process should be established for Builder’s Remedy projects that comply with a specific set of objective design standards, performance standards, and affordability standards. The consensus of the Council was that such process should be considered in order to provide an incentive for developers to reduce the scale of the Builder’s Remedy projects to comply with the specified objective standards in exchange for a more streamlined approval process. The Council also agreed that the objective standards that would be required in order to participate in such a process should be generally informed by the scale of projects recently submitted and approved under State Density Bonus Law and the conditions typically imposed by the Planning Commission on those projects. At the conclusion of the study session, the Council directed staff to discuss the potential establishment of a ministerial permit process for Builder’s Remedy projects with the Planning Commission and develop an ordinance that would be considered by the Council at a future meeting.
On March 27, 2025, the Planning Commission held a study session (Attachment 5) to consider the draft framework that was prepared by City staff and the City Attorney’s Office.
The Commission was supportive of the draft framework as it was proposed and recommended additional regulations intended to minimize potential impacts on adjacent residential properties. These recommendations included:
Specifying that all projects must comply with existing City standards related to light regulation;
Prohibiting the use of barbeques within common or private outdoor living areas; Prohibiting amplified sound in all outdoor living areas, including private balconies and rooftop areas; and
Ensuring that affordable units are provided with the same finishes as market rate units, and that appliances in the affordable units are the same make, model, and brand as those provided for market rate units.
Subsequently, on May 5, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider formal recommendation of the draft ordinance to the City Council. The draft ordinance was largely informed by the framework reviewed at the study session, with the additional suggestions regarding outdoor lighting, prohibition of barbeques, and use of amplified sound incorporated. At that meeting, members of the public provided public comment on the ordinance, and such comments related the following:
Hotel uses should be prohibited, and development standards should include reduced density commensurate with reduced building height. Modulation should Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
be required with flexibility provided for setbacks, height, and wall/fence/hedge standards.
All requirements should be clearly stated within the ordinance itself, without referencing other standards such as the Beverly Hills Municipal Code or State law. Parking should follow the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, with flexibility to allow access from arterial streets (as opposed to side streets or alleys) when it would allow for a net reduction of curb cuts.
Larger balconies should be allowed for usability and rooftop screening should be required to minimize noise and visual impacts to nearby residential neighborhoods. Projects should be required to utilize contractors that will hire locally, utilize apprentices from accredited state apprenticeships programs, and workforce requirements to reduce environmental impacts.
Allowing projects to utilize a streamlined process can help increase housing in the area, and may result in reduced housing costs.
The City should maintain its current requirement for public hearings for these types of projects, and such projects should be subject to architectural and design review.
The Commission considered the topics raised by members of the public during their deliberation, acknowledged the concerns expressed, and noted the limitations on the City’s ability to exercise discretion on housing projects as a result of State law. They expressed their support for the proposed ordinance, highlighting that it incorporated prior suggestions relating to light regulation, the use of balconies and amplified sound, and equal treatment between affordable and market rate units. The Commission also noted that the draft ordinance would offer mutual benefits to both the City and developers by streamlining approvals and providing housing units that would count toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
After concluding deliberations the Commission moved forward with two modifications to the proposed overlay zone language, as follows:
Increase the minimum railing height for balconies from 42” to 48” (no changes were made to the opaque/translucent material requirements).
Require projects located in the R-4 Zone to comply with modulation requirements for that zone (projects in the C-3 Zone or Mixed Use Overlay Zone would not be subject to modulation standards, consistent with current requirements).
These modifications have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance for the Council’s consideration, along with some minor text revisions for clarity, and are included in the ordinance summary in the Discussion section of this staff report. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 2086 (Attachment 1) recommending approval of the ordinance, as amended, and adoption of an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the 2021-2029 City of Beverly Hills Housing Element.
DISCUSSION
The ministerial permit process would be made available to Builder’s Remedy projects that meet the following criteria:
1) Properties that are listed as the site for a proposed Builder’s Remedy project that:
i. Submitted a PA pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024 (the date the City’s 2021- Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
2029 Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development);
ii. Submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the preliminary application; and
iii. The preliminary application has not lapsed at the time of submittal of an application pursuant to the overlay zone or the date of any settlement agreement between the City and the project applicant.
2) The property does not contain a historic resource or resource eligible for historic resource designation.
The ministerial process would be optional and project applicants could choose to modify their projects as needed to be eligible for the ministerial process or continue with their existing Builder’s Remedy projects1 through the City’s existing discretionary review process. If an applicant chooses to continue with the discretionary review process, the project would require review by both the Planning Commission and Architectural and Design Review Commission.
Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed standards set forth in the ordinance. The full text of the overlay zone language is provided as Exhibit A of Attachment 2.
TABLE 1. DRAFT ORDINANCE SUMMARY
Objective Development Standards
Use Permitted uses are only those included in the PA, and those permitted in the underlying zone.
Density
Maximum density is based on the number of units proposed in the PA.
Note: Projects utilizing density bonus provisions would not be eligible for the ministerial permit process. Additionally, the maximum density permitted by the proposed ordinance is applicable only to qualifying projects under the proposed ordinance, and may not be used for any other projects.
Setbacks
R-4 Zone: front/rear setbacks must be no less than setbacks shown in the PA; side setbacks must be no less than the setback shown on the PA, or 3’-0”, whichever is greater.
MUOZ and C-3 Zones: front/rear/side setbacks must be no less than setbacks shown on the PA.
Height Limit
Project may not exceed 75’ to floor level of top story or 85’ to top of building.
Certain rooftop features are exempt from the height limit, such as elevator/stair shafts, mechanical enclosures, parapets/handrails, unoccupied architectural features, and rooftop bathrooms. All such features have prescribed standards to which they must comply in order to be exempt from the height limit.
Minimum Unit Size Dwelling units must meet or exceed the minimum required size as provided in the California Building Code
Common outdoor areas
All common outdoor areas that can be accessed by residents/guests must be set back a minimum of 5’-0” from any building edge located adjacent to a residentially zoned property.
No barbeque or kitchen facilities may be installed or utilized 1 Including any modifications proposed to the existing Builder’s Remedy projects pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1893.
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
Balconies
No balcony located adjacent to a residential zone may exceed a depth of 3’-0”.
All enclosures for balconies located adjacent to a residential zone must be fully opaque to a height of 48”; any enclosure at a height of greater than 48” must be translucent.
No barbeque or kitchen facilities may be installed or utilized Modulation
R-4 Zone: must comply with modulation standards of underlying zone.
MUOZ or C-3 Zones: no modulation required.
Open Space No open space is required.
Front yard paving Must comply with requirements of the underlying zone.
Walls/fences/hedges Must comply with requirements of the underlying zone.
Exterior lighting Must comply with BHMC §10-4-314 (Lighting of Premises) Parking and Access
Projects must provide the amount of parking identified in the PA. All parking must comply with the applicable screening requirements of the underlying zone.
Parking access must be from an alley or side street, where available. Projects must install a parabolic mirror, light system, and vehicle stop sign at all parking egress points; no sound may be utilized for the light system and such features may not be placed in or project into the City’s public right-of-way.
Performance Standards
Common Outdoor Open
Space Hours of Operation
Limited to hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekends and holidays.
Signage indicating restrictions must be installed in all common outdoor open space areas.
Amplified Sound The use of amplified sound of any kind in any outdoor area, including private balconies, is prohibited.
Rooftop Users
Rooftop outdoor areas may only be accessed to project residents and their guests.
No commercial occupant or hotel guest may utilize rooftop facilities (mixed-use projects only)
Affordability Standards
Number of Affordable Units
Projects must include units restricted to lower income households at no less than the minimum percentage of units required by Government Code Section 65589.5, summarized as follows:
Extremely low income: 7%, or
Very low income: 10%, or
Lower income: 13%
Access
Occupants of affordable units must have same access to common entrances, common areas, and amenities as occupies of market rate housing units.
Affordable units must not be isolated to a specific floor or areas of a specific floor.
Affordable units must have the same number and type of appliances as market rate units.
Transferability
Eligible applicants may transfer some or all of the required affordable housing units from one site (transferor) in the overlay zone to another site (transferee) in the overlay zone, provided that for each affordable unit that is transferred, two affordable units at the same or lower affordability level are provided. Units may be transferred whether or not the projects utilize the ministerial permit process.
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
Such transfer must be memorialized in writing acceptable to the City and recorded against the transferor and transferee sites. Such units must be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of any certificate for any portion of the development on the transferor site.
Ministerial Processing
Applications that comply with the applicable requirements will qualify for the ministerial permit process.
Qualifying projects will not be subject to discretionary review, including but not limited to architectural review.
Project approval will only become effective when the applicant irrevocably withdraws its Builder’s Remedy project proposal, including the PA and all related applications.
During the Planning Commission public hearing on May 5, 2025, a specific question was raised by a representative for two Builder’s Remedy Projects regarding the objective standards related to permitted uses due to the concern that their projects did not comply with the permitted uses in the underlying zone (i.e., the projects are mixed use projects but are not located in the MUOZ). Staff clarified that the language, as written, would allow a project applicant to maintain the uses proposed as part of their Preliminary Application, and would also be able to establish additional uses consistent with the underlying zone.
Both the project representative and the Planning Commission were satisfied with this explanation, and no related changes to the proposed ordinance were requested.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES2
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. An analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan is included as Exhibit D of Attachment 2.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The notice for this project, summarized in Table 2, was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in BHMC 10-3-2.5, et seq. As a courtesy outreach effort, nonrequired mailed notices were sent to all property owners and residential occupants located within 500’ (extended to the block face) of the 14 Builder’s Remedy projects that the City is currently processing; this effort resulted in 6,597 mailed notices. Courtesy emails were also sent to all individuals listed on each Builder’s Remedy interested parties list.
TABLE 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Notice Type Notice Date
Notice of Pending Application
Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) Not required Mailed Notice (100’ radius; via tracked courier) Not required On-site Posted Notice Not required
Notice of Public Hearing
Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 5/14/25 On-site Posted Notice Not required
Newspaper Notice
Beverly Hills Courier
5/9/25
5/15/25
2 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1065/General-Plan Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
Beverly Hills Weekly
Beverly Press
5/15/25
Public Comment
Public correspondence received as part of this noticed City Council public hearing is provided as Attachment 7. Public correspondence received as part of the Planning Commission’s study session (March 27, 2025) and public hearing (May 5, 2025), is included as Attachment 8. Public correspondence previously received as part of the City Council Study Session is available as part of the March 27, 2025 Planning Commission agenda packet, which is available online at www.beverlyhills.org/pcarchive.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance was 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 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine that the ordinance is within the scope of and consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Amendments to the Adopted 2021- 2029 City of Beverly Hills Housing Element (State Clearinghouse No. 2021090102), which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024 and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on May 1, 2024. This MND is provided in Exhibit B of Attachment 2.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a lead agency may prepare an addendum to a previously adopted MND if some changes or additions to the MND are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent MND is required unless, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following is determined:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the MND would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the project proponents decline to adopt the measure or alternative.
The above criteria have been assessed in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, and the proposed ordinance, in the independent judgment of the City, has been determined to be eligible for an addendum to the previously adopted MND because it does not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. Therefore, an addendum to the MND has been prepared and is included as Exhibit C of Attachment 2.
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
The Planning Commission considered the MND and addendum, found that the project will not have any significant impacts on the environment, as mitigated, and recommended that the City Council adopt the addendum.
FISCAL IMPACT
The ordinance would create a ministerial approval process for certain Builder’s Remedy projects. Any future plan check reviews for projects that submit for building permits through this process would be subject to the City’s existing permitting fees, which cover the staff time necessary to conduct the plan check process. Therefore, no fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of the ordinance.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2086 (without exhibits)
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2086
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE AS AN
ALTERNATIVE PROCESS FOR CERTAIN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65589.5
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:
Section 1. The City of Beverly Hills (“City”) is processing a number of applications for housing development projects subject to Government Code Section 65589.5, known as “Builder’s Remedy” projects, which projects submitted preliminary applications pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 prior to the City’s adoption and the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s certification of the Housing Element on March 18, 2024 and May 1, 2024 respectively. The pending Builder’s Remedy projects are under review as discretionary land use entitlements in accordance with Chapter 3 of Title 10 of the City Municipal Code.
Section 2. A ministerial permit process (herein described as the “Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone”) has been proposed as an alternative to the current discretionary review process for Builder’s Remedy projects proposing new mixed use and multifamily residential projects, and meeting certain criteria, in order to standardize project approval criteria and streamline the process to develop affordable housing.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a Study Session on March 27, 2025 to discuss exploring the establishment of a housing development overlay zone that would allow for Docusign Envelope ID: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3 -2-
a ministerial permit process for projects that are subject to Government Code Section 65589.5, generally referred to as “Builder’s Remedy” projects.
Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 5, 2025 to consider the ordinance adopting the ministerial approval process, at which time it received oral and documentary evidence relative to the proposed ordinance. Thereafter, the Planning Commission concluded deliberations on the proposed ordinance.
Section 5. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find, that the Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone, including objective development and performance standards, as described in the attached ordinance as Exhibit A of Exhibit 1, is consistent with the General Plan and City Municipal Code, including but not limited to the policies and standards listed herein and detailed further in Exhibit D of Exhibit 1 of the Ordinance. The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth Policy H2.1 – Affordable Housing Incentives, which seeks to offer incentives to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing, including the reduction of entitlement and permitting fees for projects that include a certain percentage of affordable housing units. Similarly, Policy H4 – Reducing Constraints seeks to mitigate potential governmental constraints on the maintenance improvement, and development of housing, while maintaining community character. The Housing Element also sets forth a number of implementation programs that seek to create incentives to promote the mixed use program (Imp 11.1); remove constraints related to the redevelopment of commercial shopping centers into mixed use developments (Imp 12.1); streamline the approval process for architectural review of multi-family housing and mixed use projects with affordable housing (Imp 12.1); simplify modulation requirements and reduce minimum unit sizes for multi-family housing projects (Imp 12.1); adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects (Imp 12.1); Docusign Envelope ID: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3 -3-
and update the zoning code to reduce inefficiencies and uncertainty in the development review process (Imp 12.3). The Amendments are consistent with these policies and implementation programs because they create a ministerial review process which will reduce development constraints and provides development standards that allow for development that is more consistent with surrounding development scale than contemplated in the Builder’s Remedy projects to preserve community character. The Amendments are also consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.1 - City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors, and Policy 5.1 - Neighborhood Conservation in that they seek to 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, and maintains the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods. Further, the proposed development standards are consistent with the general principle under the Plan that new housing and other buildings must fit within and complement the character and quality of existing residential neighborhoods.
Section 6. The Amendments were assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine that the ordinance is within the scope of and consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Amendments to the Adopted 2021- 2029 City of Beverly Hills Housing Element (State Clearinghouse No. 2021090102), which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024 and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on May 1, 2024. This MND is included for reference as Exhibit B of Exhibit 1 of this Resolution. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a lead agency (the City of Beverly Hills in this case) may prepare an addendum to a previously adopted MND if some Docusign Envelope ID: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3 -4-
changes or additions to the MND are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent MND or Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared for the Project unless, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following is determined: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the MND would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the project proponents decline to adopt the measure or alternative. The above criteria have been assessed in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Project, in the independent judgment of the City, has been determined to be eligible for an addendum to the previously adopted MND because it does not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. Therefore, an addendum to the MND has been prepared and is incorporated herein by reference and included attached as Exhibit C of Exhibit 1 of this Resolution. The Planning Commission has considered the MND and addendum, finds that the project will not have any significant impacts on the environment, as mitigated, and hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the addendum.
Docusign Envelope ID: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3 -5-
Section 7. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance establishing an alternative Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone, as substantially set forth in Exhibit A of Exhibit 1.
\\
\\
\\
Docusign Envelope ID: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3 -6-
Section 8. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission.
Adopted: May 5, 2025
Theresa M. Kaplan
Chair of the Planning Commission of
the City of Beverly Hills, California
Attest:
Masa Alkire, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved As To Form: Approved As To Content:
David M. Snow Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant City Attorney Assistant Director/City Planner Community Development Department
Exhibits:
1. Ordinance, inclusive of exhibits:
A. Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone B. Housing Element MND
C. Addendum to the Housing Element MND
D. General Plan Policy Analysis
Docusign Envelope ID: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3
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. 2086 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on May 5, 2025, 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: Commissioners Milkowski, Ross, Chair Kaplan
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Commissioner Demeter, Vice Chair Wolfe
________________________________
KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Docusign Envelope ID: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3 Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 772FEC54-79DF-45DE-877F-91F2E30949B3 Status: Completed Subject: TIME SENSITIVE - Please Docusign: PC Reso 2086 - Draft Ord - Ministerial Approval Overlay Zone.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 55 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Karen Myron
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
5/22/2025 7:02:53 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
David M. Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 38.122.232.202
Sent: 5/22/2025 7:06:55 PM
Viewed: 5/27/2025 2:01:40 PM
Signed: 5/27/2025 2:01:50 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Masa Alkire
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 5/27/2025 2:01:52 PM
Viewed: 5/27/2025 2:23:22 PM
Signed: 5/27/2025 2:27:13 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Theresa M. Kaplan
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 75.85.175.170
Signed using mobile
Sent: 5/27/2025 2:27:14 PM
Viewed: 5/27/2025 2:36:57 PM
Signed: 5/27/2025 2:37:18 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Karen Myron
[email protected]
COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,
CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 5/27/2025 2:37:20 PM
Viewed: 5/27/2025 2:38:07 PM
Signed: 5/27/2025 2:45:44 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/22/2025 7:06:55 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/27/2025 2:38:07 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/27/2025 2:45:44 PM
Completed Security Checked 5/27/2025 2:45:44 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Ordinance, inclusive of exhibits
-1-
B0785-0009\3117319v1.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 25-O-______
AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY
HILLS ESTABLISHING AN ALTERNATIVE MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE
FOR PROJECTS SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65589.5, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR
THE 2021-2029 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS HOUSING
ELEMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Beverly Hills (“City”) is processing a number of applications for housing development projects subject to Government Code Section 65589.5, known as “Builder’s Remedy” projects, which projects submitted preliminary applications pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 prior to the City’s adoption and the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s certification of the Housing Element on March 18, 2024 and May 1, 2024 respectively. The pending Builder’s Remedy projects are under review as discretionary land use entitlements in accordance with Chapter 3 of Title 10 of the City Municipal Code.
Section 2. A ministerial permit process (herein described as the “Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone”) has been proposed as an alternative to the current discretionary review process for Builder’s Remedy projects proposing new mixed use and multifamily residential projects, and meeting certain criteria, in order to standardize project approval criteria and streamline the process to develop affordable housing.
Section 3. On May 5, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss the proposed the ordinance adopting the ministerial approval process, after -2-
B0785-0009\3117319v1.doc
which it adopted Resolution No. 2086 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes to establish the alternative Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone, set forth in Exhibit A. On June 3, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony, and thereafter introduced this Ordinance.
Section 4. The Amendments define which Builder’s Remedy projects qualify for the alternative ministerial process, establish the alternative ministerial process, and set forth objective standards governing development of projects that avail themselves of this process. Under this new ministerial approval framework, City officials will approve a proposed project that is compliant with all applicable objective performance and development standards, thereby reducing uncertainty, costs, and delays involved in the discretionary process.
Section 5. The Amendments were assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council finds and determines that the ordinance is within the scope of and consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Amendments to the Adopted 2021- 2029 City of Beverly Hills Housing Element (State Clearinghouse No. 2021090102), which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024 and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on May 1, 2024 and included for reference as Exhibit B.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a lead agency (the City of Beverly Hills in this case) may prepare an addendum to a previously adopted MND if some changes or additions to the MND are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent MND or Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared for the Project unless, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, -3-
B0785-0009\3117319v1.doc
one or more of the following is determined: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the MND would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the project proponents decline to adopt the measure or alternative. The above criteria have been assessed in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Project, in the independent judgment of the City, has been determined to be eligible for an addendum to the previously adopted MND because it does not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. Therefore, an addendum to the MND has been prepared and is incorporated herein by reference and included as Exhibit C.
The City Council has considered the MND and addendum, finds that the project will not have any significant impacts on the environment, as mitigated, and hereby adopts the addendum.
Section 6. The Amendments are consistent with the objectives, principles, and standards of the General Plan and City Municipal Code, including but not limited to the policies and standards listed herein, and as further specified in Exhibit D. The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth Policy H2.1 – Affordable Housing Incentives, which seeks to offer incentives to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing, including the reduction -4-
B0785-0009\3117319v1.doc
of entitlement and permitting fees for projects that include a certain percentage of affordable housing units. Similarly, Policy H4 – Reducing Constraints seeks to mitigate potential governmental constraints on the maintenance improvement, and development of housing, while maintaining community character. The Housing Element also sets forth a number of implementation programs that seek to create incentives to promote the mixed use program (Imp
11.1); remove constraints related to the redevelopment of commercial shopping centers into mixed use developments (Imp 12.1); streamline the approval process for architectural review of multifamily housing and mixed use projects with affordable housing (Imp 12.1); simplify modulation requirements and reduce minimum unit sizes for multi-family housing projects (Imp 12.1); adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects (Imp 12.1); and update the zoning code to reduce inefficiencies and uncertainty in the development review process (Imp 12.3). The Amendments are consistent with these policies and implementation programs because they create a ministerial review process which will reduce development constraints and provides development standards that allow for development that is more consistent with surrounding development scale than contemplated in the Builder’s Remedy projects to preserve community character. The Amendments are also consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.1 - City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors, and Policy 5.1 - Neighborhood Conservation in that they seek to 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, and maintains the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods.
Further, the proposed development standards are consistent with the general principle under the Plan that new housing and other buildings must fit within and complement the character and quality of existing residential neighborhoods.
-5-
B0785-0009\3117319v1.doc
Section 7. Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone. The City Council hereby adopts the Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone to read as set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect.
Section 9. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. \\
\\
\\
-6-
B0785-0009\3117319v1.doc
Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.
Adopted:
Effective:
SHARONA R. NAZARIAN, PsyD
Mayor of the City of
Beverly Hills, California
ATTEST:
_______________________________(SEAL)
HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
LAURENCE S. WIENER
City Attorney
NANCY HUNT-COFFEY
City Manager
MICHAEL FORBES, AICP
Director of Community Development
Exhibits:
A: Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone B: Housing Element MND
C: Addendum to the Housing Element MND
D: General Plan Policy Analysis
EXHIBIT A
Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone
Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone Ordinance SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS:
Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the construction of the Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone Ordinance “Ordinance”).
ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE: A site that shares a property line with a residentially zoned property or is separated from a residentially zoned property by a public alley.
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT: A project that includes commercial and multi-family residential uses within the same structure.
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION. The preliminary application submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024, provided that the developer submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the filing of the preliminary application; and the preliminary application has not lapsed at the time of submittal of an application pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”) is to provide an alternative entitlement processing pathway for housing development projects meeting certain specified objective criteria that allows for ministerial review and approval of such applications. This is an optional process, and project proponents remain free to process development applications under otherwise applicable development standards and the applicable discretionary review process.
SECTION 3: ELIGIBILITY:
The Overlay Zone is applied only to those properties that meet all the following criteria:
A. Properties that are listed as the site for a project proposed as a “builder’s remedy” project in reliance on Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5) that (i) submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024 [the date the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development]; (ii) submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the preliminary application; and iii) the preliminary application has not lapsed at (a) the time of submittal of an application pursuant to this Overlay Zone, or (b) the date of any settlement agreement as may be entered into between the City and a builder’s remedy project applicant.
B. Properties shall not contain a designated historic resource or any resource eligible for historic resource designation.
-2-
SECTION 4: OBJECTIVE STANDARDS:
If the Overlay Zone applies, to be eligible for the ministerial application processing the project must meet the objective standards below:
A. Uses: The allowed uses shall only be those included in the Preliminary Application, along with those uses permitted in the underlying zone.
B. Density:
1. The maximum density allowed is applicable solely to projects under this Ordinance and shall not be used in density regulations for projects under any other authority.
2. The maximum residential density allowed on the site is the number of residential units proposed in the Preliminary Application.
3. Projects utilizing the provisions of this Ordinance must opt not to utilize density bonus provisions pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 to exceed this maximum density, and shall agree to waive all rights under Density Bonus law.
C. Architecture and Design
1. Setbacks:
a. For properties in the R-4 zone, the front and rear setbacks shall be no less than the setbacks shown on the Preliminary Application. Side setbacks shall no less than the greater of the three feet or the side setback shown on the Preliminary Application.
b. For properties in the MU overlay zone or C3 zone, the front, rear, and side setbacks shall be no less than the setbacks shown on the Preliminary Application.
2. Height limit: The project may not exceed seventy-five feet (75’) to the floor level of the highest occupied floor (including occupied rooftops) and eighty-five (85’) to the top of the roof, measured as set forth in section 10-3-100 of this chapter.
3. Exceptions from height limit:
a. Vent pipes that are not higher than required by law. b. Structures enclosing elevator equipment and/or elevator lobbies if such structures are not higher than twenty feet (20') above the adjacent roof deck and are not larger than the shaft of the elevator or elevators and their respective lobby areas, and if such structure is used for no purpose other -3-
than providing the minimum space required for the elevators and their equipment and such lobby areas.
c. Structures enclosing stairs required by law to be carried to the roof if such enclosing structure is used for no other purpose than enclosing the stairs and is no larger than the stair shaft below and if such enclosure is not more than fifteen feet (15') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck. d. Penthouse structures used exclusively for mechanical equipment for the building or structure if such penthouse structure is not more than fifteen feet (15') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck. e. Parapets or handrails not more than forty five inches (45") in height as measured from the roof or floor which they surround.
f. Unoccupied Architectural Features: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, unoccupied architectural features such as skylights and clerestories may exceed the height limits established by this section by not more than ten feet (10') in height if such unoccupied architectural features do not exceed thirty three percent (33%) of the roof area upon which they are located and no such feature exceeds or intersects a line projecting from the perimeter of the roof upward at an angle of forty five degrees (45°) from the horizontal.
g. A maximum of two (2) rooftop bathrooms that are associated with rooftop swimming pools or spas, provided that:
i. The maximum total area of all rooftop bathrooms does not exceed two hundred (200) square feet;
ii. Such structures do not exceed ten feet (10’) in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck;
iii. Such structures do not exceed thirty three percent (33%) of the roof area upon which they are located;
iv. Such structures do not exceed or intersect a line projecting from the perimeter of the roof upward at an angle of forty five degrees (45°) from the horizontal.
4. Minimum Unit Size: Dwelling units shall meet or exceed the minimum required size as provided in the California Building Code.
5. Common outdoor areas setback: All common outdoor areas that can be accessed by residential tenants and/or their guests must be set back a minimum of five feet (5’) from any building edge located adjacent to a residentially zoned property. -4-
6. Balconies: No balcony located adjacent to a residential zone may exceed a depth of three feet (3’). All enclosures for balconies located adjacent to a residential zone must be fully opaque to a height of 48 inches, and any enclosure at a height of greater than 48 inches must be translucent.
7. Modulation: No modulation is required for projects in commercial and mixed use overlay zones. For projects located in the R-4 Zone, the modulation provisions of 10-3-2806 B. and C. shall apply.
8. Open space: No open space is required.
9. Front yard paving: All front yard paving must comply with the requirements of the underlying zone.
10. Walls, fences, and hedges: All walls, fences, and hedges must comply with the requirements of the underlying zone.
11. Exterior lighting: All exterior lighting must comply with Section 10-4-314 (Lighting of Premises) of this Chapter.
12. No barbeque or kitchen facilities may be installed or utilized on balconies or common outdoor areas.
D. Parking and Access
1. Projects shall provide no less parking than the number of parking spaces proposed in the Preliminary Application.
2. All parking must comply with applicable screening requirements for the underlying zone.
3. Parking access must be from an alley or a side street, where available.
4. A parabolic mirror, light system and vehicle stop sign shall be installed at all parking egress points in order to ensure visibility for exiting vehicles and to warn alley traffic of exiting vehicles; no sound shall be utilized for the light system. Such features shall not be placed in or project into the City’s public right of way.
SECTION 5: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
The project applicant must agree to abide by the following performance standards and incorporate such standards into rules governing the development, such as project covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs):
A. Use of common outdoor areas is allowed only between: 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekends and holidays. Signage indicating the restrictions shall be installed on in the common outdoor open space area. -5-
B. The use of amplified sound of any kind in any outdoor area, including private balconies and rooftop areas, is prohibited.
C. The use of all rooftop outdoor areas is limited only to project residents and their guests.
For mixed use development projects, no commercial occupant or hotel guest may utilize rooftop facilities.
SECTION 6: OBJECTIVE CODE PROVISIONS APPLY:
Except as expressly provided in this Ordinance, projects shall comply with all other generally applicable objective standards in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
SECTION 7: AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS:
A. Applicants must restrict units to be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code at no less than the minimum percentage of units required by Government Code section 65589.5. To implement this requirement, the applicant shall agree to record a covenant memorializing the affordable housing restriction in a form acceptable to the City Manager and City Attorney. Compliance with this Section shall satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirements set forth in Beverly Hills Municipal Code Sections 10-3-4802 and 10-3-4803.
B. The occupants of the affordable housing units within the Project shall have the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and amenities, including parking and rooftop residential amenities, as the occupants of the market rate housing units and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or an areas on a specific floor. Further, the affordable housing units shall have the same number and type of appliances as the market rate units.
C. Regardless of whether an applicant qualifies for a ministerially reviewed project or not, Applicants whose property meets the eligibility criteria for the overlay zone in Section 3 may transfer some or all of the required affordable housing units from one site that is subject to this Overlay Zone (the Transferor Site) to another site or sites that all are within the Overlay Zone (the Transferee Site(s)), provided that for each affordable unit that is transferred from a Transferor Site, two affordable units at the same or lower affordability level shall be provided at the Transferee Site(s). Any such transfer shall be memorialized in writing acceptable to the City and recorded against both the Transferor and Transferee Sites. Any transferred affordable units shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any portion of development on the Transferor site(s).
SECTION 8: MINISTERIAL PROCESSING:
A. Applications for projects that comply with all the foregoing requirements shall qualify for alternative ministerial processing of the application by the Community Development Director or designee(s). Applicants shall submit full and complete applications for the Alternate Project to initiate the alternative ministerial processing. Qualifying projects shall -6-
not be subject to discretionary review, including but not limited to architectural or design review subject to Article 30 of Chapter 3 of Title 10 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
B. If a project is approved through this optional ministerial process, the approval will only become effective at such time as the applicant irrevocably withdraws its builder’s remedy project proposal, including the Preliminary Application and all related applications.
EXHIBIT B
Housing Element MND
!"#$#%$&$%$#
'()*+,-./-0+
12341
!#$#%5#$#&
!
6
7+89:+;,<8;999(+==
12341
!
66
14>6
>6
?@@"A2B4
341
!C
&$#%$
D);-8,-E;F)(G8-/);
HH
I
66
14>6
>6
C12341
!
JK%$L#M@5%%&?
NNH
OP41H!"
'()*+,-7),8-/);
HIQN
N6>!!!H
12341
!"
R8,S:()T;9
H!BN 6
!
BB
B 6H
B1U
B
4N
J
U
L %>>B2H >B2H
!
6
2H
I
2H#$#%5#$#&>
>BJVH1NLCWHNHW!B>BP1H12341 !
NP%#C#$#%JH
X
IQNYL>1
N!
"#%55%KKZ$J
H !"
#$#%$&$%$#L"
6
BB4!
2H
!
6
2H#$#%5#$#&>
>B
W!! P![
15B>BP1H12341
!
\P 1#%C#$#KJHX
6
BB
!
6
YL>1
N!
"#K55%K??&"H
U
BN 6
C
N !42AHP!C!HP1
N>BP12
N"
H
U
2H
IQN! BBH>
4
6
22N!
!HN!C
N
B2!! N!C[ 1CP
N! N!CN ! N!C
1C
1
B!!C
H !
!6!!
!CH]B!
BH]B !6!CH1B
1
B
W[ 1C
B !
B>
C6
! N!C
!C>>
BH !
CN
C
%H>4 !1B>B
B1U
B
4N
2H#$#%5#$#&
!
6
>B
N
P2
B^WWW"P41H!"
U
4
6
"
!"#$%
& '
(
)
)
(
!
$
#$%
*
& '
$
+
*
,+*-
./!"
#$%
0+
1
2
/,3
4-
*
*
!
5676869:;<=>8?:=@=A6B
$
.C *
1
D
,*1D-E
,1#F-
$
.C
(1#F
!&
*1D$
.C
(
'
G
,-$
'
(
'
H
,-$
'
I
(
'
H
,/-
I
I
J
1#F
G
!" '
1#F
H
!$
J
1#FH
!
!"
!
!
"
!
#!
#
$
"
!
%
&'("
!
!
#
)
#
*
+
,
-.
)
"
!
!
/
!
#
"
01
&2
3!
4
56789:;<9=:6>?;>7@
),
A
+
#
1
&
B
C
)1
&
"
"
!#
'
A
,
"+
A
1
&
"
0
/ "
.1
&A
+
!,
"1
&
1
C
"
!
+
!#
A
D
E
1
&
)1
C
!
A
D
F1
A
)1
&
1
&G
H
I
A
J
$
H
IF
!
A
J
$
H
IA
!
!
"
+
%
(
1
2K(1L4
$
H
I
" A
D
$
H
I&
!
!
1
&
! "#
$%&'(')*(+)+,%-).('*/012*
3
4
5
"
6!
7
8
!
!
9
:;
:
<
=
"9
"
>?
8
"
"
!
@
6
6
;66<
"
=
>3
8
!
"
#
A8
7>B
!
C
9
"
!
D
>E
!
?
8
>F>
A?
8
;G?
H<5>
!
"
!
:
IE
!
D
J" :
!
!
!
D
!
K
A?
>5>7
!
"
" :8
!
!
L
"
!
M
!
"
!
"
D
>3
9
!
"
D
9
"
!
D
!
L "
K
A?
>5>
!
!
?
8
I@9
"
=NO
P >
;
NO
P <>C
!4
"
M
4
D
?
8
@
4K
A?
>5>L
!
9
J
9
!
MK
A?
>5>M
!
=
!
:
9
JIE
!
D
!
>3
!
"
9
"
!
!
K
!
"#
"$
%
$
# &
%'"
(
"
"
"
" ")
"
%* "
"
"#
"$
%
"
$
$
"$
")
"#
"
$
&
%'"
$$
# "
""
(
$
$
$
% "
"
)
+
, "
-".
"#
"
$
"
%
$%
)
"#
(
"
"" %(
/01
$
""
$
$
"$
&
%'"0
"
"$ ("2
3-&
%"
"0
"#%
"
$
%"
4 " 5"
6
"/"
"
$
1)
3-&
%"
#% $
(
0
#% "
(6
" "
$
%"
"
"+"6
$
"
4
"
" 0 "
%
"
)
3-&
%(
0
%
#%
$$
#
%
$
"
$(0"
%
#%
$/
#%
$$
#
%1&
%(
7
" "
"
#
2
38
"
" 0
"
9
(
$5
#
%$ 0
)
3
#% $9
(
0#% "
6
"
"""
+"6
$
"
4
"
" 0 "
%
"
)
3
#% $!
(
0#% "
6
"
0
(
"$
"
+"6
$
"
4(
6
"
$$
#
0$
"
%
"
"
+"6
$
)
3
$%"
"$ 4
"
"
":
0
%
%
)
3-&
%(
70
"$ "#%
#
#% $
)
!
" #
$
!
#
!
%$
&
'(!))*
"!
#
+
"
&
'(!))
"!
%
#
!
!#
! #,-!
"
%
%
#
)
!
"!
%
#
#
!!
!"%
##
"
! .*
#
##
"
%
/0//01).,23 %
$
,
4)
!
"!
#
%
##
"
!! 5
%
600.1
-27
,
4
)8
28
9 ,
4)
8
9
,
! ! " !%
3
##
"
*
##
"
)
7
,
! ! " !%
0
##
"
)
!
"
!
%
! !
##
"
! 5
!
#
#
! 5)
6
$
,
:
7;<#
##
"
%
#! 5
#
$
,
!! "
#&
:
%
#
#
"
!
!
#
# ! 5
&
:
%
!
##
"
! 5"
#!
!
%
#.* %
&
8
9
,
:
%
!
!!
# 8
9
%
*
##
"
&
:
=
5
8
9
#
"
"&
:(#! 5
# 8
9
!! "
#>
%
! ! !*
##
"
2 4&
7
,
!
"
#
#
#
$
%
&
$ #
#'
(
!
!!
$ "
(
)
$$
#
'
*$! &
$ "
!! #
$)
(
! ! !)
$$
#
+ ,'
-
$
. &
!
/ !
$$
#
! &
$
$ (
$
# $0
$
1 2
(
3!
34 5
6
7
8*!77
#
3
!
$
$
3
(
!!
3 $9
:
$$
;
;
9
+;;9,
7
!
(
$ (
(
$
$
!
!
9
.
7
!
$
!
!$ (
!
<;
9
5
:$ (9
9
5!!
9
#
.
=
>
$
# *!
.
!
7* !
#?9
"
$$$+"
,$ (
#
*!77<
-;
$
$$
#
! &(
$@
$$
#
+ ,
>=!
'
-;
! $@
$$
#
$
"
(
!
$
!@A $
@4 ! &$ !
!
"
'
-
#
"
<@4
4 !
#
(
(
? %
$
!
!
$
!!
"
$
$$
#
! &
!
?
B
C
+BC ,(
$
"
7BC
(
$
$$
D
#
7
!
"
#
#
!
$
!
#
##
!
%&
# "
'
(
)
!
*
#
&
#
'
+"
" ,
#
##
!
'
+ "
-
$
%
!
#+
#
#
!
+ !+'
+-
$
!
#+
#
#
!
+ #
.
#
/.0
-
$
&
!
*
/
+
#
0
"
!
"
# 1
"
!
*
+
#
# 2
#
#3#
+4
"
!
*
+!
+
!5
#
2
#
'
+6
-
$
7
!
"
#
'
+6 ##
8
"
)
(
)
%
#
#
+ #
+
%%-
$
1
!
#+
#
#
+ *
#
!
"
+
#
#9
:-
$
!
#
+
#
!
,!+'
+
'
+ # "
;
2'
+"
#
"
<"
=
+)
#.
-
2'
+"
,
&> # !+
"
-
2'
+"
8
"<"
=
+)
-
2'
+"
+
&> "
* -
!
"
#
$
%
"
$
&' (
)*
+
,-
)
.
$&
!
/
,0
)"
!
$
12$ 0
3
40352
$
&' (
)* /
,6
) "
&'
(
)* /
,
)
$
7
8 /
,
$
$
$
"
!)
$9
+
,
"
$
8
"
$##
&
!
"
$&
!
)$
) $
$
"
7
8 /
,
!
$
$
$ "
$$
!
$
8 6
) "
$)
7 #
$$
!
)
&
&' (
)*
:
!
"
$
8
"
!
!
$)
%
!
!
!);6"
$
#
$
6
)
"
$
$
;
<
!
)
$
$!
=
$
&
"
$
$
!
>
)?
#
$
"
$
$
$
!
@
-
A
' <%$
;
-
"
$
$
) $
B7
!" "#
$%%
&'("
)*+,&"#
&
!-+(
&. ,
!-/$++.01
2,
!(!3$
'
!"
%+(
&. ,
!-/$44
!3
5$ %"#
. ,
!-6)
'
!"0
7889
:::
:
;9 :
<
==
>
:
?@
;
:
A ;9 :
<B=
=::CAD
EDFGHGI7
:C
@
:
:::: ;8
9 :
E89F
:; ?
J
KL
=
;;
A;:;
:
= : :
==
:
AM
KN
:::: ;;
:
:
A ;;
:
:::
A:
::
C;
:
O ?
M
KP
O9 :
<P
L A
L
;
;Q
:
:
; 89
889
A:
:I
7889:
:
:
=
; ?
;
J
K
;
;
:
:
R C:
:
:
S
=
:=: :?
:
C
:
;
:
: :
:
:
C:
:=
= =
:
C
N
A
A:
: ;
:
=C?
:
M
K
;
A:
:
:
C
;=
:
C:
:; =
N
A
:
=C?
:
:
C
= =
:
: :
A=:
:
: :
CM
K
;
;
: :?
N
A
R
:
= A: :
: :
:: ==
A
:::M
KT
:
:
A ;;
:
:::
=
:
=
:
::
:
:::E
;=
:
L=
U
I
9 :
U
F
;:=
;
:
: :; :
C
A
:
;
TNM
K
;
N
AV: := =
:
=
:;
::
:
O ?
; N
A= :M
K
;
O ?
:
=
A
:
: ;
>
:
:
: O
N
A
=
: :
C
C
A
:
: A ; ==
:
W
:
N
A
C = ;
TNM
K
;
;
:
N
AM
K
;
;
N
AV:
= =
:
=
: ;
= : :
@
:
:
: ;
N
AM
!"
#
$
%
#
&
%
%
%
%
%
%
'
(
%
)
)(
*%
#
#
(
*
% )
#
(
"
%
#
+
'
# %#
,*%
$%
#
%
%
-
-
%
)
%
%
%
#
.
/
0
1
2,*
33&)
4"5
,
6789:9;<:=;=>7?9:@A::9;<;BC;=7<=9DEF;<:=GD9<=:;<H;A:9<ICG;JA@=9;<D<J F;<:7G8D=9;<KLMM7<J9NO;B=>7H;A:9<IPE7Q7<=R
%%
'S
%
%
,4 % &
#
'%
# %
)
&
2,*
#
)
T
*
%
#
'1 U
V (
*
' % W
% %
%%
% W%
% W (
*
%
'1
U
V
)
% %
) (
*
'
%
#
%
% W
(
*
%
%
%
#)%%
'S
&
/
,
"
%
#
+
'
)
%
%
%
#
.
/
0
1 2,
*
)
4"5
,
!" "#
$
"
%!
!" &'()**
!+
,- ."#
/ 0
!123
4 !"5
6
7 8
9
:;
8
<
<
=<
<>?
8
@ A 8
8
8A
8
@@
8@
8
@
8
@
@
@8
= 8
BC D EFFGEFFGHIJ
K@
8 @
@
<
8L=
8
M = 8
8
8
N<6
N<6 D
=
88
=C 8
B6DCI
O
7 8
88888BO7I
JKD
<P8O7
= H@
@
8
=Q
8J
K8
8
<
8 R :
8L
<M
8
8 =@
8
D
<
8
=
8
88
N
N= 8
@JK8
8
<
8
@
8
D
<P8O7
=
Q
8:
8=
8
==8 =
==
N
<
8
==
N < : :
N
8J6
:
@
7 8
98
8
;
8= 8
8
<= E
D<
@
8 8
<8
;
@
8N8
= 8
@
@
N<8
8
<:
8
N<
@
@
@
B HI
=8
@
<
8
8
8
N
8
R
8
8
<@8 = @8
N @J8
8 =8;
88
8
<
8N
8
=
>
: =@
8
:
8
8<
8
J
88
=
<8
8
<
8N
8N<N
R
:8
8
= :
8=
8
==L
N8MB
89?
N
@@
?D =
8
7 8
9 IS
JT
>6
8BK
NI
JU
D 8
V
@
O86
8BK
NI
QJ @W8X
8BK
NQI
J@@ U A8BK
NI
FJ6N
U A8BK
NFI
EJD
< :6
= ==
N7 8
U ABK
NEI
YJ88 <:
T
8BK
NYI
W @<:
8
:;
88
N
8 8
8@
=
8
8BJ
J
@
=?
8
N
8?
8
N
I
8N @
:
8
8
R< N @
@
8@@
8N8
= 8
@:
8
N< J
8@@
R
= @ =
8
8
8
?
8
88
8
8
@
@
8
8
N
JK
8
8
=
@8
D
<=
Z 8
B
I <@ A8:
8
:
=
@ =:
N
8
8
:
8: @8:
8
88B
:Z
=
<8
?8@ A8IJW
8
8
=
N
8 =?
8
88 8
8 :
!
"
#
$
"
%&
'
$
$(
)
'*
%
&
+
'
&
$(
)
'*
"
&
$
%&
$
+
'
!,
- ' .
/
#
0$
1
$2%.
'
&
'
'
3
$
%
&
'
'
"
'
%.
$
"
'
$
%&
4
5
(
"6
7
&
'
%
'
&
5
%1
"
'
'
&
"
'
%&
8
'
+
'
'%5
'
'!&
2#
'%&
9
2
' 2
'
+
%&
&
9
::;
%
'
'
;<
9;
%
- 2
'
'
$8
5-
8
+
-
0%%&
$2
"
+
'
&
&
9%&
-
0
=
/
>
(
0%&
'
'
?.3
%
@ABCDCEFDGEGHAICDJKDDCEFELMKNOCJMPQGCJCRPGCEFSTRRAFUCVWELGHAXEKDCFYWOAZAFG[
$0
-
0
"'2
'
-
0
%&
2
'\
'
!
"#
$
%
&
' (
&
'%
!
"#
"
$
)
")
&
)
'*
")
"
" $(
+
'
,-./0123405/6272437839:992-2434;<3;40=8-243
>
"
(
+
$
"
"
'
?(
+
$
$
'
5/62/@4;A362043=/3-8B<=C8D-7839E/-/0=238-243
"
"$
%FG
"$
'H
"
%FG
'
)+I+
)J
$
$
$
?(
+'
$
"
K
"
"
L
L
"
"
$
K
"
"
"
MN%FG
'H
"$
$
O?P
QO
%FG
'
*
(
+
)+IF
RQ
$
"S
TU
M
$
K
M
$
"
"
'
H
"
(
+'H
M
"
(
&
"*
*
(
T**(U
*
(
"
$
!
"
#
$
!
$ !
%
&
&
'
(
)
&* $
$
!
&
&+
&
!
$
&
$
&
!
&!
&
!
,-. /,
&+
012
$
'
&$
&
%
& $ %
&
$
&$
$
'(
)
&*
#!
1
*
3
3
*
$
'(
)
&* $
&
45
'(
)
&*
$
&
&
1
#!
1
*
$
!
3
3
*
$
&
!
"
#
%
&
6
!
$
+
&
6
$
!
6
&
&
!
$
&
7
$
&
6
$
$ 6
8 $
9
7$
&
&
45
!
$
$
6
8$
$
:
6
$
!
&
&
0
!
!
$
$
6
8
6
&
&
9
7
$
&
1
!
9
7
&
%
&;
39
:
&
&
$
"
#
!"#
$%
&
'()*
+
*
*
, *
+
, **
-
+
*
*
. *
/
0*
&!1
2
.
*
+
*
*
, *
!"#
*
3 +
*
0*
*
+
+
.
*
!"#
+
"
.-
*
+
+
.
*
&!12
*
.
&!1*
.
. +
+*
+
+
*
+
.
0+
0
2
.
*
.
!"#
+
+
+
.
.4
!"#
*
-
.*
.
5
. * 5
.
*
.
*
*
-6
3
.7
8+
"
7
1
1
7
*
-6
3
.7 *
.
')
-6
3
.7
*
.
.
"
8+
"
7
*
+
1
1
7
*
.
+
9
8
5
.
0
+
*
4
.
.+
:
0
*
+
&
*
.
0
*
*
0
, *
*
.
% *
.
!
!
"
!
# $%
%
!
#"
"&
'(
!
#
"
# $
%
!
()*
!()*
!
!
+
"#
"
"
&
&
"
"
!
+
"
#
#
"
!
%
,
#
#
-
#
"%,
"&
()*
!
-
"!
"%,.
" ! .
"
!
"
!
!
-/
0
"1
#
)
1
1 %,!
-/
0
"1 !
"
23
-/
0
"1
!
"
"%)
#
)
1
!
#
1
!
"
#
4
%,
.
"
$
#
!
&
"
"#
+
$
!
#
%'
!
"
$
!
! $
5 !%
!
"%6 !
"
!
!
"
!
# $%
!"#
$
%&
&'&
&
&( (
&
')* &
+, &
&
-
&
'
& ,
,
&'
&%
%.
'/01
(
')
* &
+23
&,
&'
&
&,
' 4
&
5
,
6
&
& '
&/01
23( '&
7+8
$
&0
9:
/01
&
'' '
&-''
&
(
(
-
& * &
+ (7
% (;%*
&$
<
2
2
===============================
7*>?+7*+0+/?@<>+@
!"
#
$
%
&'&()'&*+*+&'* &+()+, -#* '&+(# *( ) ./01
21
34
51461 78
1 19
91
4141494:
/;
<
4<8
111
/1=
:9
4
48/9181814=//
>941?./;1
<
1
1
@1
A8B;@AC
D
1
9:
18
1491
14
9
9
1<
114
89
18=/1
D
411
199
49
944
9?A148
E?FB1CBC</G:
8H
8;4I
JJJKLMNOPQRSTUMVSWXLTQQTYZNKT[MNZ[KRVUZ[\ZVRKZ[RVUN[ZU[T\]Z[KLMSLTVUMX\TYM KZKLMN[Z^MSKZ[SZVYRKRZVXZ]N[Z^MSKTNN[Z_TQ`TYZNKMYRVZ[YM[KZ\RKRUTKMZ[T_ZRY XRUVR]RSTVKM]]MSKXZVKLMMV_R[ZV\MVK?
38E?F1
9
4
1 4
<
9
1
9
114
481/198<8
9
14a
D
b:<
844
9
c8
9
1b/1
:4<4191
<1491141 48
1 1?
./1
1:
/11
/11
:8
44184<
199
1
<
/9
c8?.
/1/11
1
9
9
9
4b1
9
1/1:4 4=/8/4</14
9:
<
18/1
?
./9
c8199
81=
/1 /
9:
<
9
/1
b14/ 1
;
<
491
=
/1 /9
1
9:
<
14
9
/
9
1</11
?
!"
#
$
%
!&'
! ()
!*'
+,!
-)'
.
!*'
)/
!&"
01!(!
)/
#
/
2 $"1
)!3
4)
5 1 6! 2
$$!
&
7
1)1 !&
'
)!&87 89:;<
=>?<
@==<
ABC
>
D E<
>D
>F=G=>?
=>
<
BG
?>=H>
AB
B
<>
H
><=>
?
=>
<=I>
>
><<=I
B
<= G<=?<
>G
=
>AB><
>J>GK
>
;=H><
>F
;
H
<@=><
=>H
><
@=
>G>
AB
B
><>
H
<=>
?
=>
<=
?<
B>
=G=><
=
=?
=>
FLBM
B>
H
>G
A=<
HB
FEH><
>IB;<
=>B>
G
=
>AB><
>
J>GK
>
;=>G
<
G
H=> BM
H
AF
N A>G
H=><
>=H>
=
=<
F
N A>G
H=> =<
>=H>
=
=<
F;H
>=BG>
O>=>
PF
D
@=;<
=>IM
Q
<Q<>
87 8R:EHIG
B=
H=
=H
>B<
@=I=>
>B>=
G<>=?
G ><IBA
SB>
?=<
G=<
>=AB T
>
GL>
;=OUVJM =WXP
LB;<
=>B>
H
B>
>
>
H >A
<>=
?
G ><FEHB>=>?
HGIB;<
=>
B>
=<
>?
G
IAB=A
?
A G
>G
HG?
BM
FLBM
B>
B>A
S=<
G=<
>=AB
BT
>
GL>
;=
N A>G
H=>
<
>=H>
=
=<
F
N A>G
H=> =<
>=H>
=
=<
F;H
>=BG>
O>=>
PF
D
@=;<
=>IM
Q
<Q<>
2'1
!&
'
)!&82 89:EB B>
<
B
=B
=?
H>=
B
=>
H
G<>
G=
G
B=
H=
=IB<
@=><
=>H
M
H=>
IG<
>
<G
G=>
BG
?A
S B>
>GH><>
=FY
SB>
B>
>H
B HG><
>
>GFD>
>=
G=
GZ
LBD
@=;<
=>B>
H
BM
Q
<
Q<>
H>
G<=
GFY
SB>
?<
>
<G
G=GFLB><
=>B>
<
G<
H BM
B>
=
HG>
=B
B>
>G B>G><
>
=G>F
Q
G
G
?=
=
>= F
>
GHG
D
@=<
><
>=
H
>G
=
=<
FM
B
G
?=
=
>= F
D
@=;<
=>IM
=M
>=IM
Q
<Q<>
!"
#
$
%
&'()*+,&-*./0- 12('+,3-4/'05 67-, &+,'(+0,)
(+82/0 &+,'(+0,)
90-4/,2:
3-.;+,'<=-1)-,2:+0>*0(:
?+@;='*,2-A0'B2*(+,
C,'(*= D*(- ?+@@-,(.
EFGHIJK LIMNOJPGQRSTPGUJTKIOSVWGTOLJUHX YX Z[ZX\]^X]YX
^Y
^X
]
\_`EaPHWGPIHNSUIKQbTSGRTUJHISGQHScJKQd]^Xd YX
^Y
ZYX
^Y
YX
\]
X_
X^X_X^Y]X
X\e
\_^
\d
\ZX \^Z\^XZ
Y
X_ X^`EFGMNJSKLHWGMNIOJPGQRSTPGUJTKIOX
^Y
_
\X
f
gX ^X\fYX
Y\
df
gX
X
X\
^dXg]^
X
^X
\^
\`EhK\
XgX\^
]
X_X
^Y
^X
]
e\_EiNSIHJTKPHWGISHJPVU RGVJPQjkHWGX
^Y
`&&l?3lmno
p^X\Y
Y
q]rX
X
Y\r]
s\r^tu`X\od
^v
^s\r^ut`wx]YX
XX
X
Y\
^
^ZrX
X
Y\rX]
s\r^tu`XYX_
Xod
^v
^s\r^ut`wZ]
Y\
dX^YX
^
Ys
s
YXX\Y ^X
]\ X
X\ _]Y
X`x]Y
XX
\
\d ]yX z
^X\^ZY ^
]
YyX z
^X
XsfY_
^d\_
\`
x]YX
XX
]\X\e
[_\ZYo
p^
z_
^XYX
\^X\
df
_
]YX _
^\
\Y XX
YX d _
\X ^_
\
fY`
{
X
_
p^^
^X^ `
s
Y
_
p^^
^`
o
p^z_
^XZs
{
_{_X
EXHIBIT C
Addendum to Housing Element MND
ADDENDUM
TO
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
State Clearing House No. 2021090102
Project Location
The proposed Project includes the establishment of an alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone that may be applied to certain properties within the city, listed below, provided such properties meet the eligibility requirements outlined in the ordinance:
333-353 S. Beverly Drive
8844 Burton Way
140 S. Camden Drive
211-217 S. Hamilton Drive
214-216 S. Hamilton Drive
125-129 S. Linden Drive
346 N. Maple Drive
401 N. Oakhurst Drive
9430 Olympic Boulevard
9441 Olympic Boulevard
9467 Olympic Boulevard
145 S. Rodeo Drive
232 Tower Drive
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
Background
This document is an Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)1 prepared for the update of the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period (6th Cycle), which was adopted by the City of Beverly Hills on October 12, 2021 (the “original Project”) per City Council Resolution No. 21-R-13370 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021090102). Amended versions of the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period were subsequently re-adopted by the City of Beverly Hills on February 21, 2023 and March 18, 2024 (the “Amended Housing Element”) per City Council Resolution No. 23-R-13449. The IS/MND document, inclusive of exhibits, is hereby incorporated by reference.
The proposed Project includes a Zone Text Amendment that would establish an alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone, which would facilitate the ministerial approval of certain housing projects submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5 that comply with prescribed objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements. This Addendum documents the proposed Project’s consistency with the original Project.
1 The previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2021-2029 Housing Element update can be found at: www.beverlyhills.org/housingelementupdate.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 29, 2025
- 2 -
Statutory Requirements
Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines allows for a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted negative declaration or environmental impact report (EIR). This Addendum evaluates the proposed Project and demonstrates its consistency with the original Project. No changes to the original Project are proposed, and therefore, the proposed Project does not meet any of the requirements set forth in CEQA that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. This Addendum will be considered by the decision making body in conjunction with consideration of the proposed Project.
Project Description
The proposed Project is a Zone Text Amendment that would amend the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to establish an alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone for projects subject to Government Code Section 65589.5. and which meet the following eligibility criteria:
1. Properties that are listed as the site for a proposed Builder’s Remedy project that:
i. Submitted a Preliminary Application (PA) pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024 (the date the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development);
ii. Submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the preliminary application; and iii. The preliminary application has not lapsed at the time of submittal of an application pursuant to the overlay zone or the date of any settlement agreement between the City and the project applicant.
2. The property does not contain a historic resource or resource eligible for historic resource designation.
The eligible projects would also have to comply with the specified objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements outlined in the ordinance. The objective development standards regulate the permitted uses, height, setbacks, minimum unit sizes, modulation, open space and balconies, front yard paving, walls/fences/hedges, and parking. The performance standards place restrictions on the hours of operation for common outdoor areas, the use of amplified sound, and rooftop users. The affordability requirements set forth minimum affordability requirements, equal access to amenities between market rate tenants and affordable unit tenants, and transferability options for affordable units to another site within city limits.
The application of the overlay zone standards on eligible projects will result in projects that meet or are reduced in scale when compared to the existing Builder’s Remedy project applications currently on file with the City. Projects that elect to utilize the ministerial permit process will be consistent in size and scale to density bonus projects previously approved by the City. These density bonus projects have typically been found to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 29, 2025
- 3 -
Additionally, pursuant to Government Code 65589.5(d)(2), inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety for development projects for very low, low- or moderate-inome households.
Housing Element Consistency Analysis
The 2021-2029 Housing Element provides a number of policies and programs related to the streamlining of housing projects. The following provides a summary of those policies and an explanation on the proposed Project’s consistency with such policies.
Policies
H 2.1 Affordable Housing Incentives. Offer incentives, including density bonuses, where feasible, to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing, including the reduction of entitlement and permitting fees for projects that include a certain percentage of affordable housing units. Proactively seek out new approaches in the provision of affordable housing.
The establishment of a ministerial permit process for Builder’s Remedy projects that meet the prescribed eligibility requirements and comply with all applicable objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements will allow such projects to utilize a ministerial permit process, in lieu of the City’s existing discretionary review process, which typically involves review by both the Planning Commission and Architectural and Design Review Commission and can, under certain circumstances, include review by City Council on appeal. The City’s discretionary review process takes more time and involves higher costs than would a ministerial review of a project, inclusive of application fees, consultant fees to pay for the preparation of an environmental report, public noticing fees, and public hearings. The implementation of a ministerial process for certain housing projects that include affordable units, or provide affordable units on a separate site within city limits, will reduce the direct cost and time required to obtain approval for such projects. As such, the Project will directly offset and reduce the cost of development affordable housing as such projects will not be required to pay entitlement application fees, environmental report preparation fees, and will likely have reduced land holding costs as a result of the streamlined process. H 4.2 Development Standards. Evaluate and modify development standards as appropriate to better facilitate the provision of affordable housing.
The alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone modifies a number of development standards in order to streamline the production of affordable housing.
Specifically, the overlay zone would allow for the following:
o Density consistent with the preliminary application filed by the project applicant, and which is consistent with the density permitted under State law. o Permitted uses consistent with the preliminary application filed by the project applicant, including uses that were not listed in the preliminary application but are nevertheless permitted in the underlying zone.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 29, 2025
- 4 -
o Reduced setbacks, provided such setbacks are consistent with the preliminary application (note: for R-4 properties, the side setback must be no less than shown on the preliminary application, or 3’-0”, whichever is greater). o A height limit up to 75’ to the floor level of the top story or 85’ to the top of the building. Such height limits are consistent with recent State density bonus housing projects reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. o Reduced minimum unit size based on the minimum required size as provided in the California Building Code.
o Removal of modulation and open space requirements.
o Reduction of parking requirements to an amount no less than that proposed as part of the preliminary application.
The modification of certain development standards for these projects will simplify the development standards specific to a project, and many incorporate standards that have already been implemented by the project (e.g., density, uses, parking). Therefore, the Project will include modifications to development standards that will facilitate the provision of affordable housing.
Programs
Study and create additional incentives to promote the mixed use program, including promoting the ability to adaptively reuse existing commercial buildings, to facilitate the creation of new units in high opportunity areas. (Imp 11.1) Of the 14 potentially eligible properties that could participate in the alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone, one is a mixed use project located in the City’s Mixed Use Overlay Zone (MUOZ) and six are mixed use projects located outside of the MUOZ. The Project will promote the development of mixed use projects throughout the city through the establishment of a ministerial permit process for eligible housing projects, submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, as described in Policy H 2.1.
Many of the eligible projects are located on sites that are in close proximity to public transportation and regional traffic routes, neighborhood-serving uses, and public facilities such as schools and City parks. Therefore, the Project will create additional incentives to promote the mixed use program to facilitate the creation of new units in high opportunity areas.
Amend the zoning code to remove constraints that may exist related to the redevelopment of commercial shopping centers into mixed use developments. (Imp 12.1) At least one potentially eligible property is currently developed with a commercial shopping center, and the establishment of the alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone will remove constraints related to the redevelopment of this site.
This would be achieved through the implementation of a ministerial permit process that, described in under Policy H 2.1, prescribes objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program as it will remove constraints that currently exist related to the redevelopment of commercial shopping centers into mixed use developments Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 29, 2025
- 5 -
Adopt code changes to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for architectural review of multi-family housing and mixed use projects with affordable housing. (Imp 12.1)
The Project would establish an alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone that would streamline the approval process for eligible projects as the projects would not be subject to any discretionary review, including the City’s architectural review process. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program as it will streamline the approval process.
Simplify modulation requirements for multi-family housing projects by 2025. Reduce minimum unit size for multi-family buildings. (Imp 12.1) The alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone would remove modulation requirements for all projects and would reduce the minimum unit size to that required in the California Building Code. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program as it will simplify both the modulation requirements and minimum unit size for eligible multi-family residential projects. Adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects and create materials for multi-family applicants that clearly state the design standards. (Imp 12.1) As described under Policy H 4.2 (Development Standards), the alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone provides objective design standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements for eligible multi-family and mixed use housing projects. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program in that it will create objective design standards for eligible multi-family housing projects. Update the zoning code to reduce inefficiencies and uncertainty in the development review process. (Imp 12.3)
As described in Policies H 2.1 and 2.4, the Project will establish a ministerial permit process for eligible housing projects and will provide objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements, many of which are informed by density bonus projects that have recently been approved by the City. The Project sets forth clearly defined standards by which the projects on eligible project sites would need to comply. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program in that a ministerial permit process reduces inefficiencies and uncertainty in the development review process as it sets clearly defined standards by which a proposed project would be approved.
Conclusion
Given the analysis presented in this Addendum, it is therefore found that the proposed Project is consistent with the 2021-2029 Housing Element and would not result in a measurable increase in environmental impacts over what was previously analyzed in the adopted IS/MND for the adopted Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 29, 2025
- 6 -
2021-2029 Housing Element. There are no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require revisions to the previous IS/MND. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum to the IS/MND is appropriate and has been prepared to document the proposed Project’s consistency with Housing Element of the City of Beverly Hills General Plan.
.
_________________________ April 29, 2025
ICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
EXHIBIT D
General Plan Policy Analysis
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Policies
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.
A majority of the 14 potentially eligible projects that could participate in the alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone currently exceed the general size and scale of developments in the City’s residential and commercial neighborhoods. The Project seeks to reduce the size and scale of eligible projects to ensure they are more consistent with that of other housing projects that have been recently reviewed and approved by the City, and which are more consistent with the existing neighborhoods.
Therefore, the Project will 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.
LU 3.2 Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs. Meet State requirements to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, contingent upon the ability to maintain the qualities that distinguish and contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City's fiscal resources.
The alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone will provide for a streamlined process for eligible projects, all of which are required to provide a certain amount of affordable housing in a manner consistent with State law requirements.
Therefore, the Project will assist the City in meeting State requirements to accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs.
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.
As described in Policy 2.1, the Project seeks to reduce the size and scale of eligible projects to ensure they are more consistent with that of other housing projects in the city. The eligible projects include uses that are generally consistent with the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, and provide amenity features that are typical of housing developments throughout the city. Therefore, the Project will maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods.
H 2.1 Affordable Housing Incentives. Offer incentives, including density bonuses, where feasible, to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing, including the reduction of entitlement and permitting fees for projects that include a certain percentage of affordable housing units. Proactively seek out new approaches in the provision of affordable housing.
The establishment of a ministerial permit process for Builder’s Remedy projects that meet the prescribed eligibility requirements and comply with all applicable objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements will allow such projects to utilize a ministerial permit process, in lieu of the City’s existing discretionary review process, which typically involves review by both the Planning Commission and Architectural and Design Review Commission and can, under certain circumstances, include review by City Council on appeal. The City’s discretionary review process takes more time and involves higher costs than would a ministerial review of a project, inclusive of application fees, consultant fees to pay for the preparation of an environmental report, public noticing fees, and public hearings. The implementation of a ministerial process for certain housing projects that include affordable units, or provide affordable units on a separate site within city limits, will reduce the direct cost and time required to obtain approval for such projects. As such, the Project will directly offset and reduce the cost of development affordable housing as such projects will not be required to pay entitlement application fees, environmental report preparation fees, and will likely have reduced land holding costs as a result of the streamlined process. H 4.2 Development Standards. Evaluate and modify development standards as appropriate to better facilitate the provision of affordable housing.
The alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone modifies a number of development standards in order to streamline the production of affordable housing.
Specifically, the overlay zone would allow for the following:
o Density consistent with the preliminary application filed by the project applicant, and which is consistent with the density permitted under State law. o Permitted uses consistent with the preliminary application filed by the project applicant, including uses that were not listed in the preliminary application but are nevertheless permitted in the underlying zone.
o Reduced setbacks, provided such setbacks are consistent with the preliminary application (note: for R-4 properties, the side setback must be no less than shown on the preliminary application, or 3’-0”, whichever is greater). o A height limit up to 75’ to the floor level of the top story or 85’ to the top of the building. Such height limits are consistent with recent State density bonus housing projects reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. o Reduced minimum unit size based on the minimum required size as provided in the California Building Code.
o Removal of modulation and open space requirements.
o Reduction of parking requirements to an amount no less than that proposed as part of the preliminary application.
The modification of certain development standards for these projects will simplify the development standards specific to a project, and many incorporate standards that have already been implemented by the project (e.g., density, uses, parking). Therefore, the Project will include modifications to development standards that will facilitate the provision of affordable housing.
Programs
Study and create additional incentives to promote the mixed use program, including promoting the ability to adaptively reuse existing commercial buildings, to facilitate the creation of new units in high opportunity areas. (Imp 11.1) Of the 14 potentially eligible properties that could participate in the alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone, one is a mixed use project located in the City’s Mixed Use Overlay Zone (MUOZ) and six are mixed use projects located outside of the MUOZ. The Project will promote the development of mixed use projects throughout the city through the establishment of a ministerial permit process for eligible housing projects, submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, as described in Policy H 2.1.
Many of the eligible projects are located on sites that are in close proximity to public transportation and regional traffic routes, neighborhood-serving uses, and public facilities such as schools and City parks. Therefore, the Project will create additional incentives to promote the mixed use program to facilitate the creation of new units in high opportunity areas.
Amend the zoning code to remove constraints that may exist related to the redevelopment of commercial shopping centers into mixed use developments. (Imp 12.1) At least one potentially eligible property is currently developed with a commercial shopping center, and the establishment of the alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone will remove constraints related to the redevelopment of this site.
This would be achieved through the implementation of a ministerial permit process that, described in under Policy H 2.1, prescribes objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program as it will remove constraints that currently exist related to the redevelopment of commercial shopping centers into mixed use developments. Adopt code changes to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for architectural review of multi-family housing and mixed use projects with affordable housing. (Imp 12.1)
The Project would establish an alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone that would streamline the approval process for eligible projects as the projects would not be subject to any discretionary review, including the City’s architectural review process. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program as it will streamline the approval process.
Simplify modulation requirements for multi-family housing projects by 2025. Reduce minimum unit size for multi-family buildings. (Imp 12.1) The alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone would remove modulation requirements for all projects and would reduce the minimum unit size to that required in the California Building Code. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program as it will simplify both the modulation requirements and minimum unit size for eligible multi-family residential projects. Adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects and create materials for multi-family applicants that clearly state the design standards. (Imp 12.1) As described under Policy H 4.2 (Development Standards), the alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone provides objective design standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements for eligible multi-family and mixed use housing projects. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program in that it will create objective design standards for eligible multi-family housing projects. Update the zoning code to reduce inefficiencies and uncertainty in the development review process. (Imp 12.3)
As described in Policies H 2.1 and 2.4, the Project will establish a ministerial permit process for eligible housing projects and will provide objective development standards, performance standards, and affordability requirements, many of which are informed by density bonus projects that have recently been approved by the City. The Project sets forth clearly defined standards by which the projects on eligible project sites would need to comply. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this implementation program in that a ministerial permit process reduces inefficiencies and uncertainty in the development review process as it sets clearly defined standards by which a proposed project would be approved.
ATTACHMENT 3
Required Zone Text Amendment
Findings
10-3-3908: DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
If, from the facts presented at the public hearing, or by investigation by or at the instance of the planning commission, the planning commission finds that the public interest, health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, or general welfare requires the reclassification of the property involved or the reclassification of any portion of the property, the planning commission shall so recommend to the council.
The recommendation of the planning commission to the council shall be in writing and shall set forth fully the findings and determinations of the planning commission on the matter involved. A decision shall be rendered within a reasonable time, and a recommendation shall be filed with the council within seven (7) days after the decision is rendered by the planning commission. (1962 Code § 10-858; amd.
Ord. 95-O-2239, eff. 7-7-1995)
ATTACHMENT 4
City Council Staff Report
(January 28, 2025)
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 28, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Masa Alkire, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Cindy Gordon, AICP, Principal Planner
Subject: Ministerial Permit Process Discussion for Certain “Builder’s Remedy” Housing Development Projects
Attachments: 1. Public Correspondence
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is requested to consider whether an alternative ministerial permit process should be established for housing development projects subject to Government Code Section 65589.5, generally referred to as “Builder’s Remedy” projects. Such a process would be made available to developers that agree to modify their projects to meet certain objective criteria, thus creating an incentive to design their projects to be more consistent with the scale of other recently entitled developments in the city.
DISCUSSION
The Housing Accountability Act prohibits cities from disapproving a qualifying housing development project that meets certain affordability requirements, unless specific findings can be made. Some of these findings are not applicable unless a city has a certified general plan housing element (Govt. Code §65589.5(d)(1) and (5)). These provisions are commonly referred to as Builder’s Remedy, because they may limit a local agency’s ability to deny a project that includes “housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households”, even if that project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations.
The City’s Housing Element was adopted by the City on March 18, 2024, and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on May 1, 2024. However, prior to those dates, a total of 15 preliminary applications (PA’s) were submitted for Builder’s Remedy projects before the City adopted its Housing Element and a total of 19 PA’s were submitted for Builder’s Remedy projects before May 1, 2024. The purpose of a PA is to vest the rights of a project pursuant to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time the PA was submitted. The lack of a certified housing element at the time a PA is submitted means that deviations from the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning regulations cannot be a basis for denying a project submitted under the Builder’s Remedy.
Meeting Date: January 28, 2025
The City is currently processing 14 Builder’s Remedy projects. Three of the 19 projects that had submitted a PA did not submit formal entitlements and are no longer valid. Two additional projects, located at 8800 Wilshire Boulevard and 8820 Wilshire Boulevard, submitted formal applications that exceeded the floor area of the project described in the corresponding PA by more than 20%. Therefore, these two projects are not eligible for processing as Builder’s Remedy projects pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5).
The 14 Builder’s Remedy projects that are currently undergoing City review are being processed as discretionary land use entitlements. The characteristics of these projects, such as height and density, far exceed the City’s existing development standards that would otherwise be applicable for non-Builder’s Remedy projects and are of a size that many consider to be out of scale with existing development patterns. Accordingly, the City is currently exploring various options to encourage these developers to reduce the size and scale of the projects while also promoting the development of additional housing units.
One option for the City Council to consider is the development of a ministerial permit process for these projects, which may serve as an incentive for developers to reduce the size of their projects in exchange for a more streamlined review process.
As described in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, an action is ministerial if it does not require a City official to exercise discretion concerning any outcome or course of action for a project. An example of a ministerial permit is a building permit, which is issued as a matter of course provided a proposed project complies with all applicable codes, development standards, and regulations. An example of a discretionary permit is any type of land use entitlement that requires review and findings by the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Architectural and Design Review Commission, or the Director of Community Development. Currently, all new mixed-use projects and multi-family residential projects require the approval of a discretionary Development Plan Review and, typically, a Density Bonus Permit.
A ministerial permit process would provide more certainty for housing developers as it sets clear standards by which a proposed project would be approved. The establishment of a ministerial permit process can also reduce barriers to housing development, as discretionary processes typically involve a considerable amount of time (e.g., six to twelve months from project submittal to a hearing) and cost (e.g., application fees, environmental report preparation, holding costs, etc.) as the project moves through the various steps in the process. Importantly, ministerial projects are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental reports or documents, which can often cost housing developers anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000 or more, would be required as part of a ministerial permit process for a particular project. Any ordinance amending the Code to establish such a ministerial permit process would undergo applicable CEQA review.
However, a ministerial permit process would also limit public input on a particular project as there is no public noticing requirement for a ministerial permit. Additionally, pursuant to BHMC 1-4-302, no right of appeal exists for decisions (i.e., permit issuance) that are ministerial and thus do not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgement exercised pursuant to any provisions of the BHMC.
If the Council determines that the establishment of a ministerial permit process for Builder’s Remedy projects is desired, City staff requests direction on two aspects:
Meeting Date: January 28, 2025
1) Which project types should be subject to a ministerial permit process? Currently, staff’s focus is on the establishment of a ministerial permit process for projects submitted as Builder’s Remedy projects in order to provide an incentive to housing developers to reduce the size of the projects to be more in line with projects that have recently been approved by the Planning Commission, and the City Council on appeal. If there is an interest in a more broad-based application, the development of a ministerial process with objective standards could serve as a model for establishing such a streamlined process for all housing projects in the city that include an affordable housing component.
Almost all housing projects now utilize the provisions of state density bonus law (SDBL). Certain aspects of SDBL are a state mandate, meaning that an applicant is entitled to take advantage of the benefits afforded by that law and the City has limited ability to deny the request. For example, the developer is entitled to the additional density and incentives/concessions and waivers because it is a density bonus project. Additionally, pursuant to the HAA, the City’s ability to deny a housing development project is constrained, and to do so requires specific findings that would need to be made. Only objective standards can be basis for project denial, although there is some authority to impose conditions on a project to promote compliance with subjective standards (i.e., required findings), provided that the conditions don’t have the effect of reducing density or making the project infeasible.
As previously noted, due to limitations imposed by state law, most new mixed use and multi-family residential projects are required to go through a discretionary process whereby the decision makers (e.g., the Planning Commission or City Council) are extremely limited in their ability to deny or require modifications to projects. This often results in frustration during the process, particularly with community members who are opposed to the project and decision makers who may not want to approve the project in its proposed form. While state law still allows cities to impose a discretionary process on housing projects, the practical benefits of that process have been diminished over the years due to new regulations intended to benefit housing developers and the production of new housing units, which limit a jurisdiction’s ability to deny a project that may be otherwise out of scale with the existing area. Given these limitations, the impact of offering a ministerial process to projects meeting certain objective standards is expected to be minimal, resulting in projects of a size and scale consistent with SDBL projects recently approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The ministerial process would be available to projects meeting the objective standards, thus giving a developer the option to design a project that meets the criteria, or to pursue a project that does not meet the objective standards through the more typical discretionary process. A developer’s ability to utilize SDBL would not be constrained in any way, however, failure to meet the objective criteria for the ministerial process for any reason, including a SDBL concession or waiver, would render the project ineligible for the ministerial process.
Meeting Date: January 28, 2025
2) What objective standards should be developed that would be applicable to all such projects?
If a ministerial permit process is developed, staff recommends the City Council provide general direction on the objective standards that would be applicable to these projects in order to ensure that projects continue to be compatible, as much as possible, with the surrounding area and future visions for mixed use and multifamily residential neighborhoods. Objective development and performance standards could include, but are not limited to:
Development Standards
• Limit height to 75’ to the top floor level; up to 85’ to the top of the building (this configuration is typical with SDBL projects because of increased construction costs above this height due to building code requirements); • Require compliance with certain minimum setback requirements; • Require compliance with certain modulation and massing standards; • Require certain rooftop elements to be stepped back from facades in order to limit additional massing;
• Require that common outdoor open space be set back a certain distance from residentially zoned properties; and
• Require a maximum depth for balconies that are adjacent to another residentially zoned property.
Performance Standards
• Limit hours of operation for common outdoor open space; • Limit the use of outdoor living spaces to be used only by project residents and guests; for mixed use projects, no commercial occupants can utilize rooftop facilities;
• Limit rooftop/common outdoor open space to passive uses (e.g., no fitness areas, dog runs, swimming pools, BBQs, or televisions); and • Prohibit the use of amplified sound in any outdoor area, including private balconies.
Many of the standards above are already implemented for new housing developments by the City Council and Planning Commission through project specific conditions of approval. If direction is provided to prepare a ministerial permit process, City staff would prepare a comprehensive list of objective development and performance standards that would apply to any project seeking to utilize the streamlined process.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
While public notification is not required for study session items, the City sent out courtesy emails to all builder’s remedy applicant teams and interested parties lists for each project advising them of the Council discussion. As of the writing of this staff report, the City has received one piece of public correspondence, which is included as Attachment 1.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City beyond staff time required to prepare an ordinance to establish a ministerial permit process, if so directed by Council.
Meeting Date: January 28, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on the establishment of a ministerial permit process for certain housing development projects.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission Staff Report
(March 27, 2025)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):
A. City Council Study Session Staff Report (January 28, 2025) B. Draft Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone Framework
C. General Plan Policies
D. Public Correspondence – Received as part of City Council Study Session
Report Author and Contact Information:
Cindy Gordon, AICP, Principal Planner
(310) 285-1191
[email protected]
Meeting Date: March 27, 2025
Subject: MINISTERIAL PERMIT PROCESS STUDY SESSION
An informational report on the establishment of a ministerial permit process for certain “Builder’s Remedy” housing development projects.
Project Representative: City-initiated
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a study session to discuss the establishment of a ministerial permit process; and provide input and direction to staff regarding the preparation of a draft ordinance to be presented to the Planning Commission at a future meeting.
REPORT SUMMARY
This report introduces the general framework for a potential ministerial permit process that could be available for certain housing projects. Currently, all housing projects require discretionary through the City’s development plan review process. However, the City is exploring the establishment of a housing development overlay zone that would allow for a ministerial permit process for projects that are subject to Government Code Section 65589.5, generally referred to as “Builder’s Remedy” projects.
This study session is intended to provide an initial discussion on the overlay zone and ministerial permit process and introduces the general framework developed by City staff and the City Attorney’s Office. No new regulations will be adopted by the Planning Commission at this session and the Commission will not discuss project-specific details for existing builder’s remedy projects.
However, if the Commission directs staff to prepare regulations, staff will return at a future meeting with a draft ordinance that memorializes the Commission’s direction.
BACKGROUND
The Housing Accountability Act prohibits cities from disapproving a qualifying housing development project that meets certain affordability requirements, unless specific findings can be made. Some of these findings are not applicable unless a city has a certified general plan housing element (Govt. Code §65589.5(d)(1) and (5)). These provisions are commonly referred to as Builder’s Remedy because they may limit a local agency’s ability to deny a project that includes “housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income Planning Commission Report
Ministerial Permit Process Study Session
March 27, 2025
households”, even if that project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations.
The characteristics of these projects, such as height and density, far exceed the City’s existing development standards that would otherwise be applicable for non-Builder’s Remedy projects and are of a size that many consider to be out of scale with existing development patterns.
Accordingly, the City is currently exploring various options to encourage these developers to reduce the size and scale of the projects while also promoting the development of additional housing units. One option that the City is considering is the development of a ministerial permit process for these projects, which may serve as an incentive for developers to reduce the size of their projects in exchange for a more streamlined review process.
Existing Discretionary Review Process
The City is currently processing 14 Builder’s Remedy projects, which are are being processed as discretionary land use entitlements. A detailed explanation on the City’s processing of these projects can be found in the staff report prepared for the January 28, 2025 City Council study session (Attachment A). While State law provides certain protections for these projects, it does not preempt local jurisdictions from implementing an existing discretionary review process to process a Builder’s Remedy application. Accordingly, all the Builder’s Remedy projects are currently subject to the City’s Development Plan Review process and would require review before the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal.
Due to limitations imposed by state law, while housing projects, including Builder’s Remedy projects, may still be required to go through a discretionary process, the decision makers (e.g., the Planning Commission or City Council) are extremely limited in their ability to deny or require modifications to projects. This often results in frustration during the process, particularly with community members who are opposed to the project and decision makers who may not want to approve the project in its proposed form. While state law still allows cities to impose a discretionary process on housing projects, the practical benefits of that process have been diminished over the years due to new regulations intended to benefit housing developers and the production of new housing units, which limit a jurisdiction’s ability to deny a project that may be otherwise out of scale with the existing area.
Ministerial Review Process
As described in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, an action is ministerial if it does not require a city official to exercise discretion concerning any outcome or course of action for a project. An example of a ministerial permit is a building permit, which is issued as a matter of course provided a proposed project complies with all applicable codes, development standards, and regulations.
An example of a discretionary permit is any type of land use entitlement that requires review and findings by the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Architectural and Design Review Commission, or the Director of Community Development.
A ministerial permit process would provide more certainty for housing developers as it sets clear standards by which a proposed project would be approved. The establishment of a ministerial permit process can also reduce barriers to housing development, as discretionary processes typically involve a considerable amount of time (e.g., six to twelve months from project submittal to a hearing) and cost (e.g., application fees, environmental report preparation, holding costs, etc.) as the project moves through the various steps in the process. Importantly, ministerial Planning Commission Report
Ministerial Permit Process Study Session
March 27, 2025
projects are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental reports or documents, which can often cost housing developers anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000 or more, would be required as part of a ministerial permit process for a particular project.
Any ordinance amending the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) to establish such a ministerial permit process would undergo applicable CEQA review.
However, a ministerial permit process would also limit public input on a particular project as there is no public noticing requirement for a ministerial permit. Additionally, pursuant to BHMC 1-4-302, no right of appeal exists for decisions (i.e., permit issuance) that are ministerial and thus do not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgement exercised pursuant to any provisions of the BHMC.
City Council Study Session
At the January 28, 2025 City Council study session (Attachment A), which was held to discuss the potential establishment of a ministerial permit process for housing development projects, two main questions were considered:
1) Which project types should be subject to a ministerial permit process? 2) What objective standards should be developed that would be applicable to all such projects?
The general consensus of the Council was that such a process should only be considered for Builder’s Remedy projects in order to provide an incentive for the developers to reduce the scale of the projects in exchange for a more streamlined approval process. The Council also agreed that the objective standards that would be required in order to participate in such a process should be generally informed by the scale of projects submitted under State Density Bonus Law (such as a height limit of eight stories) and the conditions typically imposed by the Planning Commission (e.g., permit parking, prohibition on amplified sound, setbacks for common outdoor areas).
Councilmember Mirisch also expressed an interest in requiring such projects to utilize a local workforce and apprenticeship programs, and that each project would be required to enter into a project labor agreement.
At the conclusion of the study session, the Council directed staff to discuss the potential establishment of a ministerial permit process for Builder’s Remedy projects with the Planning Commission and develop an ordinance that would be considered by the Council at a future meeting.
DRAFT FRAMEWORK
The draft framework (Attachment B) is based upon the establishment of an overlay zone that would allow for the ministerial approval of certain housing development projects that meet specified objective criteria based on both the physical development and operation of the project.
Specifically, the process would be made available to Builder’s Remedy projects that meet the following criteria:
1) Properties that are listed as the site for a proposed Builder’s Remedy project that:
Planning Commission Report
Ministerial Permit Process Study Session
March 27, 2025
i. Submitted a PA pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024 (the date the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development);
ii. Submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the preliminary application; and iii. The preliminary application has not lapsed at the time of submittal of an application pursuant to the overlay zone or the date of any settlement agreement between the City and the project applicant.
2) The property does not contain a historic resource or resource eligible for historic resource designation.
The ministerial process would be optional and project applicants could choose to continue with their existing Builder’s Remedy projects through the City’s existing discretionary review process.
The objective standards are outlined in the draft framework document included as Attachment B and summarized below.
TABLE 1. DRAFT FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Objective Development Standards
Use Permitted uses are only those included in the PA, and those permitted in the underlying zone.
Density
Maximum density is based on the number of units proposed in the PA.
Note: Projects utilizing density bonus provisions would not be eligible for the alternative ministerial permit process.
Setbacks
R-4 Zone: front/rear setbacks must be no less than setbacks shown in the PA; side setbacks shall be no less than the setback shown on the PA, or 3’- 0”, whichever is greater.
MUOZ and C-3 Zones: front/rear/side setbacks must be no less than setbacks shown on the PA.
Height Limit
Project may not exceed 75’ to floor level of top story or 85’ to top of building.
Certain rooftop features may exceed the height limit in a manner consistent with the Beverly Hills Municipal Code
Minimum Unit Size Dwelling units shall meet or exceed the minimum required size as provided in the California Building Code
Common outdoor areas
setback
All common outdoor areas that can be accessed by residents/guests must be set back a minimum of 5’-0” from any building edge located adjacent to a residentially zoned property
Balconies
No balcony located adjacent to a residential zone may exceed a depth of 3’- 0”.
All enclosures for balconies located adjacent to a residential zone must be fully opaque to a height of 42”; any enclosure at a height of greater than 42” must be translucent.
Modulation No modulation is required.
Open Space No open space is required.
Planning Commission Report
Ministerial Permit Process Study Session
March 27, 2025
Front yard paving Must comply with requirements of the underlying zone.
Walls/fences/hedges Must comply with requirements of the underlying zone.
Parking and Access
Projects must provide the amount of parking identified in the PA. All parking must comply with the applicable screening requirements of the underlying zone.
Parking access must be from an alley or side street, where available. Projects must install a parabolic mirror, light system, and vehicle stop sign at all parking egress points; no sound may be utilized for the light system and such features may not be placed in or project into the City’s public right-ofway.
Performance Standards
Common Outdoor Open
Space Hours of Operation
Limited to hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekends and holidays.
Signage indicating restrictions must be installed in all common outdoor open space areas.
Amplified Sound The use of amplified sound of any kind in any outdoor area, including private balconies, is prohibited.
Rooftop Users
Rooftop outdoor areas may only be accessed to project residents and their guests.
No commercial occupant or hotel guest may utilize rooftop facilities (mixeduse projects only) Affordability Standards
Number of Affordable Units
Projects must include units restricted to lower income households at no less than the minimum percentage of units required by Government Code Section 65589.5, summarized as follows:
Extremely low income: 7%
Very low income: 10%
Lower income: 13%
Access
Occupants of affordable units must have same access to common entrances, common areas, and amenities as occupies of market rate housing units. Affordable units must not be isolated to a specific floor or areas of a specific floor.
Affordable units must have the same number and type of appliances as market rate units.
Transferability
Eligible applicants may transfer some or all of the required affordable housing units from one site (transferor) in the overlay zone to another site (transferee) in the overlay zone, provided that for each affordable unit that is transferred, two affordable units at the same or lower affordability level are provided. Such transfer must be memorialized in writing acceptable to the City, and recorded against the transferor and transferee sites.
Such units must be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of any certificate for any portion of the development on the transferor site.
Questions for Consideration
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following questions related to the establishment of a ministerial permit process for Builder’s Remedy projects:
1. Should a ministerial permit process be established for Builder’s Remedy projects? Planning Commission Report
Ministerial Permit Process Study Session
March 27, 2025
2. Does the Commission agree with the general framework presented or are there additional standards and/or modifications the Commission would like to see incorporated? GENERAL PLAN POLICIES1
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project are included as Attachment C.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
A study session does not require public notification beyond publication of the meeting agenda.
However, a courtesy email was sent to all Builder’s Remedy project applicants and to all individuals listed on the interested parties list for each Builder’s Remedy project.
Public Comment
As of the writing of this staff report, staff has not received any public correspondence specific to the Planning Commission Study Session. However, public correspondence that was received as part of the City Council Study Session is included as Attachment D.
NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct the study session; and
2. Provide input and direction to staff regarding the preparation of a draft ordinance to be presented to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. A Zone Text Amendment would require formal review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council.
Alternatively, the Planning Commission could continue the study session to a future meeting in order to engage in additional discussion on the topic.
1 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1065/General-Plan Report Reviewed By:
Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Commission Staff Report
(May 5, 2025)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):
A. Draft Resolution and Ordinance, inclusive of exhibits B. Required Zone Text Amendment Findings
C. City Council Study Session Staff Report (January 28, 2025) D. Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (March 27, 2025) E. Public Correspondence
Report Author and Contact Information:
Cindy Gordon, AICP, Principal Planner
(310) 285-1191
[email protected]
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
Subject: DRAFT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
AMENDING THE BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH AN ALTERNATIVE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROJECTS
SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5, AND
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE 2021-2029 CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT
Project Representative: City-initiated
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing to consider the draft ordinance and adopt a resolution recommending the draft ordinance to City Council for adoption.
REPORT SUMMARY
This report provides information on proposed amendments to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code that would establish an alternative ministerial approval housing development overlay zone (hereinafter, referred to as a “ministerial permit process”) that could be applied to certain properties within the city, provided that such properties meet the eligibility requirements outlined in the ordinance. The process would be limited to projects that submitted applications pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, generally referred to as “Builder’s Remedy” projects.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance, conduct a public hearing, and adopt a resolution recommending the adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft ordinance, staff will schedule the item for City Council review and adoption.
BACKGROUND
On January 28, 2025, the City Council held a study session (Attachment C) to consider whether a ministerial permit process should be established for Builder’s Remedy projects that are revised to comply with a specific set of objective design standards, performance standards, and affordability standards. The consensus of the Council was that such a process should be considered in order to provide an incentive for the developers to reduce the scale of the Builder’s Remedy projects in exchange for a more streamlined approval process. The Council also agreed that the objective standards that would be required in order to participate in such a process should Planning Commission Report
Ministerial Permit Process – Draft Ordinance
May 5, 2025
be generally informed by the scale of projects submitted and approved under State Density Bonus Law (such as a height limit of eight stories) and the conditions typically imposed by the Planning Commission (e.g., permit parking, prohibition on amplified sound, setbacks for common outdoor areas). At the conclusion of the study session, the Council directed staff to discuss the potential establishment of a ministerial permit process for Builder’s Remedy projects with the Planning Commission and develop an ordinance that would be considered by the Council at a future meeting.
On March 27, 2025, the Planning Commission held a study session to consider the draft framework that was prepared by City staff and the City Attorney’s Office. A summary of the draft framework, and additional background information and analyses related to Builder’s Remedy projects and a ministerial permit process, is provided as Attachment D to this report.
The Commission was supportive of the draft framework as it was proposed and recommended additional regulations intended to minimize potential impacts on adjacent residential properties.
These recommendations include:
Specifying that all projects must comply with existing City standards related to light regulation;
Prohibiting the use of barbeques within common or private outdoor living areas; Prohibiting amplified sound in all outdoor living areas, including private balconies and rooftop areas; and
Ensuring that affordable units are provided with the same finishes at market rate units, and that appliances in the affordable units are the same make, model, and brand as those provided for market rate units.
DRAFT ORDINANCE
The draft ordinance was prepared based upon the framework previously reviewed by the Planning Commission, with the additional suggestions described in the preceding section incorporated. It would establish an overlay zone that would allow for the ministerial approval of certain housing development projects that meet specified objective criteria based on both the physical development and operation of the project. As outlined in the draft ordinance, the process would be made available to Builder’s Remedy projects that meet the following criteria:
1) Properties that are listed as the site for a proposed Builder’s Remedy project that:
i. Submitted a PA pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024 (the date the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development);
ii. Submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the preliminary application; and iii. The preliminary application has not lapsed at the time of submittal of an application pursuant to the overlay zone or the date of any settlement agreement between the City and the project applicant.
2) The property does not contain a historic resource or resource eligible for historic resource designation.
Planning Commission Report
Ministerial Permit Process – Draft Ordinance
May 5, 2025
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a lead agency may prepare an addendum to a previously adopted MND if some changes or additions to the MND are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent MND or Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared for the Project unless, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following is determined:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the MND would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the project proponents decline to adopt the measure or alternative.
The above criteria have been assessed in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Project, in the independent judgment of the City, has been determined to be eligible for an addendum to the previously adopted MND because it does not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. Therefore, an addendum to the MND has been prepared and is included as Exhibit 1C of Attachment A. The Planning Commission has considered the MND and addendum, finds that the project will not have any significant impacts on the environment, as mitigated, and hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the addendum.
NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct the study session; and
2. Adopt the draft resolution recommending the adoption of the draft ordinance by City Council.
Alternatively, the Planning Commission may continue the draft ordinance to a future meeting in order to engage in additional discussion on the topic.
Report Reviewed By:
Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 7
Public Correspondence – received
as part of City Council public hearing
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Outlook
For Public Record: PROTESTING the Ministerial Permit Process for Builder's Remedy Projects (City Council) From Timothy Yasui < >
Date Sat 5/17/2025 11:04 AM
To Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
Cc Tim Yasui < >; Julie Yan < >
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Beverly Hills City Council
As mom and pop owners of two small apartment buildings in Beverly Hills, 90212 district we are opposing the continuation of the Ministerial Permit Process for Builder's Remedy Projects to allow the construction of the proposed 13 story commercial buildings at the corner of West Olympic Boulevard and Beverly Drive. These monstrosities will tower over our two family owned apartment buildings, robbing us of sunlight (we will literally be in the shadow of these towering infernos), robbing us of a quiet living environment, robbing us of marketability of our rental units, robbing us of environmental tranquility, robbing us of acceptable noise pollution and the current livable traffic conditions.
We could not be more vehemently opposed to this continuation of a process that will rob us of our happiness of living on this block since the late 1990s/early 2000s
Please strike down this proposition - you will ruin our lives!!!! sincerely
Tim & Julie Yasui
Small business property owners in 90212
Tim Yasui
SUSQUEHANNA FILM FESTIVAL
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Email:
Mobile:
On Friday, May 16, 2025 at 09:21:28 AM PDT, Cindy Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
To whom it may concern,
You are receiving this email as you previously expressed interest in Builder's Remedy projects that are currently under review by the City. This email is to inform you that the City Council will consider an ordinance to establish a ministerial permit process for these types of projects at their regular meeting on Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 7:00 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
For your convenience, the Notice of Public Hearing is attached. This notice was also published in last week's edition of the Beverly Hills Courier, and this week's editions of the Beverly Hills Weekly and the Beverly Press. This notice was also mailed out to all property owners and residential occupants located within 500' (extended to the block face) from a Builder's Remedy project site.
We anticipate the agenda packet for that meeting to be published approximately three days prior to the meeting, and I will send out a separate email with a link to the document when it is made available. If you would like to submit public comment on this item, please feel free to send your email to me ([email protected]) or [email protected].
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! ⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Outlook
Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Ministerial Permit Process for Builder's Remedy Projects (City Council) From [email protected] < >
Date Tue 5/20/2025 4:43 PM
To Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hi, Cindy,
Thanks for your notices on Pavilions. 9467 W Olympic Blvd, Beverly Hills. I understand they are considering removing this grocery store with housing.
As an owner and resident of Beverlywood, I would like to state that this grocery store is critical to this area, not just the 500 feet around it. A few years
ago, Ralphs was on Pico and Beverly Drive and that building is still empty. The Pavilions on West Olympic is truly the lifeblood of so much of this neighborhood
we have no other full service grocery store for miles! The next nearest Ralphs is beyond Century City Mall and has parking issues, the Ra[phs at Beverly Blvd
frequently is out of stock on basic necessities and also parking issues. When one is cooking for a party, holiday meal, last minute food prep, in need of soup or hot food
ice cream, etc this market provides it all to so many in the community. While I understand housing is important so is GROCERY STORES in close proxcimity to all
the neighborhood. A grocery store is the cornerstone of living here and providing for us all. I truly hope the powers that be, take this into consideration and SAVE OUR LAST REMAINING GROCERY STORE.
Thanks,
Susan Widem
LA 90034
On Friday, May 16, 2025 at 09:21:24 AM PDT, Cindy Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
To whom it may concern,
You are receiving this email as you previously expressed interest in Builder's Remedy projects that are currently under review by the City. This email is to inform you that the City Council will consider an ordinance to establish a ministerial permit process for these types of projects at their regular meeting on Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 7:00 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
For your convenience, the Notice of Public Hearing is attached. This notice was also published in last week's edition of theBeverly Hills Courier, and this week's editions of the Beverly Hills Weekly and theBeverly Press. This notice was also mailed out to all property owners and residential occupants located within 500' (extended to the block face) from a Builder's Remedy project site.
We anticipate the agenda packet for that meeting to be published approximately three days prior to the meeting, and I will send out a separate email with a link to the document when it is made available. If you would like to submit public comment on this item, please feel free to send your email to me ([email protected]) or [email protected].
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
CINDY GORDON, AICP
Principal Planner | City of Beverly Hills | 310.285.1191 NOTE:Planning applications and project resubmittals are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittals are not considered received by the City until such submittal is acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. If you have questions regarding the status of your planning application, please call 310-285-1000 and ask to speak to a planner.
If you have questions about the status of your project resubmittal, please reach out to your assigned planner directly.
The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Outlook
Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Ministerial Permit Process for Builder's Remedy Projects (City Council) From Jody Horwitz < >
Date Mon 5/26/2025 12:28 PM
To Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Good afternoon,
I will be unable to attend the hearing and am submitting my comments via this email.
Please keep the needs of the neighborhood residents in mind. This is a beautiful residential neighborhood and for those of us who live here, we cherish the quality of life afforded by lovely streets, beautiful trees, kind neighbors and local businesses. We support the local businesses and we want to ensure the quality of life that currently exists. We are all concerned about what these projects will mean in terms of noise, traffic, parking, congestion, disruptive construction (including very late nights and very early mornings), less safe streets and obstructed views.
Thank you for keeping us in mind.
Kind regards,
Jody Horwitz
Beverly Hills CA 90212
On May 16, 2025, at 9:21 AM, Cindy Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
[**** EXTERNAL: This email originated outside of Center Theatre Group. Be cautious with replies, attachments, links or requests for information. ****]
To whom it may concern,
You are receiving this email as you previously expressed interest in Builder's Remedy projects that are currently under review by the City. This email is to inform you that the City Council will consider an ordinance to establish a ministerial permit process for these types of projects at their regular meeting on Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 7:00 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
For your convenience, the Notice of Public Hearing is attached. This notice was also published in last week's edition of the Beverly Hills Courier, and this week's editions of the Beverly Hills Weekly and the Beverly Press. This notice was also mailed out to all property owners and residential occupants located within 500' (extended to the block face) from a Builder's Remedy project site.
We anticipate the agenda packet for that meeting to be published approximately three days prior to the meeting, and I will send out a separate email with a link to the document when it is made available. If you would like to submit public comment on this item, please feel free to send your email to me ([email protected]) or [email protected].
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
CINDY GORDON, AICP
Principal Planner | City of Beverly Hills | 310.285.1191 NOTE: Planning applications and project resubmittals are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittals are not considered received by the City until such submittal is acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. If you have questions regarding the status of your planning application, please call 310-285-1000 and ask to speak to a planner. If you have questions about the status of your project resubmittal, please reach out to your assigned planner directly.
The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
ATTACHMENT 8
Public Correspondence – received
as part of Planning Commission
Study Session (March 27, 2025) and
Public Hearing (May 5, 2025)
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Outlook
Re: Courtesy Notice: Ministerial Process for Builder's Remedy Projects / Planning Commission Study Session
From Stephanie Morehouse < >
Date Tue 3/18/2025 5:06 PM
To Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Thank you Cindy,
for forwarding the planning commission time & date.
I believe originally, I just wanted to register my dismay concerning the large apartment complex being planned for the S Hamilton Drive location.
I live two blocks over in Carthay Circle.
Thanks again for the info.
And please record my negative feelings on the scope of this project.
Stephanie Kline Morehouse
Carthay Circle
Outlook
Opposition to proposed permitting of construction of 13 story commercial buildings in our neighborhood
From Tim Yasui
Date Fri 4/11/2025 7:18 AM
To Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
Cc Tim Yasui ; 💞Julie💞
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Dear Cindy,
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns and opposition to the proposed permitting of multiple 13 story commercial buildings at the corner of W. Olympic Blvd and South Beverly Drive in downtown Beverly Hills 90212.
Where do I start? With our opposition to having our small mom and pop apartment buildings that we own and manage lose the valuable sunshine that our flowers, foliage, grass and landscaping need to survive? 13 stories immediately to the west of us less than 100 yards away will no doubt literally put our property “in the shadow” of such a mega complex as the sun sets to the west of our small rental property. Or with our opposition to having to compete with new rental units right smack in our back yard practically when we already struggle to keep tenants in this environment? Or with our opposition to added traffic in our neighborhood caused by these multiple new developments that is increasingly already getting worse by the month? We can’t think of a single reason why these new building proposals will improve our livelihoods or our small, struggling family business so we implore you and your team to please reject this planning and god help us all if you proceed with this permitting.
Best regards,
Tim and Julie Yasui
Beverly Hills apartment building owners
Since 1999
July 25, 2024
Re: 8844 Burton Way
To Whom it May Concern,
I moved into North Swall Drive in the summer of 2011. I chose this particular building because it was in, and remains in a quiet and clean community, with moderate traffic and moderate building heights nearby.
To my astonishment and dismay, this may be about to change. The Beverly Hills Planning Commission and the City Council failed to comply with the State’s housing element law because of its missed deadline to do so. Due to its failure to act in a timely fashion, the City inadvertently endorsed Builder’s Remedy (the State rules for new projects) to aid developers to succeed in their endeavor to develop oversized buildings such as 8844 Burton Way and others.
Not only will the proposed Burton Way development remove all of the above amenities, but it will also bring noise and pollution to our neighborhood. The proposed 20 story mixed-use building will undoubtably create traffic, and thus noise, fumes, litter and trash, and further, impede the view on the north side of our building. In addition, parking on the street will be untenable; there is currently limited space for parked cars. However, it is the environmental impact that distresses me the most!
The Planning Commission and the City should take responsibility for their failure to act, and fight at the very least to replace the proposed mixed-use 20 story building with an 8 to 10 story condominium, including ample subterranean parking, and foliage surrounding it.
Carol Mallen
The simplest, most straightforward solution is to limit market rate units to 45 feet of building height, 30-35 feet of building height would be dedicated to affordable units. The affordable units can be anywhere in the building.
Having been a person responsible for the original design review commission getting started, IMHO no modulation is a "non-starter" and a slap in the face of all the people that spoke up years ago in favor of a modulation requirement.
Thank you for your attention.
/Arnie Sklar
N. Hamel Dr.
[**** EXTERNAL: This email originated outside of Center Theatre Group. Be cautious with replies, attachments, links or requests for information. ****] To whom it may concern,
You are receiving this email as you previously expressed interest in Builder's Remedy projects that are currently under review by the City. This email is to inform you that the Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to establish a ministerial permit process for these types of projects at a special meeting on Monday, May 5, 2025 at 2:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
For your convenience, the Notice of Public Hearing is attached. This notice will also be published in tomorrow's edition of the Beverly Hills Courier, and next week's editions of the Beverly Hills Weekly and the Beverly Press. This notice will also be mailed out to all property owners and residential occupants located within 500' (extended to the block face) from a Builder's Remedy project site.
We anticipate the agenda packet for that meeting to be published approximately one week prior to the meeting, and I will send out a separate email with a link to the document when it is made available. If you would like to submit public comment on this item, please feel free to send your email to me ([email protected]) or [email protected].
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
CINDY GORDON, AICP
Principal Planner | City of Beverly Hills | 310.285.1191 NOTE: Planning applications and project resubmittals are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittals are not considered received by the City until such submittal is acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. If you have questions regarding the status of your planning application, please call 310-285-1000 and ask to speak to a planner. If you have questions about the status of your project resubmittal, please reach out to your assigned planner directly.
The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
achieve that goal, the rear setback requirement can be eliminated; (2) The side setbacks should be the same as the underlying district.
Paragraph - C (6) [Balconies]
“Balconies: No balcony located adjacent to a residential zone may exceed a dept of three feet (3’). All enclosures for balconies located adjacent to a residential zone must be fully opaque to a height of 42 inches and any enclosures at a height of grater than 42 inches must be translucent.”
Observation: A balcony of only three foot (3’) is basically functionless.
Suggestion: The minimum dept of a balcony should be four feet (4’).
Paragraph – C (7) [Modulation]
“Modulation: No modulation is required.”
Observation: Do you want seven-story “boxes”?
Suggestion: Even if modulation was just one-half of the underlying district, it would improve the design immeasurably.
Paragraph – C (8) [Open Space]
“Open space: No open space is required.”
Observation: Again, do you want seven-story “boxes”?
Suggestion:
SECTION 5: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Paragraph – A [Common Outdoor Areas Hours]
“Use of common outdoor areas is allowed only between: 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekends and holidays. Signage indicating the restrictions shall be installed on in the common outdoor open space area.”
Observation: Sound (voices) travels, and these buildings will be far higher than adjoining buildings.
Suggestion: For projects in R-4 zones, it should be 8:00 A.M. to 9 P.M. on weekdays and 9 AM to 9 PM on weekends and holidays. Secondly, there should be sound abatement devices and materials on the roof.
SECTION 7: AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Paragraph – B
“The occupants of the affordable housing units with the Project shall have the same access to the common entrances, common arras, and amenities, including parking, as the occupants of the market race housing units and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or an areas on a specific floor. This will also include any rooftop residential amenities. Further, the affordable housing units shall have the same number and type of appliances as the market rate units.” Observation: Is it equitable to occupants of the market rate housing units paying, say, $10,000 per month, to live next to someone paying $1000 per month?
Suggestion: Eliminate “…and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or and areas on a specific floor.” SECTION _: LANDSCAPING
New Paragraph
Observation: Landscaping is a critical element to maintaining the Garden Quality nature of the City’s neighborhoods. It is a central component in the General Plan that defines the City.
Suggestion: Include that a landscape plan shall be reviewed by a panel consisting of the Urban Designer, the City Architect, and the Architectural Design & Review Commission’s landscape architect.
============
On a separate topic, there are three suggestions for when this matter appears before the City Council:
(1) The mailed public notice, for those who received it, was very difficult to discern. A cover letter is needed for each separate Builder’s Remedy project, explaining where the project is located and a description of what it will be; (2) In my area, many did not receive the mailed public notice within the 500’ radius. This needs to be corrected;
(3) In the City Council agenda report, there should have a section describing each Builder’s Remedy project, what is being proposed (with illustration), the number of units that will be demolished, and the number of residents who will be displaced (based upon the 2024 rent registry).
Steve Mayer
May 3, 2025
Chair Kaplan and Planning Commissioners
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
RE: Ministerial Approval Process
Honorable Chair Kaplan and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 and its members (“Local 11”), we respectfully submit the following comments to the Beverly Hills Planning Commission (“Commission”) regarding a proposed ordinance for the City of Beverly Hills (the “City”) to provide a ministerial process of approval for certain housing projects that qualify for the “Builder’s Remedy.” In short, Local 11 urges the Commission to prohibit developers from including a hotel in projects that receive ministerial approval. As currently proposed, there is a loophole that allows developers to potentially build a hotel while still receiving ministerial approval. Closing this loophole is important to ensure the ordinance is used to accomplish its purpose —to streamline the approval of appropriate housing projects— while not undermining the City’s oversight over new hotel development.
Over the past few years, the State Legislature has attempted to ease restrictions on the development of housing. Unfortunately, some hotel developers have taken advantage of loopholes created by these changes to develop luxury hotels. These projects are inconsistent with the purpose of housing streamlining laws— which were always intended to create more permanent housing—not hotels.
Developers are using this loophole to develop luxury hotels and resorts. Luxury hotels and resorts have been proposed as part of Builder’s Remedy projects not just in Beverly Hills, but also in Sonoma County, Santa Clara County, and Santa Monica.
This loophole, whereby projects using the ministerial review process can include hotels, creates three main problems:
1. Hotel development is displacing what could be additional housing units in streamlined development projects, directly contradicting the purpose of housing streamlining laws.
2. Local governments are unnecessarily deprived of the ability to regulate hotel development. Hotels are a particularly intense land use with unique impacts, including impacts on local demand for housing, transportation, and other public services.
3. Unlike community-serving retail, like a café or grocery store, hotels don't make the project more livable for the residents of the housing and are more likely to be incompatible rather than complementary to the residential uses.
We urge you to close this loophole by amending the law to specify that a project that intends to make use of this housing streamlining law may not include hotel uses. There is no evidence that hotels, as a rule, are needed to make housing projects financially feasible. On the other hand, allowing hotel rooms to be part of the “commercial” percentage of a mixed-use housing project just encourages developers to reduce the number of housing units in a project to replace them with hotel rooms. We believe hotels are added to housing projects opportunistically because the loophole allows it.
Hotels inherently attract significant concentrations of visitors, including overnight guests, restaurant patrons, and attendees of meetings and conventions. Hotel operations also require substantial numbers of employees. As such, they have the impacts typically associated with both residential uses and commercial uses in the same place.
These impacts include water use, energy use, waste generation, transportation demand, parking demand, traffic, and demand for public safety resources such as police and fire services. Because hotel rooms are usually much smaller than dwelling units, some of these impacts are more concentrated in hotels than in typical residential development. Every hotel room has a toilet and a shower. Every guest needs transportation to arrive and depart, and many need parking. Most residential uses do not host large gatherings or provide the kind of services that require large numbers of employees; hotels do. Hotels involve all of these impacts without providing any permanent housing.
It is for these reasons, and many more, that we urge you to ensure that the ministerial review process cannot be used to accelerate hotel development in Beverly Hills.
Sincerely,
Jonah Breslau
Research Analyst
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90071 | T 213.896.2400 | F 213.896.2450 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Ryan M. Leaderman
+1 213-896-2405
[email protected]
Luca Trumbull
+1 213-896-2521
[email protected]
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach May 5, 2025
Via E-mail: [email protected]
Honorable Plaining Chair Terri Kaplan
Honorable Vice Chair Jeff Wolfe
Honorable Commissioner Demeter
Honorable Commissioner Ross
Honorable Commissioner Milkowski
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: DRAFT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
AMENDING THE BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH AN ALTERNATIVE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROJECTS
SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5, AND
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE 2021-2029 CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
This firm represents a number of clients pursuing nine Builder’s Remedy projects in Beverly Hills.
Today, we write to you on behalf of two Builder’s Remedy clients only, Harkham Family Enterprises, L.P. and Olympic & Beverly, LLC (collectively, the “Applicants”) in relation to the proposed alternative ministerial approval path for Builder’s Remedy projects (the “Draft Ordinance”). The Applicants propose two Builder’s Remedy projects located at 9467 West Olympic Blvd. and 353 South Beverly Drive that would each be eight stories in height.
Chair Kaplan and Honorable Planning Commissioners
May 5, 2025
#520964995_v2
The Draft Ordinance could potentially provide a viable ministerial pathway for the Applicants’ two projects so long as some reasonable tweaks are made. After consulting with the Applicants’ team, including the architects, we propose these limited modifications to make this a viable path forward for these two projects.
Section 4 Eligibility Language
Section 4(A) provides:
If the Overlay Zone applies, to be eligible for the ministerial application processing the project must meet the objective standards below:
A. Uses: The allowed uses shall only be those included in the Preliminary Application, along with those uses permitted in the underlying zone.
The highlighted language above is problematic because it injects unnecessary ambiguity into the eligibility language in Section 4 that would kill the ability to use the Draft Ordinance pathway for the Applicants’ projects. The current drafting makes unclear whether a proposed use must be consistent with either the preliminary application or the underlying zone, or whether that proposed use must be consistent with both the preliminary application and underlying zone. This latter interpretation is highly problematic since the underlying zone in which the Applicants’ projects are located does not currently permit residential uses even though residential would be highly appropriate on Olympic Boulevard and Beverly Drive. In fact, multifamily residential exists along Olympic Boulevard to the west and east and directly to the south on Beverwil Dr. Please either end the sentence after Preliminary Application and delete the rest of the sentence, or replace “along” with “or.”
Setbacks
The proposed ordinance currently provides:
For properties in the MU overlay zone or C3 zone, the front, rear, and side setbacks shall be no less than the setbacks shown on the Preliminary Application.
This item represents a significant obstacle to these projects’ utilization of the ministerial pathway, because the proposed setbacks will require substantial redesigns of both projects and will cause them to reduce their residential density. In order to not cause a massive redesign and loss of dwelling units, the Applicants request front and side setbacks of 0’-6” and a rear setback of 2’.
Height
The Draft Ordinance requires that no project exceed 75’ “to the floor level of the highest occupied floor.” While both projects can comply with the 85’ overall height limit, neither project can currently comply with the requirement that the highest occupied floor does not exceed 75’. We Chair Kaplan and Honorable Planning Commissioners
May 5, 2025
#520964995_v2
request that the City remove this requirement, considering that the Projects will otherwise comply with applicable height limits.
Balconies
The projects as-designed cannot facilitate 3’ balconies. The smallest proposed balcony in these projects is 5’-2” deep. The buildings would comply with all otherwise applicable noise and occupancy constraints, so the Applicants request that the Draft Ordinance allow 5’-2” balconies so that the new residents would have usable balcony space, especially considering that the Draft Ordinance does not require the provision of any open space.
Walls, Fences, Hedges
The proposed ordinance would require that “[a]ll walls, fences, and hedges must comply with the requirements of the underlying zone.” However, these projects cannot comply with BHMC 10-3- 1953, which requires a 3’ solid masonry wall along the property line of the portion of the property that abuts a residential use. While the general purpose for these walls can make sense in the context of projects which offer surface parking or some loud or smelly use, these projects are mixed-use projects with subterranean parking, and the built structures will themselves serve as the wall which partitions non-residential areas from residential areas. BHMC 10-3-1953 does not make any sense for mixed use projects where the building itself would act as a wall. We request that the Draft Ordinance exempt this section of the BHMC.
Parking Access
The proposed ordinance would require that “[p]arking access must be from an alley or a side street, where available.”
The Applicants understand the desire for the City to improve walkability and curb cuts. However, given that some of the Builder’s Remedy projects would reduce the number of existing curb cuts and driveways, this development standard should be re-written to additionally allow one driveway along an arterial, such as Beverly Drive, where the project would reduce the number of driveways on an arterial. The Applicants do not propose any driveway on Olympic Boulevard, so allowing an additional driveway on Beverly Drive would be acceptable.
Chair Kaplan and Honorable Planning Commissioners
May 5, 2025
#520964995_v2
The Applicants appreciate the City’s consideration of these points. We look forward to working with the City to produce a workable ministerial entitlement pathway.
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Ryan M. Leaderman
Luca Trumbull
Public Comment
Date: May 5, 2025
To: The Beverly Hills Planning Commission
From: Ari Tuchman (in his personal capacity as a Beverly Hills resident) Re: Ministerial Process for Builders Remedy Projects
Introduction: Although my position on whether a ministerial process for builder’s remedy projects should be approved is not fully formed or decided, the proposed ordinance is inadequate for multiple reasons, several of which are outlined below. A ministerial process grants tremendous privileges to applicants and the ordinance, as proposed, does not sufficiently balance the applicant’s benefits with the community’s burdens.
Process: To be precise and expeditious with the Committee’s time, I have drafted proposed changes evidenced by a redline to the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Explanation of Notable Revisions:
1. Height Limit: The current height proposal will not affect 385 units of the 1,324 total builders remedy units. That number is 29.08% of the total builder’s remedy units. The proposed ordinance does not seek sufficient consideration from the applicants who would be unaffected by the height restrictions (i.e., there are four projects). Meaning, the City will deprive the public of comment, streamline the application process, forego CEQA all in exchange for effectively forty-two inches (42”) of opaque glass on balconies, a three foot (3') side setback and reduced balcony size (in certain circumstances), which certain applicants already include one or more of such restrictions. I do not see how this makes sense whether you are a proponent of the ministerial process or not. I have revised the ordinance to balance the burdens and benefits more evenly by providing that the height could not exceed the lesser height (i.e., which ever option results in the lower height) of (i) seventy five feet (75’) and (ii) a twenty five percent (25%) height reduction (as detailed further in Exhibit A).
2. Setbacks: There should be at least some front/back setback for projects that border a residential property. I have proposed five (5’) feet. While applicants may be entitled to no front/back setbacks under a density bonus application, that should not and does not preclude the City from requiring such a front/back setback - the ministerial process provides significant benefits that a density bonus process does not provide.
3. Windows: Windows facing a residential property should be opaque for: (i) bathrooms, (ii) closets and (iii) common areas. Opaque windows in such cases of items (i) through (iii) are often included in design anyway and will greatly increase privacy for residents while not placing a burden on applicants or the interference with project tenants use and enjoyment of the project.
4. Rooftops: I added a requirement for acoustic fencing or green screening to reduce noise and light impact. This change is mutually beneficial for residents and project tenants at little to no additional cost to applicants.
- 2 -
5. Parking Access: Parking access should be encouraged from main streets (as opposed to side streets and alleys) when such project borders a residential zone. Efforts should be made to reduce traffic and maintain living standards in residential areas.
This is a non-exhaustive list and is qualified entirely by Exhibit A.
Conclusion: As always, I place myself at the disposal of the Committee, any City official, any resident and especially any applicant to discuss, negotiate and solve for best ordinate the City can adopt.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Public Comment
Exhibit A
Revised Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone Ordinance [attached]
22 ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE: A site that shares a property line with a residentially zoned property or is separated from a residentially zoned property by a public alley. whether currently in use by automobiles or not.1
MIXED USEMIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT: A project that includes commercial and multi-family residential uses within the same structure.
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION. The preliminary application submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024, provided, (i) that the developer submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the filing of the preliminary application; (ii) and the preliminary application has not lapsed at the time of submittal of an application pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”) is to provide an alternative entitlement processing pathway for housing development projects (including Mixed-Use Developments) meeting certain specified objective criteria that allows for ministerial review and approval of such applications. This is an optional process, and project proponents remain free to process development applications under otherwise applicable development standards and the applicable discretionary review process.
SECTION 3: ELIGIBILITY:
The Overlay Zone is applied only to those properties that meet all the following criteria:
A. Properties that are listed as the site for a project proposed as a “builder’s remedy” project in reliance on Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5) that: (i) submitted a preliminary applicationPreliminary Application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development project prior to May 1, 2024 [the date the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development]; (ii) submitted a formal application consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65941.1 within 180 days of the preliminary Ari Tuchman comments submitted 5/52025
Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone Ordinance SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS:
Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the construction of the Ministerial Approval Housing Development Overlay Zone Ordinance (“Ordinance”).
1 Note to the Planning Commission (“PC”): Revised to address the fact that a public alley, or portions thereof may not currently be in use. For example, consider the barrier at the N/S E/W intersection of the 300 Block of El Camino prohibiting southbound traffic in the alley from taking a left-hand turn into the Pavilions parking lot. This definition should pick up such nuances. Further, this definition would not pick up, for example, 135 S Bedford because it borders a current grass patch that (I assume) was once an alley. Consider broadening definition.
22 applicationPreliminary Application; and (iii) the preliminary applicationPreliminary Application has not lapsed at (a) the time of submittal of an application pursuant to this Overlay Zone, or (b) the date of any settlement agreement as may be entered into between the City and a builder’s remedy project applicant.
B. Properties shall not contain a designated historic resource or any resource eligible for historic resource designation.
-2- 23
SECTION 4: OBJECTIVE STANDARDS:
If the Overlay Zone applies, to be eligible for the ministerial application processing the project must meet the objective standards below:
A. Uses: The allowed uses shall only be those included in the Preliminary Application, along with those uses permitted in the underlying zone.
B. Density:
1. The maximum density allowed is applicable solely to projects under this Ordinance and shall not be used in density regulations for projects under any other authority.
2. The maximum residential density allowed on the site is the number of residential units proposed in the Preliminary Application.
3. Projects utilizing the provisions of this Ordinance must opt not to utilize density bonus provisions pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 to exceed this maximum density, and shall agree to waive all rights under Density Bonus law..
C. Architecture and Design
1. Setbacks:
a. For properties in the R-4 zone, the front and rear setbacks shall be no less than the setbacksshown on the Preliminary Application. Side setbacksshall no less than the greater of the three feet (3’) or the side setback shown on the Preliminary Application.
b. For properties in the MU overlay zone or C3 zone, the front, rear, and side setbacks shall be no less than the setbacks shown on the Preliminary Application.
c. Notwithstanding foregoing clauses 1(a) and 1(b), for properties Adjacent to a Residential Zone, the front and rear setbacks shall be no less than the greater of five feet (5’) or the front and rear setback shown on the Preliminary Application.
2. Height limit: The project may not exceed the lesser height of (i) seventy-five feet (75’) to the floor level of the highest occupied floor (including occupied rooftops) and eighty-five (85’) to the top of the roof and (ii) a twenty-five percent (25%) height reduction as measured from the ground floor to the floor level of the highest occupied floor plus an additional ten feet (10’) measured to the top of the roof, in each case of clauses (i) and (ii), measured as set forth in section 10-3-100 of this chapter.
3. Exceptions from height limit:
a. Vent pipes that are not higher than required by law. -2- 23
b. Structures enclosing elevator equipment and/or elevator lobbies if such structures are not higher than twenty feet (20') above the adjacent roof deck and are not larger than the shaft of the elevator or elevators and their respective lobby areas, and if such structure is used for no purpose other -3-
24 than providing the minimum space required for the elevators and their equipment and such lobby areas.
c. Structures enclosing stairs required by law to be carried to the roof if such enclosing structure is used for no other purpose than enclosing the stairs and is no larger than the stair shaft below and if such enclosure is not more than fifteen feet (15') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck. d. Penthouse structures used exclusively for mechanical equipment for the building orstructure if such penthouse structure is not more than fifteen feet (15') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck. e. Parapets or handrails not more than forty five inches (45") in height as measured from the roof or floor which they surround.
f. Unoccupied Architectural Features: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, unoccupied architectural features such as skylights and clerestories may exceed the height limits established by this section by not more than ten feet (10') in height if such unoccupied architectural features do not exceed thirty three percent (33%) of the roof area upon which they are located and no such feature exceeds or intersects a line projecting from the perimeter of the roof upward at an angle of forty five degrees (45°) from the horizontal.
g. A maximum of two (2) rooftop bathrooms total that are associated with rooftop swimming pools or spas, provided that:
i. The maximum total area of all rooftop bathrooms does not exceed two hundred (200) square feet;
ii. Such structures do not exceed ten feet (10’) in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck;
iii. Such structures do not exceed thirty three percent (33%) of the roof area upon which they are located;
iv. Such structures do not exceed or intersect a line projecting from the perimeter of the roof upward at an angle of forty five degrees (45°) from the horizontal.
4. Minimum Unit Size: Dwelling units shall meet or exceed the minimum required size as provided in the California Building Code.
5. Common outdoor areas setback and privacy: All common outdoor areas that can be accessed by residential tenants and/or their guests must be set back a minimum of fivefifteen feet (515’) from any building edge located adjacent to a residentially zoned property.Adjacent to a Residential Zone. For properties Adjacent to a Residential Zone, all common outdoor areas must include landscaping or physical screening elements (e.g., solid walls, hedges, acoustic barriers, etc.) with a minimum height of six feet (6’). -4-
24 6. Balconies: No balcony located adjacent to a residential zoneAdjacent to a Residential Zone may exceed a depth of three feet (3’). All enclosures for balconies located adjacent to a residential zoneAdjacent to a Residential Zone must be fully opaque to a height of 42 fifty four inches (54”), and any enclosure at a height of greater than 42fifty four inches must(54”) may be translucent.
7. Windows: All directly facing windows Adjacent to a Residential Zone that are either (i) bathrooms, (ii) closets or (ii) common spaces must be fully opaque.
8. 7. Modulation: No modulation is required.
9. 8. Open space: No open space is required.
10. 9. Front yard paving: All front yard paving must comply with the requirements of the underlying zone.
11. 10. Walls, fences, and hedges: All walls, fences, and hedges must comply with the requirements of the underlying zone.
12. 11. Exterior lighting: All exterior lighting must comply with Section 10-4-314 (Lighting of Premises) of this Chapter.
12. No barbeque or kitchen facilities may be installed or utilized on balconies or common outdoor areas.
13. No cooking appliances, open flames, or food preparation equipment—including but not limited to barbeques, grills, smokers, outdoor stoves, pizza ovens, or kitchen facilities—may be installed or utilized on balconies or in common outdoor areas., including rooftops.
D. Parking and Access
1. Projects shall provide no less parking than the number of parking spaces proposed in the Preliminary Application.
2. All parking must comply with applicable screening requirementsfor the underlying zone.
3. Parking access must be from an alley or a side street, where available, unless projects are Adjacent to a Residential Zone in which case parking access must be from a main street, where available.
4. A parabolic mirror, light system and vehicle stop sign shall be installed at all parking egress points in order to ensure visibility for exiting vehicles and to warn alley traffic of exiting vehicles; no sound shall be utilized for the light system. Such features shall not be placed in or project into the City’s public right of way.
SECTION 5: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
The project applicant must agree to abide by the following performance standards and incorporate -5-
24 such standards into rules governing the development, such as project covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs):
A. Use of common outdoor areas is allowed only between: 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM9:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. Signage indicating the restrictions shall be installed on in the common outdoor open space area.
B. The use of amplified sound of any kind in any outdoor area, including private balconies and rooftop areas, is prohibited.
-6-
24 C. The use of all rooftop outdoor areas is limited only to project residents and their guests.
For mixed use development projectsMixed-Use Development, no commercial occupant or hotel guest may utilize rooftop facilities. Rooftop gatherings of more than ten (10) people shall require written rules to be enforced by property management.
D. Rooftops must include acoustic fencing or green screening to reduce noise and light impact.
E. For balconies Adjacent to a Residential Zone, in addition to compliance with Section 10-4-314 (Lighting of Premises), balcony lighting must be shielded and directed inward.
SECTION 6: OBJECTIVE CODE PROVISIONS APPLY:
Except as expressly provided in this Ordinance, projects shall comply with all other generally applicable objective standards in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
SECTION 7: AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS:
A. Applicants must restrict units to be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code at no less than the minimum percentage of units required by Government Code section 65589.5. To implement this requirement, the applicant shall agree to record a covenant memorializing the affordable housing restriction in a form acceptable to the City Manager and City Attorney. Compliance with this Section shall satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirements set forth in Beverly Hills Municipal Code Sections 10-3-4802 and 10-3-4803.
B. The occupants of the affordable housing units within the Projectshall have the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and amenities, including parking, as the occupants of the market rate housing units and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or an areasarea on a specific floor. This will also include any rooftop residential amenities. Further, the affordable housing units shall have the same number and type of appliances as the market rate units.
C. Regardless of whether an applicant applies for a ministerially reviewed project or not, Applicants who meet the eligibility criteria for the ministerial review process may transfer some or all of the required affordable housing units from one site that is subject to this Overlay Zone (the Transferor Site) to another site or sites that all are within the Overlay Zone (the Transferee Site(s)), provided that for each affordable unit that is transferred from a Transferor Site, two affordable units at the same or lower affordability level shall be provided at the Transferee Site(s). Any such transfer shall be memorialized in writing acceptable to the City and recorded against both the Transferor and Transferee Sites. Any transferred affordable units shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any portion of development on the Transferor site(s).
SECTION 8: MINISTERIAL PROCESSING: