Beverly Hills City Council
September 30, 2025

per state housing replacement requirements. The amendments also include clarification and simplifications of existing regulations.

These proposed changes do not alter existing allowable density, building height, or setback requirements in multi-family residential zones. Following the PC’s review and recommendation, the two items will be considered by the City Council.

The PC resolution recommending the draft ordinance and adoption of the ODS is provided in Attachment A. Attachment B provides the required findings for a Zone Text Amendment that the PC must consider in evaluating this request.

BACKGROUND
State Legislation and Purpose of Objective Standards
Recent state legislation has enacted multiple laws to eliminate subjective design barriers and expedite housing approvals.
1 Laws such as the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) and Senate Bill (SB) 330 “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” as amended and extended by SB 8 (Gov.

Code §§ 65941.1, 65905.5, 66300), require cities to base decisions only on objective standards when reviewing housing projects, although there is some limited ability to impose conditions of approval based on subjective standards. Objective standards are definitive, measurable, and consistently applicable across projects without personal judgment or discretion. The City has historically relied on case-by-case review, based upon required findings, by the Architectural and Design Review Commission (ADC) or City staff based largely on subjective standards to ensure high-quality design in commercial, single-family, and multi-family projects. However, under state law, cities may no longer deny or reduce the density of a housing development based solely on subjective design criteria if the project otherwise complies with objective zoning standards.

To maintain local review authority over project design, the City will consider codifying design expectations through the draft ODS. Currently, the City’s architectural review process is based on subjective criteria (Attachment D). The ODS were crafted with the City’s existing architectural review criteria in mind to ensure that such standards continue to apply to development in the City, but in an objective, non-discretionary manner. An overview of the applicable state laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, SB330, and SB8, is Attachment E. Significantly, the ODS do not alter any allowable objectively defined density, height, or setback standards—instead, they add a layer of design requirements in addition to existing objective zoning requirements. 2021-2029 Housing Element
On March 18, 2024, the City Council adopted the Housing Element for the 2021 - 2029 planning period (known as the 6
th Cycle), which sets forth a plan to support an adequate housing supply for all. A central goal of the Housing Element is to meet the City’s “fair share” of housing demand and ensure that local regulatory mechanisms do not impose undue barriers to the production of housing. Implementation Program 12.1 (Development Standards) requires the following actions to achieve that goal:
1 Government Code §66300(a)(7) defines an “objective design standard” to mean a standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external benchmark or criterion available to both the applicant and the public. A “subjective” design standard, by contrast, relies on interpretation or opinion (e.g., “neighborhood compatibility”), and often takes the form of subjective permit findings. 2-2
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

• Adopt objective design standards to clearly and transparently govern multi-family and mixed-use housing projects by 2026;
• Streamline approvals for compliant projects with affordable housing through Directorlevel architectural review; and • Update multi-family development standards to clarify existing requirements for density, unit size, and, by the end of 2025, the modulation of building forms.

The adoption of the ODS and related zoning amendments implements these commitments through objective, streamlined multi-family development standards.

ODS Development Process
City staff developed the standards through a collaborative process in late 2024 and early 2025.

The PC and ADC held public study sessions on the draft objective design standards. 2 Both the
Planning Commission and the ADC appointed ad hoc committees and the members of the of the two appointed ad hoc committees (ADC then-Chair Evan Meyer and then-Vice Chair Rebecca Pynoos, and PC then-Chair Terri Kaplan and then-Vice Chair Jeff Wolfe) met several times in early 2025 to identify recurring design concerns (such as building bulk, neighborhood compatibility, and material quality) that the new objective standards should address. The PC staff report from the November 14, 2024 Study Session is provided in Attachment F.

In addition, on April 23, 2025, staff held a listening session with local architects and designers to review and receive feedback on preliminary concepts. The eight design professionals who attended the session generally supported a faster, objective review process but cautioned about potential inflexibilities. For example, certain architects noted that overly strict side-wall modulation rules could complicate floor layouts and might conflict with fire codes, and that proposed window placement rules (to protect privacy) could be impractical. The vinyl prohibition, especially vinyl windows, was identified as cost prohibitive and restrictive for energy compliance with Title 24.

They also expressed some proposed minimums--like the 5’ stepback for portion of buildings above 50’ and the requirement that street-facing facades have at least 20% clear walls or doors (transparency)—may be too low to be effective.

In response, staff revised the draft standards to add flexibility where warranted. For example, Standard 3.1 was revised to allow alternative, context-based design methods, and the privacyrelated window standard (S4.1) now applies only to windows within 8’ of a side lot line in reduced setback cases (rather than 15’ as originally drafted). Staff clarified that the 5’ stepback and 20% transparency requirement are intended as minimums, and projects may exceed them if desired.

The Building Official was consulted and confirmed nothing in the draft ODS conflicts with safety codes. Certain provisions were retained—such as the side wall standards and prohibition on certain materials like vinyl windows—to reflect design quality consistent with past ADC approvals.

The process produced a set of objective standards that are practical to implement, offer flexibility, and remain effective in advancing Beverly Hills’ design objectives.

While the ODS would only regulate multi-family projects with affordable units at this time, the City is planning for a Phase 2 to broaden the use of objective design standards. In the FY 2025/26 budget, the City Council allocated $200,000 for a comprehensive objective design standards program to potentially cover all multi-family and mixed-use projects. This effort will likely involve 2 Study Sessions include the November 14, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, and the January 15, 2025 ADC meeting. 2-3
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

hiring specialized consultants and conducting extensive community outreach. Phase 2 is targeted to be completed by the end of 2026. It will build upon the proposed standards for multi-family projects and potentially add more detailed requirements for mixed-use developments (which have commercial storefronts or other features not addressed in the standards) and could introduce incentive-based design provisions as required by the Housing Element. The ongoing Mixed Use Overlay Zone Study will also inform the development of these broader standards. In short, the ODS are a stepping-stone toward a more comprehensive set of objective design standards that will eventually apply to all new multi-unit housing development in the city.

ADC Study Session
On July 16, 2025, the ADC held a study session to review and provide feedback on the draft ODS.

While generally supportive, the ADC raised concerns about Standard S6.1 Variety of Exterior Materials, which requires three (3) exterior façade materials. The ADC noted that requiring three materials in all cases may be unnecessarily rigid, since the appropriate number of materials often depends on the project’s context and architectural style. The ADC suggested reducing this requirement to at least two (2) materials or, alternatively, allowing architectural or ornamental features (such as windows, doors, and balconies) to be counted toward meeting this standard, as these elements are currently excluded in the draft ODS. The ADC also recommended setting a maximum on the number of materials to prevent overly complicated or visually chaotic designs.

During this discussion, staff noted that recent multi-family projects approved by the ADC typically used two to three façade materials, excluding architectural or ornamental features. Additionally, staff noted the ODS includes non-mandatory, best practice guidelines relevant to the ADC’s concerns. Guidance is provided for purposeful material placement (G21), neighborhood materials and detailing (G12), and prioritizing natural and durable materials (G22). Specifically, Guidance G21 states:
“Use each material where it has a clear structural, functional, or aesthetic purpose. Avoid adding extra materials or finishes without reason as too many materials can clutter the design.”
Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission regarding possible changes to Standard S6.1 or other standards in response to the ADC’s feedback. The staff report from the July 16, 2025, ADC Study Session is part of Attachment F.

DISCUSSION
Summary of Draft ODS Provisions
Design Themes and Standards
The ODS are grouped into seven core design themes, each with one or more specific standards (labeled S2.1, S2.2, etc.). The ODS comprehensively address design aspects ranging from overall building mass down to finer architectural details. Each standard includes a clear intent and a yes/no measurable requirement. For instance, instead of a requirement that the project is “compatible with the neighborhood,” Standard S3.1 requires a new project to incorporate certain design elements from a neighboring building with specific numeric thresholds. By being specific, the ODS give applicants transparency about what is expected, and staff can easily verify compliance. Some standards only apply in particular situations, including when a building or façade exceeds a certain length, or when a site abuts a residential building that is lower in height.

Wherever possible, the ODS work in tandem with existing objective BHMC provisions. For example, modulation provided under ODS may be credited toward the required front modulation 2-4
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

area of Article 28, if all dimension and location requirements are met. Table 1 provides a summary of the main standards.

Table 1. ODS High-Level Summary
Section What it Regulates Requirements

1. Applicability
and
Procedure
Determines when a
project is exempt from
ADC hearing.
- Qualifying multi-family project must meet every
ODS standard to receive architectural review
exemption. All other discretionary processes still
intact (Development Plan Review, etc.).
- Up to five (5) deviations may be granted by the
PC as part of the DPR. More than five (5)
deviations require full ADC architectural review.
- Defers to state law in case of conflict.

2. Massing and
Articulation
Controls building bulk
and blank walls.
- Provides prescribed façade modulation,
including residential side walls, and a minimum
window area on street elevations.
- Walls may not be featureless.

3. Contextual
Design
Manages streetscape
compatibility.
- Borrow ≥ 1 major + 1 supporting design cue
from buildings within 200 ft (or district style in
historic areas).

4. Privacy and
Windows
Protects privacy where
buildings sit close
together.
- Windows < 8’ from a lot line must be offset,
angled, or obscured; all windows require a
recess or frame for depth.

5. Balconies and
Rooftop
Decks
Limits overlook and
noise.
- Rooftop decks adjoining housing need a setback
from roof edges and a 6’ clear sound wall;
- Balconies near single-family interior lot lines
need translucent railing.

6. Materials and
Detailing
Maintains premium
exterior quality.
- Each street façade must display ≥ 3 distinct
materials; vinyl windows/siding, mirrored glass,
and faux-wood plywood are prohibited.

7. Landscaping,
Lighting, and
Parking
Improves the public
realm and screens
utilities.
- Require a set street-tree ratio, fully shield
exterior lights, and screen any street-facing
parking podium or equipment yard.

8. HistoricAdjacent
Transitions
Protects scale of Citydesignated landmarks.
- Within the transition zone, new building
height/width/length may be no more than 110%
of the adjacent landmark’s dimensions.
2-5
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

The following is a brief description of each category of standards:

1. Applicability and Procedure
The ODS apply to any new multi-family residential project3in a multi-family zone that includes at least one affordable housing unit.4If a project meets all of the ODS, it would be exempt from the City’s architectural review process and ODS compliance would be verified administratively by staff as part of the zoning compliance review for a project. By complying with ODS, a new project would be considered in compliance with the City’s design rules. Figure 1 illustrates the typical streamlined review of an entitlement under the ODS. Removing the ADC hearing is projected to shorten the average entitlement project processing timeline.

All other required entitlements (such as Development Plan Review, Tentative Tract Maps, etc.) would continue to be subject to review by the PC and/or City Council as currently required. Projects without affordable housing are not eligible for this ODS process and would continue to require architectural review by the ADC. To allow minor administrative adjustments over time, the ODS authorizes the Director of Community Development to issue clarifications to the ODS that do not alter the substance or intent of the standard. In summary, the only change under the ODS is the exemption from architectural review for qualifying projects, in compliance with Implementation Program 12.1 of the Housing Element. All other zoning requirements, environmental review, and approval processes would remain as currently implemented.

Existing Multi-Family Process
Proposed ODS Process
Fig. 1. Existing and proposed review process.
3 The ODS do not apply to single-family homes, nonresidential or commercial projects, accessory dwelling units, or mixed-use projects.

Existing multi-family buildings are also exempt, including any future façade remodels or additions provided such projects comply with the City’s demolition standards, as well as projects with a complete application submitted before the ODS effective date. 4 ODS would apply to new development in most cases as the City’s Inclusionary Program (Article 48 of the BHMC Zoning Code) requires affordability for multi-family projects with five (5) or more units. 2-6
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

2. Massing and Articulation
To prevent monolithic or boxy buildings, the ODS provide quantitative standards to further shape buildings alongside the City’s existing modulation requirements. Primary standards in this category include:
• Upper Story Stepbacks (S2.1) – Portions of buildings above 50’ must step back at least 5’ for a minimum of 25% of the street-facing façade length. This creates a visible “shoulder” or setback to reduce apparent height and bulk from the street.

See Figure S2.1.
• Modulation for Larger Facades (S2.2) – For long street-facing walls, a modulation or break in the wall plane is required at least every 100’ to avoid unrelieved length.
• Blank Wall Limit (S2.4) – To prevent large blank walls, any wall segment longer than x must feature windows, recessed sections, or material changes over a defined area to provide relief and visual interest.
• Roofline Variation (S2.7) – Street-facing rooflines longer than 50’ must provide offset, variation, or a change in roof form.
• Minimum Fenestration (S2.3) – Street-facing facades are required to have a minimum amount of window area (fenestration) to create an inviting and transparent street presence.

Collectively, these measurable standards break up building mass and result in a varied, high-quality exterior appearance that is consistent with past PC and ADC recommendations.

3. Contextual Design
Rather than dictating a specific architectural style, the ODS requires projects to draw design cues from their surroundings to achieve neighborhood compatibility. Each project needs at least one major contextual element and one supporting contextual element from a nearby multi-family building (within 200’) in the neighborhood (S3.1). Major contextual elements involve predominant massing portions, the roof form, or a characteristic façade rhythm/articulation pattern. Supporting elements are finer-grain details, which may include adopting a matching entryway design, presence of porches or balconies, a consistent first 2-7
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

floor elevation height, deep eave projections, use of a particular primary material, or repeating a common window pattern (orientation and spacing). The standard sets quantifiable thresholds for these features. For example, if a neighboring building has a particular façade material covering 30% of its façade, the new project could satisfy the supporting context requirement by using that same material on at least 30% of its own façade. In historic districts, projects also have the option to reference the prevailing architectural style of the district as whole instead of a specific neighboring building. The contextual design requirement formalizes an architectural best practice to design buildings with respect to context. It also replaces subjective terms like “compatible with neighborhood character” with objective criteria.

4. Privacy and Windows
These standards protect neighbors’ privacy and add visual depth to the building façade through window design. If any new window is proposed less than 8’ from a side residential property line, that window must be designed to avoid sight-lines into the neighboring property (see Figure S4.1). This situation would arise when a project is built with reduced side setbacks, which is an increasingly common request for projects utilizing state density bonus law. Acceptable compliance methods include staggering proposed windows relative to existing windows on adjacent buildings, orienting at an angle to avoid direct views into a neighboring window, or using translucent glass. In addition, all windows on the new building must be recessed from façade plane by at least 2” or have a decorative frame at least 2” deep (S4.2). This prevents flat, unarticulated window treatments and creates shadow lines that improve the building’s appearance.

5. Balconies and Rooftop Decks
2-8
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

Balconies and rooftop decks are highly desirable amenities in Beverly Hills, but if poorly designed could impact privacy and noise. The ODS addresses this by imposing limits and design requirements:
• Rooftop Decks (S5.3) – Usable deck area is limited to 75% of the total roof surface. Moreover, any usable portion of the roof deck must be set back at least 5’ from any roof edge (and at least 10’ from any roof edge adjacent to a single-family residential lot). Along any roof deck edge that faces a residential neighbor, the design must include a continuous transparent sound barrier screen at least 6’ high.

As part of the Article 28 revisions, the 6’ sound barrier screen would be exempt from the maximum building height to remove obstacles for compliance. In combination, these requirements create a buffer zone on roof decks. • Balcony Railings Near Single-Family (S5.2) – If a balcony is located within 10’ of a single-family residential property line, it must have an opaque or translucent railing at least 4’-6” high to block direct views. This effectively raises the screen height for someone standing on the balcony, and limits direct views into the neighboring yard or windows while allowing sunlight to pass through. • Integration of Balconies (S5.1) – For balconies to appear as intentional parts of the architecture, any balcony that projects 3’ or more from the building façade must be partially recessed into the wall plane. Juliet or ornamental balconies less than 3’ deep are exempt from the recess requirement, but they must be at least 3’ wide and include either a trim element or guardrail for visual interest.

These design requirements result in balconies and rooftop decks that are functional yet unobtrusive.

6. Materials and Detailing
The ODS emphasize high-quality exterior materials and clean detailing to continue the City’s tradition of requiring excellent finishes on new buildings. Each street-facing façade must use at least three (3) different exterior materials (S6.1), which gives visual variety and avoids large, featureless expanses of the same material. The materials must be substantial and durable, and simply using paint color does not satisfy this requirement.

Architectural or ornamental features—such as windows, doors, and balconies— regardless of their materials, finishes, or prominence, similarly do not qualify. In addition, certain low-quality or inappropriate materials are prohibited on building exteriors (S6.2).

The prohibited list includes items such as vinyl windows, reflective mirrored glass, imitation or faux wood plastic siding panels, and similar products that do not meet the City’s standards for appearance and durability. Where two different materials meet on a façade, the transition must be designed with a deliberate trim, reveal, or recess so that the junction looks intentional and clean (S6.4). These material standards capture many guidelines the ADC has traditionally imposed, including prohibiting vinyl on new buildings.

7. Landscaping and Parking
Standards in this category strengthen the interface between the building and streetscape and direct that utilitarian features are well integrated or screened. Projects must plant at least one large canopy street tree (48” box) per 25’ of frontage (S7.1) to reinforce the City’s garden quality. If landscaping is used to screen equipment, the planting area must be at least 2’ wide and densely planted so that the equipment is fully hidden at the time of installation (S7.2). Any above-grade parking podium facing the street requires a decorative 2-9
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

architectural or vegetated screen at least 75% of its wall area (S7.3). This could be accomplished with vine-covered trellises, grille work, or other façade treatments to integrate the appearance of an exposed parking garage.

8. Setbacks and Massing Near Historic City Landmarks
Special height and massing transitions are required when a new multi-family building is proposed adjacent to a City-designated landmark. In such scenarios, the new building must scale down near the landmark (S8.1). Within defined “transition zones” alongside the historic structure, the new building’s height, width, and length cannot exceed the landmark’s dimensions by more than 10%. This standard is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOIS), Standards 9 (compatibility without mimicry) and 10 (retain landmark integrity), so the new construction does not overwhelm the historic resource.

State Law Applicability
The ODS defer to state housing laws in case of conflict. If a project is using State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §§65915 - 65918) to obtain additional density or other incentives for providing affordable units, it has the right to request waivers of standards that physically preclude development, or incentives or concessions that offset the expense of providing affordable units, including ODS objective standards. Apart from density bonus scenarios, the PC may waive or modify an objective standard to the minimum extent necessary if the application of such standard would reduce the number of dwelling units, floor area, or other development permitted under state law. However, all ODS projects (including one utilizing density bonus) must comply with all applicable standards unless otherwise waived as part of the review by the PC.

Guidance Sections (Optional Best Practices)
In addition to the required standards above, the ODS document includes “Guidance” sections that are voluntary. These sections use suggestive language such as “should” rather than requirements “shall” with the intent to inspire high-quality design and offer best practices without making them obligations. Examples of guidance offered in the ODS include:
• Emphasizing a traditional ‘base-middle-top’ building composition to provide visual order and pleasing proportions (Guidance (G) 4).
• Minimizing shadow impacts on adjacent properties, for example shadow studies and modifying massing to reduce excessive shading on sensitive areas (G8). • Incorporating additional contextual elements not explicitly required by the standard such as complementary landscaping and wall design common to the street to further integrate the project (G9).
• Adding greenery on structures (e.g., roofs and balconies) to create a “green edge” on upper levels following past ADC direction for more vegetated rooftops and facades (G18).

A project will not be denied for failing to follow a guideline. However, staff and commissioners can reference the guidance when providing feedback to applicants. Over time, if certain guidance sections are consistently adopted or found critical to achieving desired outcomes, the City could consider turning them into mandatory standards during future ODS updates. 2-10
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

Deviations
The City acknowledges that even a comprehensive set of standards cannot anticipate every design scenario. Therefore, the ODS include a deviation process to allow creative design solutions that might not strictly meet the standards. An applicant who wishes to deviate from the objective standards may request approval for those exceptions as waivers, concessions, or incentives under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §65915). The project would still be exempt from architectural review for requests to deviate from up to five (5) of the objective design standards. If a project seeks more than five (5) deviations, the project would not be exempt from the City’s architectural review process and would be subject to review by the ADC. The fivestandard limit was chosen as a means to provide flexibility for design innovation without undermining the intent and effectiveness of the objective standards.

Amendments to Multi-Family Development Standards
The draft ordinance also proposes updates to Article 1 (Definitions), Article 28 (Multiple-Family Residential Development), Article 28.5 (R-4 Permits), Article 30 (Architectural Review), and Article 31 (Development Plan Review) of the zoning code. Consistent with Housing Element Program

12.1 and state housing laws, the proposed amendments reference the new ODS and reduce potential constraints on housing development while improving the code language by clarifying and simplifying it, as summarized below in Table 2. The summary provides a brief explanation for each code change, and Attachment C includes a redlined version of the BHMC with staff annotations further explaining the purpose of each proposed revision. Table 2 also provides a brief explanation for the proposed code changes. Attachment G is a summary of existing multifamily development standards.

Table 2. Summary of Proposed Code Amendments
Article 1
(Definitions)
Amend the definition of “Height of Building” for multi-family buildings (BHMC §10-3-100)
Exempts the required 6’ clear noise barrier for rooftop decks under the ODS (Standard S5.3), measured from the finished floor surface of the rooftop deck. Add new definition for “Objective Design Standard” per Government Code §66300(a)(7).

Article 28
(Multiple-Family
Residential
Development)
Streamline Density Calculation and Update Nonconforming Density (BHMC §10-3-2801)
Reorganizes density calculation in a user-friendly table. Clarifies that multifamily buildings with existing nonconforming density may rebuild to their existing unit count, per state housing preservation requirements.

Façade Modulation (BHMC § 10-3-2806)
Clarifies façade modulation requirements by restructuring calculation methods and removing redundant language. Two graphics were also added illustrating the modulation calculation and aggregate principal building area. No change is proposed to the amount, placement, or other required provisions of modulation.
2-11
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

Table 2. Summary of Proposed Code Amendments (Cont.)
Article 28
(Multiple-Family
Residential
Development)
(Cont.)
Reduce Minimum Unit Sizes (BHMC §10-3-2802)
Existing BHMC requirements establish minimum floor area for each multifamily unit depending on the bedroom count. These minimums no longer reflect current housing needs or market conditions, and the Housing Element identifies the City’s existing unit-size requirements as a barrier to producing smaller, more affordable housing. Accordingly, the minimum floor areas are proposed to be reduced to match the minimums of the Mixed Use Overlay Zone in BHMC §10-3-1882.

Roof Eaves and Drainage (BHMC §§10-3-2810, -2811)
Removes the requirements for ADC approval of roof eaves and drainage features encroaching into setbacks as compliance would be assessed through the ODS or the PC or ADC review processes. An optional best practice guidance (G9) has been included within the ODS:
− “G9 Purposeful Eave and Overhang Projections
When projecting roof eaves and overhangs into setbacks, consider how the depth genuinely contributes to shading, weather protection, or architectural quality. Avoid defaulting to the maximum allowable projection unless clearly justified by site conditions or architectural intent.”
Simplify and Modernize Development Standards (Various Sections) Update and modernize development standards throughout for clarity and ease of use by staff, residents, and developers.

Article 28.5
(R-4 Permits)
Corrects section references to R-4 permits from Article 28 updates (BHMC §10-3-2850). Adds missing references to existing tandem parking request from BHMC §10-3-2816 and replacement or expansion of a garage or carport from §§10-3-2808(B) and (C).

Article 30
(Architectural
Review)
Modifies Architectural Review requirements to reference the new exemption for ODS projects. Specifies projects requesting up to five (5) deviations from ODS standards require Architectural Review by ADC (BHMC §§10-3- 3007(A)(1) and (J).

Article 31
(Development
Plan Review)
Updates procedures to allow a Development Plan Review to approve up to five (5) deviations from ODS standards (BHMC §§10-3-3100(I) and 10-3- 3102(A).

Ongoing Role of the ADC, PC and Future Updates
Even with the ODS in place, the ADC will continue to serve an important role in reviewing projects outside the scope of ODS. Single-family homes, commercial and mixed-use projects, signage, and any multi-family projects without affordable units will see no change in their current ADC review process. Additionally, any project that is eligible for ODS but seeks more than five deviations will still go through ADC for architectural review. 2-12
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
Staff requests the Commission’s feedback and direction on the draft Objective Design Standards and update to multi-family residential development standards. The Commission may wish to consider and discuss the following questions:

1. Adequacy of Standards – Are any proposed ODS standards missing important issues, overly restrictive, or unclear in their requirements?

2. Integration with Existing Zoning – Do the proposed amendments to Articles 1, 28, 28.5, 30, and 31 effectively incorporate the ODS and Program 12.1 into the existing BHMC framework, or are additional changes needed for consistent and clear implementation?

3. ADC Feedback on Façade Materials (S6.1) – Should Standard S6.1, requiring a minimum of three façade materials, be revised to reflect ADC recommendations to reduce the requirement to two materials, set a maximum number of materials, or allow architectural and ornamental features (windows, doors, balconies, etc.) to count toward compliance? If there is consensus, the Commission may direct staff to make revisions to the draft ODS before the proposal advances to the City Council. If no revisions are made, staff can still provide the Commission’s feedback and input to the City Council for consideration as they review the ODS and draft ordinance for adoption.

GENERAL PLAN5 AND HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
The City’s adopted General Plan and the 2021–2029 Housing Element provide the policy foundation for these design standards. Implementation Program 12.1 (as discussed above) is directly fulfilled by establishing objective design standards and an exemption process, which also helps the City comply with state law while retaining as much local design control as possible.

More broadly, the ODS support a wide range of General Plan direction on urban design, historic preservation, sustainability, and housing production. Attachment H lists General Plan goals and policies relevant to the amendments.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Public notification for this project was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in BHMC §10-3-2.5, et seq. A courtesy notice was also sent to the interested parties for Objective Design Standards and Long Range Planning topics.

TABLE 3. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Notice Type Notice Date
Notice of Public Hearing
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) Not required • On-site Posted Notice Not required
• Newspaper Notice
Beverly Hills Courier
Beverly Hills Weekly / Beverly Press
8/8/2025
8/14/2025
5 The Beverly Hills’ General Plan is available at beverlyhills.org/generalplan. 2-13
Planning Commission Report
ODS for Multi-Family Housing Projects
August 28, 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
It is recommended that the Planning Commission find the Ordinance does not require additional environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Guideline Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). The provisions of this Ordinance (including the ODS document and related code amendments) are within the scope of and consistent with the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration 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. The Ordinance also appears to qualify for the Class 5 Categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 as a minor alternation in land use limitations because the amendments do not result in any changes to allowable density or land use, and the residential areas of the City to which the Amendments apply have an average slope of not more than 20%.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Adopt the attached resolution, recommending the City Council adopt the draft ordinance and the Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family residential projects with affordable housing; and

3. Find the project exempt from CEQA.

NEXT STEPS
Once the Planning Commission reviews the draft amendments and ODS, staff will bring the project forward for City Council consideration and adoption. In summary, by moving forward with the Objective Design Standards, Beverly Hills will meet new state requirements, implement Housing Element Program 12.1, and achieve a balance between efficiency in project approvals with high-quality design.

Report Reviewed By:

Michael Forbes
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
2-14
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Staff Report –
11/14/2024 (Without attachments)
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
Attachments:

A. Overview of Applicable State Laws - Objective Design Standards B. BHMC Required Findings for Multi-Family Housing Projects C. General Guidelines and BHMC Development Standards for Multi-Family Housing Projects
D. Applicable General Plans Goals and Policies
Report Author and Contact Information:

Patrick Achis, Associate Planner
(310) 285-1129
[email protected]
Meeting Date: November 14, 2024
Subject: DIRECTOR-LEVEL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND INTRODUCTION TO
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS (ODS) – STUDY SESSION
Staff requests the Planning Commission’s preliminary feedback during this study session on executing ODS and Housing
Implementaton Program 12.1.

Project Applicant: City-Initiated
Recommendation: 1. Conduct a study session;

2. Receive and file this report on the interim development of Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family housing;

3. Provide preliminary feedback on the integration of Director-level approvals within the ODS framework; and

4. Anticipate future updates and active participation in the ongoing development of ODS.

REPORT SUMMARY
In response to recent changes in state law, the City of Beverly Hills is preparing to draft Objective Design Standards (ODS) for proposed multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. The City has experienced an increase in applications for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects in recent years. As activity in these housing types grow, ODS will replace subjective standards by establishing measurable criteria for approval. Some of the City’s existing multi-family residential regulations, such as those governing building height and setbacks, already meet these requirements, but other aspects may need revision or enhancement.

This study session provides an opportunity to discuss the City’s preliminary direction for the implementation of ODS and Implementation Program 12.1 of the Housing Element, including:
 A review of current multi-family and mixed-use regulations to identify potential revisions;  Consideration of topic areas for new standards;
 Proposed basic ODS standards to be developed by staff; and  Using ODS for Director-level approvals for compliant multi-family and mixed-use housing projects that include affordable housing.
6-1
Planning Commission Report
Architectural Review and Introduction to ODS Study Session November 14, 2024

6-2
Staff proposes implementing ODS in two phases:
 Phase 1 (2025) - an “interim ODS” to address the immediate need for these standards for multi-family housing projects that have an affordable housing component; and  Phase 2 (by the end of 2026) - a comprehensive ODS framework for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects.

The Planning Commission will not adopt specific standards at this study session, but will consider the initial direction of the interim ODS study. Future outreach in 2025 with the Planning Commission, Architectural and Design Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Commission, the private development community, and the public will inform the interim ODS study. Adoption of the ODS would require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council at publicly noticed meetings.

BACKGROUND
The need for Beverly Hills to adopt Objective Design Standards arises from the state’s legislative response to the affordable housing crisis in California, particularly the Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330). These laws restrict local government discretion for certain types of housing approvals and require reliance on objective, measurable criteria. Objective standards present clear criteria and transparency that all stakeholders— developers, City officials, and the public—can rely on throughout the approval process. The framework requires the City to process compliant housing projects ministerially (i.e., a building permit only) to expedite approval and reduce the interpretive variability present with discretionary decision-making processes that can constrain housing production. Additionally, ODS can be applied to state density bonus projects; however, developers may still request concessions and waivers from local standards. Attachment A provides an overview of state laws related to housing that necessitate the development of ODS.

On March 18, 2024, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update for the 2021 - 2029 planning period, which sets forth a plan to support an adequate housing supply for all. A central goal of the Housing Element is the responsibility to meet the City’s “fair share” of housing demand and ensure that local regulatory mechanisms do not impose undue barriers to the production of housing. Implementation Program 12.1 (Development Standards) requires the following actions to achieve that goal:
 Adopt objective design standards to clearly and transparently govern multi-family and mixed-use housing projects by 2026;
 Streamline approvals for ODS-compliant projects with affordable housing through Director-level architectural review; and
 Update multi-family development standards to clarify existing requirements for density, unit size, and, by the end of 2025, the modulation of building forms.

Attachment B contains discretionary review findings (including those for requests reviewed by both the Architectural and Design Commission and Planning Commission) for multi-family housing projects. Attachment C is the full text of development standards and general guidelines for multi-family housing from Zoning Code Article 28. ODS is not intended to replace these existing standards, and will serve to clarify and supplement the BHMC with a structured design framework consistent with state law and protective of the City’s high quality and attractive design.

Planning Commission Report
Architectural Review and Introduction to ODS Study Session November 14, 2024

DISCUSSION
According to state law, objective standards are definitive, measurable, and consistently applicable across projects.
1 ODS are applied without requiring personal or subjective judgement. Historically, the City has utilized a combination of objective metrics with subjective criteria to approve multifamily housing projects. Objective standards are quantifiable and verifiable before project submission. Conversely, subjective standards require interpretive judgment and introduce variability in outcomes and review timelines. Table 1 below further illustrates the distinction between subjective and objective standards:

TABLE 1. UNDERSTANDING SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE STANDARDS The City’s approval process for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects currently applies both subjective and objective standards.

SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Open to Interpretation

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Clear and Measurable
Subjective standards depend on context and
interpretation. Reviewers may reach different
conclusions based on personal judgments,
which make decisions less predictable.

Subjective standards allow flexibility and
responsiveness to local character, but they
can cause confusion about requirements or
lead to appeals under state law.

Attributes
 Judgment-Based
 Discretionary
 Flexible
 Open to Interpretation
Example
“Adequate landscaping should be distributed
throughout the site to create an attractive
appearance.”
Objective standards are quantifiable and
require no interpretation. They provide
consistency and predictability in project
approvals. These standards use a
combination of specific metrics, checklists,
tables, yes/no tests, and illustrations that
promote clear and uniform compliance.

Attributes
 Based on Facts
 Measurable
 Standardized
 Precise
Example
“Landscaping must cover at least 10 percent
of the total site area. Landscaped areas within
required setbacks and any planted areas
within parking lots, such as landscaped
islands or strips, may be counted toward this
10 percent.”
1 Government Code §66300(a)(7) defines an “objective design standard” to mean a standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external benchmark or criterion available to both the applicant and the public. 6-3
Planning Commission Report
Architectural Review and Introduction to ODS Study Session November 14, 2024

Transitioning to ODS will replace existing subjective standards with detailed objective requirements for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. Rather than assessing if a project “complements the character” of the neighborhood, ODS can include specific elements like façade treatments, materials, or architectural features to result in well-designed buildings. Subjective standards will continue to apply to single-family and nonresidential projects as permitted under state law.

California’s Density Bonus law entitles eligible housing projects to request waivers and concessions from local standards (Government Code §§ 65915 – 65918). Although developers may still request deviations, the ODS would provide clear design priorities in a framework that emphasizes Beverly Hills’ design quality and set strong expectations, even for projects with concessions.

Phase 1 - Interim ODS
Staff proposes an initial “interim ODS” to be developed during 2025 to meet the immediate need for objective standards applicable to multi-family housing projects. In the absence of ODS, the City’s ability to enforce design standards is limited to basic objective criteria in the BHMC, which lacks the detail required for architectural form and style. Additionally, there is a need to enhance and clarify certain development standards per Implementation Program 12.1 to establish greater objectivity and ease of application. The interim ODS (“Phase 1”) will apply only to multi-family housing projects that have an affordable housing component and include the following topics through a future zoning text amendment:
 Density, Unit Size, and Building Form Modulation - To clarify certain development regulations (as noted in Implementation Program 12.1), the interim ODS will simplify BHMC language for the calculation of multi-family density, unit dimensions, and building form modulation standards. These standards would be clarified so that standards may be more easily applied by staff and applicant teams.
 Architectural Features, Massing, and Façade Elements - The interim ODS may introduce explicit criteria for baseline regulation of architectural features, building massing, and façade treatments. These standards in Phase 1 would be minimal and address the most immediate visual elements of multi-family housing projects.  Director-Level Architectural Approvals - Implementation Program 12.1 requires that the Planning Commission consider whether to implement a streamlined Architectural Review approval process for projects that incorporate affordable housing. It is important for the interim ODS to be in place prior to potentially implementing a Director-level Architectural Review for certain projects because the interim ODS will provide the Director of Community Development a framework for approving compliant multi-family projects to reduce review times and enforce quality design standards.

Existing Regulations and Potential Interim ODS Framework The interim ODS will be based on existing City regulations. Staff will identify and eliminate ambiguities in the BHMC by establishing design standards in areas currently without objective criteria, including baseline regulations for architecture, massing, form, façade, materials. The interim ODS will be informed by multiple sources, including:
 The General Plan - Goals, policies, and objectives that define City standards;  BHMC Development Standards – Existing zoning standards, which will also be updated for objectivity;
6-4
Planning Commission Report
Architectural Review and Introduction to ODS Study Session November 14, 2024

 Existing Findings for Approval – Criteria currently guiding subjective housing approval such as Architectural Review Findings (BHMC 10-3-3010) and Development Plan Review Findings (BHMC 10-3-3104);
 Precedents from Commission Approvals – Analysis of past commission decisions on massing, form, architectural style, and others;
 Community and Stakeholder Input – Feedback from community meetings, development professionals, and focused interviews; and
 Best Practices – Lessons from jurisdictions that have successfully implemented ODS, including phased/interim strategies.

The interim ODS will establish a baseline for reviewing multi-family housing projects with affordable housing that meet the City’s design integrity while reducing regulatory barriers. Projects that do not meet ODS remain eligible for full discretionary review by the Planning Commission.

The interim ODS may reference an external guidelines document to clarify requirements, including graphics and definitions. Crucially, ODS will not change the existing density, floor area, or height allowed under the General Plan. Outreach and drafting of the interim ODS is anticipated to occur throughout 2025, with opportunities for input from the Planning Commission, Architectural and Design Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Commission, development community, and the public.

Phase 2 - Expanded ODS
The second Phase of the ODS study (“Phase 2”), planned for completion by the end of 2026, will extend applicability to all multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. This phase would integrate findings from the Mixed Use Overlay Zone Study, expected to conclude by 2025. Phase 2 will build on the interim ODS to expand design requirements and may benefit from a specialized consultant to help address complex technical standards or develop incentives as required by Implementation Program 12.1.

Director-Level Architectural Review
Beverly Hills is recognized for its high standards of design excellence. Established over 50 years ago, the Architectural and Design Review Commission promotes development that reflects the City’s distinctive character and status.

The existing architectural review process is already a streamlined process, approving most projects through a single hearing before the Architectural and Design Review Commission.

However, consistent with Implementation Program 12.1 actions and the intent of state law, the City will consider processing architectural reviews at the Director level for multi-family projects with affordable housing through ODS. Currently, under Article 30 of the Zoning Code, the Architectural and Design Commission reviews the exteriors of new commercial, multi-family, or mixed-use buildings, including architectural features, final finishes, colors, and landscaping. The Director of Community Development’s current authority, in contrast, is limited to minor or insignificant architectural alterations such as like-for-like window replacements.

The ODS framework would preserve the intent of the Architectural and Design Review Commission review process by codifying design standards into clear, objective criteria.

Developed under the Architectural and Design Review Commission’s guidance, the ODS will translate the City’s high-quality design benchmarks established by the Commission into standards that the Director can apply consistently. For example, where the Commission might currently 6-5
Planning Commission Report
Architectural Review and Introduction to ODS Study Session November 14, 2024

assess “neighborhood harmony,” the ODS may state specific requirements for building modulation, materiality, and façade treatments to capture the Commission’s vision in a clear, actionable format. Director-level review under the ODS will streamline approval for compliant projects without compromising design quality.

This study session provides an opportunity for the Planning Commission to consider allowing Director-level approvals within the ODS framework and determine how the process should best serve the City’s broader planning and design objectives. Staff recommends that the Commission support a code change to allow Director-level architectural review approvals for multi-family projects with affordable housing, with the concurrent adoption of the interim ODS. Future meetings with the Architectural and Design Review Commission will inform the development of the ODS and Director-level approval process.

Ongoing Roles of the Commissions
Although ODS will simplify approval for certain projects, the Planning Commission and Architectural and Design Review Commission will continue their roles in development oversight.

Both Commissions will be involved in ODS drafting (and ongoing changes to ODS and regulations) and retain review authority over:
 Single-Family Projects – No changes are proposed to existing standards or reviewing authority, including Design Review, R-1 Permits, and Trousdale View Restorations;  Nonresidential Projects – Review processes for nonresidential/commercial entitlements will remain unchanged; and
 Noncompliant ODS Housing Projects – Multi-family or mixed-use housing projects that do not meet the criteria for ODS will still undergo full review by the Commissions.

GENERAL PLAN2 GOALS AND POLICIES AND HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION The proposed development of ODS and Director-level Architectural Review are aligned with Housing Element Implementation Program 12.1 and support broader General Plan goals.

Attachment D includes General Plan goals and policies relevant to this study session.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
This Planning Commission study session was noticed in accordance with City policies and the Brown Act. Staff maintains a list of stakeholders interested in Long Range Planning topics, and a courtesy email was sent out informing them of this meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This study session is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. The Planning Commission is being asked to provide direction at this time but is not taking any formal action.
2 The Beverly Hills’ General Plan is available at beverlyhills.org/generalplan. 6-6
Planning Commission Report
Architectural Review and Introduction to ODS Study Session November 14, 2024

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
 Implementation Program 12.1 identifies BHMC standards like density, unit size, and the modulation of building forms as areas for clarification and simplification. Are there additional standards in the BHMC that the Planning Commission recommends clarifying that will be adopted with the interim ODS? Refer to Attachment C for existing standards related to multi-family housing projects.
 Are there specific types of examples or data that would help the Planning Commission evaluate the draft interim ODS in future discussions?
 As part of Implementation Program 12.1, the City is considering new design standards in the interim ODS for architectural features, massing, and façade elements. Which type of design standards does the Commission believe are most important for the interim ODS?  Implementation Program 12.1 requires the City to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for architectural review of multi-family housing and mixed-use projects with affordable housing. Does the Commission agree that this process would be best addressed through the ODS with design regulations?

NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Receive and file this report on the development of interim Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family housing;

3. Provide preliminary feedback on the integration of Director-level approvals for housing projects with affordable housing within the ODS framework; and

4. Anticipate future updates and active participation in the ongoing development of ODS.

Report Reviewed By:

Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director / City Planner
Community Development Department
6-7
Attachment 7
General Plan Goals and Policies
GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES1
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide sustainable development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the City Council’s review of the proposed IODS include the following:

Housing (H) Element – Goals and Policies
 Implementation Program 12.1 (Development Standards) in the Housing Plan includes policies to (1) adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects, and (2) to consider an ordinance to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for Architectural Review of multi-family housing projects with affordable housing, including:
 Adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects and create materials for multi-family applicants that clearly state design standards by 2026.  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; bring this topic forward for discussion by the Planning Commission by 2024.
 Adopt code changes to create specific and objective findings tied to the development of objective design standards for Architectural Review approval of multi-family and mixed use projects.
 Replacing the current density calculation for multi-family projects in the Zoning Code with simplified units per acre measurement.
 Reduce minimum unit size for multi-family buildings.
 Simplify modulation requirements for multi-family projects by 2025.  Goal H 2 – Housing Supply and Diversity. Provide a variety of housing types and adequate affordable housing supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community.
 Goal H4 Reducing Constraints. Mitigate potential governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, while maintaining community character.
 Policy H 4.3 – Development Standards. Evaluate and modify development standards as appropriate to better facilitate the provision of affordable housing Land Use (LU) Element
 Goal LU 2 - Community Character and Quality. A built environment that is distinguished by its high level of site planning, architecture, landscape design, and sensitivity to its natural setting and history.
 Policy LU 2.1 - City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors. Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City’s distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces. 1 The General Plan is available at beverlyhills.org/generalplan.

Land Use (LU) Element (Cont.)
 Policy LU 3.2 - Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs. Help the City 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.  Policy LU 5.1 - Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City’s identity, economic value, and quality of life.  Policy LU 5.7 - Neighborhood Transitions. Regulate the setback, rear elevation design of buildings, and landscaping of backyards where neighborhoods of differing housing type and density abut to assure smooth transitions in scale, form, and character.  Policy LU 6.1 - Neighborhood Identity. Maintain the characteristics that distinguish the City’s single-family neighborhoods from one another in such terms as topography, lot size, housing scale and form, and public streetscapes.
 Policy LU 6.2 - Housing Character and Design. Require that new, renovated, and additions to housing to be located and designed to maintain the distinguishing characteristics and qualities of the neighborhoods in which they are located, including prevailing lot sizes, building form, scale, massing, relationship to street frontages, architectural design, landscaping, property setbacks, and other comparable elements.

Attachment 8
Required Discretionary (Subjective)
Findings for Architectural Review
Required Discretionary (Subjective)
Findings for Architectural Review
BHMC 10-3-3010: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CRITERIA:

The Architectural and Design Review Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the
issuance of a building permit in any matter subject to its jurisdiction after consideration of whether the following
criteria are complied with:

A. The design and aesthetics of the proposed building or structure are appropriate to the site and neighborhood and, in general, contribute to the image of Beverly Hills as an iconic community of high quality architecture and landscaping;
B. The plan for the proposed building or structure indicates the manner in which the structure is reasonably protected against external and internal noise, vibrations, and other factors which may tend to make the environment less desirable;
C. The proposed building or structure is not, in its exterior design and appearance, of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, with the general plan for Beverly Hills, and with any precise plans adopted pursuant to the general plan; and
E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable laws insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved.

F. In addition to the foregoing criteria, in connection with any application to convert an existing residential apartment building determined by the Planning Commission to be a "character contributing building" in accordance with section 10-2-707 of this title, the Architectural and Design Review Commission shall not approve a renovation to the exterior of a character contributing building unless it makes the following additional finding:

1. The proposed development is designed in a manner that protects and preserves those exterior elements of the building which the Planning Commission found contributed to the determination of the project as a "character contributing building" in accordance with section 10- 2-707 of this title.

If the criteria set forth in this section are met, the application shall be approved. Conditions may be applied when the proposed building or structure does not comply with such criteria and shall be such as to bring such building or structure into conformity. If an application is disapproved, the Architectural and Design Review
Commission shall detail in its findings the criterion or criteria that are not met. The action taken by
the Architectural and Design Review Commission shall be reduced to writing and signed by the chairman, and a copy thereof shall be made available to the applicant upon request.

Attachment 9
Overview of Applicable State Laws
for Objective Design Standards
Overview of Applicable Laws -
Objective Design Standards (ODS)
The following details several state laws related to ODS that create a policy environment requiring predictable and measurable frameworks for housing development. Examples including, but not limited to, the Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) reflect the state’s trend toward ODS.

Housing
Accountability Act
(HAA) (§ 65589.5)
HAA limits the ability to deny a project unless the project complies with objective standards. It defines “objective standards” as ones “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official” and “uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). The HAA states that if a proposed housing development complies with all “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards…” a local agency cannot disapprove the project or impose conditions that render it infeasible, unless it makes specific, supported findings (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)). Additionally, the objective standards applied should enable developers to build to the density allowed by the zoning and not constrain a local government’s ability to achieve its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets.
“Housing Crisis Act
of 2019,” as
amended and
extended by SB 8,
(Gov. Code §§
65941.1, 65905.5,
66300)
SB 330 prohibits municipalities from changing development standards to be more restrictive after a “preliminary application” has been submitted. It effectively “freezes” the applicable ordinances, policies, and standards as of the date of application, requiring projects are evaluated based on the objective criteria in place at that time (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)). SB 330 prevents local jurisdictions from introducing new subjective standards or downzoning properties in a manner that could constrain development.

Attachment 10
Public Correspondence
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, AND COMMISSIONERS
FROM: STEVE MAYER
DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2014
RE: AGENDA ITEM 6 – OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
The title of this agenda item is:
“DIRECTOR-LEVEL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND INTRODUCTION TO
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS (ODS) – STUDY SESSION
Staff requests the Planning Commission’s preliminary feedback during this study session on executing ODS and Housing
Implementaton Program 12.1
It references:

“On March 18, 2024, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update for the 2021- 2029 planning period….”
In the 1,597 page Agenda report, there were a number of references to “Implementation Program 12.1.” The two most significant were both in Part 1 (816 pages), but they are in conflict.

The first reference states:

Implementation Measure 12.1 (Development Standards) in the Housing Plan includes policies to 1) adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects, and 2) to consider an ordinance to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for Architectural Review of multi-family housing projects with affordable housing.

The second reference was among 18 bullet points, All were related to changing the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
• Adopt code changes to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for Architectural Review of multifamily housing and mixed use projects with affordable housing; bring this topic forward for discussion by the Planning Commission by 2024
Honorable Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners
Agenda Item 6 – Objective Design Standards
November 13, 2024

There is a big difference between “consider an ordinance” and “adopt code changes.” That said, these paragraphs should also be viewed within their respective contexts.

This discrepancy needs to be sent back to the Council for clarification and direction.

As to the subject of Objective Design Standards, the proposed new standards should be reviewed by every Commission. It should be a city-wide initiative.

Objective Design Standards touch on virtually every Commission. For example, Curbside Management practice involves the Traffic & Parking Commission while Sustainability Practices is the purview of the Public Works Commission. Every other Commission could contribute.

Lastly, there should be a subset of the Architectural Commission receiving input and feed back from architects and developers. Perhaps Murray Fischer and Peter Ostroff would consider coordinating those stakeholders.

Thank you for allowing me to make this public comment.

Attachments;
Exhibit A - Excerpts From March 8, 2024 Agenda Report: Pages 31-32 Exhibit B - Excerpts From March 8, 2024 Agenda Report: Pages 59-61

EXHIBIT A
Excerpt From March 8, 2024 Agenda Report Regarding The Housing Element Pages 31-32
City of Beverly Hills General Plan
2021-2029 Housing Element
B-31 | P a g e
Implementation Measure 12.1 (Development Standards) in the Housing Plan includes policies to 1) adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects, and 2) to consider an ordinance to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for Architectural Review of multi-family housing projects with affordable housing.

The Architectural Commission reviews the architectural qualities of all multi-family projects, and all commercial or mixed-use projects. The Architectural Commission’s review focuses only on the outside of the building and the building’s landscaping and includes a review of architectural features, final finishes and colors.

Typically, a project is scheduled for review by the Architectural Commission as soon as it is approved by the Planning Commission.

From start to finish, the Architectural Commission’s review typically takes a maximum of 60 days. The Commission’s review includes a public hearing and approval is provided in a letter to the applicant.

The findings used by the Architectural Commission in the Architectural Review process are:

A. The plan for the proposed building or structure is in conformity with good taste and good design and, in general, contributes to the image of Beverly Hills as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality; B. The plan for the proposed building or structure indicates the manner in which the structure is reasonably protected against external and internal noise, vibrations, and other factors which may tend to make the environment less desirable;
C. The proposed building or structure is not, in its exterior design and appearance, of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value;
D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, with the general plan for Beverly Hills, and with any precise plans adopted pursuant to the general plan; and
E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable laws insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved.

The Architectural Commission was established more than 50 years ago and over the course of its existence a methodology to objectively reviewing applications has been developed based on precedent.

The process includes the following:

The City has a planner and urban designer dedicated to working with project applicants on architectural submittals and the City takes measures to assure that applicants are informed of submittal requirements at the time the application is initially submitted to the City. The City keeps a collection of sample review materials, such as material boards and renderings. The City also awards projects semiannually which possess exemplary architecture and those awarded projects are photographed and made available to the public on the City’s website. By reviewing the City’s examples of exemplary architecture and submittal samples, and meeting with the City’s dedicated planner, a project applicant can be assured their project will proceed through the review process in an efficient manner.

Expedited Plan Check
At this time, the Planning Division does not provide an expedited review process for multi-family projects; however, plans are underway to establish an expedited review process for planning permits, provided that needed funds for staffing are available. The Building and Safety Division does provide an expedited plan check option which can reduce plan check times from six to three weeks.

SB 35 Streamlined Review Process
Under certain circumstances, SB 35 (Government Code Sec. 65913.4) requires cities to conduct “streamlined review” of housing development applications. To address this requirement,
Implementation Measure 12.3 in the Housing Plan includes a commitment to establish written procedures for the SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process when applicable.

EXHIBIT B
Excerpt From March 8, 2024 Agenda Report Regarding The Housing Element Pages 31-32
City of Beverly Hills General Plan
2021-2029 Housing Element
C-59| P a g e
Imp 12.1 states:
• Replacing the current density calculation for multi-family projects in the Zoning Code with simplified units per acre measurement
• Reduce minimum unit size for multi-family buildings
• Modifying development standards for single-lot multi-family projects
• Allowing greater flexibility in the type and location of multifamily parking • Amending the code to clarify that the same number of units can be rebuilt on properties that have more units than currently would be allowed
• Simplify modulation requirements for multifamily projects by 2025
• Amend code sections 10-3-12.5 and 10-3-12.8 related to incentives for construction multiple-family housing for the elderly and disabled and multiple-family congregate housing for elderly and disabled persons to ensure code provisions are not inhibiting such developmentCity of Beverly Hills General Plan • Adopt objective design standards for multi-family housing projects and create materials for multi-family applicants that clearly state design standards by 2026
• Adopt code changes to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for Architectural Review of multifamily housing and mixed use projects with affordable housing; bring this topic forward for discussion by the Planning Commission by 2024
• Adopt code changes to create specific and objective findings tied to the development of objective design standards for Architectural Review approval of multi-family and mixed use projects
• Providing additional incentives for workforce housing over and above those contained in the provisions of the State Density Bonus
• Periodically update the adaptive reuse program through 2028 to more easily allow the conversion of existing commercial structures to residential uses, including existing legally nonconforming hotels in residential areas
• Amend the zoning code to remove constraints that may exist related to the redevelopment of commercial shopping centers into mixed use developments
• Review the mixed use overlay zone regulations by 2024 to assess how these regulations have been utilized by projects, and to determine whether further code changes are
necessary to encourage housing and meeting housing
production targets. The City will commit to funding a study with a budget of at least $250,000 for FY 2024-25 to provide recommendations for potential changes to the mixed use
overlay zone
• Based on the results of the mixed use overlay zone study conducted in 2024, the City will further modify the mixed use overlay zone regulations, which could include:
o Changes to the mixed use regulations to address barriers to the utilization of the mixed use standards
o Increases to density and height on specific sites located within ¼ mile of a major transit stop
o Expansions the mixed use overlay zone area to other
commercially zoned areas of the City to accommodate
any unit shortfalls
• Amend the mixed use overlay zone regulations related to conversion/adaptive reuse projects to clarify that such projects may calculate density with the use of the minimum unit size of 500 square feet by the end of 2023
• If the production of housing units through adaptive reuse is not on pace with the targets per the monitoring program by theCity of Beverly Hills General Plan end of 2026 to meet the overall production target, the City will take the following actions within 12 months:
o Will amend the zoning code to allow ministerial approval of adaptive reuse projects in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone that do not add any material height to the existing building o Will modify the adaptive reuse regulations to allow the addition of mezzanine levels to existing buildings that are being converted
o Amend the adaptive reuse regulations to provide more
flexibility with regard to legally nonconforming uses and the location of uses within the building.
• If there is a shortfall of lower income (very low and low income) affordable housing units by the end of 2026 as a result of any of the above identified affordable housing projects or the adaptive reuse program, the City will complete actions by the end of 2028 to accommodate this shortfall that may include but are not limited to:
o Identify additional sites that may accommodate lower
income housing units, including other City-owned or Citycontrolled sites o Rezone sites to accommodate additional housing
capacity, such as changing the allowable density on multifamily residential sites and/or mixed use overlay zoned sites o Expand the mixed use overlay zone to include additional commercially zoned areas of the City
To: The Beverly Hills Planning Commission
From: Ari Tuchman
Re: August 28, 2025 meeting
Introduction:

I am Ari Tuchman and I am a Beverly Hills resident.

It is evident that the scope and scale of developments within Beverly Hills are increasing. Whether for or against such developments, this shift requires modifications of city codes. Generally, I am generally in favor of staff’s recommendations and see below for some specific comments.

Additionally, I am also attaching (Exhibit A) a letter incorporated herein by reference that I wrote to the Planning Commission back in May regarding guidelines for a ministerial approval process for builders remedy projects to (i) provide additional comments and thoughts on this matter and (ii) provide sample language for the Planning Commission to draw-on.

Specific Comments:
• Balconies and Rooftop Decks:
o The proposed ordinance states that balconies within “10 feet of a single-family residential property line” are required to have opaque or translucent railing of at least 4.5 feet. While this proposal is good in theory, it is unclear whether the 10 feet includes an alley. Almost all of Beverly Hills has alleys and if the 10 feet would include the alley, then this specification would have extremely narrow applicability.

I would propose that either (i) the distance of the alley be excluded from the calculation or (ii) the distance be revised from 10’ feet to 20’ feet. I can tell you that for the four multifamily projects that I am following most closely (333-353 S.

Beverly, 9467 Olympic, 9430 Olympic and 9441 Olympic), this specification would have no effect.
o Balconies facing single family homes should be limited to a depth of 3 feet. o The setback for rooftop decks should be increased from 10 feet from the project’s property line.
o No open flames, cooking appliances or other food preparation equipment should be allowed on balconies.
o Amplified noise on balconies should be limited.
• Privacy and Windows:
o I reiterate same comment above with respect to balconies discussed above with respect to new windows placed within 8 feet of residential property on the side.

Please give some consideration to new windows also backing residents (in addition to the side). The underlying privacy concerns are still present. o Additionally, consider adding an additional privacy mechanism that windows above a certain height (i.e., 50 feet) have additional requirements to prevent looking down into single family homes (i.e., louvers).
o All windows for non-living spaces (e.g., closets, bathrooms, etc.) facing single family should have some opacity.
• Miscellaneous: Commercial and non-commercial loading docks in alleys abutting single family homes should be prohibited.

Conclusion:

While many of the proposed changes are positive, there are two reoccurring themes. First, the Commission should apply all side setbacks/measurements to apply to the rear of the building as well. Second, the distances in the proposed ODS Provisions do not account for the alleys; the Planning Commission should either (i) increase such distances by approximately 15-20 feet or (ii) exclude the width of the alley in such calculation.

Sincerely,
Ari Tuchman
Exhibit A
May 5th Letter
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:

distance measurements to either exclude alleys or increase setback distances accordingly.

Thank you for your attention to these important considerations.

Sincerely,
Sonal Kapur
El Camino Drive
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.

From: jacob jacobfights.com
To: CommentPC
Subject: Proposed development
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 11:45:45 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hi I have a few comments for the August 28th meeting. My name is Jacob and I am a Beverly Hills resident.

I am very concerned about the size and scale of some of the projects in Beverly Hills and we need to do more to protect our privacy.

For the opaque requirement on balconies, I don’t think 10ft from a residential property line is enough since there are alleys. It should be a sufficient amount such that if a development abuts a resident property from the rear, then the opacity requirement applies.

I also don’t think open flames or BBQs should be allowed on balconies.

I think windows for non-living spaces should be opaque. Also no amplified noise on balconies if it faces single family homes - noise carries.

The proposed buildings to close to me are very large (more than double what is permitted under zoning) and I want to protect my families proving as much as I can.

Best,
Jacob O. Partiyeli, Esq.

Attorney At Law
Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli
4751 Whittier Blvd.

Los Angeles, California. 90022
Phone: (310) 801-1919
Email: [email protected]
image003.png
P 310.801.1919
F 323.647.2387
4751 Whittier Blvd.

Los Angeles, California 90022
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and its attachments are from the Law Offices of Jacob O.

Partiyeli and may contain attorney-client, work product or other privileged, confidential or proprietary information and may be exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. This email and its 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.

From: jacob jacobfights.com
To: Chloe Chen
Cc: CommentPC
Subject: Re: Proposed development
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:59:04 PM
Attachments: Outlook-hd44glqm.png
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important I also think that’s it’s awful that this building is being approved to begin with. We pay so much in property taxes to now have to deal with millions of people who will park on our street and having to see this monster property.

It’s sad to think this could have all been avoided if the city would have done something in time with the builders remedies BS.

Best,
Jacob O. Partiyeli, Esq.

Attorney At Law
Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli
4751 Whittier Blvd.

Los Angeles, California. 90022
Phone: (310) 801-1919
Email: [email protected]
image002.png image003.png
P 310.801.1919
F 323.647.2387
4751 Whittier Blvd.

Los Angeles, California 90022
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and its attachments are from the Law Offices of Jacob O.

Partiyeli and may contain attorney-client, work product or other privileged, confidential or proprietary information and may be exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. This email and its attachments are for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this email or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this email or its attachments in error, please reply indicating so and delete the message, thank you On Aug 26, 2025, at 2:59 PM, Chloe Chen <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jacob,
Confirming that your comment is received and will be read aloud and distributed to the Planning Commission for review. Please let me know if you have any questions.

City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission Meeting
August 28, 2025 at 1:30 pm PST
Public Comment From:

April A. Robinson, Esq., CEO
Beverly Hills Business Consultants,
9171 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Office: (404) 287-2394
Email: [email protected]
Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is April A. Robinson, CEO of Beverly Hills Business Consultants.Beverly Hills is world-renowned for architectural excellence and timeless character. That legacy is not just aesthetic — it is the foundation of our global reputation, and it is why I chose to establish my business here.

As a Beverly Hills business owner, I also see how emerging markets are reshaping California. “The path forward is to bridge residents’ expectations of beauty, safety, and cohesion with innovation, including multifamily housing that meets Beverly Hills’ design standards and drives ongoing economic vitality Cities from London to Dubai are seeking the very balance Beverly Hills has cultivated for decades. These standards are our chance to reaffirm Beverly Hills as not only a local treasure, but a global benchmark.

Commissioners, I respectfully ask this body to balance the community’s reasoned expectations with the City’s commitment to economic vitality, ensuring design standards are both rigorous and adaptive.

Through your proven stewardship, Beverly Hills will continue to demonstrate that legacy and innovation can move forward together.