WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED — Beverly Hills City Council, May 19, 2026

WRITTEN PUBLIC

COMMENTS RECEIVED

In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).) State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
Impermissible Design Standards
Proposed City Code section 10-3-5000.A.21 requires “Windows within 10 feet of and facing a side or rear property line and within the accessory dwelling unit shall be at located at least six feet above finished floor as measured from the finished floor to the bottom of the window sill, or shall be awning style windows with the ability to open a maximum of six inches (6’) and shall be fitted with translucent glass.” City code section 10-3-5001(A)(18) imposes similar window requirements on ADUs on multifamily parcels.

However, the City may not impose any design requirements on section 66323 ADUs. This is because section 66323, subdivision (b) specifically exempts such ADUs from all local requirements: “A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).” From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.).

The City must exempt section 66323 ADUs from these window design requirements, as is required by state law.

Impermissible Limit on the Number of ADUs Per Single-Family Parcel Code section 10-3-5000(A)(1) only allows one ADU and one JADU per single-family parcel. 2 of 10
However, SB 543 went into effect on January 1, 2026. Among numerous other provisions, the law requires the City to allow one conversion 66323 (“exemption”) ADU and one detached 66323 ADU per single family parcel.

The City must amend the proposed ordinance to allow two 66323 ADUs per single-family parcel: one detached, new construction 66323 ADU; and one internal conversion 66323 ADU.

Impermissible Location Requirement
Code section 10-3-5000(A)(1) requires ADUs to be located to the rear of the primary dwelling on single-family parcels. Code section 10-3-5001(A)(2) requires ADUs to be located to the rear of the existing multifamily building on multifamily parcels.

However, the City may not impose any such locational requirement on ADUs eligible for the protections of Government Code section 66323. The City may not impose front setbacks limits on these ADUs due to the provisions of Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b): “A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).” This means that the City cannot impose any standards on section 66323 ADUs beyond what is specifically allowed in that section of state law, including such location requirements for ADUs developed pursuant to Government Code section 66323.

See pages 18-20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook for more information on section 66323 ADUs.

The City must amend its ADU ordinance to remove this front setback requirement for section 66323 ADUs.

Unlawful Restrictions on ADU Size
City code section 10-3-5000(A)(4)(a) establishes maximum ADU sizes in the Central Area south of Santa Monica Boulevard, the Central Area north of Santa Monica Boulevard and the Hillside Area, and Trousdale Estates. This code section also restricts ADU size based on floor area ratio. Additionally, City code section 10-3-5001(A)(4)(a) limits ADUs on multifamily parcels to 1,200 square feet.

However, these limits on ADU size violate the provisions of Government Code section 66323, subdivisions (a):
3 of 10
● Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(1) allows the conversion of existing accessory structures into ADUs without size restriction. In fact, the applicant is entitled to add up to 150 square feet for the purposes of ingress and egress. ● Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(2) allows the development of an 800 square foot detached ADU, regardless of whether the parcel has already achieved its maximum floor area.
● Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(3), allows the conversion of portions of existing multifamily buildings into ADUs without size restriction. ● Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(4) allows the development of up to eight detached ADUs on multifamily parcels without size restriction.

In all cases, the City cannot impose a size restriction because Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) prohibits the application of any local standards to section 66323 ADUs.

The City must amend its ADU ordinance to remove these impermissible size limits for section 66323 ADUs.

Impermissible Application of Underlying Standards
City code section 10-3-5000(A)(4)(b) applies underlying zoning standards to ADUs on single-family parcels: “Application of development standards, such as floor area ratio, may further limit the size of the accessory dwelling unit, but in no case shall the front setback, floor area ratio, open space, or site coverage requirement reduce an accessory dwelling unit to less than 800 square feet where there is no other alternative to comply, and only to the extent necessary to construct the accessory dwelling unit.” City code section 10-3-5001(A)(4)(b) similarly applies underlying zoning standards to ADUs on multifamily parcels: “Application of development standards, such as floor area ratio, may further limit the size of the accessory dwelling unit, but in no case shall the front setback, floor area ratio, open space, or site coverage requirement reduce an accessory dwelling unit to less than 800 square feet where there is no other alternative to comply, and only to the extent necessary to construct the accessory dwelling unit.” However, the City may only impose underlying zoning standards for ADUs that do not qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323. As discussed above, Government Code section 66323 mandates that the City approve a specific class of ADUs subject only to specified height and setback requirements, notwithstanding any local code requirements to the contrary. SB 1211 made this even more explicit: Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b): “A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design 4 of 10
standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).” The City’s exception for ADUs up to 800 square feet is insufficient, because detached ADUs on multifamily parcels developed pursuant to Government Code section 66323 are not subject to any size restrictions. This is because Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) prohibits the application of any local standards to section 66323 ADUs. A size limit on detached ADUs on multifamily parcels is a local standard not provided in section 66323, and it is therefore prohibited.

From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

The City must amend its ordinance to state clearly that underlying zoning standards do not apply to section 66323 ADUs.

Impermissible Owner-Occupancy Requirement for JADUs
City code section 10-3-5000(A)(7)(c) imposes owner-occupancy requirements on properties that include JADUs. However, AB 1154, effective January 1, 2026, amended state law to eliminate owner-occupancy requirements for JADUs that have their own bathrooms.

Government Code section 66333, subdivision (b):

If the junior accessory dwelling unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure, require owner-occupancy in the single family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit will be permitted. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created junior accessory dwelling unit. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the junior accessory dwelling unit has separate sanitation facilities, or if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. (emphasis added)
The City must amend its code to eliminate this owner-occupancy requirement for JADUs that have their own bathrooms.
5 of 10
Impermissible Parking Requirements
City code sections 10-3-5000(A)(8) and 10-3-5001(A)(4) impose parking requirements on all ADUs, less certain exceptions.

However, the City cannot impose local development standards on ADUs that conform to the requirements of Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a), as section 66323, subdivision (b) specifically exempts such ADUs from all local requirements. This means that the City cannot impose parking requirements on section 66323 ADUs.

From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

From page 34 of the HCD ADU Handbook:

In addition, local agencies may not impose parking requirements on 66323 Units.

The City must exempt section 66323 ADUs from parking requirements, as is required by state law.

Impermissible Building Separation Requirement
City code sections 10-3-5000(A)(11) and 10-3-5001(A)(9)(e) impose a six-foot building-to-building separation requirement on ADUs.

From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

Impermissible Deed Restriction Requirement
City code sections 10-3-5000(A)(14) and 10-3-5001(A)(12) require a restrictive covenant to be placed on the property as a condition of permitting an ADU. This is a clear violation of Government Code section 66323, which prohibits any standards not explicitly authorized in that section. Deed restrictions are also not permitted by Government Code section 66315, which forbids standards not listed in section 66314.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has communicated that such deed restrictions are unlawful. The January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook specifically forbids deed restrictions as a condition of ADU development (see page 22).

Additionally, such deed restrictions imposed on ADUs (or on other accessory structures) are unenforceable. This is due to the absence of horizontal privity between the Town and the applicant. In other words, since the City does not own the applicant’s property at the time of the application, and does not own a neighboring property to whose benefit the proposed restriction(s) redound, black letter property law bars the restrictions from binding future property owners. (See, e.g., Scaringe v. J. C. C. Enters (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536 [describing the types of privity relationship between covenanting parties that allow enforcement of a deed restriction]; see also Civ. Code, §§ 1460 et seq.) The City must therefore amend the proposed ordinance to remove the deed restriction requirement.

Impermissible Historic Standards
City code sections 10-3-5000(A)(18) and and 10-3-5001(A)(19) impose certain local standards on ADUs proposed for historic parcels.

From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), 7 of 10
(b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.).

The City must exempt section 66323 ADUs from these historic requirements, as is required by state law.

Impermissible Limit on the Number of ADUs on Multifamily Parcels Code section 10-3-5001(A)(1)(a) only permits two detached ADUs on a parcel with an existing multifamily building.

However, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(4)(ii) mandates that the City allow up to eight detached ADUs on each parcel that has an existing multifamily building.

The City must amend its ADU ordinance to allow up to eight detached ADUs on each parcel that has an existing multifamily building, as is required by state law.

Impermissible Limitations on Conversion ADUs in Multifamily Buildings Code section 10-3-5001(A)(1)(b) limits the conversion of space into ADUs inside multifamily buildings as follows: “Areas used for commercial or other activities that are intended for regular occupancy such as leasing offices, community rooms, or amenity spaces are not eligible for conversion.”
State law allows for conversion of space within multifamily buildings that is not used as “livable space.” (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (a)(1)(3)).) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.

The City ignores the fact that this section uses the phrase “including, but not limited to,” in its description of areas not used as livable space. The City is required to allow for conversion of such space to ADUs, and allow additional units equalling 25 percent of the existing units in the building. The City’s ordinance restricts the space available for conversion by excluding spaces that would clearly qualify under state law. In particular, there can be no doubt that commercial space within a residential building is not being used as livable space. No one lives in commercial space, leasing offices, community rooms, etc. in a residential building, and there is really no serious argument otherwise.

When there are inadequate housing units available, and there is an extensive homelessness crisis, as there is in the Los Angeles region, an increase in the supply of low-cost housing, 8 of 10
such as ADUs, directly benefits tenants by reducing rents and making more housing units available.

The City must amend its ADU ordinance to remove this illegal restriction on conversion ADUs in multifamily buildings.

Impermissible Discretionary Process
City code section 10-3-5000(B) and 10-3-5001(B) create a process for discretionary approval of certain ADUs by the Planning Commission. However, state law does not allow any such process.

Government Code section 66316:
“An existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes ...”
Government code section 66317, subdivision (a):
“ A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing ...”
If the City wishes to create a path for approval of certain ADUs that are taller or larger than a given threshold, then it should write objective criteria into its code and allow ministerial approval by City staff.

While the City may think that is helping applicants by providing a more flexible, discretionary path, on the contrary it is vastly more helpful to establish clear rules and objective criteria that are approved ministerially, rather than let an applicant embark on a vastly longer, more challenging and expensive discretionary path.

Housing Element Conflicts
Not only does the City’s proposed ADU ordinance violate state law, it also contravenes programs in the City’s Housing Element, including:

H 2.4 Accessory Dwelling Units. Promote accessory dwelling units (ADUs) through various programs, including regulatory incentives, as a means of providing lower-cost housing options for seniors, caretakers, and others. (Imp. 10.4) 9 of 10
Imp 10.4 Accessory Dwelling Units. The City is currently processing a Municipal Code amendment to revise ADU regulations in conformance with current State law and will take various steps detailed below to further encourage the provision of ADUs.

However, by requiring off-street parking and forbidding front yard ADUs, in addition to the other restrictions listed above, the City’s ADU ordinance discourages ADU development. This is distressing, because the City is planning on 150 ADUs to be built during the planning period, including 90 for very low- and low-income households. ⧫⧫⧫
Californians for Homeownership and CalHDF urge the City to amend the proposed ordinance to comport with state ADU law and Housing Element law.

Sincerely,

Matthew Gelfand Dylan Casey
Californians for CalHDF
Homeownership
\
10 of 10
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk; Huma Ahmed
Subject: On consent calendar, removal of pavers
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 7:37:01 PM
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.

Hi.

I am late to the party but I just found out that there is an intention to remove the lovely pavers at 8484 Wilshire which so many of us have admired over the years and which I understand were designed by a master architect.

Please preserve the historical beauty of our city and do not allow the pavers to be removed.

Thank you.

Darian Bojeaux=
May 19, 2026
The Honorable Craig A. Corman, Mayor
Members of the Beverly Hills City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Agenda Item G-1, Affordable Housing Development at 327-335 S. Robertson Blvd.

Dear Mayor Corman, Vice Mayor Wells, and Members of the Council:

My name is Or Amsalam and I own Lodge Bread Company at 295 South Robertson.

I am a new tenant on this block. Before I signed my lease and brought Lodge Bread to Beverly Hills, I did my homework. What I was told was that the City spent $10 million in 2019 (see attached 2019 agenda) to buy this site to build public parking. I believed that. It was part of why I invested here. I signed a lease, I hired employees, and I built a bakery on the strength of what the City said it would do.

The most common complaint I hear from my customers is that they cannot find parking. Not weekly. Not daily. Hourly. People circle the block, give up, and drive away. Delivery drivers double-park and risk tickets. We are not the Golden Triangle. We have no City garages and no free parking, just meters that run out and are limited.

Many of you ran for this Council on a commitment to revitalizing Southeast Beverly Hills, and Mayor Corman, your inaugural address described a vibrant new urban core for this neighborhood.

I share that vision, and I am glad City staff recognized in the report that this corridor needs public parking. But that vision cannot stand without parking.

Please slow down. Do not let a grant deadline make a decision this important for you. Build the housing on one of the City’s other sites, and build the parking here. That is an investment in the future of this business district.

And if you do move this project forward, the public parking cannot be optional. The developer’s plans show 82 spaces fitting on this site. Build all 82, and more if the site allows. Commit to that number in a binding agreement so it cannot be cut later. Of those spaces, at least 60 must be set aside as short-term public parking for the customers of Robertson Boulevard businesses, not leased out as long-term monthly permits.

Thank you for your time and your service.

Respectfully,
_______________________________
Or Amsalam, Owner
Lodge Bread Company

parking impact analysis and fully evaluate whether committing millions of taxpayer dollars toward parking infrastructure is justified and in the best interests of the community.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
Annie Jeng
Beverly Hills resident
May 19, 2026
The Honorable Craig A. Corman, Mayor
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Agenda Item G-1, 327-335 S. Robertson Blvd
Dear Mayor Corman, Vice Mayor Wells, and Members of the Council:

My family owns the commercial building at 287-297 South Robertson, and we are long-term stakeholders in Southeast Beverly Hills. We are highly motivated to see real change in this area, for reasons that are civic as much as financial.

We made our first investment here more than ten years ago, and we have kept investing here since.

We did that because we believe in the Southeast, and we have put our own money behind that belief. I am asking the City to do the same.

Every member of this Council has spoken about revitalizing Southeast Beverly Hills, and I take you at your word. The question now is whether this is the moment to act on that goal, and I believe it is. 327-335 South Robertson is where you can start.

In 2019, the City bought 327-335 for $10.1 million in parking funds. The purpose was simple:
public parking, for a corridor it has long admitted does not have enough.

The plan before you puts 82 public parking spaces on three underground levels, a number kept small only because the housing would sit on top of them. The City’s own report compares this lot to its garage at 216 South Beverly Drive, which has 228. Used for parking alone, below grade and above grade, a site this size holds far more.

So I am asking you to act fully: build the public parking this lot was bought to provide, and build all of it here. The staff report itself raises angled parking on Robertson; if it adds spaces, do that too. Use every tool you have. The senior housing matters, and it belongs on one of the other sites the City is acquiring, not here.

Do not leave the parking as an option to revisit. Commit to it, and build it. The Southeast does not need another study. It needs the City to act.

You have said the Southeast matters. Here is your chance to prove it.

Thank you for your time and your service.

Respectfully,
David Mirharooni

Beverly Hills City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Beverly Hills City Council
May 19, 2026