WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED — Beverly Hills City Council, July 1, 2025

WRITTEN PUBLIC

COMMENTS RECEIVED

From: Randy Simon
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item E 1
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 9:58:53 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!
My family and I request that the Council exclude single family historical properties and their guesthouses, such as Debbie Blum’s home at , from their short term rental regulations.

Thank you very much.

Randy Simon

From: Jamie Miller
To: City Clerk
Cc: Tracey Smith
Subject: Anomaly:Short Term Rental Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:15:14 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking
links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

RE: Opposition to Proposed Short Term Rental Ordinance
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
We are longtime multifamily property owners in Beverly Hills and are writing in strong opposition to the proposed ordinance amending short-term rental regulations.

Month-to-month and mid-term housing is essential to the social and economic fabric of Beverly Hills. The city’s unique position as a global destination for healthcare, business, and the arts creates a significant and ongoing need for flexible housing options. This ordinance, if adopted, would severely limit that flexibility to the detriment of the community.

Health & Wellness Needs
Cedars-Sinai and the numerous surrounding private practices attract thousands of patients from around the world who require top-tier medical care. These individuals and their families need safe, livable, and private environments for recovery—something traditional hotels cannot adequately provide. The ability to cook meals, rest in privacy, and host caretakers or loved ones is critical to the healing process. This ordinance would inadvertently harm the very people Beverly Hills has long welcomed for world-class treatment.

Support for the Arts and Business
Beverly Hills plays a vital role in the entertainment industry, hosting professionals from around the globe. The film and arts community relies heavily on month-to-month and mid-term housing due to the transient nature of productions and performances. This ordinance would eliminate the kind of housing that supports these industries and the creative professionals who contribute so much to the cultural life of the city.

Looking to the Future
We believe the proposed ordinance reflects an outdated understanding of how people live and work today.

Flexibility in housing is no longer an exception—it is a standard. By restricting mid-term rentals, the city risks losing valuable businesses, professionals, and cultural contributors. As property owners who have invested in Beverly Hills for decades, we are deeply concerned that this ordinance will ultimately push us—and others like us— to reconsider our future investment in the city.

We respectfully urge the Commission to recommend against adopting this ordinance as currently drafted.

Sincerely,
Jamie Miller
Multifamily Property Owner

expense of mom-and-pop property owners.

We already have laws in place that establish a minimum rental period of 31 days. This is a reasonable limit to avoid problematic short stays. Any restrictions beyond this amount would be an infringement on our property rights. We should have the right to rent our properties for a month or two, whether to travel or to earn a living!
Perhaps create a Permit system and consider banning future permits. For those with existing permits, establish a "three strikes, you're out" rule. Additionally, provide an exemption for properties with four units or fewer, where the owner lives on-site. Only registered properties with permits, no prior complaints or citations, should be eligible.

You all have a significant responsibility toward our livelihoods. Please take the time to consider our fair and balanced suggestion!
Thank you again.

Shelly
9400 S. Santa Monica Blvd. #102, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 | 310.248.1015 | [email protected] July 1, 2025
Honorable Mayor Nazarian and
Members of the City Council of Beverly Hills
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Honorable Mayor Nazarian and Members of the City Council, On behalf of the hotels operating within the City of Beverly Hills, we write to express our strong support for the adoption of the ordinance to change the language in the city’s current short term rental ordinance to prohibit single and multi-family short term rentals in Beverly Hills.

As valued contributors to the local economy, Beverly Hills hotels provide high-quality accommodations, generate significant employment, and pay millions annually in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), Sales Tax, Property Tax and Business License Tax, which directly supports vital city services, public safety, infrastructure, and tourism promotion. Short term rentals, by contrast, create a system that operates largely without oversight, accountability, or consistency in tax collection.

Our primary concern lies in the difficulty of tracking and enforcing TOT and other tax collection from short-term rental hosts. Unlike hotels, which operate under strict regulatory and financial reporting requirements, short-term rentals are frequently unlicensed, transient, and operate under the radar. This results in underreported or uncollected TOT, ultimately depriving the city of essential revenue that would otherwise be used to benefit the community.

Moreover, the proliferation of short-term rentals reduces demand for traditional hotel accommodations, diverting revenue from established, tax-paying businesses. This creates an uneven playing field and threatens the economic sustainability of our industry, which is already navigating the challenges of post-pandemic recovery. It also creates disruption and nuisance for those residents residing in neighborhoods where rentals are used for parties and other activities that undermine our citizens’ quality of life.
9400 S. Santa Monica Blvd. #102, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 | 310.248.1015 | [email protected] We urge the city to uphold its longstanding commitment to maintaining the residential character and quality of life in Beverly Hills by adopting language in the short term rental ordinance to eliminate any offerings in the city. Strong enforcement of existing regulations and a commitment to protecting legitimate hospitality businesses will ensure a fair, safe, and economically sound future for Beverly Hills.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the City of Beverly Hills to support tourism in a responsible and equitable manner.

Sincerely,
The Beverly Hills Conference & Visitors
Board of Directors
Gaby Alexander – Good Graces
John Bendheim – Bendheim Enterprises
Linda Briskman – LJB Consulting
Tod Chambers – Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills
David Ecija – The Beverly Hilton
Eliot Finkel – Eliot Finkel Investment Counsel, LLC and former City Treasurer Kathy Gohari – KG Relations and President of the Rodeo Drive Committee Sam Jagger – The Maybourne Beverly Hills
Reed Kandalaft – The Beverly Wilshire, a Four Seasons Hotel Gil Keinan – Local Equity
Peter Ostroff – Former Planning Commission Member
Offer Nissenbaum – Peninsula Beverly Hills
John Scanlon – The Beverly Hills Hotel
Bill Wiley – Two Rodeo/CBRE
Frederic Zemmour – L’Ermitage Beverly Hills
From: MmullinRELawgroup Mullin
To: City Clerk
Subject: Include during live Public Comments: 7-01-2025, Short Term Rental Ordinance City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:03:46 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking
links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts. ________________________________
Dear Members of the City Council,
We are reaching out on behalf of several small, family-owned property owners who are deeply concerned about losing their property rights and sources of income. We urge you not to adopt a minimum lease period longer than what currently exists. Property owners should have the right to rent their properties on a month-to-month basis.

They have followed all the laws, registered as required, paid taxes, fees, have never been in any violation, nor have they received any complaints regarding any of their rentals. They should not be unjustly restricted from their earnings.

The issues related to transient travelers, noise, and privacy have already been addressed by the 31-night minimum stay requirements. Any extension beyond this would unfairly target and single out a specific group of residents based on a theoretical scenario of public benefit. The City of Beverly Hills lacks adequate research, studies, or evidence to support the benefits of a longer minimum stay, as it does for the existing 31-night requirement.

Implementing a 6 or 12-month minimum lease requirement would adversely affect the economy of Beverly Hills.

You do not possess studies that demonstrate otherwise. In the absence of City or public funding to compensate property owners for their financial losses, this move could expose the City to legal action for compensation.

Moreover, adopting such requirements would likely lead to legal challenges regarding violations of constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection, and could conflict with state law. This action, if approved, may be challenged as an unreasonable restraint on trade and an unconstitutional taking of property.

We strongly urge you not to adopt or pass any ordinance that requires minimum leases or stays longer than 31 nights.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely
M. Mullin
From: Karen Platt
To: City Clerk
Cc: Shahram Melamed
Subject: Item E-1 on 7 pm Agenda (Short Term Rentals)
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 10:33:20 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from platt. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Please acknowledge receipt and circulate to all council members! Thanks so much.

Good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
We are sorry that we can’t be there in person tonight, but would like to share the following:

We are long time residents of Trousdale Estates and members of TENA (Trousdale Estates Neighborhood Association). We are grateful to both the City Council and the Planning Commission for your careful reconsideration of short-term housing rentals. We have been the unlucky recipients of loud noise emanating from frequent parties held for all hours of the day and night in AirBNBs and short-term rentals. (A blatant offender is the house located at which has several outstanding code enforcement violations.) Unfortunately, in the past, the short-term renters have shown a complete disregard for the neighborhood, and then promptly disappear.

Hopefully, the longer rental terms will eliminate that, and we would be most appreciative.

We are also happy to see Section 10-3-4302 E which restricts parties except for non-profits and charities. Those offenders that we have had to deal with in the past are not beyond saying that one of their parties (with blasting music in the wee hours of the morning) is a “charity” affair. As a result, we would request that you add that any party is subject to the City’s Noise Abatement Ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration,
Karen Platt and Shahram Melamed

ensuring direct oversight of any guests. This approach maximizes community benefit while minimizing potential concerns.

I respectfully urge you to consider crafting the proposed ordinance with sufficient flexibility to accommodate situations like theirs. Perhaps exemptions could be granted for:

Historic landmark properties where rental income directly supports preservation efforts Senior residents who demonstrate financial need for property maintenance Properties where owners maintain primary residence and direct oversight Such accommodations would demonstrate Beverly Hills' commitment to both addressing community concerns and supporting the preservation of our architectural heritage.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for your continued service to our community.

Sincerely,
Iris Friedman

250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org
June 27, 2025
City of Beverly Hills City Council
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Via Electronic Mail
Re: Better Neighbors LA – Agenda Item E-1: Ordinance Amending Short Term Rental Regulations– Comment Letter
Dear Mayor Nazarian and Honorable Councilmembers,
Better Neighbors LA is a coalition of tenants, housing advocates, and community members committed to protecting long-term housing by curbing illegal short-term rental (“STR”) activity. Through data analysis and research, we assess the STR industry’s impact on affordable housing and local neighborhoods. Better Neighbors LA writes to you in support of 1) the staff recommendation to prohibit STRs in all residential units; 2) the establishment of a one-year minimum lease for both single family and multi-family residential zones; and 3) the staff recommendation to create a penalty schedule for violations that set fines to the maximum extent allowed under state law.

Prohibiting STRs in all residential units is essential for preserving Beverly Hills’ housing stock, lowering rents, and mitigating the numerous problems that STRs generate including nuisance complaints, loss of privacy, safety concerns, and enforcement challenges. As discussed in the August 8 meeting, the City’s current enforcement process has proven to be administratively burdensome. A full STR ban coupled with meaningful penalties would improve enforcement efficiency.

At present, STRs are prohibited in multi-family residential zones while a “single family transient use” is permitted up to twice a year in single-family residence in each of the singlefamily zones – a distinction that has proven unmanageable for code enforcement. Establishing a similar dichotomy between multi-family and single-family residential zones for minimum lease terms will likely result in further confusion and undermine compliance. Standardizing 1-year minimum lease terms across all residential zones would simplify enforcement and provide clarity for both landlords and tenants.

Defining transient use as any rental term under 12 consecutive months across all residential zones will not only improve enforcement but also benefit renters. Beverly Hills is Better Neighbors Comment Letter
Agenda Item E-1: Amending Short Term Rental Regulations

Page 2 of 3 ends

a majority renter city.1 Instituting a one-year minimum lease in all residential zones would ensure consistency and housing security for renters citywide. Other cities, including Santa Monica and West Hollywood, have adopted similar one-year minimum lease requirements to combat housing loss to STRs and support stable communities. For instance, the West Hollywood City Council standardized its minimum one-year lease to include single family residences and condos in addition to multi-family rental units. This Council decision aimed to preserve housing stock for long-term residents rather than for tourists.2 The Council strengthened its enforcement efforts further by including a private right of action in its STR ordinance, which allows affected residents to take legal action against STR operators and platforms. The City of Beverly Hills could consider similar measures.

A ban on STRs coupled with a one year minimum lease and strong enforcement will keep multi-family units affordable and available for long-term residents. This approach aligns with the City’s Housing Element goals of providing a variety of housing types, adequate housing supply, and more affordable housing opportunities for those already living and working in Beverly Hills. Notably, in the 7th Cycle of the Housing Element, Housing and Community Development is expected to update its methodology to account for housing units lost to STRs and vacation rentals.
3 STRs not only shrink the supply of long-term housing, but they also increase rent. A September 2024 study by David Wachsmuth and Cloé St-Hilaire investigated the impact that STR regulations in British Colombia have on rents in the province. Their research found that STR regulations that reduce STR activity caused rents to fall in subsequent years. Municipal STR regulations across British Columbia have reduced rents by 5.7%, saving renters over $600 million last year in rent payments.4
Robust financial penalties are critical to deterring repeat offenders. The attached Short-Term Rental Data sheet reveals that just eight Airbnb hosts are responsible for more than 200 listings in Beverly Hills—many of them illegal listings in apartment buildings. Such operators are clearly undeterred by the current fine structure, which caps out at $500 for repeat offenses. Given the average STR in Beverly Hills in June generates $836 per night, the current penalties are insufficient.5 We support the staff recommendation to increase fines for repeat violations to the maximum amount allowed under state law.

A STR ban is only as valuable as the enforcement that backs it. The City must implement a centralized enforcement system that issues immediate penalties when violations are identified. In Los Angeles, high administrative burden and a decentralized system of Home-Sharing Ordinance enforcement has led to rampant abuse of the STR market. As of 1 https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S2502?t=Owner/Renter+(Householder)+Characteristics&g=160XX00 US0606308 2 https://beverlypress.com/2024/03/weho-passes-one-year-housing-lease-rule/ 3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/rhna/cahf-2040-rhna-report-2024.pdf 4 https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/bc-str-2024/Wachsmuth_BC_STR_2024.pdf 5 BNLA analysis of Inside Airbnb data from June 2025; https://insideairbnb.com/ Better Neighbors Comment Letter
Agenda Item E-1: Amending Short Term Rental Regulations

Page 3 of 3 ends

May 1, 2025, BNLA estimates that over 30% of STR listings in LA City are non-compliant.6 To avoid similar issues, Beverly Hills should develop strong, enforceable rules with a low threshold of administrative burden in order to issue citations and maintain the ordinance’s effectiveness.

Beverly Hills is not alone in their push to ban STRs. This effort is part of a broader regional movement. Cities throughout Southern California have enacted strong STR regulations to protect long-term housing stock. In April 2024, the City of Santa Ana reconsidered their existing de facto STR ban and voted to codify it to meet their California Department of Housing and Community Development Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirement.7 The City Councils of Calabasas, Diamond Bar, Rosemead, Culver City, San Gabriel, La Habra, Lakewood, Rolling Hills, Redondo, Lawndale, Garden Grove, and Laguna Hills have STR bans in place.8
The data demonstrates STR activity in Beverly Hills has surged 259% between January 2022 and August 2024.9 A comprehensive STR ban, paired with a one-year minimum lease and a rigorous enforcement mechanism will help preserve City resources, protect residents from the negative effects of short-term rentals, and safeguard long-term residents from increasing housing costs and the threat of displacement. For these reasons, Better Neighbors urges the City Council to:
• Ban short-term rentals in all residential units;
• Adopt a one-year minimum lease requirement across all residential zones; and • Establish a penalty schedule that sets fines to the maximum extent allowed under state law.

Should you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Maura O’Neill at [email protected].

Sincerely,
/s/ Randy Renick
6 BNLA analysis of Inside Airbnb data; https://insideairbnb.com/ 7 https://www.santa-ana.org/short-term-rentals-ban/ 8 Calabasas: https://library.municode.com/ca/city of calabasas/codes/code of ordinances?nodeId=TIT17LAUSDE ARTIIZODI ALLAUS_CH17.12STSPLAUS_17.12.175SHRMREOCPRPREXLAAPHOMOBEBRIN Diamond Bar: https://www.diamondbarca.gov/Faq.aspx?QID=314 Rosemead:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=900458 Culver City:
https://www.culvercity.org/Have-Your-Say/Short-Term-Rentals San Gabriel: https://www.sangabrielcity.com/1341/FrequentlyAsked-Questions#:~:text=Short-term%20rentals%20(anything%20less,term%20rental%20or% La Habra:
https://www.lhhcity.org/325/Short-Term-Rentals Lakewood: https://www.lakewoodcity.org/Business/Short-term-rentals Rolling Hills: https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills_estates/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.47SHRMRERE _17.47.020PU Redondo Beach: https://www.redondobeachtourism.com/news/airbnb Lawndale: https://ecode360.com/LA4957 Garden Grove: https://ggcity.org/code-enforcement/short-term-vacation-rental-detailed-terms Laguana Hills:
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/05/hed-laguna-hills-bans-short-term-rentals/ 9 BNLA analysis of Inside Airbnb data; https://insideairbnb.com/

Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 June 25, 2025 Client-Matter: 70815-031
Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Comments on Proposed Short-Term Rental Regulations Ordinance Dear Mayor Nazarian and Honorable Councilmembers:

We are writing on behalf of The Belvedere Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”), to provide comments on the City of Beverly Hills’ proposed short-term rental regulations ordinance, which we understand you are currently scheduled to consider at your meeting of July 1, 2025.

At the outset, we would like to thank both staff of the Department of Community Development and the City Planning Commission for all their hard work arriving at a proposed draft ordinance that we believe is leagues better than the current regulatory scheme. The proposed ordinance will better ensure that short-term rentals do not continue to adversely impact the City’s collection of transient occupancy tax, the character of the City’s residential neighborhoods, and the affordable housing crisis plaguing the region.

Attached to this letter are our proposed minor amendments to the draft ordinance in redline form, together with comments explaining our rationale for them. You will see that the bulk of our comments have to do with enforcement, given the high degree of evasion and noncompliance that Beverly Hills and other cities throughout Southern California have experienced, and which we believe should be of special concern in Beverly Hills, where violators would be willing to take their chances on receiving and ignoring citations given the high revenue amounts that short-term rentals in the City command.

The Peninsula is concerned that the hotel business in Beverly Hills has and will continue to be negatively impacted by illegal short-term rentals throughout the region.

We know the City understands that the City’s marquee hotels—some of the finest in the world—are here in Beverly Hills, and the City has much to gain from their continued Honorable Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers
June 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

success and the transient occupancy tax they bring to the City’s coffers. As such, we hope you will work with our client on arriving at ordinance language that provides real enforcement mechanisms that best ensure compliance.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Chloe Chen, Principal Planner, Long-Range Planning, Community Development Department

City Council find the ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential for such ordinance to have a significant adverse effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Amendments do not authorize construction and only involve revisions to existing standards and land use limitations for certain residential zones in the City. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the draft ordinance has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment and the Amendments are categorically exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

Section 4. The Amendments are consistent with the objectives, principles, and standards of the General Plan. The Housing Element of the General Plan includes Goal H1 – Maintenance and Conservation, which encourages the maintenance of the quality and character of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and Policy H1.5 – Conservation of Existing Rental Housing calls for preventing the loss of existing residential units. Similarly, the Housing Element sets forth Goal H2 – Housing Supply and Diversity, which calls for the provision of a variety of housing types and adequate affordable housing supply. Goal H3 – Fair Housing and Special Needs Residents promotes equal housing opportunities for all residents, especially persons with disabilities, homeless, and those at risk of homelessness. General Plan Land Use (LU) Policy 5.1 - Neighborhood Conservation calls for the maintenance of 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. Goals LU 6 – SingleFamily Residential Neighborhoods and LU 7 – Multi-Family Residential Neighborhoods

Section 8. Section 10-3-406 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 4 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-406: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-1. All property and buildings in zone R-1 hereby are limited to strictly private one-family residential uses except as otherwise provided in this article. A singlefamily transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.”
Section 9. Section 10-3-501 (Uses and Buildings Permitted) of Article 5 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-501: USES AND BUILDINGS PERMITTED:

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in zone R-1.X shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except as a private one-family residence, family daycare homes licensed pursuant to state law, small or large residential community care facility operating in compliance with section 10-3-2778 of this chapter, or transitional or supportive housing structured as a single-family residence.”
Section 10. Section 10-3-508 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 5 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-508: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-1.X. All property and buildings in zone R-1.X hereby are limited to strictly private one-family residential uses except as otherwise provided in this article. A single-family transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 11. Section 10-3-601 (Uses and Buildings Permitted) of Article 6 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.5)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-601: USES AND BUILDINGS PERMITTED:

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in zone R-1.5 shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except as a private one-family residence, family daycare home licensed pursuant to state law, small or large residential community care facility operating in compliance with section 10-3-2778 of this chapter, or transitional or supportive housing structured as a single-family residence.”
Section 12. Section 10-3-607 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 6 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.5)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-607: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-1.5. All property and buildings in zone R-1.5 hereby are limited to strictly private one-family residential uses except as otherwise provided in this article. A single-family transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 13. Section 10-3-701 (Uses and Buildings Permitted) of Article 7 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.5X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-701: USES AND BUILDINGS PERMITTED:

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in zone R-1.5X shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except as a private one-family residence, family daycare home licensed pursuant to state law, small or large residential community care facility operating in compliance with section 10-3-2778 of this chapter, or transitional or supportive housing structured as a single-family residence.”
Section 14. Section 10-3-704 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 7 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.5X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-704: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-1.5X. All property and buildings in zone R-1.5X hereby are limited to strictly private one-family residential uses except as otherwise provided in this article. A single-family transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 15. Section 10-3-801 (Uses and Buildings Permitted) of Article 8 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.5X2)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-801: USES AND BUILDINGS PERMITTED:

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in zone R-1.5X2 shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except as a private one-family residence, family daycare home licensed pursuant to state law, small or large residential community care facility operating in compliance with section 10-3-2778 of this chapter, or transitional or supportive housing structured as a single-family residence.”
Section 16. Section 10-3-805 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 8 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.5X2)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-805: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

A single-family transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 17. Section 10-3-901 (Uses and Buildings Permitted) of Article 9 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.6X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-901: USES AND BUILDINGS PERMITTED:

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in zone R-1.6X shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except as a private one-family residence, family daycare home licensed pursuant to state law, small or large residential community residential care facility operating in compliance with section 10-3-2778 of this chapter, or transitional or supportive housing structured as a single-family residence.” Section 18. Section 10-3-904 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 9 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.6X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-904: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-1.6X. All property and buildings in zone R-1.6X hereby are limited to strictly private one-family residential uses except as otherwise provided in this article. A single-family transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 19. Section 10-3-1001 (Uses and Buildings Permitted) of Article 10 (OneFamily Residential Zone (R-1.7X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read:
“10-3-1001: USES AND BUILDINGS PERMITTED:

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in zone R-1.7X shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except as a private one-family residence, family daycare home licensed pursuant to state law, small or large residential community care facility operating in compliance with section 10-3-2778 of this chapter, or transitional or supportive housing structured as a single-family residence.”
Section 20. Section 10-3-1004 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 10 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.7X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read:
“10-3-1004: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-1.7X. All property and buildings in zone R-1.7X hereby are limited to strictly private one-family residential uses except as otherwise provided in this article. A single-family transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 21. Section 10-3-1101 (Uses and Buildings Permitted) of Article 11 (OneFamily Residential Zone (R-1.8X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-1101: USES AND BUILDINGS PERMITTED:

Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in zone R-1.8X shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except as a private one-family residence, family daycare home licensed pursuant to state law, small or large residential community care facility operating in compliance with section 10-3-2778 of this chapter, or transitional or supportive housing structured as a single-family residence.”
Section 22. Section 10-3-1104 (Businesses Prohibited) of Article 11 (One-Family Residential Zone (R-1.8X)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-1104: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-1.8X. All property and buildings in zone R-1.8X hereby are limited to strictly private one-family residential uses except as otherwise provided in this article. A single-family transient use of a “single-family residence” or “accessory dwelling unit”, as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 23. Section 10-3-1209 (Businesses Prohibited; Exceptions) of Article 12 (Multiple Residential Zone (R-4)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-1209: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-4, except the business of an apartment house. All property and buildings in zone R-4 hereby are limited to residential uses, except as otherwise provided in this article. A multi-family transient use as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.”
Section 24. Section 10-3-1242 (Uses Prohibited) of Article 12.3 (Multiple-Family Residential-Commercial Parking Zone (RMCP)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby added to read as follows:
“10-3-1242: USES PROHIBITED:

A multi-family transient use as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.” Section 25. Section 10-3-1304 (Businesses Prohibited, Exceptions) of Article 13 (Residential Income and Multiple Dwelling Zone (R-4X1)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-1304: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-4X1 except for the business of an apartment house. All property and buildings in zone R-4X1 hereby are limited to residential uses, except as otherwise provided in this article. A multi-family transient use as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.”
Section 26. Section 10-3-1503 (Businesses Prohibited; Exceptions) of Article 15 (Multiple Residential Zone (R-3)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-1503: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-3, except the business of an apartment house. All property and buildings in zone R-3 hereby are limited to residential uses, except as otherwise provided in this article. A multi-family transient use as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.”
Section 27. Section 10-3-1543 (Businesses Prohibited; Exceptions) of Article 15.3 (Residential Parking Zone (R-4-P)) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-1543: BUSINESSES PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS:

Except as provided in article 43 of this chapter, no business shall be conducted or maintained in any building or upon any lot or premises, or upon any portion of either thereof, in zone R-4, except the business of an apartment house. All property and buildings in zone R-4 hereby are limited to residential uses, except as otherwise provided in this article. A multi-family transient use as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited.”
Section 28. Section 10-3-1877 (Restricted Uses) of Article 18.7 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-1877: RESTRICTED USES:

The following restrictions shall apply to mixed use development in the MU Overlay Zone:

A. No medical uses may be included in a mixed use development.

B. No entertainment uses including, but not limited to, cabarets, nightclubs, and adult entertainment businesses, may be included in a mixed use development.

C. Residential uses included as part of a mixed use development shall be permitted in all portions of the development regardless of the underlying zone, except that residential uses shall not be permitted within the first forty feet (40’) of depth from any street-facing property line of the first floor, except as otherwise allowed through the development plan review request.

D. Commercial uses included as part of a mixed use development shall only be permitted in those portions of the development in which the underlying zone is a commercial zone unless otherwise approved through a zone text amendment request.

Further, no commercial uses shall be allowed above the third story of a mixed use development.

E. A multi-family transient use as defined in section 10-3-100 of this chapter is prohibited, including in the residential portions of a mixed-use development project.

F. The planning commission shall have authority through conditions imposed on a development plan review permit to prohibit uses not specified herein, on a use by use basis, if it finds that the proposed uses will have a significant adverse impact on adjacent uses, or will not promote harmonious development of the area.”
Section 29. Section 10-3-302 (Permitted And Conditionally Permitted Uses For Residential Zoning Districts And Zoning District Overlays) of Article 3 (Establishment Of Zones; Permitted And Conditionally Permitted Uses) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows with all other sections remaining unchanged:
“The following charts establish permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses in all residential zoning districts and zoning district overlays:

A. Single-Family Residential Zones: Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in a single-family residential zone shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except:

ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND ZONING DISTRICT OVERLAYS P = Permitted use UP = Use permit CUP = Conditional use permit R-1 R1.X
R1.5
R1.5X R1.5X
2 R1.6XR1.7
X
R1.8
X
Accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units (subject to
article 50 of this chapter)

P P P P P P P P
Single-family dwelling P P P P P P P P
Transitional and supportive housing
1 :

Single-family structure P P P P P P P P
Family daycare homes, licensed
pursuant to state law

P P P P P P P P
Community residential care facility2
(state licensed):

Small (serving 6 or fewer) P P P P P P P P
Large (serving 7 or more) P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3
Educational institutions CU
P
CUP
4 CU
P
CUP4
Museums CU
P
CUP CU
P

Public utility uses (except as
provided in section 10-3-2754 of
this chapter)
CU
P
CUP CU
P

Religious institutions CU
P
CU
P

Public libraries CUP
Publicly owned playgrounds CUP
Home occupations (subject to
section 10-3- 4303 of this chapter)

P P P P P P P
Notes:

1. Transitional or supportive housing is permitted in residential zones subject to the same standards as similar residential uses; therefore, if such housing is configured as a single- family residence, it is regulated as such and is subject to all regulations applied to residences in the single-family residential zone where it is located.

2. For the purposes of this section, residential care facilities for the elderly, as defined in state law, shall be treated the same as community residential care facilities. Community residential care facilities shall comply with the requirements in section 10-3-2778 of this chapter.

3. A zoning clearance prior to the submittal of an application for building permit is required to verify the compliance of the community residential community care facility with the applicable requirements in section 10-3-2778 of this chapter.

4. Public educational institutions only.

B. Multiple-Family Residential Zones: Except as otherwise provided in this article, no lot, premises, building or portion thereof in a multiple-family residential zone shall be erected, constructed, built, altered, enlarged, built upon, used, or occupied for any purpose except:

ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND ZONING DISTRICT OVERLAYS
P = Permitted use CUP = Conditional use permit
R-4 RMC
P
Specia
l
Needs
Housi
ng
Overla
y Zone
5 R4X
1 R4X
2 R
-
3 R4-P
Single-family dwelling P P P P P
Accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units (subject to article
50 of this chapter)

P P P P P P
Multiple-family dwellings P P P P P P
Transitional and supportive housing:

Single-family structure P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Multi-family structure P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Family daycare homes, licensed pursuant
to state law

P P P P P P
Emergency shelters (subject to section 10-
3-1275 of this chapter)
P
Single room occupancy housing (SRO) CUP
Community residential care facilities2
(state licensed):

Small (6 or fewer) P P P P P P
Large (7 or more) P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3
Public library P P P
Childcare uses licensed pursuant to state
law
CU
P
CUP CU
P
CU
P
Educational institutions CU
P
CUP CU
P
CU
P
Multiple-family congregate housing for the
elderly or disabled pursuant to article 12.8
of this chapter
CUP
Multiple-family housing for the elderly or
disabled pursuant to article 12.5 of this
chapter
CU
P
CUP CU
P
CU
P
Museums CU
P
CUP CU
P
CU
P
Public utility uses4 CU
P
CUP CU
P
CU
P
Religious institutions CU
P
CUP CU
P
CU
P
Restaurants located in nonconforming
hotels (subject to section 10-3-1207 of this
chapter)
CU
P
CUP CU
P
CU
P
Convenience retail uses (subject to section
10-3-1233 of this chapter)
CUP
Public parking uses CUP
Ancillary retail uses6 P
Ancillary parking facilities6 P
Notes:

1. Transitional or supportive housing is permitted in residential zones subject to the same standards as similar residential uses; therefore, if such housing is configured as a multiple- family residence, it is regulated as such and is subject to all regulations applied to residences in the multiple-family residential zone where it is located.

4. Except as provided in section 10-3-2754 of this chapter.

5. Uses allowed in the special needs housing overlay zone are in addition to any use allowed in the underlying zoning district.

6. If approved by the planning commission as part of a planned development pursuant to article 18.4 of this chapter.
(Ord. 17-O-2724, eff. 2-10-2017; amd. Ord. 24-O-2892, eff. 4-18-2024; Ord. 24- O-2894, eff. 6-7-2024).”
Section 30. Subsection A of Section 10-3-303 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses for Nonresidential Zoning Districts and Zoning District Overlays) of Article 3 (Establishment of Zones; Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows, with all other sections to remain unchanged. Subsection A is currently in the process of being added and codified for another pending ordinance, but shall be amended subsequently by this ordinance as follows:
“A. Permitted Uses: Uses for all nonresidential zones and zoning district overlays are listed in the article addressing each specific zone or zoning district overlay. Unless otherwise specified by the zoning district overlay or specific project approval, multi- family transient uses shall be prohibited.”
Section 31. Section 10-3-4302 (Prohibited Home Occupation Activities) of Article 43 (Home Occupations) of Chapter 3 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the BHMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10-3-4302: PROHIBITED HOME OCCUPATION ACTIVITIES:

Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, no person shall engage in, permit, carry on, or conduct any of the following activities as a home occupation at any time in a residential zone:

A. Repair, servicing, alteration, assembly, upholstery, or construction of any automobile or other motor vehicle as defined in the California Vehicle Code; B. Any hotel use or any other transient lodging use for compensation or benefit of any kind, including, but not limited to, the operation of bed and breakfast inns, hostels, hotels, or any similar operation;
C. Restaurant, excluding a restaurant or caterer that delivers goods or services to a residential site, has a principal place of business outside of any residential zone, and conducts no administrative or processing function within a residential zone; D. Caterer, unless a permit shall have first been obtained from the director of building and safety approving any equipment to be installed and operated in connection with the catering business;
E. Rental of any residence, or any portion thereof, for events or activities such as parties, banquets, auctions, or similar activities, except in connection with nonprofit and/or charity functions, provided such nonprofit or charity functions are limited to one time per quarter not to exceed four (4) times in any twelve (12) month period; F. All activities regulated under title 4, chapter 2 of this code; G. Activities regulated under title 4, chapter 3 and chapter 4, article 5 of this code except as authorized by permit under title 4 of this code and consistent with the provisions of this article;
H. Any activity that would produce biohazardous or medical waste, as those terms are defined in the California Health and Safety Code, or involves the storage of materials in a manner that would result in a change in the occupancy classification of a residential structure under the city’s building code, mechanical code, fire code or plumbing code, or that would otherwise violate any building or fire code or other law; I. Conduct any use, other than a residential use, prohibited in the C-3 zone; J. Conduct any use conditionally permitted in the C-3 zone; K. Manufacturing, excluding activities or occupation such as: 1) artists, authors or composers; 2) dressmakers, seamstresses, or tailors; and 3) home crafts, including, without limitation, model making, rug weaving, quilting, needle work, jewelry making, woodworking, and other similar activities which are consistent with the primary use of the dwelling as a residence, provide that such activities are limited to the use of tools and equipment commonly available for personal residential use.

From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk
Subject: E 1, Short Term Rental Regulations
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 3:47:30 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.

Would you please read this e-mail at the council meeting? Thank you.

Darian Bojeaux
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members,
My family members and I wholeheartedly approve of the proposed short term rental regulations requiring rentals to be for a minimum of 1 year. However we are requesting that historical residential properties such as Debbie Blum’s lovely craftsman home at , whose owners live on-site, be exempted from these regulations for the following reasons.

These historical residences are wonderful attractions which enhance and add character to our city, and the more people who can rent and experience these historical architectural treasures, the better.

Also very important, such historical properties are very expensive to maintain authentically and require expensive expert craftspeople, special materials which are not always readily available, and expert advice as to how to meet required standards.

Allowing this exception to just a few historical residential R-1 properties in the city will enable their owners to continue to properly maintain them which is in the best interests of our city and community.

Thank you for considering this perspective.

Darian Bojeaux
From: Marlene Dobkin
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item E 1
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 8:39:23 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Dear Council Members,
We understand that the planning commission is advocating a ban on short term rentals. We were not aware that we were experiencing a problem with these rentals, but assuming we are, we want to express our support for coming up with a more flexible ordinance.

We believe you should write into the ordinance that the owners of historic landmark properties be allowed to engage in short term rentals to raise money for the upkeep of their homes. These homeowners have extraordinary costs associated with the preservation and maintenance of their homes. Our cities collection of well maintained historic properties is one of our great assets. These homes enhance our neighborhood’s appeal, draws tourism, and preserves the distinctive character that makes Beverly Hills special.

We respectively ask that you craft any new regulations to include specific provisions for historic property owners who demonstrate that rental income directly supports preservation efforts. The maintenance and preservation cost can be overwhelming.

Thank you
Marlene & Jerry Dobkin
Residents since 1971

As a resident of a multi-family building impacted by a short-term rental in the unit above me, I fully support and appreciate this recommendation.

In 2023, Mr. Mark Elliot and I met with Mr. Forbes and Ms. Medina, and we were informed that remedies were being put in place and were being addressed by Code Enforcement. Since that meeting, I reached out to Code Enforcement several times regarding an active Airbnb rental above my unit. Other residents from different properties have expressed concerns about short-term rentals at their locations. Code Enforcement officers, under the direction of Ms. Leslie Medina, informed us that unless the situation is “life-threatening,” they would not address these concerns.

While a short-term rental may not be considered life-threatening, it significantly impacts residents’ quality of life and peaceful enjoyment of their units or homes.

The guidelines for short-term rentals are clearly outlined in the ordinance and must be enforced as part of Code Enforcement’s responsibilities.

I respectfully request that the Council consider adopting a uniform policy requiring a one-year minimum lease for both single-family and multi-family dwellings as part of this ordinance, with penalties for violations. Moving forward, I also encourage the Council to ensure that Code Enforcement is actively investigating and enforcing this ordinance.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Have a pleasant evening.

Sincerely,
Kathy Bronte

lease duration. Additionally, the Planning Commission Report raised research from both McGill and the Real Estate Economics journal and their impacts on the housing supply to support this measure. However, it was noted during the meeting that both of these research studies were based on short-term nightly rentals, less than 30 days, but did not include any data or findings regarding mid-term housing.

Moreover, mid-term tenants often transition into long-term residents. Imposing a 6-month minimum lease could deter future residents who might otherwise choose to make Beverly Hills their permanent home. While alternatives like AKA were mentioned during the meeting, their pricing structure – starting at $10,000 per month for a one-bedroom – places them well beyond the reach of many individuals and families seeking mid-term housing solutions.

The existing 1-month minimum strikes a fair balance between regulating short-term vacation rentals and accommodating legitimate mid-term housing needs. It protects the integrity of the community while addressing the realities of a diverse population with varying housing requirements.

I respectfully urge the council to reconsider the proposed 6-month minimum lease requirement and maintain the current 1-month minimum lease term. This approach ensures Beverly Hills remains a welcoming and inclusive community that meets the needs of its residents, both current and future.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing dedication to our city.

Sincerely,
Nathan
From: Huma Ahmed
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW:

Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 9:37:22 AM
This was in our Spam folder.
-----Original Message-----
From: victor bardack
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 11:32 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Darian Bojeaux Subject:

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking
links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Dear City Council,
Please exclude Debbie Blum's home from the list of short term rentals The Blum's have economic and age challenges.

They have always been generous supporter of Beverly Hills. They have opened their home for City Events at no charge.

They are the type of Residents that make our City the caring place that it is.

Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Victor Bardack
Beverly Hills North Homeowners Association, Past President

Wiseman Dawoody
(
Building Trust :

Commitments Made – Commitments Kept
It is Sincerity and Willingness to Give to Life More than you Expect to Receive
The information contained in this message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Used ChatGPT for the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------- Are You Scapegoating STRs for Housing Costs?
The claim that STRs drive unaffordable housing lacks evidence. A Purdue University study on Irvine’s STR ban showed only a 2.7% drop in rental prices, suggesting STRs aren’t the affordability villain (Siebert et al., Purdue University). A 2021 CGO study in Santa Monica found STR restrictions can increase housing prices by limiting property owners’ flexibility (The CGO: In Search of Peace and Quiet).
• What rigorous study proves STRs significantly drive Beverly Hills’ housing costs? • Why target STRs when zoning and supply constraints are the real culprits? • How does stripping homeowners’ income options help affordability for residents? Do Minor Complaints Justify Overreach?
The city’s concerns—noise, parties, or privacy—are minor and already addressed by noise ordinances, nuisance laws, and police response. A 2024 NBER study on Chicago’s STR ordinance, with registration and a 4% tax, reduced listings by 16.4% while lowering burglaries near regulated STRs, proving smart regulation works without bans (NBER Working Paper 32537). • Where is the comprehensive data quantifying the scope of STR-related complaints? • Why pursue a new ordinance when existing laws handle noise and disturbances? • How do you justify blanket restrictions over targeted solutions proven effective elsewhere? Why Burden Homeowners with Unenforceable Rules?
The city admits tracking STR violations is “difficult,” yet proposes a new enforcement department, passing costs to homeowners. A 2019 Strong Towns analysis shows STRs prevent displacement by providing income, strengthening neighborhoods (Strong Towns: STRs Make Neighborhoods Stronger).
• Why create unenforceable rules, as seen in New York’s failed bans, that drive STRs underground?
• How is it fair to saddle homeowners with enforcement costs for a minor issue? • Why force residents to bear the financial brunt of a bureaucracy you admit struggles to function? Why Undermine Beverly Hills’ Economy?
STRs are an economic boon. A 2017 San Diego study found STRs generated $285 million in economic impact, with $86.4 million spent on local businesses (Airbnb Economic Impact Report). In Beverly Hills, a global tourism magnet, STRs channel tourist dollars to local shops and restaurants, boosting Transient Occupancy Tax revenue.
• Why choke off this economic lifeline to favor hotels? • How does restricting STRs align with sustaining our tourism-driven economy? • Where is the data showing STRs harm local businesses more than they help? Whose Interests Are You Serving?
As our representatives, your duty is to support Beverly Hills residents, not police our property rights.

By restricting STRs, you push homeowners to operate covertly to survive financially, labeling them “violators.”
• Why treat property owners as adversaries instead of partners? • Are you representing residents or appeasing a vocal minority with unproven complaints? • How does forcing homeowners into non-compliance foster trust in your leadership? • Shouldn’t you empower residents to stay in their homes rather than dictate how they use them? A Balanced Path Forward
Instead of a new ordinance, adopt a fair framework:

1. Streamlined licensing for STR hosts to ensure accountability.

2. A modest STR tax to fund community services, as proven in Chicago.

3. Reasonable caps on rental days or guests to address concerns.

4. Platform data-sharing for efficient enforcement without new bureaucracies.

Conclusion
The evidence is clear: STRs fuel Beverly Hills’ economy, have negligible impact on housing costs, and help residents survive financially. A new restrictive ordinance lacks data on the scope of STR issues and risks harming homeowners more than helping neighborhoods. I urge you to answer these questions, reflect on your rationale, and choose representation over regulation. Support a balanced policy that empowers residents and preserves our city’s vibrancy.

Sincerely,

significantly reduce options for these visitors, potentially discouraging them from coming to our city altogether.

3. Potential Economic Harm to Local Businesses and Tourism July is a peak travel season. Limiting accommodations by restricting short-term rentals during this critical time could dissuade travelers and lead them to choose other cities that are more welcoming and flexible. This in turn affects local businesses—restaurants, shops, and service providers—who rely heavily on the economic activity generated by tourism and short-term visitors.

4. Enforcement and the Issue of "Party Houses"
While concerns about noise and misuse are valid, these issues should be addressed through targeted enforcement and regulation, not blanket bans. The vast majority of shortterm rental hosts are responsible and take great care to vet guests, uphold community standards, and follow city rules. The assumption that all short-term rentals become party houses is inaccurate and unfair to many law-abiding property owners.

5. Need for Broader Community Involvement
Finally, I believe that a decision of this magnitude should involve direct input from the community at large. A measure with such significant implications deserves to be put to a public vote or at the very least should undergo more extensive outreach to ensure that a diverse range of voices are heard before a final decision is made.

I urge the Council to consider a more balanced approach—one that includes safeguards against abuse (such as registration, occupancy limits, and fines for violations), while still allowing responsible property owners to operate short-term rentals under clearly defined guidelines.

This city has always been known for its diversity, compassion, and inclusivity. Let us ensure that our policies reflect those values by allowing for flexible, fair, and thoughtfully regulated short-term rental practices.

Thank you again for your time, dedication, and consideration of this important issue. I respectfully urge you to reconsider the proposed ordinance and to seek a solution that supports both community interests and individual rights.

Warm regards,
Noushin Ahobim
Resident and Realtor

Jul 1, 2025
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, Room 280A
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Beverly Hills City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 140-unit residential building at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard, which includes 11 very low-income units and 11 moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) or render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.

Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
The DBL offers the project certain benefits. (See Gov. Code, § 65915.) The City must respect these benefits. In addition to increased density, the City must grant the developer’s requested concessions and waivers with respect to height, stories, rear setbacks, and outdoor living area. If the City were to deny the requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City were to deny the requested requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Additionally, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will grow the City’s tax base; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the 2 of 3
right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3

Beverly Hills City CouncilJuly 1, 2025

Beverly Hills City Council
July 1, 2025