SS ITEM C-6 — Beverly Hills City Council, November 12, 2025

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: November 12, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Chloe Chen, Principal Planner
Subject: Update on the Potential Exemption from Short Term Rental Regulations (Transient Uses) for Properties with a Designated Single-Family Residential Historic Landmark
Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Report – 9/11/2025

2. 9/11/2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

3. New Public Correspondence from CHC and PC Meetings
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
This report provides an update regarding the City Council’s direction to study a potential exemption from short term rental regulations for historic landmark properties in singlefamily zones. On August 5, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 25-O-2918, which prohibits short term rentals (transient use) in any residential zone, defined as any rental, lease, or sublease, that is less than 12 consecutive months, with the ability for the lease to revert to a month-to-month term after the initial 12-month lease. The City Council further directed the Planning Commission to consider a possible exemption from the short term rental restrictions for historic landmark single-family residential properties. This report summarizes the input received from the Cultural Heritage Commission and Planning Commission on such an exemption.

DISCUSSION
City Council Direction
At the July 1st and 15th, 2025 formal session City Council meetings, the City Council considered and approved an ordinance to prohibit short term rentals in all residential zones. During its deliberations, the City Council discussed a possible exemption from short term rental regulations for single-family historic landmark properties, as an incentive and additional benefit for owners of landmark single-family properties. City Councilmembers provided some input on the potential restrictions that could apply to such rentals, such as a minimum lease term and limiting rentals to guesthouses or accessory Meeting Date: November 12, 2025

Page 2 of 5 ends

dwelling units. The Council directed staff to bring the matter to the Planning Commission for further review and study. There was also some interest expressed in providing an opportunity for the Cultural Heritage Commission to weigh in on this topic in addition to the Planning Commission.

Cultural Heritage Commission Review
The Cultural Heritage Commission discussed a possible exemption for landmark singlefamily properties at its September 3, 2025 meeting. Although Cultural Heritage Commission review of a proposed ordinance is not required, staff requested that the Commission provide recommendations to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration, from the perspective of any potential benefits related to the preservation of historic properties and implementation of the Historic Preservation regulations.

Four Commissioners were present at the meeting (Commissioner Flagg was absent). The Commissioners generally agreed with the notion of providing incentives and benefits for owners of historic landmarked properties and acknowledged that any adverse impacts from short-term rentals on these properties would likely be minimal because of the limited number of qualifying properties. However, the Commissioners did not reach a consensus on whether to recommend that short term rentals be allowed on landmark single-family properties.

Two Commissioners were generally supportive of the idea for the following reasons:
• Allowing short term rentals as a source of additional income could act as an incentive for more homeowners to landmark properties in the future; and • Historic landmark properties provide inherent value to the City and owners of such properties should be provided financial resources to help preserve their value.

The remaining two Commissioners generally expressed opposition to the idea for the following reasons:
• Allowing only on landmark properties would not be equitable for non-landmark properties.
• Short term rental activity would have disproportionate impacts on neighboring properties.
• Short term rental activity would potentially cause excessive wear and tear or damage to historic resources.
• It would be difficult to ensure that revenue from short term rentals is actually utilized to maintain and preserve the historic landmark.
• The allowance for short term rentals is being considered in response to a request from one landmark owner, and it is not known if other landmark owners are supportive.

The Commissioners discussed several limitations that they believe should be imposed if short term rentals are allowed on landmark single-family properties, as follows:
• Require a minimum rental period of at least five days, or possibly up to 30 days. • Allow a maximum of 24 short term rentals per year.

Meeting Date: November 12, 2025

Page 3 of 5 ends

Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission discussed the issue at its September 11, 2025 meeting, and provided the following input.
• Commissioner Demeter expressed a desire to keep the short term rental regulations as-is, given that there is little evidence a single-family historic landmark property costs more to maintain than any other single-family residence of a similar age. Further, the City’s adopted Housing Element specifically aims to create more accessory dwelling units as a source of more affordable rental housing for longer term tenants, rather than short term visitors.
• Commissioner Kaplan highlighted that since no other historic landmark property owners were involved in this discussion, the proposal would effectively be providing this benefit based on a single homeowner’s desire to conduct short term rentals. In addition, Commissioner Kaplan reiterated that the cost of maintaining an older home may be similar regardless of its landmark status, and that it would be unfair for certain property owners to receive disparate benefits. • Commissioner Ross recognized that designating a residence as a historic landmark is a noble undertaking, which can provide both benefits and burdens. In addition, he noted the limited scope of properties that would be affected, and that homeowners may have bought or landmarked properties with a different understanding of their property rights.
• Vice Chair Milkowski noted that while he was not certain he would support the proposal, he recognized the rationale for viewing historic landmark properties as distinct from other properties of a similar age. He recommended that if short term rentals are allowed, restrictions be imposed as suggested by the Cultural Heritage Commission, including a minimum short term rental period of five days, to discourage the use of short term rentals for party uses, and to limit the frequency of rentals to a maximum of 24 rentals per year.
• Chair Wolfe recognized that the City would like to encourage the landmarking of properties and can provide incentives for the preservation of historic properties.

However, he stated that the proposed allowance for short term rentals may not be an appropriate incentive for helping to preserve historic properties, and noted that the City Council has been concerned with the impacts of short term rentals on the community, as evidenced by the recent adoption of the ordinance to prohibit short term rentals more generally.
• Several Commissioners agreed that a broader conversation about potential incentives for landmarking historic resources would be beneficial, and the City Council could provide further direction to support this.

The Planning Commission ultimately voted 3-2 to recommend that the City Council not adopt an ordinance to allow short term rentals on single-family residential properties.

Since the Planning Commission did not adopt a resolution reflecting its recommendation, staff has included the above detailed feedback from the Commission and has included the Planning Commission meeting minutes in Attachment 2.

The staff report for the September 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting in Attachment Meeting Date: November 12, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

1 provides additional information regarding proposed restrictions to be imposed on short term rentals on single-family historic landmark properties, if they were to be allowed. Staff prepared a draft ordinance for the Planning Commission’s consideration, which is included as Exhibit A to Attachment A of the Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission staff report also provides information on the Mills Act Program, which provides financial relief through tax savings for owners of historic landmarked properties to use for maintenance and preservation of the historic landmark resource. Although not noted in the report, the Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) is also available for use by owners of historic landmarked properties, but only provides relief from development standards, rather than use restrictions for such properties. Since the short term rental regulations are use restrictions, a HIP would not be an appropriate mechanism to provide relief from these regulations.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
No noticing is required for a study session item. However, staff provided a courtesy notice to the interested parties list, and the Rent Stabilization Division’s landlord and property owner list regarding this topic.

Public Comments
All written public comments received at the previous Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the short term rental ordinance that relate to the topic of the potential exemption for a historic landmarked property are included in Attachment D of Attachment

1. Additional written comments received from the subsequent Cultural Heritage Commission and Planning Commission meetings in September are included in Attachment 3.

At the Cultural Heritage meeting, several oral comments were provided, as follows. • Short term rentals may be preferred over longer term rentals because they can provide a greater level of comfort and safety with the renters, as third-party hosting platforms can be used to vet renters.
• Short term rentals can be used for reasons other than vacation, such as a stay to recover from surgery.
• The proposal may undermine the recently adopted ordinance that prohibits short term rentals broadly and may result in similar enforcement or neighborhood disturbance issues.
• Historic landmark properties are not necessarily more expensive to maintain than non-landmark properties of the same age and therefore should not be provided this benefit.
• If short term rentals on landmark properties are allowed, a longer minimum stay should be required.
• Revenue from the short term rentals should be used only for the cost of maintaining or preserving the property.

At the Planning Commission meeting, several oral comments were provided, as follows. • Preserving historic single-family residences as a resource for the community is important, and the City Council previously expressed support to allow short term rentals on such properties.

Meeting Date: November 12, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

• Short term rentals should not be allowed due to the lack of ability to regulate operations of short term rentals and adverse impacts to the quality of life of residents.
• Allowing short term rentals will act as an incentive and benefit for historic landmarked properties, and will motivate more homeowners to landmark their properties in the future.
• The Planning Commission could consider a pilot program to allow short term rentals on single-family historic landmark properties.

FISCAL IMPACT
This is an informational item with no associated fiscal impact.

RECOMMENDATION
Given the input and recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Commission and Planning Commission, staff recommends the City Council receive and file this report.

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community
Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Report –
9/11/2025
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Resolution (Exhibit A: Draft Ordinance)
B. List of Local Landmarked Properties
C. General Plan Goals and Policies
D. Prior Related Public Correspondence
E. New Public Correspondence
Report Author and Contact Information:

Chloe Chen, Principal Planner
(310) 285-1194
[email protected]
Meeting Date: September 11, 2025
Subject: A DRAFT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

AMENDING SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS (TRANSIENT

USES) FOR PROPERTIES WITH A DESIGNATED SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, AND MAKING A

DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Location: Citywide
Project Applicant: City-Initiated
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing to discuss potential changes to regulations for short term rentals; and adopt a resolution recommending a draft ordinance for adoption by the City Council.

REPORT SUMMARY
This report discusses a potential change to short term rental regulations for historic landmarked properties located in single-family residential zones. On August 5, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 25-O-29181to amend short term rental regulations (also known as single-family and multi-family transient uses) applicable to both single-family and multi-family residential zones.

The new regulations, effective September 5, 2025, define a short term rental (transient use) as any lease, sublease, or similar that is less than 12 consecutive months, and require a minimum initial lease term of at least 12 months (1 year) with the ability for the lease to revert to a monthto-month term thereafter. In addition, the new regulations impose specific penalties and fees for short term rental violations, which includes any advertisement or posting of a short term rental. In the course of the review of the ordinance by the Planning Commission and City Council, the topic of whether to allow short term rentals on historic landmarked properties was raised as a method to offset the cost of maintaining and preserving a historic landmarked property.

At the July 15, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council decided not to include any amendments to the ordinance related to this topic and instead directed staff to explore the possibility of allowing limited short term rentals of historic landmarked properties through a separate ordinance. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Exhibit A of Attachment A) with proposed regulations to allow the short term rental of historic landmarked properties located in single-family residential zones. This topic was previously presented to the Cultural Heritage Commission at their September 3, 2025 1 Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 will become effective on September 5, 2025. 3 - 1
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 2 of 10 ends

meeting to request their feedback and input. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed regulation, input received from the Cultural Heritage Commission and consider whether to adopt a resolution recommending the draft ordinance to the City Council. The Commission may also discuss whether any changes to the draft ordinance regulations may be appropriate and continue this item to a date certain if appropriate.

BACKGROUND
Short Term Rental Regulations Update
Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 amended regulations1 pertaining to short term rentals, as follows:

Type Prior
Regulations July 2025 Amended Regulations
Single-family
residential
transient uses
Allowed up to
two times per
calendar year;
defined as a
rental for a
period less than
six months
Prohibits any lease, sublease, or similar of a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or accessory
structure or feature for a period of less than twelve (12) consecutive months; requires a minimum initial lease term of one-year (12 months), with the ability to revert to a month-to-month lease thereafter; does not prohibit an inhome caregiving use or temporary film/photography use; does not apply to housing that is separately regulated per state law (transitional housing, emergency shelters,
congregate care facilities, or supportive housing)
Multi-family
residential
transient uses
Prohibit any
rental of a unit
that is less than
thirty (30) days
Prohibits any lease, sublease, or similar of a multi-family residential unit, ADU, or accessory structure for a period of less than twelve (12) consecutive months; requires a
minimum initial lease term of one-year (12 months), with the ability to revert to a month-to-month lease thereafter; does not prohibit an in-home caregiving use; does not
apply to housing that is separately regulated per state law (transitional housing, emergency shelters, congregate care facilities, or supportive housing)
Mixed Use
Overlay Zone
and other
Zoning
Overlays
No restriction Prohibits any multi-family transient uses unless the specific approval for the zoning overlay or underlying zoning allows such uses
Penalty for
Violation
No specifically
defined penalty
for short term
rentals (only
general code
violation
applies)
Addition of specific penalty for short term rentals and the advertisement of short term rentals, including on third-party hosting sites, with increasing fee rates for successive violations, per the maximum amount allowed under state
law; amends the definition of a “responsible person”;
requires payment of transient occupancy taxes
retroactively for unlawful short term rentals; allows any entity or person who collects and remits transient
occupancy taxes to seek injunction of other relief to
prevent or remedy violations
3 - 2
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 3 of 10 ends

A short summary of the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s discussions on this topic and the rationale for the regulation changes is provided in the following paragraphs.

Planning Commission Discussion
At the November 14, 2024 meeting, a couple of Commissioners expressed support to create an exemption for historic landmarked properties, but no consensus was reached.

City Council Discussions
At the July 1, 2025 meeting, the City Council finalized regulations on short term rentals as described above. While there was support for exempting historic landmarked single-family homes, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for further study to be addressed in a separate ordinance. The Council also briefly discussed some proposed parameters for the short term rental of historic landmarked properties, including limiting rentals to accessory structures and ADUs on single-family residential properties, requiring that the owner of the property is present at the main residence while the short term rental is occurring, and requiring a minimum two-night rental period to prevent party uses. At the July 15, 2025 meeting, the City Council reviewed further changes to the ordinance and directed that the Planning Commission review the topic of allowing short term rentals on historic landmarked properties.

Cultural Heritage Commission Discussion
At their September 3, 2025 meeting, staff presented the draft ordinance to the Cultural Heritage Commission for their review and input. Staff requested that the Commission provide recommendations to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. A total of four Commissioners were present at the meeting (Commissioner Flagg was absent). While the Commissioners generally agreed with the notion of providing benefits for owners of historic landmarked properties and acknowledged that any adverse impacts would likely be minimal because of the limited scope of applicability, they did not reach a consensus on all of the topics discussed. Two Commissioners were generally more supportive of the idea, primarily because allowing short term rentals as a source of additional income could act as an incentive for more homeowners to landmark properties in the future. Furthermore, the Commissioners expressed a desire to acknowledge that landmarked properties provide inherent value to the City and owners of such properties should be provided financial resources to help preserve their value. The remaining two Commissioners expressed several concerns that the proposed allowance for single-family historic landmarked properties would not be fair to non-landmarked properties or their neighboring properties because of the potential impacts that could be experienced. One Commissioner also discussed a concern about the potential damage to historic buildings as a result of their use for short term rentals and a desire to ensure that any revenue from the rentals is spent on preservation or maintenance activities. There was a majority consensus to extend the minimum rental period to at least five days, and some discussion about a minimum period of thirty (30) days, or a maximum limit of twenty-four (24) short term rentals per year. Finally, there were some concerns that the draft ordinance was generated as a result of one property owner’s request.

Proposed Short Term Rental Allowance
3 - 3
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 4 of 10 ends

Staff has prepared a draft ordinance to allow short term rentals on historic landmarked properties on a limited basis. The draft ordinance would require the following criteria to be met to conduct a short term rental:

Proposed Requirement Rationale
Zoning Must be located in a singlefamily residential zone (R-1, R-1.X, R-1.5X, R1.5X2, R-1.6X, R-1.7X, R1.8X)
The use of an accessory structure on a singlefamily residential zone may have fewer adverse impacts than a multi-family residential
zone due to the limited occupancy and
opportunity for short term rentals, and the
property owner can be present to monitor the
rental from the main single-family residence.

Allowing short term rentals within multi-family
residential landmarked properties could also
remove rent stabilized units (that may be more
affordable) from the market.

Landmarked
Resource
Must include single-family
residence on site
The landmarked resource must include the
single-family residence because the revenue
from the short term rental is intended to be
used to offset the maintenance of the
landmark. Given that there are a limited
number of historic landmarked properties, the
City would more easily be able to monitor
these properties as well.

Location of
Stay
Short term rental may only
be conducted in a guest
house, ADU, junior ADU, or
other accessory structure
permitted for habitable
occupancy
The short term rental shall not be conducted in
the main residence, and should be an
accessory use conducted on the property. The
main residence is more likely to be the primary
historic resource on the site, and would
typically be much larger in size than an
accessory structure. Limiting the rental to an
accessory structure would prevent damage to
the primary historic resource and limit
occupancy for any gathering to a smaller unit.

Length of
Stay
Minimum stay of at least two
consecutive nights
A minimum stay of two nights could deter the
use of the property for a party or event.

Hosting
Requirement
The property owner of the
main single-family residence
must be present to host the
stay.

The presence of a host to monitor the stay can
help prevent adverse impacts such as noise,
parties, or disruptive guests. The property
owner must be present because this requires
that the owner does not also rent out the main
residence and limits the short term rental to
the accessory structure.

Transient
Occupancy
Tax
Any short term rental would
be subject to the transient
occupancy tax as set in the
Comprehensive Schedule of
Fees and Taxes.

A short term stay would meet the definition of
“hotel” and “transient” in BHMC §3-1-302, and
would need to comply with BHMC §3-1-303.
3 - 4
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 5 of 10 ends

Registration A host of a short term rental
would need to apply for a
business tax license with the
Finance Department, and
remit the appropriate
business taxes.

A short term stay is considered a business
under “Classification E – Residential Property
Rental”, and the registration with Finance
would allow for tracking of short term rentals
on historic landmarked properties.

Penalty Any host of a short term
rental that fails to comply
with the above-listed
requirements would be
subject to violation penalties
and fees, as updated by the
recently adopted ordinance
on short term rentals.

A stricter violation penalty and fee for violating
short term rental regulations will act as a
deterrent for bad actors.

DISCUSSION
The following sections provide information that may help inform the Planning Commission’s discussion regarding potential changes to existing short term rental regulations.

Considerations for Regulations
Staff has proposed the above regulations for short term rentals, however, there are some additional considerations for the Planning Commission to discuss related to these proposed regulations.

Eligibility of Historic Landmarked Properties
The draft ordinance as proposed would require that the historic landmarked property be located in a single-family residential zone and would only allow short term rentals within an accessory structure on the property, which could include a guest house, ADU, or similar structure. There are a limited number of historic landmarked properties that are located within a single-family residential zone and that have guest houses or ADU. Based on the current list of historic landmarked properties (Attachment B), a total of 18 properties are located in a single-family residential zone (highlighted in green on the list) and are developed with a single-family residence2. Out of the 18 properties, 16 of these appear to have an existing accessory structure (including a guest house or recreation room) that has either been converted to a living space already or could feasibly be converted in the future. Furthermore, per local and state laws pertaining to ADUs, at least one conversion, attached or detached ADU, and one junior ADU3 2 While there are additional historic landmarked properties that may be either in a single-family residential zone or have a single-family residence, such properties are not currently used as residences (e.g. the Virginia Robinson Estate, Greystone Mansion, and the Church of the Good Shepherd). Therefore, these properties are not included as potential single-family properties on which a short term rental could be conducted. 3 A conversion ADU is the conversion of an interior portion of an existing single-family residence, or an existing detached accessory structure, or new construction within a proposed single-family residence. An attached ADU shares a common wall with an existing or proposed single-family residence, and a detached ADU is a fully separate accessory structure. A junior ADU (JADU) consists of a conversion of an existing or proposed portion of a single-family residence, or a new area within or attached to an existing or proposed single-family residence. The various types of ADUs have different size restrictions, which also vary based on the zoning area of the property (Central, Hillside, or Trousdale Estates).
3 - 5
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 6 of 10 ends

could be added (a maximum of two additional units, also depending on what currently exists on site) to properties located in single-family residential zones. Therefore, even if the property currently does not have a permitted guest house or ADU, such structures could be constructed in the future that could reasonably be used for short term rentals per the proposed regulations in the draft ordinance. If other single-family residences were to be landmarked in the future, these properties could also be eligible for short term rentals in existing or proposed accessory structures or ADUs.

Mills Act Program
In 1972, the state of California adopted the Mills Act as an economic incentive to encourage the preservation of qualified historic properties4. The state law allows local jurisdictions to establish and administer the Mills Act Historic Preservation Tax Abatement Programs and create local eligibility criteria and program limits. In December 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution to create a permanent Mills Act Program, which was previously operated as a pilot program since 2011. The Mills Act Program provides tax relief to property owners of historic landmarked properties in order to assist with the cost of maintaining, rehabilitating, and preserving the landmarked property. In order to participate in the program, the property must be a local historic landmark and must meet certain criteria to be eligible for a Mills Act contract. The Mills Act contract is a 10-year contract between the property owner of the historic landmarked property and the City, and must set forth a plan to preserve, rehabilitate, or improve the historic resource in compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. As part of participating in the Mills Act program, the Los Angeles County Assessor’s office re-assesses property taxes based on a capitalization of income formula instead of the property’s market value, which typically result in a property tax savings. The program sets forth a maximum property tax revenue loss for the City and the Beverly Hills Unified School District (BHUSD), and a maximum property valuation limit for participation in the program. This is because both BHUSD and the City receive a share of property tax revenue from the Los Angeles County Assessor, which vary based on the tax assessment district. The share of property tax revenue for BHUSD is estimated to be between 15-16% of the 1-1.1% general tax levied for the property, and the share of the tax revenue for the City is estimated to be 17-19% of the 1-1.1% general tax levied for the property.

For single-family landmarked properties, the maximum property valuation is $8,000,000. In addition, the program limits the number of Mills Act contracts available for approval by the City Council each year to: one single-family residence or residential condominium complex, one commercial property, and no limit for multi-family residential properties. If a property exceeds the maximum property valuation for the program, participation in the program requires approval by both the Cultural Heritage Commission and City Council due to “exceptional circumstances”5. The City must approve the scope of the work for the contract and requires approval from both the 4 "Qualified historical property" as defined in Government Code Section 50280.1, means privately owned property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following: (a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district, as defined in Section 1.191-2(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (b) Listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.
5 “Exceptional circumstances” could include if the property has a unique or rare characteristic that makes it historically significant, such as the only single-family residence constructed by a particularly renowned architect, etc. 3 - 6
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 7 of 10 ends

Cultural Heritage Commission and City Council. Once approval is received from the City, the County Assessor’s office must also approve the proposed reductions in property taxes and verify that such calculations are correct, especially since the initial calculation by the property owner may differ by the time the contract is ready for review and approval by the County. A Mills Act contract would be automatically renewed each year and would be transferred to a new owner if the property is sold. Financial penalties may be imposed if a property owner is found to be in breach of the contract terms and may result in cancellation of the contract.

While the opportunity for participation in this program is limited, the program specifically intends to provide financial relief (through tax savings) for owners of historic landmarked properties to offset the costs of maintaining and preserving the historic resource. Staff researched the utilization of the Mills Act Program, and a total of six properties have participated in the program since it started, two of which are single-family residences. All of the properties that have participated in the Mills Act Program were from when the pilot program was in effect, and no new properties have participated in the program since the permanent program began in 2019.

Anecdotally, some barriers to entry for use of the program by single-family properties include the limit on property valuation of $8,000,000, and the requirement to commit to the full ten years for the contract, which may be a deterrent for participation. In addition, some property owners who have been interested in the program may choose not to participate once they realize that the tax savings is not as significant as they may have anticipated. If a long-term owner purchased the property many years ago, the property taxes may already be lower than if the property were purchased in today’s market, and therefore the tax savings may not be as significant for longerterm owners compared to newer owners.

As discussed at prior public hearings on this topic, rental income from short term rentals may also be a method to assist financially with the ownership of a historic landmarked property in addition to potential tax savings from the Mills Act program. Property owners of residential properties may still rent single-family residences as long as the rental periods comply with the updated short term rental regulations. This can provide another source of income for property owners that can help with the cost of maintaining any property, including a historic landmarked property.

Housing Supply in the City
The City Council recently amended short term rental regulations in part because there is some evidence that the use of single-family homes and multi-family housing units for short term rental purposes removes available housing units from the market, and could likely affect the city’s overall housing supply. The cumulative effect of short term rentals may exacerbate the existing affordable housing crisis in the greater Los Angeles area, and contribute to a lack of affordable housing choices and supply in the City. This is because a short term rental operation may prohibit a more permanent residency if the unit is no longer available for leasing on a yearly or longer-term basis.

Through the course of both the Planning Commission and City Council’s discussions on the topic, there was some concern that creating an umbrella prohibition on short term rentals may also impact mid-length renters who may need to live in the city for a few months at a time (such as a traveling nurse or students). Since the proposed regulations would allow short term rentals on a limited number of properties in the city, this may provide some relief for mid-length rentals. While the draft regulations only require that the short term rental on a historic landmarked property would be at least two consecutive days to prevent the use of the property for parties or events, the 3 - 7
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 8 of 10 ends

Planning Commission may wish to consider whether to direct staff to amend regulations as appropriate. For example, the draft regulation could be updated to require a minimum stay of more than two consecutive nights.

Use of Single-Family Residence
The draft ordinance would only allow short term rentals within a permitted, habitable accessory structure on a single-family residential property, and require that the host (the property owner) is present within the main single-family residence during the stay. This hosting requirement intends to mitigate potential adverse impacts that could result from the stay since the property owner would be present to address any issues that may arise. In addition, this requirement ensures that only the accessory structure on site is used for short term rentals, since the property owner must be present on site during the stay and therefore, cannot also rent out the main residence simultaneously. To clarify, a property owner could still rent out the main residence in compliance with applicable short term rental restrictions (e.g. for at least an initial one-year period), but would only be prevented from renting out an accessory structure or ADU at the same time due to the requirement for them to be present during such rental. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether a short term rental could also be conducted within the main single-family residence, with or without a host present on site. Several cities require that a host shares the rental space with the short term tenant and remains on site for the rental; for example, by renting a portion of the residence or an individual room for the stay. This type of short term rental may not create adverse impacts to neighbors such as noise, parties, or safety concerns, because the host would be present in the rented home and be able to closely monitor the stay. In addition, this type of rental would not likely exacerbate housing affordability concerns in the city, as it would not remove a permanent resident from their home to allow the stay. Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss and provide input on this topic as part of their deliberations.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the following topics and questions related to the draft ordinance in their deliberations. While staff has drafted an ordinance with some parameters, the Commission may direct staff to amend the draft regulations as needed. • Proposed criteria: Does the proposed eligibility criteria limit the program sufficiently? Should additional criteria be added that would help address potential adverse impacts from short term rentals (i.e. noise, disruption, safety concerns)?  Is the limitation to rentals within accessory structures appropriate, or should short term rentals be permitted within the single-family residence, or a portion thereof?  Should the minimum rental period be increased more than two consecutive nights if the Commission would like to limit these uses to mid-length rentals? • Financial assistance: Does the Mills Act Program already provide sufficient financial assistance to owners of historic landmarked properties with the costs of maintaining and preserving a historic resource?
• Limited participation: Should there be a limit on the number of properties that are allowed to participate in the short term rental program, or should the program be limited otherwise, such as to only allow rentals of the improvements that already exist on site as of a specified date?
• Fairness: Does the program strike a balance between allowing additional income 3 - 8
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 9 of 10 ends

opportunities for owners of historic landmarked properties and mitigating or preventing adverse impacts to neighbors by limiting the number of structures available for short term rentals?

GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to this Planning Commission study session are included as Attachment C.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
This item was noticed in compliance with local and state law requirements. In addition, the interested parties list for the recent short term rental ordinance update, and the list of property owners from the Rent Stabilization Registry were provided courtesy notification of this item.

TABLE 1. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Notice of Public Hearing
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block
face; via first class mail) Not required
• On-site Posted Notice Not required
• Newspaper Notice
Beverly Hills Courier
Beverly Hills Weekly
Required
8/22/2025
8/28/2025
Public Comment
Public correspondence received at the previous Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the short term rental ordinance that relate to the topic of short term rental of a historic landmarked property have been included in Attachment D. New public correspondence received from the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting is included in Attachment E. At the Cultural Heritage meeting, several oral comments were provided as well. One comment supported the proposal to allow short term rentals and stated that one reason short term rentals may be preferred over longer term rentals because they can provide a greater level of comfort and safety with the renters, as third-party hosting platforms can be used to vet renters. Another comment expressed short term rentals can be used or necessitated for reasons besides vacation uses, such as a stay to recover from surgery. Other commenters noted that the draft ordinance may undermine the recently adopted ordinance that prohibits short term rentals broadly and may result in similar enforcement or neighborhood disturbance issues. Additionally, one comment noted that historic landmark properties are not necessarily more expensive to maintain than non-landmark properties and therefore should not be provided this benefit. Some comments suggested that the minimum stay be extended for a longer period of time and to require that revenue from the short term rentals be used only for the cost of maintaining or preserving the property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Amendments in the draft ordinance were assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find 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) and Section 15305 (Class 5). Section 3 - 9
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Regulations – Historic Landmark Exemption September 11, 2025

Page 10 of 10 ends

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. Section 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations applies to minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent and do not result in changes to land use or density. The Amendments do not authorize construction and only involve revisions to existing land use limitations for a limited number of single-family residential properties to allow rental or leasing activities for certain periods of time in an area of the City with an average slope of less than 20 percent. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the draft ordinance has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
• Conduct the public hearing, and consider adopting the draft resolution recommending the draft ordinance to the City Council; or
• Alternatively, direct staff to amend the short term rental regulations as appropriate and continue this item to a date certain if needed.

NEXT STEPS
A zone text amendment requires review by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council, and subsequent adoption by the City Council. If the Commission adopts a resolution recommending the draft ordinance for adoption to the City Council, staff will bring forth the draft ordinance to City Council for adoption.

Report Reviewed By:

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
3 - 10
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Ordinance - Historic Exemption
September 11, 2025

ATTACHMENT A
Draft Resolution (Exhibit A: Draft Ordinance)
3 - 11
1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE

CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF

BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING SHORT TERM RENTAL

REGULATIONS (TRANSIENT USES) FOR PROPERTIES

WITH A DESIGNATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

HISTORIC LANDMARK, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION

OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, short term rentals, or vacation rentals, remove single-family and multi-family residences from being available for long-term tenancy in the City and may exacerbate the affordable housing crisis;
WHEREAS, short term rentals may create adverse impacts in residential zones, including loss of privacy, noise, and risks to safety and security; WHEREAS, the preservation and rehabilitation of historic landmarks contribute to the City’s unique character and charm, especially in the single-family residential areas where significant examples of historic architectural styles are present; WHEREAS, “Policy HP 1.4 - Develop Incentives to Protect Significant Historic Resources” in the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan specifically calls for the development of regulatory incentives to promote the protection and preservation of historic buildings with the goal of ensuring greater financial feasibility for property owners; WHEREAS, on November 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss proposed amendments to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) pertaining to short term rental regulations, also known as single-family and multi-family transient uses, after 3 - 12
2 which it adopted Resolution No. 2076 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes
WHEREAS, on July 1 and July 15, 2025, the City Council conducted public hearings to discuss the proposed amendments to short term rental regulations and on August 5, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 to amend short term rental regulations. At these hearings, the City Council discussed a potential exemption from the updated short term rental regulations for historic landmarked properties and directed staff to review this topic further with the Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, on September 3, 2025, the Cultural Heritage Commission conducted a study session and discussed proposed amendments to the BHMC to potentially allow historic landmarked properties to conduct short term rentals on a limited basis and upon meeting certain operational criteria (the “Amendments”), and provided their feedback, as summarized in the Planning Commission staff report, for the Planning Commission’s consideration.

Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:

Section 1. On September 11, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss the proposed Amendments to potentially allow certain designated historic landmark properties on the City’s local register of historic properties to conduct short term rentals on a limited basis, as set forth and attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Planning Commission received oral and documentary evidence relative to the proposed Amendments.

Section 2. The Amendments were assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA 3 - 13
3 Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission recommends that the 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) and Section 15305 (Class 5). 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. Section 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations applies to minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent and do not result in changes to land use or density. The Amendments do not authorize construction and only involve revisions to existing land use limitations for a limited number of single-family residential properties to allow rental or leasing activities for certain periods of time in an area of the City with an average slope of less than 20 percent. 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 Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Amendments are required because of the benefit to the public interest, health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, or general welfare, and that such Amendments are consistent with the general objectives, principles, and standards of the General Plan, in that the Amendments provide incentives for property owners to designate historic single family residences, and to enhance the ability of owners of historic designated single family residence to maintain the important historic resources.
3 - 14
4 Section 4. The Amendments are consistent with the objectives, principles, and standards of the General Plan. The Housing (H) 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. Policy H 1.4 - Historic Preservation calls for the promotion of historic preservation efforts through land use and housing policies. General Plan Land Use (LU) Policy 2.6 - City History encourages the preservation of historic buildings and sites that contribute to the identity of the City while allowing renovations of existing buildings. LU Policy 6.4 - Second Units calls for allowing second units in single-family districts. The Historic Preservation (HP) Element of the General Plan also includes Goal HP 1 – Value and Preserve Significant Cultural Resources, which encourages a community with well-preserved historic and cultural resources, recognizing their contribution to civic pride and a unique identity and charm in the City. Policy HP 1.4 - Develop Incentives to Protect Significant Historic Resources specifically calls for the development of regulatory incentives to promote the protection and preservation of historic buildings with the goal of ensuring greater financial feasibility for property owners.

Amending sections of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to allow limited short term rentals on designated historic landmark properties in single-family residential zones will meet several of the stated objectives, standards, goals, and policies of the General Plan. By providing limited opportunities for short term rentals on single-family properties and setting forth several operational criteria for such rentals, the Amendments will help to incentivize preservation and rehabilitation of historic properties that contribute to the unique character of the City’s single-family residential neighborhoods, which will further the public interest, health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, or general welfare, in that the Amendments provide incentives for property owners 3 - 15
5 to designate historic single family residences, and to enhance the ability of owners of historic designated single family residence to maintain the important historic resources.

Section 5. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of an ordinance approving and enacting the proposed Amendments substantially as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. //
//
//
//
//
3 - 16
6 Section 6. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.

Adopted: September 11, 2025

Jeff Wolfe
Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:

Michael Forbes, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:

David M. Snow Michael Forbes, AICP
Assistant City Attorney Director of Community Development EXHIBIT A: Draft Ordinance
3 - 17
7 EXHIBIT A
3 - 18
-1-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 25-O-____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

AMENDING SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS
(TRANSIENT USES) FOR PROPERTIES WITH A

DESIGNATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC

LANDMARK, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF

EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. On November 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss proposed Amendments to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) pertaining to short term rental regulations, also known as single-family and multi-family transient uses, after which it adopted Resolution No. 2076 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. On July 1 and 15, 2025, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings, received public testimony, and made changes to the ordinance to amend short term rental regulations. On August 5, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 to amend short term rental regulations, effective September 5, 2025. At the City Council hearings, the Council discussed a potential exemption from the updated short term rental regulations for historic landmarked properties and directed staff to review this topic further with the Planning Commission.

Section 2. On September 3, 2025, the Cultural Heritage Commission conducted a study session and discussed the proposed amendments to the BHMC to potentially allow historic landmarked properties to conduct short term rentals on a limited basis and upon meeting certain operational criteria (collectively, the “Amendments”). The Cultural Heritage Commission 3 - 19
-2-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
provided their feedback, as summarized in the Planning Commission staff report, for the Planning Commission’s consideration.

Section 3. On September 11, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss the proposed Amendments to potentially allow certain designated singlefamily residential historic landmark properties on the City’s local register of historic properties to conduct short term rentals. After receiving public testimony and deliberating, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. ____ recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Amendments.

Section 4. On _____________, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss the proposed Amendments, and considered the Cultural Heritage Commission’s comments, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation. After receiving public testimony and deliberating, the City Council thereafter introduced this Ordinance.

Section 5. The Amendments were assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find 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) and Section 15305 (Class 5). 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. Section 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations applies to minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent and do not result in changes to 3 - 20
-3-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
land use or density. The Amendments do not authorize construction and only involve revisions to existing land use limitations for a limited number of single-family residential properties to allow rental or leasing activities for certain periods of time in an area of the City with an average slope of less than 20 percent. 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 Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

Section 6. The Amendments are consistent with the objectives, principles, and standards of the General Plan. The Housing (H) 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. Policy H 1.4 - Historic Preservation calls for the promotion of historic preservation efforts through land use and housing policies. General Plan Land Use (LU) Policy 2.6 - City History encourages the preservation of historic buildings and sites that contribute to the identity of the City while allowing renovations of existing buildings. LU Policy 6.4 - Second Units calls for allowing second units in single-family districts. The Historic Preservation (HP) Element of the General Plan also includes Goal HP 1 – Value and Preserve Significant Cultural Resources, which encourages a community with well-preserved historic and cultural resources, recognizing their contribution to civic pride and a unique identity and charm in the City. Policy HP 1.4 - Develop Incentives to Protect Significant Historic Resources specifically calls for the development of regulatory incentives to promote the protection and preservation of historic buildings with the goal of ensuring greater financial feasibility for property owners.

Amending sections of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to allow limited short term rentals on designated historic landmark properties in single-family residential zones will meet several of the 3 - 21
-4-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
stated objectives, standards, goals, and policies of the General Plan. By providing limited opportunities for short term rentals on single-family properties and setting forth several operational criteria for such rentals, the Amendments will help to incentivize preservation and rehabilitation of historic properties that contribute to the unique character of the City’s single-family residential neighborhoods, which will further the public interest, health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, or general welfare, in that the Amendments provide incentives for property owners to designate historic single family residences, and to enhance the ability of owners of historic designated single family residence to maintain the important historic resources.

Section 7. Section 10-3-406 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MINIMUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:

A. 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, by a single housekeeping unit is prohibited in a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit(s), or other accessory structure(s) of a single-family residence, including but not limited to pools, game courts, or yards. 3 - 22
-5-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
B. A "single-family residence" or "accessory dwelling unit", as defined in section 10-3- 100 of this chapter, may be rented or leased (as evidenced by a written rental or lease agreement, or by evidence of occupancy for at least one year), provided that the initial lease term shall be at least one year. This provision does not apply to transitional housing, emergency shelters, congregate care facilities, or supportive housing.

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” 3 - 23
-6-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
Section 8. Section 10-3-508 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MIMIUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:

B. A "single-family residence" or "accessory dwelling unit", as defined in section 10-3- 100 of this chapter, may be rented or leased (as evidenced by a written rental or lease agreement, or by evidence of occupancy for at least one year), provided that the initial lease term shall be at least one year. This provision does not apply to transitional housing, emergency shelters, congregate care facilities, or supportive housing.

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
3 - 24
-7-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” Section 9. Section 10-3-607 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MINIMUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
3 - 26
-9-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” Section 10. Section 10-3-704 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MINIMUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” Section 11. Section 10-3-805 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MINIMUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:
3 - 28
-11-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
A. 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-1.5X2. All property and buildings in zone R-1.5X2 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, by a single housekeeping unit is prohibited in a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit(s), or other accessory structure(s) of a single-family residence, including but not limited to pools, game courts, or yards.

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
3 - 29
-12-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” Section 12. Section 10-3-904 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MINIMUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:

A. 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, by a single housekeeping unit is prohibited in a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit(s), or other accessory structure(s) of a single-family residence, including but not limited to pools, game courts, or yards. 3 - 30
-13-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
B. A "single-family residence" or "accessory dwelling unit", as defined in section 10-3- 100 of this chapter, may be rented or leased (as evidenced by a written rental or lease agreement, or by evidence of occupancy for at least one year), provided that the initial lease term shall be at least one year. This provision does not apply to transitional housing, emergency shelters, congregate care facilities, or supportive housing.

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” 3 - 31
-14-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
Section 13. Section 10-3-1004 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MINIMUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
3 - 32
-15-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” Section 14. Section 10-3-1104 (Businesses Prohibited; Minimum Initial Rental Periods:) 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; MINIMUM INITIAL RENTAL PERIODS; EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESIDENCES:

1. Exception: A property with a designated historic landmark on the City’s local register of historic properties may conduct single-family transient uses upon meeting the following criteria:
a. The property contains a single-family residence that is identified as a historic landmark on the City's local register of historic properties. b. The single-family transient use shall be limited to the use of a permitted, habitable accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, and shall not be permitted in the primary residence.
c. The single-family transient use shall be a minimum of two (2) consecutive nights.
d. The property owner shall be present and reside on the property during any single-family transient use.
3 - 34
-17-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
e. The property and the single-family transient use shall be subject to and remit transient occupancy taxes per section 3-1-303 of title 3, chapter 1 of this code, and shall register with the Finance Department for a business tax license.” Section 15. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect.

Section 16. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. 3 - 35
-18-
B0785-0001\3133014v4.doc
Section 17. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

Adopted:

Effective:

SHARONA R. NAZARIAN, PSYD
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills,
California
ATTEST:
_________________________(SEAL)

HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________ _____________________________ LAURENCE S. WIENER NANCY HUNT-COFFEY
City Attorney City Manager
3 - 36
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Ordinance - Historic Exemption
September 11, 2025

ATTACHMENT B
List of Local Landmarked Properties
3 - 37
Local
Landmark
Number
Street
Number Dir. Street Name Landmark Name Architect Date Built Number 1 9641 Sunset Boulevard Beverly Hills Hotel Elmer Grey; Paul R. Williams 1912 Number 2 1008 Elden Way Virginia Robinson Estate and Garden Nathaniel Dryden 1910 Number 3 1700 Chevy Chase Drive Beverly Hills Women's Club Gable and Wyant 1925 Number 4 905 Loma Vista Drive Greystone Mansion Gordon Kaufmann 1927 Number 5 469 N. Crescent Drive Beverly Hills Post Office Ralph C. Flewelling 1933 Number 6 332 N. Rodeo Drive Anderton Court Frank Lloyd Wright 1954 Number 7 436 Spalding Drive Karasik House Frank Lloyd Wright Jr. 1960 Number 8 516 N. Walden Drive The Witch's House Harry Oliver 1920 Number 9 9401 Sunset Boulevard Waverly Mansion Leland F. Fuller 1925 Number 10 9990 Santa Monica Boulevard Hilton Office Building William Pereira and Associates 1955 Number 11 801 N. Rodeo Drive Locke House Frank M. Tyler 1941 Number 12 450 N. Crescent Drive Beverly Hills City Hall Koerner and Gage 1932 Number 13 8440 Wilshire Boulevard Saban Theatre S. Charles Lee 1930 Number 14 910 N. Bedford Drive Anthony-Kerry House Greene and Greene 1909; 1923 Number 15 450 N. Rexford Drive Millard Sheets Artwork Installation Millard Sheets 1974 Number 16 801 N. Alpine Drive McGilvray House Wallace Neff 1927 Number 17 1000 N. Crescent Drive Harry Cohn Estate Robert Farquhar 1927 Number 18 9528 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Wilshire Hotel Walker and Eisen 1928 Number 19 620 N. Sierra Drive Slavin House Marshall P. Wilkinson 1936 Number 20 Santa Monica Boulevard and
Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Gardens Park Wilbur Cook Jr. and Ralph Cornell 1906; 1930 Number 21 325-333 S. La Cienega Boulevard Beverly Hills Water Treatment Number 1 Arthur Taylor 1920 Number 22 135 Copley Place The Helms Estate Gordon Kaufmann 1928 Number 23 9379-9383 W. Olympic Boulevard Beverly Gardens Apartments C.W. Raymond 1930 Number 24 9507 Santa Monica Boulevard Writers and Artists Building Roy Seldon Price 1924 Number 25 707 Walden Drive Joe E Brown Residence Rene Riverre 1930 Number 26 9145 Wilshire Boulevard Ahmanson Bank and Trust Building Millard Sheets 1959 Number 27 9650 Sunset Boulevard Will Rogers Memorial Park Wilbur Cook 1915 Number 28 9439 Sunset Boulevard Kronish Residence Richard Neutra 1954 Number 29 Olympic Boulevard/Beverly
Drive/Beverwil Drive
Celluloid Monument Merell Gage 1960
Number 30 9101-9111 Wilshire Boulevard Gibraltar Square - Kate Mantilini Building William Pereira and Associates 1959/1986 Number 31 8423 Wilshire Blvd Clock Drive-In Market Unknown 1929 Number 32 1210 Coldwater Canyon Rosenstiel Residence Vitor Gruen 1950 Number 33 328 S. Rexford Dr Salkin Apartment Building No. 2 Jules G. Salkin 1956 Number 34 1200 Laurel Lane Samuel Golden Estate Douglas Honnold 1934 Number 35 8554 Wilshire Blvd. Fine Arts Ahrya Theatre B. Marcus Priteca 1937 Number 36 805 Hillcrest Rd. Vance Residence John Elgin Woolf 1954 Number 37 427 N. Crescent Dr. Union 76 Service Station Gin Dan Wong 1965 Number 38 157 S. Crescent Dr. Weller-Schreiber Apartment Building A. Markowitz and Son 1935 Number 39 604 Alpine Drive Gindi-Birnkrant House Buff and Hensman 1979 Number 40 626 N. Camden Drive J.B. Hurd Residence Ray P. Stahmann 1941 Number 41 9300 Wilshire Boulevard Wilshire-Rexford Office Building Sidney Eisenshtat 1963 Number 42 1050 Summit Drive David O. Selznick Residence Roland E. Coate 1935 Number 43 1033 Woodland Drive Pendleton-Evans Residence John Elgin Woolf 1941 Number 44 360-375 N. Crescent Drive MCA/Litton Headquarters Complex Paul R. Williams 1938 - 1969 Number 45 501-505 N. Bedford Drive Church of the Good Shepherd James Donnellan 1924 3 - 38
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Ordinance - Historic Exemption
September 11, 2025

ATTACHMENT C
General Plan Goals and Policies
3 - 39
GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES1

PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 11, 2025
Housing (H) Element
Goal H1 Maintenance and Conservation. Maintain and enhance the quality and character of existing housing and residential neighborhoods.

Policy H 1.4 Historic Preservation. Promote the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and the quality of historic neighborhoods through land use, design and housing policies.

Policy H 2.5 Adaptive Reuse. Support innovative strategies for the adaptive reuse of residential and commercial structures to provide for a wide range of housing types.

Goal H2 Housing Supply and Diversity. Provide a variety of housing types and adequate affordable housing supply.

Goal H4 Reducing Constraints. Mitigate potential governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, while maintaining community character.

Land Use (LU) Element
Policy LU 2.6 City History. Acknowledge the City’s history of places and buildings, preserving historic sites, buildings, and districts that contribute to the City's identity while accommodating renovations of existing buildings to maintain their economic viability, provided the new construction contextually “fits” and complements the site or building.

Goal LU 4 Land Use Distribution and Urban Form. Community conservation that protects and enhances the distinguishing qualities of the City, the livability of neighborhoods and the economic viability of business districts while preserving environmental resources and the well-being and health of the City's residents, employees and visitors.

Goal LU 5 Complete, Livable, and Quality Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that in the aggregate provide a variety of housing types, densities, forms and designs and a mix of uses and services that support the needs of residents.

Policy LU 5.1 Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City's residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City's identity, economic value, and quality of life.

Policy LU 5.2 Infill and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form and scale.
1 https://beverlyhills.org/1067/General-Plan-Document
3 - 40
Goal LU 6 Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods. Maintenance of the identity, scale, and character of the distinct single-family residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU 6.2 Housing Character and Design. Require that new, renovated, and additions to housing be located and designed to maintain the distinguishing characteristics and qualities of the neighborhoods in which they are located, including prevailing lot sizes, building form, scale, massing, relationship to street frontages, architectural design, landscaping, property setbacks, and other comparable elements.

Policy LU 6.4 Second Units. Allow second units in single-family residential districts in accordance with State law.

Historic Preservation (HP) Element
Goal HP 1 Value and Preserve Significant Cultural Resources. A community with wellpreserved and maintained historic and cultural resources that provide a sense of permanence, foster civic pride and stewardship, and contribute to the unique identity and charm of the City.

Policy HP 1.4 Develop Incentives to Protect Significant Historic Resources. Develop and fund financial and regulatory incentives to encourage the protection of historic buildings, districts, and public landmarks/monuments from demolition or significant alteration, which may include Mills Act contracts, waiver of fees, flexible development standards, conservation easements, transfer of development rights, and other incentive-based mechanisms to make preservation feasible for owners and developers.
3 - 41
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Ordinance - Historic Exemption
September 11, 2025

ATTACHMENT D
Prior Related Public Correspondence
3 - 42
Deborah Blum
August 5, 2024
Beverly Hills Planning Commission
455 N Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Members of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission:

I am writing to you in connection with the Planning Commission's upcoming review of the city's short term rental ordinance and Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") regulations.

As long-time residents of Beverly Hills, my husband Dale Herd and I respectfully request that you consider a very limited amendment to the ordinance that would allow owners of a designated historic landmark house such as ours to defray the considerable costs of maintaining a historic property by regularly offering an ADU on the property for short-term rentals.

The story of our house is deeply intertwined with the rich history of Beverly Hills. We live in the historic Locke House, built in 1913 and located on a prominent corner of Rodeo Drive, just one block south of the Beverly Hills Hotel. This house has been a silent witness to the golden age of Hollywood, serving as a temporary residence to Joe Kennedy, who used it as his West Coast base while exploring the movie business. In 1941, my father, Edwin Blum, a screenwriter, purchased the house and continued its legacy by hosting Hollywood gatherings attended by icons like Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, and Frank Sinatra.

In 1989, Dale and I bought the house from my parents, committing to preserving this piece of Beverly Hills history. We have meticulously restored the property, ensuring that it would continue to reflect the charm and character of its heyday. In 2013, the Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission recognized the Locke House's historical significance by designating it as a landmark property under our Historic Preservation Ordinance.

However, maintaining a historic home like the Locke House comes with significant financial burdens. The costs of preserving original character-defining features and addressing structural issues are substantial. As retirees living on Social Security, we struggle to make ends meet. To address this, we propose allowing owners of designated landmarks to regularly rent one ADU on the property for less than 30 days as long as they continue to reside in the main house. 3 - 43
We understand the Planning Commission's potential concerns about neighborhood disturbances resulting from short-term rentals. However, Airbnb's extensive screening tools allow us to carefully select responsible guests. The guesthouse's proximity to our home coupled with our presence on the property also ensures close oversight. When we’ve rented out our guesthouse over the years, we've had only positive experiences. Our guests from around the world have loved experiencing a part of Old Beverly Hills, making us feel like unofficial ambassadors for the city.

I thank you in advance for considering our request. I am planning to attend the August 8th meeting to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.

Sincerely,
Deborah Blum
3 - 44
3 - 45
3 - 46
3 - 47
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
3 - 48
3 - 49
3 - 50
3 - 51
3 - 52
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
3 - 53
3 - 54
3 - 55
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
3 - 56
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 3 - 57
3 - 58
1 July 28, 2025
Dear Beverly Hills City Council, Planners and Staff:

I know I am late to the game in regards to your proposed STR ban for Beverly Hills.

I read a news article that alarmed me enough to watch the full portion regarding short-term rentals (STRs) in your July 1, 2025 City Council meeting.

What I saw troubled me so much that it prompted me to spend the weekend writing this letter even though I do not benefit in any way from the City’s final decisions.

Background and Personal Experience
I am someone who has personal experience on both sides of the STR issue.

I lived in a “Sea of STRs” in another city (Hermosa Beach) from 2005-2010.

After living a comfortable middle-class life, I was suddenly facing near medical bankruptcy in 2010.

I had to move out of my home and convert my beachfront property into a short-term rental from 2010 until 2016 just to make ends meet.

I was forced to stop when Hermosa Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs in residential zones without the required Coastal Commission approval, effectively an illegal ban under coastal law.

Despite this, the City has continued to enforce it aggressively and is now facing an active lawsuit by another resident.

My personal history gives me a unique perspective: I know what it’s like both to live surrounded by STRs and to operate one as a means of financial survival.

One morning in 2005, I woke up to find that four of the six units in my own building had become short-term rentals, along with six more units in adjacent buildings and at least six others further down the block. It had happened practically overnight.

I initially feared the worst. I worried about the kinds of issues people often complain about, such as noise, strangers, trash, loud parties, parking, and privacy.

But I was fortunate that all of those STRs were managed by responsible hosts.

My neighboring STR operators at the time self-regulated out of fear that Hermosa Beach would formalize a ban.

Within a few weeks, it became a complete non-issue.

I virtually forgot they were STRs and lived peacefully beside them for the next five years. 3 - 59
2 Observations from the July 1 Meeting and Suggested
Carve-Outs
At your July 1 City Council meeting, I was struck by a public comment from a homeowner named Deborah Blum.

Ms. Blum and a friend explained that they had heavily invested in a designated historic home and depended on STR income, renting out a guest house on the property, to survive financially.

I was impressed by how the entire Beverly Hills City Council listened to her concerns, called her back up for clarifying questions, and discussed carving out an exception for people in her specific situation.

But on the other side of the coin, Ms. Blum was fortunate to find out about the meeting and that she was able to speak as eloquently as she did.

I am certain many others are in similar situations and may not have known about the meeting at all.

There are likely other Beverly Hills homeowners, not living in historic homes, who are also facing financial hardship.

For some, the ability to rent out a room or an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as an STR could mean the difference between keeping their home or facing foreclosure.

While Beverly Hills currently has a low foreclosure rate, that could change as economic conditions shift due to inflation, rising healthcare costs, or global trade disruptions.

Allowing some limited STR activity could serve as a safety valve for residents in need.

It troubles me that the decisions made that night were shaped entirely by those few who were able to attend and speak.

My suggestions:

To address additional cases like Ms. Blum’s and mitigate potential hardships while still protecting neighborhoods, the City could create specific carve-outs and regulations, such as:
• Properties In or Adjacent to Commercial Areas:

Permit STRs in certain zones (or specific properties) adjacent to commercial or entertainment districts where transient use would be less disruptive.

This would focus STR activity on areas where visitors naturally congregate, reducing impact in quiet residential interiors.
• Hardship-Based STR Permits:

Allow homeowners to apply for a hardship exemption to operate an STR if they can demonstrate genuine financial need (for example, seniors on a fixed income, individuals with medical crises, etc.).
• Owner-Occupied STRs (Home-Sharing):

While some communities only allow STRs when the host remains on site (“hosted” rentals), I caution that making STRs hosted-only, as some cities do, is not a complete solution.

Hosting only while the owner is present (like Ms. Blum’s case renting a guest house 3 - 60
3 with oversight) may reduce certain nuisance risks, but it also excludes many legitimate scenarios.

For example, an owner who must travel for work or temporarily relocate should not be disqualified from operating a legal STR simply because they are not physically on site during that period.

A family would not want to rent an entire home that requires the owner to be onsite.

Nor should a homeowner be forced to stay in the same home with their renters.

Likewise, many second homes in Beverly Hills sit vacant for much of the year, allowing those to be used as STRs, even if not owner-occupied during guest stays, could actually bring life and revenue to the city without displacing any long-term renter.

Hosted rentals can be one option, but they should not be the only permissible type of STR.
• Multifamily Building Restrictions:

I agree with your Planning Department’s suggestion that multi-family condominiums or apartments with controlled-access entry should generally not be used for STRs, as this is often addressed in CC&Rs or leases already.

An ordinance could codify that STRs are not allowed in multi-unit buildings unless the HOA or building explicitly permits it.
• Mid-Term Rental Allowances:

The Council discussed allowing rentals of less than a year for certain groups like visiting doctors, nurses, or people on short-term work assignments.

Please follow through on creating a legal path for these mid-term stays (under 12- month leases).

Moreover, local residents often need temporary housing due to home renovations, fire or flood damage, or other disruptions.

These stays may last a few weeks to months, not a full year.

Your policies should account for these situations to ensure displaced residents can remain in the community during that time, especially if their children are enrolled in local schools.

One important note from my own experience: when Hermosa Beach’s ban forced me to switch from short vacation stays to 30-day minimum rentals, I remained virtually complaint-free.

In fact, an owner-occupant neighbor in our six-unit building recently told me she never once had an issue with any of my 30-day renters over the past ten years.

Ironically, her only complaint was about another owner who used his unit as a second home.

It often sat empty, except when he allows his 18-year-old son to stay there with friends and throw loud weekend parties.

This illustrates that the problem is behavior, not length of stay.

A long-term tenant or even an owner-occupant can be a bad neighbor, while a short-term guest can be perfectly respectful.
3 - 61
4 Notably, if a short-term guest causes trouble, the host can act quickly to remove them, provided the stay is under 30 days.

In contrast, dealing with a problem long-term tenant often requires a formal eviction process that can take several months, during which the disruptive behavior usually continues.

And if your bad neighbor is the owner and lives there, forget it. You may be stuck with them indefinitely.

Beverly Hills already has a strict noise and nuisance ordinance to prevent large parties.

A compliant permitted STR operator has every incentive to enforce those rules on their guests, because their permit and income are at stake.

In contrast, a traditional landlord has less immediate control once a lease is signed and the tenant has stayed longer than 30 days.

Additionally, I suggest including wording in your ordinance to allow emergency or disasterrelated STR stays.

For example, when the nearby wildfire hit Los Angeles in 2018, Beverly Hills wisely suspended its 30-day minimum rental rule temporarily to allow displaced fire victims to find short-term housing.

In my own case, having my home available as a 30-day minimum rental gave several displaced families the opportunity to find a place to stay.

I ended up hosting multiple families over the following months who had lost everything.

In addition, Airbnb subsidized those stays for the families.

An ordinance could explicitly permit short-term rentals during declared emergencies or natural disasters, ensuring that victims and relief workers can secure local housing on short notice.

This kind of flexibility is a humanitarian measure and would reflect well on the City.

Addressing the Reasons Behind the Proposed Ban
From the July 1 meeting and subsequent news coverage, I gathered that the Council’s rationale for moving toward a complete ban on STRs revolves around a few key concerns:
party houses and neighborhood nuisances; loss of tax revenue and hotel business; and impacts on housing availability.

These are valid concerns.

However, I believe these issues stem from the way STRs have been handled, or not handled, up to this point.

The real problem is the lack of sensible regulations, not the concept of STRs themselves.

I’d like to address each of these points based on data, research, and my firsthand experience.
3 - 62
5 ‘Party Houses’ and Nuisance Complaints
Councilmember Craig Corman spoke at the meeting, saying that “party houses” were partly to blame for the City’s decision to move toward a ban on short-term rentals.

I absolutely agree that so-called “party houses” are a serious problem.

No neighborhood should have to tolerate a revolving door of loud, late-night parties in a residential setting.

But I disagree that banning all STRs is the only solution to this problem.

It is very possible to allow STRs while strictly preventing party houses, if the City implements the right rules and enforcement.

First, most responsible STR hosts themselves do not want parties in their properties.

Such guests cause serious damage to the home, disturb neighbors, and attract negative attention from authorities, all things a good host strives to avoid.

When I operated my STR, I explicitly forbade parties or events and set quiet hours, precisely because I wanted to protect my home and keep peace with neighbors.

The platforms also allow hosts to screen guests by reviewing their prior ratings and communicating before booking.

A one-night rental to a local 22-year-old looking to host 50 friends is a scenario any diligent host will reject.

For example, if I see a booking request from a family of four from Nebraska for a week, that’s likely fine, but a group of six college frat boys raises red flags.

Blanket assumptions that any one-night booking equals a blow-out party are not accurate; careful vetting and a two-way review system help prevent many problems.

Of course, there will always be a few bad actors, hosts who negligently or even willfully rent out “party houses” to anyone.

Those few can and should be dealt with individually through enforcement, rather than taking away the privilege of responsible hosting from everyone.

With a robust STR regulation ordinance (e.g. requiring registration, setting occupancy limits, noise monitoring, and hefty fines/permit revocation for violations), those operators will either straighten up or be shut down quickly.

Airbnb itself has taken steps to crack down on such rentals in recent years, and cities can partner with platforms on this issue.

The bottom line is we don’t ban all bars because one bar occasionally has a rowdy patron, we enforce the rules on the ones causing trouble.

Similarly, we shouldn’t ban all STRs because a few owners allowed parties; we should enforce against the offenders.
3 - 63
6 Allow me to share an illustrative incident. During my six years of hosting STRs, mostly involving three-to-five-day stays, I had hundreds of bookings with no serious issues.

However, there were two cases where neighbors did complain. • Case 1: The Unapproved Party.

A renter booked my place claiming it was for a small family gathering.

It turned out to be a group of six twenty-something young men.

I was immediately wary at check-in and reiterated to them my strict no-parties rule and the consequences.

At the time, our six-unit condo building had multiple STR units, all of which were legally operating at the time, along with a couple of owner-occupied units.

Sure enough, by 8PM that night I started getting complaints of loud music and a gathering, interestingly, not from the two owner-occupants, but from the other STR hosts in the building.

Those fellow hosts were upset because they feared this one bad rental would ruin things for everyone and prompt the City to crack down.

Ironically, one of the owner-occupants even went over and joined the party.

I gave the group three warnings to shut it down, which they ignored.

Finally, I drove over in person, confronted them with the rental agreement, and told them the party was over.

I changed the lock code and evicted them on the spot for breaching the contract.

I also kept their security deposit and the rent for the remaining nights, a financial penalty on top of the immediate eviction.

The party was stopped within a few hours of it starting.

I did have to repair a couple of damaged walls and clean up after them, and needless to say, I left them an awful review so no one else would rent to them.

But importantly, that swift action prevented further disturbance.

If those were long-term tenants causing a disturbance to my neighbors, I would have been stuck with a drawn-out eviction process; as an STR host I had the leverage to remove them immediately.
• Case 2: Minor Nuisance.

In another instance, a middle-aged woman rented my home along with a few of her old high school girlfriends for a quiet reunion week, or so they claimed.

They did keep things low-key in terms of noise, and there were no noise complaints during the stay.

However, I learned afterward that their “girl talk” sessions each evening involved heavy cigarette smoking out on the patio and leaving butts on the ground.

A neighbor mentioned the litter to me after they’d checked out.

This wasn’t a wild party at all, just a bit of inconsiderate behavior.

I apologized to the neighbor and later updated my house rules to address proper disposal of smoking materials.

This was an isolated incident unrelated to any inherent issue with STRs.

It could just as easily have happened with long-term renters or houseguests.

Still, I learned from it and adjusted my rental agreement accordingly. 3 - 64
7 The reason I share these stories is to show that even without a ban, problems can be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

In the first case, the system worked.

As the host, I had both the incentive and the ability to immediately shut down the party and make sure it wouldn’t happen again.

In the second case, a minor nuisance was resolved with better communication and an update to my rental agreement.

Out of six years of year-round rentals, these were the only two isolated notable incidents, a pretty good track record.

Most STR guests are vacationing families, couples, or business travelers who are respectful.

They are your friends and your families wanting to stay close to you.

Responsible hosts screen out the bad apples.

With sensible regulations in place, “party houses” can be eliminated without eliminating all STRs.

Tax Revenue and Hotel Competition
Mr. Corman also cited lowered tax revenue and loss of business to area hotels in his statement on the proposed ban.

It’s true that if a visitor stays in an illegal STR, the City currently misses out on Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and hotels lose a booking.

But from the City’s perspective, banning STRs outright is not the only way to address this.

In fact, a well-regulated STR program can increase tax revenue while co-existing with hotels.

As noted during the meeting, Beverly Hills rarely sees any TOT remitted from STRs today because those rentals operate outside of a formal permitting system, which the City does not currently have.

The obvious remedy is to bring STR operators into the fold through a legal permit system.

A STR owner would be required to pay a permit fee to the City, collect and remit TOT, and adhere to rules.

Major platforms like Airbnb and VRBO have built-in systems to automatically collect and pay TOT to cities on behalf of hosts, once an ordinance is in place, so compliance can be made relatively easy.

In my experience, compliant hosts want to pay the taxes and follow the rules if it means they can operate legitimately without fear of punishment.

A City-issued STR permit would be valuable; losing it would mean losing their income source and their investment in the property to make it an STR, such as furniture, linens, installing storage lockers, cleaning and vanity items.

Therefore, permit holders have a powerful incentive to follow noise, occupancy, and tax rules to protect their permit, just as bar owners zealously guard their liquor licenses.

I suggest the City institute a robust permit with a substantial annual fee to cover permitting, inspections and enforcement costs.
3 - 65
8 This not only raises revenue but also gives operators “skin in the game” to abide by all regulations.

As for hotels: I strongly believe from experience that traditional hotels and STRs serve different segments of the travel market.

My wife and I, for instance, have never used an STR when vacationing, and we never will.

We always prefer hotels with daily housekeeping, concierge service, room service, and other hotel amenities, and we like staying in established hotel districts.

For example, if we visit Paris, we would choose a hotel near the Louvre rather than a STR deep in a residential area.

Travelers like us will always choose a hotel, and Beverly Hills has plenty of luxury hotel options for that demographic.

However, not every traveler is like us. Nearly all of my short-term rental guests shared their unique reasons for choosing my STR over a hotel during their stay.

There are at least two other groups of visitors for whom an STR is far more appealing, and banning STRs would simply cause those visitors to stay elsewhere rather than in Beverly Hills hotels:

1. Solo travelers or young travelers.

Imagine a backpacker from Norway or a recent college grad who dreams of visiting Beverly Hills.

An $800-per-night hotel like the Beverly Hills Hotel or the Peninsula is out of the question and may be too opulent for their needs.

Such a traveler would be thrilled to rent a spare bedroom in a resident’s home for a reasonable price.

That kind of arrangement benefits the visitor by providing affordable access to the city, and it benefits the host by offering extra income, perhaps to help with their mortgage.

The City also receives TOT from that stay if it’s a legal STR.

Crucially, that traveler was never a potential customer for the luxury hotels, banning STRs won’t send them to the Waldorf-Astoria; it will simply send them to a STR in another city.

In other words, Beverly Hills hotels don’t always lose business when this kind of visitor chooses an STR.

But the City loses out on hosting the visitor and the spending they would have brought to local shops and restaurants if they are instead driven to stay in West Hollywood or Santa Monica.

2. Large families or groups.

There are many situations, including weddings, funerals, reunions, and religious celebrations like bar or bat mitzvahs, where a large extended family travels together or meets up at a destination.

They often want to stay under one roof for convenience and bonding time.

Hotels can rarely accommodate this, except by offering multiple separate rooms, 3 - 66
9 which is not the same as sharing a living room or kitchen together.

Even if a hotel has connecting rooms or suites, the cost of renting three, four, or more hotel rooms for a week, plus eating every meal out, becomes astronomical for an average family.

A single vacation rental home where the whole family can stay together, cook some meals, and have a backyard for the kids, is a vastly more practical and affordable option.

If Beverly Hills bans STRs completely, these groups face a tough choice.

They can split up into expensive hotel rooms, which many will avoid.

They can stay in an illegal STR within the city, where Beverly Hills collects no tax revenue and takes on enforcement risk.

Or they can book an STR home just outside the city limits, where the City loses both TOT revenue and local business spending.

Many will choose the latter, meaning the city’s ban could inadvertently drive visitor dollars to neighboring jurisdictions.

To be clear, the core hotel market (business travelers on expense accounts, couples seeking a luxury getaway, etc.) will continue to patronize hotels in the city.

STRs are not replacing the Beverly Wilshire.

What STRs do is supplement and diversify the accommodation offerings for those visitors whose needs aren’t met by traditional hotels.

In economic terms, they enlarge the pie of total visitors rather than simply slice into the hotel’s share.

Banning STRs entirely is akin to the hotel industry banning all cruise ships because cruises provide an alternative form of travel lodging.

Yes, if the City banned cruise ships, some would-be cruise-goers might stay in hotels instead, but many would simply choose a different vacation destination or experience.

Likewise, banning STRs won’t fill all those people into hotel beds; it will cause many to either not come or stay elsewhere nearby.

The City should consider this dynamic, especially with major events on the horizon like the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Those events will draw an enormous influx of visitors to the region.

Wouldn't Beverly Hills prefer to have as many of these visitors as possible stay within the City, paying TOT and supporting local businesses?
STRs, if allowed and taxed, would expand the City’s capacity to host visitors during these surges and help ensure that Beverly Hills captures the associated tourism spending.

A real-world example of how STR regulation can benefit a city: Manhattan Beach, not far away, initially allowed STRs but then banned them outright in residential zones around 2015.

That ban was challenged in court because, unlike Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach has a Coastal Zone where the Coastal Commission must approve such restrictions.

Manhattan Beach lost that case on appeal, and the ban was ultimately deemed unenforceable within the Coastal Zone.
3 - 67
10 As the result, the City had to stop enforcing it there and instead implement a regulated STR program for that area.

Hermosa Beach, now facing a similar legal challenge, recently lost a request for an injunction and is proceeding to trial.

The outcome? Manhattan Beach now collects approximately $1 million annually in TOT from short-term rentals.

Manhattan Beach also implemented sensible regulations, such as limiting STRs to certain zones and capping their density to preserve neighborhood character.

As a result, the earlier complaints that had accompanied unregulated STRs largely subsided once these rules took effect.

In other words, reasonable regulation turned a situation that was formerly underground and untaxed into a revenue generator for the city.

Beverly Hills, by regulating instead of banning, could likewise capture revenue that is currently being lost.

Housing Stock and Rental Availability
Councilmember Lester Friedman tied the ban to larger issues like California’s housing shortage, saying “it’s really important that we create the stock of availability for people to either… get into a home or get into an apartment.”
He added that the state has been pressuring cities about the lack of rental units and saw the STR ban as “part of that puzzle” of freeing up living spaces.

I appreciate the concern for housing affordability.

However, I believe from experience banning STRs will have little to no positive effect on the availability of long-term housing in Beverly Hills, and could even be counterproductive in some ways.

Beverly Hills is an unusual, high-end market.

Many STR listings here are in single-family homes, second homes that are hardly used, guest houses, ADUs, or spare bedrooms that owners occasionally rent out.

Crucially, those properties are often not part of the long-term rental market to begin with.

Some are second homes used by their owners for only a few days a year, sitting vacant the rest of the time.

Others are owner-occupied homes where an extra room is sometimes offered to travelers, but the owner would never rent that room to a long-term roommate or full-time tenant.

In yet other cases, an owner might temporarily move out and rent their primary home short-term, as I did when facing financial hardship, but they intend to return and therefore would not lease it out for a full year or more.

In all these scenarios, an STR ban doesn’t suddenly create a new unit of housing for a local worker or family, it simply means that space will go unused.

The home will remain empty when the owner is away, or the guest house will remain available only for the owner’s occasional use, etc.

Meanwhile, the homeowner loses the income that the STR was providing, which may have been helping them pay their property taxes or mortgage. 3 - 68
11 Broad statistics about STR impacts are often cited without context.

For example, a study by McGill University (commissioned by the hotel-funded Better Neighbors LA) asserted that prior to the pandemic about 7,300 housing units were removed from Los Angeles’s long-term rental market due to STR activity.

But that figure covers the entire City of Los Angeles, which has millions of housing units and a very different housing profile than Beverly Hills.

In L.A., many of those 7,300 units were likely apartment units in places like Hollywood or Venice that were being used illegally as full-time vacation rentals, including some rentstabilized apartments taken away from tenants.

Those may be legitimate concerns in Los Angeles.

Beverly Hills, by contrast, has far fewer rental apartments, and your Rent Stabilization Ordinance already protects against using those units for short-term rentals.

You don’t have big blocks of rent-controlled apartments being converted to Airbnbs, that would already violate existing law.

So the situations driving that 7,300-unit number largely don’t apply in your city.

In Beverly Hills, the number of STRs at any given time is relatively modest (AirDNA analytics tracked roughly 854 active STR listings in Beverly Hills over the past year, and many of those are likely not entire housing units but rooms or guest houses).

And again, a good chunk of those 854 “listings” are in properties that would otherwise be vacant or underutilized.

The net impact on your long-term rental supply is probably minimal.

Frankly, there are many homes in Beverly Hills that sit empty as second homes or investments, which is a broader issue beyond the scope of STRs.

If anything, allowing those owners to rent their properties out occasionally and legally increases the effective supply of housing, even if it is short-term, and brings visitors and revenue into the city without displacing anyone.

It’s also worth noting that Beverly Hills has already struggled with state mandates for housing, unrelated to STRs.

The city has been resistant to high-density development, as noted in news reports about state officials criticizing your progress on new housing.

Your lack of affordable housing will not be solved by an STR ban; it needs comprehensive planning and development of appropriate housing units.

Banning STRs is at best a distraction from real housing solutions, and at worst it could harm some residents financially while doing nothing to make rents in Beverly Hills more affordable.

In short, the STR ban will not meaningfully improve long-term housing availability or affordability in Beverly Hills.

What it will do is punish homeowners who were using STR income to get by, and reduce the number of visitors (and their dollars) coming into your city.

I urge you not to pin hopes on a ban as a housing solution, it isn’t one.

Instead, if housing is the concern, focus on housing policies directly (zoning, development 3 - 69
12 incentives, etc.), and manage STRs through regulations that prevent abuse but still allow this limited, productive use of properties.

The Influence of Outside Advocacy (BNLA)
I want to address the role of Better Neighbors LA (BNLA), since two of its representatives spoke at the meeting and provided commissioned research and policy recommendations aligned with hotel industry interests.

BNLA representatives appear regularly at City Council and Coastal Commission meetings across California, promoting a consistent message in support of STR bans. Their presence, repeated talking points, and funding sources suggest a coordinated campaign aligned closely with hotel union interests.

While BNLA bills itself as “a coalition of Southern California hosts, tenants, housing activists, hotel workers, and community members,” it is heavily funded by the hotel industry and their unions and advocates strongly for eliminating STR competition.

The research and talking points BNLA provided to you, such as the McGill study mentioned earlier, were presented as definitive but were not impartial.

They were produced by a group with a clear policy agenda and appear to have been commissioned to support a predetermined narrative.

Yet this data was treated by the City as objective fact and used to justify a complete STR ban, with the City now appearing to adopt many of their recommended policies.

Its core mission is to lobby for full crackdowns or bans on STRs, which is no coincidence, since that would eliminate competition for hotels.

Unsurprisingly, their materials focus on extreme scenarios mostly drawn from cities where STRs operated without regulations.

If you only look at cities that had no STR rules (the “Wild West” cases), of course you’ll find horror stories: party mansions, investors buying up whole apartment buildings for Airbnb, and other abuses.

But Beverly Hills is not in that situation, and more importantly, you have the ability to craft reasonable regulations to avoid those scenarios.

Unregulated STRs can indeed cause havoc. It is similar to removing all liquor laws and watching bars turn into public nuisances.

But cities do not have to choose between chaos and prohibition. Regulation is possible.

I was troubled to hear how much the BNLA perspective dominated the discussion.

There is no equally organized group on the other side of this issue.

Ordinary STR hosts are not united in a single lobbying group, and Airbnb as a company tends to stay behind the scenes or offer generic statements.

That is why you heard many speakers echo BNLA’s arguments, and only a few individual residents (like Ms. Blum) speaking up for STR allowances.

The playing field at that meeting was skewed.

I truly appreciate that the Council listened attentively to those who spoke.

You showed great responsiveness.

But I ask that you also consider the voices that were not in the room: the responsible STR hosts who didn’t know about the meeting, the homeowners quietly relying on STR income, 3 - 70
13 the visitors who would stay here if they could find a legal STR. Their perspective matters too.

Enforcement: Regulation vs. “Whack-a-Mole” Bans
An attorney who spoke on July 1 recommended some very harsh enforcement measures for illegal STRs, including massive fines and even criminal charges (jail time).

While the desire to make enforcement meaningful is understandable, the City must be careful.

Imagine the optics of a six-month jail sentence for a disabled veteran renting out his spare room. That is not something Beverly Hills should be aiming for.

Heavy-handed enforcement might deter some violators, but it could also punish people who turned to STRs out of financial desperation.

It’s also important to recognize that enforcement is getting more challenging under a banonly approach.

In the past, the City could hire companies like Host Compliance to scan Airbnb and VRBO listings for signs of violations. For example, if a listing showed a minimum stay of less than 30 days, that would indicate a violation of the City’s previous rules.

However, both Airbnb and VRBO recently removed the automatic display of a listing’s minimum-night requirement.

Now, an STR host can advertise without clearly stating the minimum stay.

The only way to catch a violation may be to attempt a test booking for a short period.

This is a resource-intensive strategy that requires city staff or contractors to go through the full reservation process, including paying a deposit up front, to see if the host accepts the booking.

I personally know illegal STR operators in Hermosa Beach who have stayed under the enforcement radar since the rental sites removed the automatic minimum stay display.

As Hermosa Beach’s City Attorney eloquently put it in March 2025, trying to enforce a total ban is like playing “Whack-a-Mole” — as soon as you knock one illegal listing down, another pops up elsewhere.

Hermosa Beach has been issuing fines and even filing lawsuits, yet as of this month, hundreds of STRs are still operating illegally.

An outright ban tends to drive the practice underground, making it even harder to monitor or control.

And again, an underground STR pays no TOT.

By contrast, a regulated framework brings hosts into the light.

If Beverly Hills creates a legal path for at least some STRs with strict conditions, many hosts will gladly register and comply.

The City will then know exactly who they are and where they operate.

Enforcement can focus on the truly rogue actors.

Also, the City can require STR platforms to de-list any property not included in Beverly Hills permit STR registry, something both Los Angeles and Santa Monica have implemented 3 - 71
14 successfully.

Because those cities allow legal STRs, Airbnb provides this enforcement mechanism directly through its platform.

In this model, Airbnb itself helps filter out illegal listings.

But they only cooperate where legal operation is possible.

The more viable the legal pathway, the more incentive platforms like Airbnb have to assist with enforcement.

In short, regulation brings folks into compliance; prohibition incentivizes evasion.

I would much rather have 50 legal, responsible STRs that the City can track and tax than 200 illegal ones playing hide and seek with code enforcement and avoiding any contribution to the City.

I want to emphasize again: Beverly Hills doesn’t have to choose between “party house chaos” and a total ban.

There is a sensible middle ground.

Dozens of cities have implemented balanced STR regulations that protect neighbors and housing without outlawing STRs completely.

You can limit the number of STR permits, restrict STRs to certain zones or property types, enforce quiet hours and occupancy limits, prohibit any corporate-run “mini hotels”, etc.

Yes, these regulations require effort to enforce, but so would a ban, which offers far less benefit in return.

Given Beverly Hills’ resources and thoughtful governance, I am confident you can develop an ordinance that allows responsible home-sharing while swiftly dealing with bad actors.

Potential Unintended Consequences of a Total Ban
Before closing, I’d like to outline a few unintended consequences that a blanket ban on STRs could have.

These are outcomes that I’m sure the Council does not desire, but they are very real risks:
• Economic Hardship for Some Residents:

A number of Beverly Hills homeowners have invested significant money and labor to prepare their homes for STR use.

This includes furnishing spaces, providing linens and towels, and purchasing durable guest-use items such as irons, hair dryers, luggage racks, brooms, and mops.

These are not disposable supplies but fixed assets intended specifically for guest stays.

If all STRs are banned, those investments are lost and those income streams vanish overnight.

A host has little use for an extra iron or hairdryer once the property is no longer rentable short-term.
3 - 72
15 For someone on the financial edge, this could mean foreclosure or being forced to sell their home.

Even if such cases are now few in Beverly Hills, I hate to think of even one family losing their home because a city policy took away their ability to make ends meet. • Lost Tourism Dollars:

Beverly Hills is internationally recognized as a premier destination, with a longstanding reputation for hospitality and service.

Banning STRs will reduce the accommodation options in our city, likely driving some visitors to stay in other nearby areas.

The City could lose out on significant TOT revenue. Currently, you collect almost nothing from the STR activity that does occur, but that revenue could be captured through proper regulation.

Beyond TOT, when visitors stay elsewhere, they also spend their money elsewhere:
dining, shopping and more.

Especially with the Olympics and World Cup fast approaching, it seems prudent to welcome more visitors in a controlled way rather than discourage them from staying in the city.

Every visitor who stays in an STR could be contributing TOT and supporting local businesses.

If they stay in West Hollywood instead, the City gets none of those benefits. • Increased Strain on Hotels & Higher Prices:

Also remember: STRs often serve as a “pressure release valve” for lodging demand.

Without them, hotel markets can overheat during peak seasons or special events.

We’ve seen this play out in places like Las Vegas, where explosive demand has pushed average daily hotel rates up by nearly 70% since 2015, with nightly costs rising from $124 to $209 in 2024, plus hefty resort fees and surcharges that led to public backlash and a 14% drop in occupancy year over year.

For Beverly Hills, this suggests that banning STRs entirely could spike hotel prices, especially for mid‑range families or local visitors, and fuel a narrative that only millionaires can afford a stay here.

A modest supply of well-regulated STRs helps keep lodging options accessible and pricing competitive, which in turn benefits hotel partners, local residents, and the City’s TOT revenue.

Beverly Hills has never been a budget destination, but the perception that only millionaires can stay overnight could damage the broader appeal of Beverly Hills to visitors and to family members of residents alike.

A few legal STRs providing alternative accommodations could help keep overall prices and availability in a healthier balance.
• Impact on Local Families and Events:

Sometimes STRs serve our own community’s needs.

For example, a Beverly Hills resident hosting a family reunion or a wedding might currently rent a nearby STR so that relatives can stay together close by.

I’ve personally hosted many guests who were visiting friends and relatives, and several were referred to me by my neighbors to stay at my place. 3 - 73
16 If STRs are banned, those visiting relatives either crowd into the host’s house, pay for multiple hotel rooms, or stay far away.

None of those outcomes is ideal for families.

Banning STRs removes that flexibility for your residents to accommodate their loved ones during special occasions.
• Empty Homes & Neighborhood Quietness:

Ironically, a total ban might lead to more dark, empty houses in residential areas.

Beverly Hills has many homes that are second residences for people who primarily live elsewhere.

Right now, some of those owners allow occasional STR use, which means the house has lights on, a gardener or housekeeper coming by, and generally looks lived-in because at times it actually is.

If STRs are banned, those houses will just sit empty for months on end until the owner visits.

An empty house isn’t great for a neighborhood, it can become a target for break-ins, or just create a dead spot on the street.

Occasional STR guests actually keep the house active and well-maintained. In fact, owners who operate STRs often keep their property in top condition to earn good reviews.

In other words, responsible STRs can activate otherwise underused housing stock, whereas a ban might inadvertently create more zombie homes that sit unoccupied. • Enforcement Burden and Legal Risks:

Cracking down on every STR will require a significant and ongoing effort.

This includes monitoring websites, conducting in-person surveillance, responding to anonymous tips, issuing citations, and pursuing legal action against noncompliant operators.

The question is whether the payoff justifies the cost.

The City might end up spending tens of thousands of dollars on staff or contractor hours to net a handful of fines, all while hundreds of STRs continue to operate undetected.

Meanwhile, if the City comes down too hard, such as by jailing a homeowner or imposing exorbitant fines, it could face legal challenges.

In Texas, a different legal context from California, the City of Dallas adopted ordinances in mid‑2023 that would have effectively banned most short‑term rentals in single‑family residential zones.

Those measures were blocked by a Dallas County judge on the grounds that they violated property rights and the Texas appeals court recently upheld that injunction, meaning Dallas cannot enforce its STR ban while litigation continues.

This suggests that outright bans, without a clear legal path or grandfathering, may expose jurisdictions to court challenges, even when the rationale is neighborhood preservation.

This underscores the importance of crafting regulations carefully to avoid takings claims or procedural overreach.
3 - 74
17 Summary
In summary, I urge the City Council to reconsider adopting a blanket STR ban and instead implement a set of reasonable STR regulations.

Based on my experience and the evidence:
• STRs are not inherently incompatible with the community.

It is unregulated STRs that cause most problems.

Beverly Hills can allow a limited, well-regulated amount of short-term renting and prevent the nightmare scenarios through careful rules and enforcement. • Beverly Hills can protect neighborhood character without a ban.

Measures like owner occupancy requirements, limits on the number of STRs per block, strict noise ordinances, occupancy caps, and swift penalties/permit revocation for violations can all ensure that STRs do not disrupt neighbors.

Many cities have shown that once such rules are in place, complaints plummet. • There is economic benefit to keeping STRs legal (under controls).

The City can capture TOT from legal STR stays, which is currently being lost entirely.

Local businesses also benefit from visitors who might not otherwise come.

What the hotel industry may lose from a subset of travelers could become a gain for the City if STRs are brought into a taxable and regulated framework. • Housing impacts can be mitigated and are likely minor in Beverly Hills.

We should acknowledge that Beverly Hills’ STRs are rarely units that would have been rented long-term to local residents.

By carving out sensible rules, you can ensure you are not significantly affecting the long-term rental stock.

A ban, by itself, will not suddenly make homes affordable or available in Beverly Hills.

Those issues need larger solutions.
• The ban approach has downsides.

It puts otherwise law-abiding residents in an adversarial position with the City by pushing them to operate in secret.

It also throws away a source of revenue and creates the risk of unintended consequences like those described above.

Regulation, on the other hand, allows for a collaborative approach.

Residents gain a legal outlet to earn income with clear expectations set by the City.

Neighbors receive protections and a responsive City if problems arise, and the City gains both revenue and oversight.

I am not a paid consultant, nor a professor funded to publish studies that support a predetermined narrative.

I’m just a private individual who lived in a sea of STRs for ten years and then operated one myself for six years, giving me a solid perspective on both sides of the issue.

My understanding comes from real-life experience rather than theory, and my only interest is in seeing sensible policy that balances the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses. 3 - 75
18 I genuinely fear that a complete STR ban in Beverly Hills will do more harm than good, solving little while hurting many.

Thank you for considering a viewpoint that was not strongly represented at the July 1 meeting.

I trust the City Council will also give weight to the voices not in the room and work toward a policy that addresses concerns without eliminating a practice that, when done responsibly, truly can work for everyone.

As someone on full disability, attending public meetings is difficult.

If invited or if future discussions take place, I will make every effort to participate in person.

Otherwise, please accept this letter as my full public comment on the matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Jim Holtz
Hermosa Beach, CA
3 - 76
1 Agenda Item E1
My name is Deborah Blum. I have lived most of my life in Beverly Hills, and I have a deep love for this town. I am sad to say, I have seen how some of its history is disappearing.

As such, I want to talk tonight about how, in my own way, I am working to preserve that history, and how the city can help me continue to do so.

I live in the same 1913 Craftsman where I grew up. The house was the second home built in Beverly Hills, commissioned by the city’s first judge. Later it was home to Joe Kennedy during his Hollywood years. My father, a founding member of the Writer’s Guild, bought the house in 1941. My husband and I bought it from my parents in 1989.

When we moved in, the house was near collapse. We restored it and in 2013, it was designated a landmark. But the ongoing maintenance of a 112-year-old historic house has proven to be extraordinarily expensive. My husband and I are both retired, and I come before you to ask for your help, so that we can continue to maintain this piece of Beverly Hills history.

For the past two decades we have relied on income from the short-term rental of our guesthouse to fund our preservation efforts. All these rentals have occurred without any disturbance while we have resided in the main house.

Please consider adding an historic caretaker exemption to the new ordinance. We propose that landmark properties be permitted to rent guesthouses for under 30 days, provided the owners maintain primary residence and direct oversight.

Yes, an exemption would be good for us. More importantly, it would be beneficial for the city too.

It’s a proven fact that historic preservation drives tourism and economic growth.

Consider the tour busses on our streets, full of visitors wanting to partake in our enchanted past.

We understand the concerns that have led to this proposed ban. We believe there's an important distinction between commercial rental operations and responsible homeowners using rental income specifically for historic preservation while maintaining primary residence.
3 - 77
Planning Commission Report
Short Term Rental Ordinance - Historic Exemption
September 11, 2025

ATTACHMENT E
New Public Correspondence
3 - 78
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Outlook
Fw: Historic Preservation Exemption
From Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
Date Wed 9/3/2025 8:02 AM
To Chloe Chen <[email protected]>
From: Deborah Blum
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:37 PM
To: CommentCHC <[email protected]>
Subject: Historic Preservation Exemption
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important September 2, 2025
Dear Members of the Cultural Heritage Commission:

I live in Landmark #11, the 1913 Craftsman house on the corner of Rodeo and Lomitas, where I grew up. After my husband and I purchased the home from my parents in 1989, we undertook its restoration and have since experienced firsthand both the rewards and challenges of historic preservation.

I am grateful that this commission recognizes what not everyone appreciates — that these landmarks reflect the magic of Hollywood's golden age and represent a heritage that enriches our community and attracts visitors from around the world.

Thank you for your thoughtful attention to the matter of exempting historic landmark homes from the short-term rental ordinance. Over the last 20 years the income from our guesthouse rental has been essential in allowing us to maintain and preserve this historic property in an independent and financially sustainable manner, ensuring its continued contribution to Beverly Hills' architectural and cultural legacy.

With appreciation,
Deborah Blum
N Rodeo Drive
Beverly Hills 90210
9/3/25, 10:46 AM Fw: Historic Preservation Exemption - Chloe Chen - Outlook about:blank 1/1
3 - 79
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Outlook
Public Comment – Short Term Rental Regulations
From Jamie Miller
Date Wed 9/3/2025 9:12 AM
To CommentCHC <[email protected]>
Cc Chloe Chen <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Committee,
My name is Jamie Miller, and I operate a furnished housing service in Beverly Hills that provides month-to-month accommodations with a minimum 30-day lease term. We have always complied with the City’s rules and regulations, and we view our role as offering safe, secure, and affordable housing to people who truly contribute to the fabric of Beverly Hills.

Our guests are not weekend visitors or vacationers. They are families and individuals here for important, often life-changing reasons:

A family moving from Chicago to Los Angeles who needed temporary housing while they purchased a new home.

A patient from Maine who came for a mastectomy at Cedars Sinai.

A 14-year-old girl and her mother from Houston who spent the summer training at a world-renowned dance studio.

Employees of UTA, a leading Beverly Hills business, who relied on us to secure housing while working in the city.

And notably, the Chief of Staff to Casey Wasserman, head of the LA28 Olympic Committee.

We also recently assisted an international fashion company on Rodeo Drive seeking housing for employees, as well as residents who moved from other parts of Los Angeles after experiencing unsafe and unkempt housing options.

These guests spend their time and money in Beverly Hills—shopping, dining, and engaging with the community. They take their experiences home with them, speaking of the hospitality they found here. In this way, they enhance the City’s reputation and contribute directly to its economy and cultural fabric.

The reality is that housing options of this kind are extremely limited in Beverly Hills. There are very few integrated hospitality solutions, and the one available is far beyond the reach of most families. Without safe, secure, month-to-month housing options, many of these individuals simply could not access the vital services Beverly Hills is known for.

I want to be clear—we will comply with future regulations. At the same time, I urge you to recognize the essential value this type of housing brings to Beverly Hills and the people it serves. It is aligned with the City’s goals of protecting neighborhoods while supporting the wellbeing of residents and visitors alike.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
9/3/25, 4:27 PM Public Comment – Short Term Rental Regulations - Chloe Chen - Outlook about:blank 1/1
3 - 80
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org
September 3, 2025
City of Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Via Electronic Mail
Re: Better Neighbors LA Comment Letter – Agenda Item 3: Draft Ordinance Amending Short-term Rental Regulations for Properties with a Designated Historic Landmark in Single Family Residential Zones- Oppose
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
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 neighborhood stability. We write in opposition to the draft ordinance amending STR regulations for properties designated as historic landmarks in single family residential zones.

The Beverly Hills City Council recently adopted an amended Short-term Rental Ordinance that prohibits STRs in all residential units, establishes a one-year minimum lease requirement, and creates a penalty schedule that sets fines to the maximum extent allowed under state law. Introducing a new ordinance that permits STRs in historic landmark homes would undermine this progress by creating a loophole that weakens enforcement and compromises the ordinance’s intended protections.

Allowing STRs in qualifying historic landmark homes reopens the door to nuisance, privacy loss, safety risks, and enforcement challenges—STR-related issues the city has worked hard to address. When the city was drafting the Short-term Rental Ordinance, enforcement arose as a major concern. City staff cited the administrative burden of regulating limited STR activity in select residential zones. This new draft ordinance exempting historic landmark homes replicates the same challenge by carving out an exception for a subset of homes, making oversight more difficult and less effective.

Better Neighbors LA urges the Cultural Heritage Commission to take a precautionary approach, consider these critical concerns, and oppose the draft ordinance to preserve the integrity of Beverly Hills’ Short-term Rental Ordinance. Should you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Maura O’Neill at [email protected].

Sincerely,
/s/ Randy Renick
3 - 81
Attachment 2
9/11/2025 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Room 280A
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
In-Person / Telephonic / Video Conference Meeting

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

MINUTES
September 11, 2025
1:30 PM
Recordings of the Planning Commission’s meetings are available online at www.beverlyhills.org

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Date/Time: September 11, 2025 / 1:32 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Commissioners Kaplan, Ross, Demeter, Vice Chair Milkowski, Chair Wolfe
Staff Present: Michael Forbes, Cindy Gordon, Chloe Chen, Alexandria Smille, Ciera Lampshire, David Snow

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the Agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. By State law, the Commission may not discuss or vote on items not on the Agenda.

Public Input: None

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
By Order of the Chair and absent objection from the Commission, the agenda was approved as presented.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Consideration of Minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of August 28, 2025.

Motion: MOVED by Vice Chair Milkowski SECONDED by Commissioner Kaplan to adopt the minutes as presented (5-0).

Docusign Envelope ID: 249871BC-945D-4E53-BB0A-7D46A8126A71 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

AYES: Commissioners Kaplan, Ross, Demeter, Vice Chair Milkowski, Chair Wolfe
NOES: None

CARRIED

REPORTS FROM PRIORITY AGENCIES
None

CONTINUED BUSINESS
None

PLANNING COMMISSION / BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS / PLANNING AGENCY PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW BUSINESS

2. 257 NORTH CAÑON DRIVE
Zone Text Amendment, Development Plan Review, and Rooftop Dining Use Permit (PL2400491)
A Request for a Zone Text Amendment to amend the Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3- 3107 to allow commercial office uses as a permitted rooftop use provided that the commercial tenant concurrently occupies a separate tenant space within the same building with the approval of a Development Plan Review by the Planning Commission, and a Rooftop Dining Use Permit to allow rooftop dining and rooftop open air dining uses. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Ex Parte Communications: None
Project Planner: Alexandria Smille AICP, Associate Planner Project Applicant: Canon Luxury Buildings, LLC
Project Representative: Steven Bohbot, The Standard Oil Investment Group Public Input: None
After discussion, the Commission continued the item to a date certain, and directed staff to prepare additional information regarding minimum floor area of existing tenant space elsewhere in the building. The public hearing on this item remained open.

Motion: MOVED by Commissioner Ross, SECONDED by Commissioner Kaplan to continue the item to the November 13, 2025 Planning Commission regular meeting (5-0).

AYES: Commissioners Kaplan, Ross, Demeter, Vice Chair Milkowski, Chair Wolfe
NOES: None

CARRIED
Docusign Envelope ID: 249871BC-945D-4E53-BB0A-7D46A8126A71 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

The Commission took a recess at 3:17pm
The Commission reconvened at 3:27 pm

3. A DRAFT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING SHORT TERM

RENTAL REGULATIONS (TRANSIENT USES) FOR PROPERTIES WITH A DESIGNATED

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, AND MAKING A

DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Ex Parte Communications: Commissioner Demeter disclosed that she briefly spoke with Kim Vinokur Reiss and exchanged text messages with Rebecca Pynoos, and advised she remains open-minded on the matter. No other Commissioners had ex parte communications.

Project Planner: Chloe Chen, Principal Planner
Project Applicant: City Initiated
Public Input: Deborah Blum, Robert Bibeault – Beverly Hills Conference & Visitors Bureau, Kimberly Vinokur Reiss, Better Neighbors LA, Marlene Dobkin, Peter Ostroff, Jamie Miller, Nancy Krasne Motion: MOVED by Commissioner Demeter, SECONDED by
Commissioner Kaplan to deny the resolution as presented (3-2).

AYES: Commissioners Kaplan, Demeter, Chair Wolfe
NOES: Commissioner Ross, Vice Chair Milkowski

CARRIED

STUDY SESSION
None

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSION
• None

COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF
• City Planner Updates
o Director of Community Development Michael Forbes advised the Commission of the following:
• The annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony will take place in front of the Beverly Hills Fire Station on Rexford Drive at 5:30pm.
• Sunday, September 14th is the Beverly Hills Day of Wellness event which will be held at Roxbury Park from 11am to 3pm. The event will feature over 30 free classes, workshops, and selfcare practices. Additional information, including a schedule of classes, can be found at beverlyhills.org/csevents.

Docusign Envelope ID: 249871BC-945D-4E53-BB0A-7D46A8126A71 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

• Potential items of interest on the September 30th City Council agenda: the Council will be considering the Objective Design Standards Ordinance that was recently before the Planning Commission, and the Council directed staff to develop an ordinance that would prohibit residential development projects with reduced parking from participating in the City’s parking permit programs.

4. Current Development Projects List
o Received and filed

5. 2025 Meeting Schedule
o Received and filed

ADJOURNMENT
Date / Time: September 11, 2025 / 5:09 PM
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
Jeff Wolfe, Chair
Docusign Envelope ID: 249871BC-945D-4E53-BB0A-7D46A8126A71 Attachment 3
New Public Correspondence from CHC
and PC Meetings

Deborah Blum – statements from prior City Council meeting 1 Agenda Item E1
My name is Deborah Blum. I have lived most of my life in Beverly Hills, and I have a deep love for this town. I am sad to say, I have seen how some of its history is disappearing.

As such, I want to talk tonight about how, in my own way, I am working to preserve that history, and how the city can help me continue to do so.

Yes, an exemption would be good for us. More importantly, it would be beneficial for the city too.

It’s a proven fact that historic preservation drives tourism and economic growth.

Consider the tour busses on our streets, full of visitors wanting to partake in our enchanted past.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org
September 8, 2025
City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Via Electronic Mail
Re: Better Neighbors LA Comment Letter – Agenda Item 3: Draft Ordinance Amending Short-term Rental Regulations for Properties with a Designated Historic Landmark in Single Family Residential Zones- Oppose
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
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 neighborhood stability. We write in opposition to the draft ordinance amending STR regulations for properties designated as historic landmarks in single family residential zones.

In addition to enforcement challenges, Better Neighbors LA urges the Commission to consider the wide range of ways this exemption may be exploited, further undermining the integrity of the city’s Short-term Rental Ordinance:
• Historic Designation as a Workaround: Residents may seek historic designation not out of preservation interest, but as a strategic maneuver to gain STR privileges, diluting the meaning and purpose of landmark status.

Better Neighbors Comment Letter
Agenda Item 3: Draft Ordinance

Page 2 of 2 ends

250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org
• Future Designations: As more properties are deemed historic over time, the number of STReligible homes may grow significantly, creating a shadow market that circumvents the city’s broader STR restrictions.
• Increasing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Property owners may add ADUs to designated historic landmark homes to use as STRs, using the exemption as a way to alter their historic home for business.
• Ownership Transfers and Shell Entities: Investors may acquire historic properties through LLCs or trusts, obscuring ownership and enabling commercial STR operations while avoiding accountability. The ordinance allows property managers or STR hosts, rather than owners, to apply for the business tax license.
• Platform Misrepresentation: STR platforms may not accurately reflect the exemptions limits, leading to widespread mislabeling and enforcement confusion. • Misuse of Preservation Incentives: Preservation grants or tax incentives tied to historic designation could be misused to subsidize STR operations rather than genuine restoration for community benefit.

These scenarios reflect patterns seen in other jurisdictions—including New Orleans, San Francisco, Savanna, Santa Fe, and Charleston—where limited exemptions have led to widespread abuse.

Better Neighbors LA urges the Planning Commission to take a precautionary approach, consider these critical concerns, and oppose the draft ordinance to preserve the integrity of Beverly Hills’ Short-term Rental Ordinance. Should you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Maura O’Neill at [email protected].

Sincerely,
/s/ Randy Renick

You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website.

Our mailing address is:

Beverly Hills Weekly
140 S. Beverly Drive #201
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Add us to Y.0Ur address book
unsubscribe from this list _yQgate subscriP.:tion P.:references tf;JinTUIT �mailchimp
• Subscribe to this e-blast
C

NANCY H. KRASNE
Oxford Way
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-2811
Wednesday, September 10, 2025
To the following Commissions:

Planning Commission:

Chair Jeff Wolfe, Commissioner Terri Kaplan, Commissioner Gary Ross, Commissioner Myra Demeter, PhD, Vice Chair Lou Milkowski
Architectural & Design Review Commission:

Commissioner Jeffrey Daniels, FAIA, Vice Chair Terri Smooke, Chair Rebecca Pynoos, Commissioner Evan Meyer
Cultural Heritage Commission:

Chair Lori Greene Gordon, Vice Chair Josh Flagg, Commissioner Marc Teren, Commissioner Andy Licht and Commissioner Alan Robert Block Dear Commissioners:

I have written on behalf of the Deborah Blum and Dale Herd family before and in 2016 the entire City Council approved her rental of the auxiliary structure at 801 N. Rodeo Drive. Deborah worked tirelessly with the City Attorney and City Manager to craft an agreement and has always been present on the site. This has never been a party house. Since I use Rodeo when I leave my house, I constantly see guests from The Beverly Hills Hotel admiring the house and taking pictures. I understand you do not want an ordinance that only covers a couple of houses, but may I suggest that you craft the ordinance to cover houses older than 100 years. With this we can maintain the integrity of the city. Every house around me has been torn down. If we let this happen, our architectural treasures will be lost. They need this income to maintain the house and keep it in pristine condition. Deborah and Dale have used the money to maintain this treasure because it is over 100 years old.

Cordially,
Nancy Krasne
Former, Mayor, Council member, AC Commissioner, Planning Commissioner and former founder of the CERT program with the Fire Department
NHK/hs
9/11/25
DRAFT #6
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

The historic houses of Beverly Hills hold the magic of a bygone era, when Hollywood royalty settled here and turned our city into one of the world's most fabled locations.

Over a century later, people still want to see the actual places where all the glamour and enchantment took place.

This is especially important now, as our city contemplates a tide of massive development.

Our City Council recognizes that preserving our historic homes protects our identity and the singular heritage that makes Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills. That's why they asked City staff to craft an ordinance exempting landmark homes from the Short Term Rental ban – they saw this not as a carve out to help a single property owner, but as a way to preserve our community's history and character.

The Council has not sent this issue to the Planning Commission to debate its merits, but rather to elicit practical recommendations on its implementation.

Some may question whether it's equitable to grant such an exemption to landmark property owners while restricting it for others. But this is how effective municipal policy works: while cities can simply mandate that private property owners preserve historic features, they often create programs to make preservation more financially viable, thereby incentivizing people to landmark their properties in the first place.

Many historic cities – from Savannah to Charleston, Newport to Pasadena – do this.

Here in Beverly Hills, we already have the Mills Act program and the Historic Incentive Permit program, but these have not always proven to be sufficient incentives to induce people to take on the added burden and expense of landmarking and then preserving their historic properties.

Carving out an exemption to the Short Term Rental ordinance for historic properties will create another financial incentive for people to landmark and preserve such properties.

I believe that honoring our rich architectural heritage is an undertaking that would absolutely benefit everyone in the community.

Beverly Hills City CouncilNovember 12, 2025

Beverly Hills City Council
November 12, 2025