Almost every candidate for the Beverly Hills City Council states that the principle of “Residents First” is a cornerstone of their campaign.

For the most part, this is just a slogan without much independent meaning. But at a Council Study Session on Tuesday August 11, the Council explored an issue that placed this principle on the front burner and, I am pleased to say, implemented it without hesitation.

The issue was whether to allow an exception to our recently enacted ban on residential short term rentals during a two month period in mid 2028 during the Los Angeles Olympic and Paralympic Games (LA28).

On July 15, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 to prohibit short-term rentals and establish a minimum initial lease period of one year citywide. The ordinance was adopted in response to concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, noise, parking, safety, housing availability, and the difficulty of enforcing the previous short-term rental regulations.

The Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) prohibits, with limited exceptions, rental of any residential property or portion thereof for parties, weddings, or events of any kind.

Notably, the Beverly Hills ban of rentals for less than a year, which I personally strongly supported, is the most restrictive that I am aware of in Los Angeles County or Orange County. Although a handful of residents who regularly rented all or parts of their homes for short terms from a few days to a month or so, there was overwhelming support for the total ban.

Apparently consideration of a carve out for LA28 was prompted by the notion that there will be many visitors to our region and City at that time. Reference was made to the possibility that countries, Olympic teams and corporate sponsors of various participants would want to rent large residences for the duration of the games, approximately two months, but have no interest in renting for 12 months or more. The purposes of such rentals would be offices, conferences and, of course, parties.

Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development, made a measured presentation with an objective outline of the pros and cons. He pointed out that there could be additional revenue for some short term rentals in the form of additional Transit Occupancy Taxes (TOT) from rentals of less than 30 days (or even longer if a City wide election approved it), additional sales taxes. He also noted that rentals to representatives of countries could help build relationships between the City and those countries. Mr. Forbes also pointed out that enforcement of whatever rules are put in place can be challenging and the City would have to create an infrastructure to facilitate new rules and enforcement.

A few residents, spoke out for and against an LA28 carveout. I believe that any short term rentals are likely to be disruptive to their neighbors and raise security issues and this is particularly true in multi-family residences. While I do not presume to have any influence, on August 11, I sent the following email to the Council:

“Please see the story on the front page of the LA Times this morning about party houses.

“Regardless of the rules on the books, short term rentals are an enforcement nightmare….

“Think: RESIDENTS FIRST and not merchants or the small minority who might covet rental income or want to attend parties.

“Just say NO!!”

From the outset, the members of the Council expressed reservations. In response to questions, Mr. Forbes stated that substantial net revenue generation for the City was not likely and should not be a driver of the decision. It was also made clear that while we might be able to identify which prospective renters really represented countries, there could be a myriad of “team supporters” (the athletes themselves would be in an Olympic Village on the UCLA campus) and a multitude of “corporate sponsors.”

Councilmember Rebecca Pynoos spoke first and immediately referenced the principle of Residents First. She said that she did not favor the carve out but if there were any carve outs, there should be severe restrictions, limited to countries only, high fines and a hotline that residents could use to report violations in real time.

Councilmember Sharona Nazarian also urged that any carve out be carefully controlled but was somewhat receptive to allowing short term rentals to countries, teams and corporate sponsors.

Councilmember Lester Friedman emphasized that the residents had just recently expressed their support for the short term ban. He said that once exceptions are allowed we would be embarking on a “slippery slope” that could lead to opening a door that we had just shut.

Vice Mayor Mary Wells expressed strong opposition to allowing short term rentals in residential neighborhoods. She said that this would override what the residents want and that any events should be limited to commercial areas.

Mayor Craig Corman expressed agreement with the comments of Vice Mayor Wells. He also pointed out that allowing countries to have their headquarters in residential neighborhoods may build strong relationships but it was a two edged sword. That if problems arose, these could lead to the opposite result.

After extensive discussion and consideration, a consensus was expressed that the idea of an LA28 carve out from our short term rental ban not be pursued further.

This was an excellent example of the Council practicing the Residents First principle that they have preached and all of them are to be commended.

Further to this issue, we now have a very clear rule: No rentals for any period less than 12 months. It is clear, simple and presumably easy to enforce.

But enforcement is the key. Our Councilmembers frequently say: If you violate the law in Beverly Hills, you will be caught.

For short term rentals, however, enforcement has been elusive and challenging. We send out our enforcement folks and if they find a tenant, they ask for a lease agreement which the tenant may or may not have. At most, they issue a citation of sorts and after a few violations, may impose a fine. The fine is often nominal and is treated as a cost of doing business for the rental companies who can charge very large rental amounts per day.

I have urged that our City pursue injunctions against these rental companies pursuant to the California statute (Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.) which prohibits unlawful business practices. Remedies include injunctions and recovery of all revenues that the defendant has obtained from these practices. There is no question that short term rentals or advertising short term rentals that violate our ordinance are unlawful practices. The City, in my view, should pursue Superior Court actions seeking injunctive relief and recovery of all of the rental proceeds. Once this has been successfully pursued once or twice, all of the others will quickly understand that short term rentals cannot be pursued in our City.

***

Once again on Tuesday August 18, the Trio that, mindlessly and without any sensible restraint or adult supervision, manage the Board of Education, displayed their black belts in dysfunction.

They had received an extremely attractive offer to settle the Lipschitz lawsuit relating to their disregard of the District’s ByLaws to install one of their number as Vice President of the Board. The settlement offer required nothing more from the Board than installing Dr. Amanda Stern as required as Vice President for a few months. Nothing – no money, no apology, no admission of wrongdoing (all of which are entirely appropriate given their thuggish and unlawful behavior).

But once again, the President of the Board refused even to allow a vote on the settlement proposal. Specifically, the Trio enlisted the District’s legal counsel (one of four firms now employed to uphold the vindictive interests of the Trio), to exclude Dr. Stern from the closed session meeting called in part to discuss the settlement. Notably, as Dr. Stern left the meeting, she and staff and visitors in the vicinity were treated to childish insults and sarcastic comments from the President and Vice President.

The propriety of excluding Dr. Stern, but not any one of the self-interested Trio, escapes me. But the exclusion had its desired effect. There was no acceptance of the settlement that is so strongly opposed by the President (who has colluded with the other members of the Trio to revise the ByLaws so that she can be President indefinitely, subject of course to her re-election). As a result of the President’s machinations, there was not even a vote on whether to accept a settlement that she opposed. This was disclosed by the routine call out at the start of the public meeting with the statement: “No report from closed session.” Collegiality has long since been dispensed with by the Trio. Now, it seems that any semblance of democratic process has been vanquished.

***

The highly respected U.S. News & World Report Public High School rankings for 2026-27 were released on August 17. These are very comprehensive and based upon a set of criteria developed over a number of years. They offer a true picture of how BHUSD students perform overall and how they compare with other public schools in the Los Angeles area and the State of California. They present a far more complete picture than the soundbites that our Board of Education has recently released.

I plan to discuss these results at length in the column that will appear in next week’s issue of the Weekly.

SPOILER ALERT: You will be surprised (but not pleasantly).