In a city synonymous with celebrity, luxury, and multimillion-dollar estates, the Beverly Hills City Council is taking a sharp turn away from short-term rentals. With a 4-1 vote on July 1, the council directed staff to draft a citywide ban on rentals shorter than 12 months in both single-family and multifamily homes. While the ordinance hasn’t taken effect yet, its momentum reflects a broader trend: even the most exclusive enclaves are no longer immune to regulatory pressure. 

This article breaks down what the proposed ban entails, how it compares to current rules, and what it signals for professional managers both inside and far beyond California.

What the New Ordinance Proposes

If finalized, the new Beverly Hills ordinance would prohibit all short-term rentals citywide, setting a minimum lease length of 12 months for both single-family residences and multifamily units. This includes rentals listed on platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo, regardless of whether the owner lives on-site or rents occasionally.

The council’s move is being framed as a response to two overlapping concerns: disruptive party-house activity and the need to increase the supply of long-term housing. Councilmember Lester Friedman cited growing state-level pressure to make housing more available, while Councilmember Craig Corman stated the city had “been wrong” to previously allow STRs even in a limited capacity.

What the Rules Are Now

Currently, Beverly Hills permits:

• Single-family homes to be rented for fewer than six months, but only twice per calendar year.
• Multifamily units to be rented for no fewer than 30 days.

These rules were already stricter than those in neighboring Los Angeles and other California Short-term Rental Regulations, but they still allowed some limited STR activity. The new ordinance, if approved, would eliminate these allowances entirely, standardizing a strict 12-month minimum lease rule across the board.

What Happens Next

The July 1 vote was not a final decision. Instead, it authorized city staff to draft formal ordinance language reflecting the proposed ban. That language will return to the City Council for a final vote, expected on or after July 15.

In addition, the council expressed interest in exploring an exemption for historic landmark properties with accessory dwelling units (ADUs), following testimony from a resident who said STR income was critical to maintaining a 1913 Craftsman home. The Planning Commission has been tasked with evaluating this potential carve-out.

How Important Is Beverly Hills in the Short-Term Rental Landscape?

While Beverly Hills is not a top-volume short-term rental market in terms of listings or nights booked, it holds symbolic and political weight. Its reputation as a global luxury destination means the presence (or absence) of short-term rentals carries narrative power. STRs in Beverly Hills often target ultra-high-net-worth travelers and command nightly rates well above regional averages. A full ban here reinforces the notion that no ZIP code is off-limits in California’s tightening regulatory environment.

Why This Matters for Managers Beyond Beverly Hills

The Beverly Hills case offers a preview of how California Short Term Rental Regulations are increasingly being shaped by housing availability concerns, even in wealthy, low-density markets. Similar bans or restrictions in West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Irvine, and Garden Grove suggest that this patchwork of city-level laws is steadily expanding in favor of long-term leases.

For professional property managers, this highlights two urgent trends:

1. The spread of complete bans, not just capped nights or permit systems.
2. The use of housing policy as a regulatory justification, even in places where affordability isn’t the obvious issue.

In short: if Beverly Hills is willing to go this far, other cities with vocal residents and high real estate values may follow. The time to get involved in local policy conversations is now.