Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino council introduces ordinance to regulate short‑term rentals, schedules second reading
Summary
City staff presented Ordinance MC1660 to regulate short‑term rentals. Councilmembers debated enforcement capacity, potential revenue and monitoring costs, then voted to introduce the ordinance by title and continue the hearing with a second reading set for March.
San Bernardino city staff opened a public hearing Tuesday and introduced Ordinance MC1660, a package of proposed amendments to the city’s development code intended to regulate or prohibit short‑term rentals in residential zones. Staff framed three options — prohibition, a regulatory registration model, or no action — and presented estimates for revenue and enforcement costs.
The staff presentation said a regulated program could yield transient occupancy tax revenue in the low hundreds of thousands annually while creating administrative and enforcement costs. Staff cited a monitoring contract with an annual maintenance cost of about $7,500 and said that adding registration to TOT collection would raise program costs to about $16,500 annually. The staff presentation included an estimate that a regulated short‑term rental program could generate roughly $324,000 a year in TOT receipts under some assumptions.
The ordinance as presented would amend sections of the San Bernardino Municipal Code (Title 19) including listed definitions and residential‑zoning provisions. Staff said the amendment is intended to reduce neighborhood nuisance complaints, clarify land‑use designations and ensure consistency with the general plan.
Public comment was mixed. Joe Salas, speaking from District 4, urged the council to allow short‑term rentals as a source of income for homeowners, saying they can “help” residents who need extra money. Other residents warned that an outright prohibition could harm small entrepreneurs and the city’s informal income sources: “This prohibition … will ruin small business,” one speaker said. Several residents and at least one councilmember pressed staff on enforcement details, pointing to limited on‑the‑ground police capacity and frequent late‑night calls for service.
Councilmembers debated enforcement tradeoffs and the practicality of monitoring and fines. Councilmembers asked how a registration program would be enforced, whether technology vendors could identify rental listings, and whether a moratorium would be preferable while the city designs enforcement. Staff responded that police and code resources would be required to make regulation effective and that program scope and fees would be refined before adoption.
A councilmember moved to select the option to introduce Ordinance MC1660 by title only and continue the public hearing for a second reading. The council voted to continue the hearing and schedule the second reading in March; staff emphasized that the first reading limits the scope of changes before final adoption.
What’s next: The council advanced MC1660 for a second reading and requested additional detail on enforcement staffing, fee schedules and any third‑party monitoring contract terms before the final vote.
