San Bernardino council delays decision on short‑term rental ban, continues item to April 15

The San Bernardino City Council voted on March 18 to continue its public hearing on short‑term rentals to April 15, giving staff time to tighten technical details and answer council questions about enforcement and program costs. The council asked for clearer information about how monitoring technology would be used and how enforcement would be funded before choosing between ordinance MC1660 (a regulatory program) and MC1661 (a full ban).

Planning staff told the council that the item was continued from February 18 and that staff had compiled comparisons with other jurisdictions and tested monitoring vendors. “In order for us to either ban or regulate we first have to adopt the standards into our zoning code,” the staff presentation said, and identified a monitoring contractor (Decard) and an estimated one‑time or recurring monitoring cost around $16,500 annually for continuous monitoring.

Public comment reflected a sharp division in the community. Ron Alvarado, a first‑ward resident and council candidate, urged the council to prioritize enforcement capacity: “If this council moves forward with a regulatory program under MC1660, it cannot be an honor system. We cannot allow our residential streets to be converted into unsupervised commercial zones that bring noise, traffic, and a revolving door of strangers into our quiet neighborhoods.” He warned that without a rigorous audit trail and proactive code enforcement, regulation would be ineffective.

Eric Mesa, a local homeowner and short‑term rental host, urged the council to preserve responsible hosting while targeting bad actors: “Short‑term rentals are not just about extra income. They support local jobs, small businesses … The solution is reasonable regulation and proper enforcement against bad actors while allowing responsible hosts to continue operating.”

Council members pressed staff on where enforcement money would come from and whether a ban would leave the city unable to collect registration fees. Staff said a regulatory approach allows the city to register hosts and collect fees that could fund code enforcement officers; a ban could make enforcement more difficult because the city would lack registration information to identify operators.

Rather than vote on a ban or regulation, the council moved and passed a motion to continue the item to April 15, 2026, to allow staff to provide updated vendor contracts, clearer cost estimates, and enforcement plans. The motion passed unanimously.

Next steps: staff will prepare the additional cost and enforcement information requested by council and return with proposed regulatory language or a final recommendation. The public hearing remains open and residents will be able to comment on any new materials introduced at the April 15 meeting.