San Bernardino council delays decision on short‑term rental rules after hours of testimony

The San Bernardino City Council on April 15 continued debate on proposed regulations for short‑term rentals, voting to postpone a final decision for 30 days so staff can supply additional cost, enforcement and classification information.

City staff presented background on options ranging from a citywide ban in certain residential zones to a regulatory program including registration, annual licensing and inspections. Staff estimated the program could yield up to about $324,000 annually in transient occupancy tax under one scenario and described potential inspection fees and enforcement costs — for example, examples of inspection costs roughly in the $500–$575 range and proposed penalties for repeat violations. Staff also noted the city may contract with a third‑party vendor (referred to in the presentation as “Decker”) to identify STR listings online.

The council heard more than an hour of public comment. Residents who live in hillside neighborhoods argued STRs have permitted large parties that block narrow access roads and pose fire and emergency‑response hazards. “There was a party with more than 1,000 people,” resident José Gómez told the council, adding that crowds and parked cars on a single‑access hill made evacuations and emergency response dangerous. Alicia Navarro, who said her neighborhood was designated a fire‑risk area, said STR guests have blocked access for firefighters and ambulances and left streets littered and unsafe.

Hosts and owners urged the council to avoid a blanket ban and to target bad actors. Guadalupe Ortega, who identified herself as an STR operator and a parent, said the business provides essential income: “This business has given me something significant — to be present full time with my child,” she said, asking the council to distinguish responsible hosts from those who rent properties for unregulated parties. Several other speakers asked for a balanced approach that included registration, monitoring, and penalties for repeat violators rather than an outright prohibition.

Councilmembers pressed staff for specifics on complaint classification, enforcement costs, and what a registration program would require of owners and hosts. Councilmember Ibarra repeatedly asked staff to provide the written analyses that had been requested at prior hearings; councilmember Ortiz said she was not comfortable voting without full pricing and implementation details.

After discussion councilmembers supported a substitute motion to continue the item for 30 days so staff can respond to outstanding questions and provide more detailed cost and enforcement projections. The council did not adopt any regulatory changes at the meeting.

What happens next: Staff will return within 30 days with the requested cost estimates, enforcement plan, vendor proposals and a clearer categorization of recorded complaints so the council can decide whether to adopt an ordinance (options discussed included registration and inspection, zone‑based prohibitions and fines for repeat violations).

Quotes used in this article are taken from public testimony and council discussion during the April 15 council meeting and are attributed to speakers who identified themselves in the record.