Bakersfield council advances short‑term rental ordinance after residents’ complaints and staff revisions

A draft ordinance to regulate short‑term rental properties moved forward after a staff presentation and public comment at the Bakersfield City Council’s May 27 meeting.

Deputy City Attorney Vidy King told the council the draft Chapter 17.74 would replace the city’s current ad hoc enforcement model with a permit regime that requires an annual, nontransferable permit, a 24/7 local emergency contact, proof of consent by the property owner, and compliance with municipal codes. King said the ordinance relies on a survey of other California cities and would include a matrix that caps STRs in apartment buildings at 20% of units; ADUs and deed‑restricted affordable units would be excluded under state law.

Why it matters: Residents said dozens of units operating as STRs have harmed neighborhood safety and cohesion, while some operators and hosts argued STRs can rehabilitate distressed homes and contribute to tourism. The ordinance would give the city proactive tools — permitting, inspections and administrative citations — to address repeat problems rather than relying only on cease‑and‑desist letters.

“Right now short‑term rentals are prohibited, but we continue to see them pop up in neighborhoods,” Council Member Gonzalez said, urging a clearer enforcement mechanism. Several downtown speakers reported repeated calls for service and urged a stricter ordinance.

Key elements and council direction - Permits and inspections: Staff said permits would require a site inspection, proof of liability insurance and verification that operators are allowed by any homeowners’ association. Inspectors would verify bedroom counts and other permit conditions before issuing permits. King said permits would be valid for one year and would not run with the land. - Exemptions: State law prevents cities from issuing STR permits for ADUs and junior ADUs; staff also proposed excluding deed‑restricted affordable housing and special‑group residences. - Enforcement and fees: Advertising without a permit, providing false information, or accruing multiple citations within 12 months would jeopardize permit renewal. Staff said fees would be set once the city selects an operator to manage permit processing and compliance monitoring; an RFP for that contractor is in progress. - Insurance and tax collection: Staff proposed a $1 million liability insurance requirement. In response to public comment and council questions, staff said comparable cities require between $500,000 and $1 million; Council Member Gonzalez requested lowering the requirement to $500,000 and adding explicit language requiring platforms to collect transient occupancy taxes where feasible; staff said they could draft that change for the next reading.

What’s next: The council voted to receive and file the staff report and to proceed with first reading of the ordinance at the evening session. Staff will adjust permit fee proposals and may return with revised insurance and tax‑collection language as part of the ordinance packet for final consideration.

By the numbers and context: Staff said the city had issued 22 cease‑and‑desist letters over six years (with 10 letters in 2020) and noted that complaints have declined in recent years; one public commenter said she found roughly 30 STR units in one neighborhood. The staff packet includes a matrix limiting STR permits in multifamily buildings and an appeals process to the city manager’s office.

The council did not take a final ordinance vote on May 27; staff will return with the ordinance redline and fee schedule for subsequent council consideration.