Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, operators urge council to replace citywide short‑term rental ban with targeted rules
Summary
Public commenters and short‑term rental hosts urged the San Bernardino City Council to reject a citywide prohibition (MC 1661) and instead craft targeted regulations for high‑risk areas; council asked staff for clearer fire‑risk mapping and directed a return with options in September.
San Bernardino — Dozens of residents and short‑term rental operators told the City Council on June 17 that a proposed citywide ban on vacation and short‑term rentals (ordinance MC 1661) would harm families who rely on rental income and would sweep too broadly to address isolated nuisance properties.
“Digamos que sí y digámosle al mundo que San Bernardino está abierto para el comercio,” said Eri Ramos during public comment, urging council to preserve the local tourism and TOT revenue that short‑term stays generate.
Speakers at the public‑comment portion described MC 1661 as an amendment to the municipal code (cited repeatedly in testimony as MC 1661 and code sections 19.02050/19.0250 and chapter 1904). They said only a small share of the roughly 100 short‑term rental units cited in staff materials had produced complaints and that most hosts comply with rules and help local businesses.
Councilmembers raised competing concerns. Some members said they support restrictions in specifically identified high fire‑risk areas, where short‑term visitors could increase wildfire exposure or complicate emergency response. Others said a citywide ban risks unequal treatment across neighborhoods and expressed a preference for regulatory tools — licensing, enforcement and localized prohibitions — rather than an outright ban.
After questioning and exchange with members of the public, the council directed staff to return with more detailed analysis and options rather than adopt an immediate citywide prohibition. Councilmembers asked staff to provide a clear methodology for defining ‘‘zones of fire risk,’’ to consult fire‑safety experts and to present regulatory alternatives at a future meeting; the council set an initial target of September for follow‑up discussion.
The item remained a matter of policy direction rather than final action; staff work and additional public outreach were requested before any ordinance is introduced or adopted.
What happens next: Staff will prepare a report with options that could include limited prohibitions in defined high‑risk zones, licensing or targeted enforcement strategies, plus the fire‑risk maps and any recommendations from the city fire department. No ordinance was adopted at the June 17 meeting.
