Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino council rejects blanket short‑term rental ban, directs staff to return with regulation
Summary
After hours of public comment from local hosts, the City Council voted 4–3 to deny a proposed citywide ban on short‑term rentals and instead directed staff to draft a regulatory program — including fire‑hazard clarity and transition measures — for return in September.
San Bernardino — The City Council voted 4–3 on June 17 to deny an ordinance that would have banned short‑term rentals across the city, opting instead to ask staff to return with a regulatory proposal that officials said should protect neighborhoods while preserving income for resident hosts.
Local hosts, including Eddie Ramos, told the council the industry supports families and local spending. “We employ our family members who live here in the city,” Ramos said during public comment, describing guests he’s hosted and urging the council to “regulate respectfully” rather than ban all short‑term rentals.
The council’s decision followed nearly two hours of public testimony in which the majority of speakers were homeowners operating short‑term rentals who pleaded for grandfathering, task‑force collaboration and enforcement targeted at problem properties. Commenters pointed to the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation to regulate rather than ban, and warned a blanket ban could trigger legal challenges and financial liabilities for the city.
Several council members said they were persuaded by the mix of neighborhood concerns and the practical difficulties a blanket ban would pose. Council Member Sanchez moved to deny the ban; the motion carried 4–3. Council Members Figueroa, Sheret and Ortiz voted in opposition.
Council direction and next steps
Rather than adopt an ordinance tonight, council members directed staff to craft a citywide regulatory program and return for adoption at a subsequent meeting. Members asked that staff: - Clarify which geographic areas (particularly high fire‑hazard zones) would be restricted or treated differently; - Produce a timeline that includes a proposal for grandfathering or transition provisions to protect long‑standing resident operators; - Identify resources and estimated enforcement costs necessary to implement the recommended permitting, monitoring and compliance program; and - Consult with the Planning Commission and a stakeholder task force including hosts and neighborhood representatives.
Council Member Figueroa and others stressed that if the city were to regulate rather than ban it should ensure the rules are fair across wards rather than singling out specific neighborhoods; other members said fire‑hazard restrictions may need special treatment where wildfire risk is demonstrably higher.
Why it mattered
San Bernardino officials and resident hosts framed the issue as weighing neighborhood quality of life and public‑safety enforcement against the economic benefits some homeowners derive from hosting. Supporters of regulation argued the city can capture transient‑occupancy taxes and address nuisance properties by targeting bad actors; opponents of the ban warned an abrupt prohibition could lead to litigation and harm families who rely on rental income.
The council directed staff to return with a draft regulatory ordinance and supporting analysis — including expected revenue (transient‑occupancy tax) and enforcement costs — with a goal to bring the item back at the first regular meeting in September.
Outcome and vote
The motion to deny the ban passed 4–3; the council did not adopt new regulations tonight but explicitly directed staff to prepare a regulatory package for council consideration.
