The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-05-08 Angel Law Ltr to City-c1 2601 Ocean Park Blvd. • Suite 205 • Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-6433 • www.angellaw.com • fangel@angellaw.com May 8, 2026 Honorable Mayor Tran and Members of the San Bernardino City Council 290 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 Via email to mayor@sbcity.org, sanchez_th@sbcity.org, ibarra_sa@sbcity.org, figueroa_ju@sbcity.org, shorett_fr@sbcity.org, knaus_ki@sbcity.org, flores_ma@sbcity.org, and ortiz_tr@sbcity.org Re: Ordinance No. MC-1661 – Short-Term Rental Ban – Request to Suspend Enforcement and Convene a Stakeholder Task Force Dear Mayor Tran and Honorable City Councilmembers, We write on behalf of interested stakeholders who have been lawfully operating short - term rentals (STRs) in the City of San Bernardino (City) for years. On April 15, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. MC-1661 (Ordinance), enacting a citywide ban on all STRs. This sweeping ban is nothing short of random, collective punishment for nuisances created by fewer than ten properties. This is unfair and harmful to the hosts, as well as local businesses and the workers who depend on this lodging sector. Rather than rushing into court, however, at this time, we choose to petition you directly for relief. Specifically, we ask you to suspend enforcement of the Ordinance while convening a task force broadly representing all affected stakeholders, to develop a measured and equitable STR regulatory program for your consideration, following careful and dispassionate balancing of the various viewpoints and interests. A fair and balanced STR regulatory program is legally perfectly feasible and can be designed to pay for itself. Reasonable regulations, such as maximum occupancy limits, license and transient occupancy tax (TOT) payment requirements, strict enforcement requirements (with protocols for real-time responses to complaints, preventive measures, license revocation and fines etc.) have been successfully implemented in local jurisdictions throughout California and the rest of the United States. Reasonable Honorable Mayor Tran and Members of the San Bernardino City Council May 8, 2026 Page 2 regulations can be tailored to issues of concern specific to San Bernardino’s diverse residential neighborhoods. Those most harmed by this Ordinance are not corporate conglomerates or absentee investors. They are ordinary San Bernardino citizens and families for whom STR income is not discretionary. As local citizen Eric Meza, “a homeowner helping his mother getting ahead,” testified at the April 15 hearing, “the income from that unit helps us stay afloat, covering bills, property taxes, and rising cost of living.” He and the vast majority of STR hosts are the people the Ordinance’s indiscriminate ban hurts most directly. They agree there should be rules. An all-stakeholder task force offering responsible hosts a seat at the table, alongside neighborhood residents and City staff, is the way to achieve a durable, equitable and fiscally sound outcome. A Regulated STR Program Is the Appropriate Path Forward STRs not only provide economic lifelines for many San Bernardino residents and significant benefits the broader community; they offer affordable overnight accommodations for families visiting regional attractions and environmentally sustainable alternatives to resource-intensive hotel stays, while generating TOT and sales tax revenue for the City. A well-designed regulatory program can resolve legitimate neighborhood concerns while preserving these benefits and respecting the legal rights of existing hosts. The City Council’s own Planning Commission recognized this, unanimously rejecting the STR ban at its December 9, 2025 hearing. We ask the City Council to take the Planning Commission’s sound judgment and advice seriously and pursue the path the Commission recommended. We are prepared to work constructively with the City to develop such a reasonable regulatory program, and we urge the Council to direct staff to convene a citizen task force that includes existing STR hosts, neighborhood residents, business community representatives, and city staff, with a mandate to deliver a balanced regulatory framework within a defined timeframe. The Outright Ban, Without Exceptions and Limitations, Exposes the City to Significant Legal Risk Further, the City Council should have a full picture of the legal landscape before enforcement begins in earnest. STRs have operated lawfully and openly in San Bernardino for years. The City’s own Municipal Code did not address or prohibit STRs prior to this Ordinance. (Ordinance, Whereas Clause ¶ 4.) Under California law, a zoning ordinance that is silent on a particular residential use means the use is allowed. (Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142, 148-149 [short-term rentals are as legal as long-term rentals where residential zoning ordinances contain no long-term/short-term distinction].) The Honorable Mayor Tran and Members of the San Bernardino City Council May 8, 2026 Page 3 Ordinance is thus not a clarification of existing law, but a new and express prohibition of a previously permitted use. That distinction is legally significant. Under California law, a property owner acquires a vested right to continue an existing use when that use has been established in good faith reliance on the existing legal framework. (City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 47, 56-57.) There are hosts who invested significant resources in their STRs, like making home improvements, in justifiable reliance on the City’s longstanding zoning code. Even where a city validly enacts a new land use restrict ion, California law requires that lawfully established uses be afforded legal nonconforming use status, permitting them to continue rather than be immediately and entirely extinguished. (Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 540; see 301 Ocean Ave. Corp. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1548, 1558 [rent control board’s decision to restrict a property owner’s preexisting right to lease parking spaces in an apartment building to persons other than the building tenants interfered with the owner’s “fundamental vested right to control property”].) The Ordinance’s abrupt termination of established STR operations, with no grandfathering or any transition period, is precisely the type of assault on a property owner’s fundamental rights that California courts do n’t tolerate. Once individual hosts receive citations and cease-and-desist orders, as-applied court challenges based on vested rights and legal nonconforming use protections will become increasingly likely. Defending a wave of such challenges will be time-consuming and costly. The Ordinance also raises equal protection issues. It singles out STR hosts, i.e., a discrete class of residential property owners, for a total ban while leaving other residential rental uses unaffected. The City’s stated justifications -- generalized concerns about noise and parking or harm to “neighborhood character” -- do not support collectively punishing all STR hosts for the misdeeds of a few bad actors. An ordinance restricting access to homes for overnight stays, based on the belief that short-term renters have traits making them a threat to neighborhood character, as opposed to those who rent for, say, 60 days or longer, or, for that matter, owners of second homes visiting for periods of time no longer than STR guest visits, irrationally singles out STR hosts and guests for disparate treatment. (See College Area Renters & Landlord Assn. v. City of San Diego (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 677, 686-687 [ordinance intended to reduce overcrowding in university neighborhood resulted in “irrational differential treatment” between neighboring residences -- some tenant-occupied and others owner-occupied -- e.g., with a tenant-occupied house being subject to the ordinance even when residents “happen to be the quiet, neat type who use bicycles as their means of transportation, whereas the owner-occupied house is not subject to the ordinance, even though its residents happen to be of a loud, litter-prone, car-collecting sort”].) Finally, legal avenues do exist to challenge the facial validity of the Ordinance on constitutional grounds and these do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies. (State v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 250-252.) We are not at this point seeking to pursue the litigation path. But the risk is real and a task force process geared Honorable Mayor Tran and Members of the San Bernardino City Council May 8, 2026 Page 4 toward producing a fair and reasonable regulatory program for the Council’s review and approval is a far better use of the City’s resources than protracted litigation. Conclusion Ordinance No. MC-1661 disregards established California vested rights and settled legal nonconforming use law, raises serious constitutional issues, and was adopted without evidentiary foundation for shutting down STRs that are not problem STRs. Again, we do not ask the City to abandon its desire to regulate STRs. We are asking it to do so thoughtfully, with meaningful participation of all affected stakeholders, and in a manner that respects the rights of residents who have operated in good faith before the STR ordinance was passed. Suspending enforcement while a task force develops a balanced program is the right and fiscally sound step forward. We therefore respectfully but urgently request that the City Council direct staff to initiate that process, and we stand ready to engage constructively in it. Sincerely, Frank P. Angel cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager, at levitt_er@sbcity.org Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney, at attorney@sbcity.org Gabriel Elliott, Director of Community Development & Housing, at elliott_ga@sbcity.org