TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date:
May 2024
To:
County of San Bernardino
Mark Wardlaw, Land Use Services Director
From:
Colin Drukker, Principal
Subject:
Housing Element Program 4
Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
Executive Summary
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Clear and empirical data was not found indicating that short-term rentals (STRs) have a substantial and distinct
impact on the availability of long-term, rental or ownership housing options in most unincorporated Mountain and
East Desert communities. However, an accumulation of data and analysis of key factors indicates that STR activity is
negatively affecting the long-term ownership and rental housing market in Joshua Tree (see Table ES-1).
Figure ES-1. Key Factors Indicating STR Activity Affecting Long-term Housing Market, by Community
Unincorporated Mountain Unincorporated East Desert
FACTOR
Big Bear
City
Crestline
Lake
Arrowhead
Running
Springs
Homestead
Valley
Joshua Tree
Morongo
Valley
1. Community History
- - - -
2. STR Presence
- - -
-
3. Seasonal Homeownership
- - - - -
-
4. Occupancy Trends
-
-
5. Non-seasonal Vacancy
- - - -
6. Highly Active STRs
-
- -
-
indicates STR activity may be affecting
the housing market
-
indicates STR activity unlikely to be affecting
housing market
Note: the above table and summary findings below reflect data that is available for larger communities, especially those communities that contain the largest
number of STRs. When data is available, analysis for other communities is contained elsewhere in the memo.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 2 of 37
SUMMARY FINDINGS
The primary driver of rising housing costs in the unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities was the COVID
Pandemic. Areas that were once viewed as too far from major employment centers became part of the conventional
housing market for many households. Additionally, retirees and white-collar workers along the coast and other affluent
areas, flush with cash from home equity and/or high salary jobs, viewed the unincorporated Mountain and (especially)
East Desert communities as desirable and relative bargains, and were willing and able to pay much higher rents and
pay much higher sales prices. The historic lack of housing production across the state (lowest in nearly 20 years) meant
that these households were competing for a relatively small supply (that largely consisted of existing housing stock).
The COVID Pandemic exacerbated and/or distorted the normal housing market across the County, state, and entire
nation, making it extremely difficult to clearly distinguish the influence of short-term rental (STR) activity in
unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities. Inferring the degree of influence from the data available
involved an evaluation of multiple factors, as summarized below. Based on this evaluation, there is not enough evidence
to conclude that STR activity has had a substantial and distinct impact on the availability of long-term, rental or
ownership housing options in most unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities. However, the factors, in
aggregate, support a conclusion that STR activity is distinctly and negatively affecting the long-term ownership and
rental housing market in the Joshua Tree community.
1) COMMUNITY HISTORY | Resort/Destination vs Permanent Settlement
The potential impact of STR activity on the housing market is greater in communities that do not have a long
history of seasonal housing. The Mountain region developed in the early 1900s as a place for seasonal recreation
and has maintained its nature as a predominantly 2nd home/resort area. Parts of the East Desert region also
originated as unique short-term destinations, but most grew slowly as small, remote year-round residential
communities.
• The only incorporated community in the Mountain region, the City of Big Bear Lake, is overwhelmingly a
seasonal community, with roughly 70% of all homes owned as vacation/2nd homes in 2010 (74% in 2022). The
unincorporated communities contain somewhat higher rates of year-round occupants, though Crestline and
Wrightwood are the only areas (large enough to be reported in the Census) where year-round occupants
represent a clear majority (over 55%).
• Many of the communities were originally settled by cattle and sheep ranchers, with homesteading continuing
through the mid-1900s, and small year-round settlements emerging at various spots along the Twentynine
Palms Highway. Pioneertown has different roots, originating as a motion picture set for Old West films in the
1940s. While the Joshua Tree area was established as a National Monument in 1936 and as a National Park in
1994, the 1980 Community Plan stated, “Joshua Tree evolved from a rural retirement area to a community
which is attracting an increasing number of new residents.”
2) STR PRESENCE | Number of STRs
The potential impact of STR activity is greater in communities where the number of STRs is high, especially
compared to the total number of housing units. The communities of Big Bear City, Joshua Tree, and Homestead
Valley all contain a high number of STRs that also represent 15% or more of the total housing stock. In these
communities, STRs represent big enough portion of the housing stock that, if the STRs are not taking place in
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 3 of 37
units that are already vacation/2nd homes, STR activity could meaningfully decrease the overall supply of
available ownership and rental housing units.
• Over 3,800 STRs are located in one of three communities: Big Bear City (1,400 + 428, including Sugarloaf) and
Lake Arrowhead (951) in the Mountain region, and Joshua Tree (1,082) in the East Desert region. Three other
communities represent much of the remaining balance of STRs: Crestline (278) in the Mountain region and
Homestead Valley (295) in the East Desert region.
• These numbers of STRs represent the following approximate percentage of the total housing stock in each
community (compared to latest available Census data): Big Bear City including Sugarloaf (15%), Lake Arrowhead
(8%), Joshua Tree (29%), Crestline (4%), and Homestead Valley (15%).
3) SEASONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP | Rates of housing owned as vacation/2nd homes
With 99% of STR activity being “whole home” rentals, STR activity can only take place in housing that is owned
as a vacation/2nd home (aka seasonal housing). The potential impact of STR activity would appear to be greater
if a community’s rates of vacation/2nd homeownership increased over time. Over the past 10 years Joshua Tree
has transitioned from a year-round community to a one where over 1 in 5 homes are vacation/2nd homes. Rates
of year-round occupancy in other communities in either region have remained largely consistent.
• In Joshua Tree, more than 1 in 5 homes were owned as vacation/2nd homes in 2022, compared to 1 in 20 as
recently as 2012. The popularity of Joshua Tree National Park (attendance doubled between 2013 and 2017)
initially spurred changes in Joshua Tree's housing market. Between 2000 and 2012, only 2% to 5% of all housing
units were recorded as vacation/2nd homes. Between 2013 and 2017, the rate increased substantially,
reaching 19% in 2017 and staying at 18% through 2019. The COVID Pandemic further increased the popularity
of Joshua Tree as a destination and this rate increased slightly, reaching a historic high of 21% in 2022.
• Other unincorporated communities in the study area, in terms of year-round residency, are largely the same
as they were before Airbnb and Vrbo became popular or have increased rates of year-round residency. This
factor indicates that STR activity has not affected the supply of long-term housing in these communities.
4) OCCUPANCY TRENDS | Rates of year-round rental occupancy
The potential impact of STR activity could be inferred by a substantial decrease in the percentage of units that
are occupied by rental households, as a reduction in rental households may indicate a pattern of property owners
converting long-term rental properties into short-term rental properties. The rate of year-round rental
occupancy is at a historic low in Joshua Tree, while rates in other communities are the same or higher as levels
prior to the rise of Airbnb and Vrbo (2010/2011).
• In Joshua Tree, the percentage of year-round rental households stayed at or around 39% between 2015 and
2019. During the COVID Pandemic, this rate dropped to 37% in 2020 and 34% in 2021. However, this rate was
still above the rate in 2010 (baseline comparison year that represents a time that was not influenced by STR
activity). In 2022, the rate of year-round rental occupants dropped to 26%, which is an 8% drop from the
previous year, 5% below 2010, and a historic low for Joshua Tree. While part of this decrease reflects an
increase in ownership households, the rate of ownership households is 14% below levels from 2010.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 4 of 37
5) NON-SEASONAL VACANCY RATES | Vacancy rates and housing affordability
The potential impact of STR activity is greater in communities where the supply of non-seasonal housing units
for sale or rent is extremely low, as increased competition leads to higher sales prices and rents. The non-
seasonal housing supply in Joshua Tree, Morongo Valley, and Big Bear City are among the lowest, while other
communities are relatively balanced or appear to have excess available supply.
• A balanced vacancy rate is 4% to 6% for ownership housing and 5% to 8% for rental housing.
• The non-seasonal ownership vacancy rate in Joshua Tree hovered at or above the balanced range through
2017. Starting in 2018, the rate dropped to 1% and remained at or below 1% through 2022. This tight housing
ownership market is driving up not only sales prices but also rents as the increase in home prices has made
buying an obstacle to renters who would otherwise pursue buying. This leads to more renters pursuing the
same number of homes, which enables landlords to demand higher rents.
• The non-seasonal rental vacancy rate in Morongo Valley historically stayed above the balanced range but began
a persistent decline in 2018. Still, the non-seasonal rental vacancy rate did not fall below 5% until 2022,
indicating that the Pandemic may have played the dominant role in driving supply below a balanced range.
• The non-seasonal rental vacancy rate in Big Bear City displayed a sustained decline in its non-seasonal rental
vacancy rate from 15% in 2012 to 5% in 2015 to below 2% in 2017, with rates only falling more through 2022.
Increases in rent, however, did not increase substantially until during the Pandemic.
6) HIGHLY ACTIVE STRs | Frequency of STR activity
The potential for STRs to be preferred over (and replace) long-term rentals is greater in communities with a
higher number of highly active STRs (over 60 nights/year). Such highly active STRs earn, on average, more income
compared to use as a long-term rental. Based on discrete County transient occupancy tax data, Joshua Tree, Big
Bear City, and Lake Arrowhead have the largest number of highly active STRs: a minimum of 355, 291, and 208,
respectively.
• The 355 highly active STRs in Joshua Tree also represent over 9% of the total housing stock. While the number
of highly active STRs are also high in Big Bear City and Lake Arrowhead, the 291 and 208 units represent only
2% of those communities’ total housing stock.
• Data from AirDNA and AllTheRooms indicates that STR activity continues to grow in Joshua Tree and is viewed
more favorably as a market for STR investment compared to other places in the unincorporated county. For
example, AirDNA assigns a market score benchmarked against other every other market using five metrics:
investability, rental demand, revenue growth, seasonality, and regulation. The STR market in Joshua Tree is
rated by AirDNA as 97/100 or “Great”, while AirDNA ratings in for Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear City markets
are substantially lower.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 5 of 37
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Overall Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 7
2021–2029 Housing Element .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Program 4 Initiation ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
COMMUNITY OUTREACH ......................................................................................................................................... 8
ECONOMIC TRENDS ............................................................................................................................................... 11
National and Regional Housing Trends ......................................................................................................................... 11
Income and Housing Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Housing Construction Trends ................................................................................................................................... 13
Housing Affordability by Occupation ........................................................................................................................ 14
Short-term Rental Trends ............................................................................................................................................. 16
A Brief Timeline of Short-term Rentals in San Bernardino County ........................................................................... 16
Influential Events and Trends ................................................................................................................................... 16
Short-term Rental Statistics in Unincorporated San Bernardino County ................................................................. 18
STR Market Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. 21
HOUSING COST & SUPPLY ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Changes in Housing Values ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Home Values by Community .................................................................................................................................... 22
Short-term Rentals Sales Prices ................................................................................................................................ 23
Short-term and Long-term Rental Values ................................................................................................................. 25
Changes in Occupancy .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Occupancy Rates in Unincorporated Communities .................................................................................................. 26
Changes in Vacancy ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
Non-seasonal Vacancy Rates in Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................... 29
New Construction ......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Relationship and Timing of STR Permit to New Construction .................................................................................. 33
EXTERNAL STUDIES AND ARTICLES ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS ............................................................................... 35
Appendix
San Bernardino County Short-term Rental Data & Housing, by Granicus (under separate cover)
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 6 of 37
List of Figures
Figure ES-1. Key Factors Indicating STR Activity Affecting Long-term Housing Market, by Community ............................ 1
Figure 1. Outreach Materials and Meeting Images (2023) ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Annual Income Required to Afford the Median-Priced Home, 2021 ................................................................ 11
Figure 3. Rental Households with Cost Burdens, 2021 ..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Low Cost Rentals, California, 2011 vs 2021 ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Total Housing Units per 1,000 People, California, 1991-2016 ........................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Insurance Risks and Premiums across the United States, 2023 ........................................................................ 14
Figure 7. Projected Job Openings and Median Wages, San Bernardino County, 2020-2030 ........................................... 15
Figure 8. Annual Increase in the Retired Baby Boomer Population (millions) ................................................................. 17
Figure 9. Percentage of Workers Working Remotely by Industry, United States, 2017-2022 ......................................... 17
Figure 10. First Year of Listing as a Short-term Rental by Region, Unincorporated San Bernardino County ................... 19
Figure 11. Units Listed as Short-term Rentals, Unincorporated San Bernardino County, 2021-2023 ............................. 19
Figure 12. Number of Short-term Rentals by Community, Unincorporated San Bernardino County, 2023 .................... 20
Figure 13. Percentage of Short-term Rental Owners that Live in the Same Region by Community, Unincorporated San
Bernardino County, 2023 .................................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 14. Percentage of Short-term Rental Sales to LLCs by Region and Select Communities, Unincorporated San
Bernardino County, 2015-2022 ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 15. Increase in Median Home Value, US, CA, and San Bernardino County, 2016 to 2023 .................................... 22
Figure 16. Home Values by Community, US, CA, and San Bernardino County, 2015, 2022, and 2023 ............................ 23
Figure 17. Sales Prices of Short-term Rentals, Unincorporated San Bernardino County, 2018-2022 .............................. 24
Figure 18. Sales Prices of Short-term Rentals, Big Bear City and Joshua Tree, 2018-2022 .............................................. 24
Figure 19. Comparison of Long-term and Short-term Rents, Unincorporated Communities, 2024 ................................ 25
Figure 20. Unincorporated Communities and Year-round Occupancy Trends, 2010 vs 2022 ......................................... 27
Figure 21. Unincorporated Communities with Dynamic Occupancy Trends, 2010 to 2022 ............................................ 28
Figure 22. Joshua Tree National Park, Annual Attendance, 2010 to 2022 ....................................................................... 28
Figure 23. Non-Seasonal Ownership Vacancy Rate Trends, Mountain Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022 .............. 30
Figure 24. Non-Seasonal Ownership Vacancy Rate Trends, East Desert Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022 ........... 30
Figure 25. Non-Seasonal Rental Vacancy Rate Trends, Mountain Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022 ..................... 31
Figure 26. Non-Seasonal Rental Vacancy Rate Trends, East Desert Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022................... 31
Figure 27. Relationship and Timing of STR Permit to New Construction, Unincorporated Study Area, 2019-2024 ........ 34
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 7 of 37
Background & Purpose
2021–2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
As required by all jurisdictions in Southern California, the County initiated an update to its Housing Element in 2021 to
address existing housing needs and plan for future housing growth. The County adopted the updated Housing Element
in September 2022 and received state certification (by the Department of Housing and Community Development or
HCD) in November 2022. As of October 31, 2023, the County is one of 14 (of the 25) jurisdictions in the county to have
received state certification.
Once the County confirmed its compliance with state law through certification, County staff could initiate the dozens
of implementation programs to be completed through 2029. In response to community concerns, the County designed
a program (Program 4) to conduct a public planning process and study the impacts of short-term rental activity on
renter households and the availability of long-term rental housing in Mountain and Desert unincorporated
communities. Program 4 is shown in its entirety below.
Program 4. Short-term Rentals
The proliferation of short-term, whole-home rentals can reduce the amount of available rental housing (particularly that which is
affordable) for people who work in a seasonal and permanent basis in the Mountain and Desert regions (and drive up the cost of housing
in the Valley region). Short-term rentals may also have a negative impact on local hotel/motel businesses. The County permits private
homes, including ADUs, to serve as short-term rentals in the Mountain and Desert regions (maximum stay of 30 days). In the Valley region,
private homes or ADUs must be rented for a term longer than 30 days.
To increase the availability of long-term housing options, the County will conduct a public planning process and a study to determine if the
County should establish a limit on the number of private homes or ADUs that can be developed and used as short-term rentals in the
Mountain and Desert regions. The study should also evaluate the potential effectiveness of various incentives to encourage long-term
rentals, particularly for local employees and lower income residents, as well as where and how many property owners are changing from
long- to short-term rental patterns, where and how many property owners are developing new housing units explicitly for use as a seasonal
home (by the property owner) and that is being made available to others as a short-term rental, the number of hosted vs. unhosted short-
term rentals, and the degree of displacement that is occurring. Based on the outcomes of the study, establish and implement strategies to
mitigate impacts on the loss of housing stock and affordability such as incentives to encourage long-term rentals and/or limiting the number
of total and/or new short-term rentals that can be permitted in the Mountain and Desert regions.
Objective: Conduct a public planning process and study to determine the current and projected impact of short-term rentals on the housing
supply throughout the unincorporated county and on the motel/hotel businesses in the Mountain and Desert regions. Establish and
implement strategies based on the study’s findings. Update and resubmit 2018 through 2021 annual progress reports (APRs) and ensure
that future reports account for units (ADUs, site-built homes, or manufactured homes) that apply for a short-term rental permit (unhosted
only) and communicate this information to HCD to remove such units from being counted as long-term housing units (at any level of
affordability).
Responsibility: Community Development and Housing, Land Use Services
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Initiate study in 2022 and complete public outreach and engagement in 2023, with a target completion date no later than
2023. Establish and begin implementation of recommended solutions by 2024 if the study’s conclusions support the establishment of
incentives and/or a limitation (by region and/or for specific unincorporated communities). By March 2023, bring forward an interim cap for
consideration by the Board of Supervisors on the total number of short-term rental permits on an annual basis and/or a percentage of total
housing units within each community planning area in the Mountain and Desert regions. Update 2018-2021 APRs in 2022 and adjust future
APRs annually to remove units used for short-term rentals.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 8 of 37
PROGRAM 4 INITIATION
Consistent with the stated timeframe in the Housing Element, the County initiated Program 4 in November 2022 and
contracted with Granicus and PlaceWorks to provide research, analysis, and outreach services. The County and Granicus
initiated a data analysis in late 2022/early 2023 in an attempt to identify any obvious evidence that could support an
interim cap on STR permitting. By February 2023, after reviewing County records, market trends, and Census data, the
County and Granicus concluded that there was insufficient evidence and confirmed a revised schedule with HCD.
County staff presented its interim findings and outline of future activities to the Board of Supervisors on March 28,
2023, which included further analysis and community outreach.
Community Outreach
The County held four public meetings in August and September 2023 in the communities of Big Bear, Crestline, Joshua
Tree, and Twin Peaks. At each meeting, the County shared its findings to date, requested feedback and additional
information from the community, and engaged in an extended discussion of questions and answers submitted by
attendees. In total, approximately 300 people attended the four meetings: Big Bear (50) Crestline (60), Joshua Tree
(130), and Twin Peaks (60). Additionally, the County received nearly 200 questions/comments submitted by email
during the same time period. The largest group of meeting attendees and email commenters represented local
residents, followed by STR owners (some of whom were also local residents), as well as some additional members from
local media outlets and service providers. The following represents a synopsis of the community’s input provided at the
meetings and through email submissions.
Management and operations. The vast majority of comments and questions concerned concerns about the
compatibility of STRs with long-term residential neighborhoods, with residents expressing ongoing problems related to
excessive noise, trash debris, and vehicle parking. Additionally, a number of residents indicated that many of the homes
on their block have turned into active STRs, an experience that is particularly new in the East Desert region. The majority
of residents communicated that they understood the role and benefits of STRs for the local economy, both for local
businesses benefitting from the additional tourism and for property owners benefitting from the income. These
residents welcomed STRs that acted as good neighbors and observed the County’s regulations. However, these same
residents also indicated that the STRs were essentially acting as disaggregated hotels, but without onsite management,
parking facilities, and cleaning staff that hotels provide that ensure tourists’ impacts on nearby residents are minimized
and addressed in a timely manner.
Fees and taxes. STR owners expressed dissatisfaction with the increased permit fees, with many asking how the fees
were spent. County staff informed attendees that the STR permit fees went directly to pay for the administrative costs
of the STR permit program and for increased code enforcement. Some attendees and email correspondents indicated
that they had seen improvements from the increased code enforcement investment (particularly in the Lake Arrowhead
area), while others stated that they had yet to see any improvements. Both STR owners and residents wanted to know
if the transit-occupancy tax (TOT) generated by STRs were going to be used to fund improvements in the communities
within which such funds were collected.
Housing affordability. Community input on the impact of STRs on housing affordability, particularly for long-term rental
housing, varied by region. In the Mountain Region, the input was mixed. Many agreed with the opinion that STRs were
pushing up prices and preventing homes from being rented to long-term tenants, with some citing anecdotal knowledge
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 9 of 37
of neighbors or local workers being pushed out of their rental housing so that the owner (existing or new) could operate
the house as an STR.
A number of others, including but not exclusively STR owners, stated that there was a long history of second-
homeownership and STRs in the region and that the recent increase in STR activity was simply the high point of another
cycle. Many attendees also commented that homes owned as second homes are less likely to ever be available for long-
term renters since the property owners would lose their ability to use the home on a seasonal or periodic basis. Another
common statement referenced STR income as a necessary supplement to pay for the rising costs of insurance premiums
(a hardship for all existing homeowners).
In the East Desert region, the attendees noted their local communities have historically been occupied by long-term
renters and year-round residents, with housing prices and rents that were relatively affordable. A number of meeting
attendees and email commenters, including videos from the Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA), relayed
several stories of individuals and employers who cited the rise in STR activity as a reason for a shortage of affordable
housing.
At meetings in and comments from both regions, people cited recent legislation that made it difficult to evict long-term
tenants that failed to pay rent and/or damaged property, increasing the risk of long-term rentals (especially compared
to STR options). Meeting attendees from both regions suggested additional potential sources of information to evaluate
whether and the degree to which STRs were displacing long-term rental households. This included school districts, Big
Bear Homeless Coalition, and Big Bear Workforce Housing Coalition. For example, County staff followed up on
information cited in MBCA’s videos on the role of STRs in local displacement (Affordable Rentals citing discussions with
51 households in 2021 and the Morongo Unified School District citing calls 3-4 times per week about an eviction).
Unfortunately, attempts to corroborate these statements and clarify the role of STR activity as a direct factor were
unsuccessful, despite attempts to contact or successful communications with these entities. All school districts were
contacted, but no district offered data substantiating cause of homeless children as a result of STR activity.
Additionally, residents and STR owners from both regions urged the County to build more affordable housing, although
all understood the infrastructure limitations when the matter was discussed in more detail.
The County released its draft report on November 9, 2023 and reviewed preliminary results at a virtual outreach
meeting on November 16, 2023. County staff also provided answers to questions submitted in advance of the meeting,
which generally requested more clarification on the study’s preliminary findings and methodology. This meeting was
attended by roughly 80 residents and property owners (excluding County and consultant staff). A full recording of the
meeting was posted online a few days later and generated over 270 views. The County continued to take comments
and questions from the public, including an extensive comment letter (dated December 14, 2023) from the Morongo
Basin Conservation Association (MBCA), which requested additional information at the community level, requests for
a moratorium and cap on STR activity, and documented additional articles and other information to support refinement
of the Study’s analysis, methodology, and findings.
While the initial plan was to present the November 2023 draft report to the County Board of Supervisors in December
2023, County staff opted to postpone its presentation to allow time to review key US Census ACS datasets for year 2022
that were released on December 7, 2023, and to consider additional public input received during the November virtual
outreach meeting and MBCA’s December comment letter. The 2022 ACS datasets revealed distinctly different patterns
compared to prior years for the community of Joshua Tree, leading to additional analysis on all communities and
conclusions that varied from the November 2023 draft report.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 10 of 37
While the County received public comments both during outreach meetings and in email correspondence citing that
displacement is happening, direct communication with property managers, schools, service providers, and other
sources cited by the public yielded no information or confirmations that STR are directly responsible for displacing long-
term renters, serving as a primary cause of an increase in monthly rents, or creating a lack of long-term housing options
throughout the unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities.
Figure 1. Outreach Materials and Meeting Images (2023)
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 11 of 37
Economic Trends
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL HOUSING TRENDS
Income and Housing Costs
The issue of high housing costs was historically limited to a relatively small portion of the country, notably areas along
the western and eastern coasts. Over the past decades, outward migration, rising rates of remote work, and corporate
expansion into lower cost states and regions increased housing demand in other parts of the country. In 2023, according
to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the average household had to earn an annual income of at least
$100,000 to afford the median home price in multiple metropolitan areas across nearly every state in the country.
Additionally, the cost of rental housing, once the fallback for those seeking more affordable housing options, also began
to rise due largely to a combination of a lack of multifamily housing production and rising home sales prices. In 2021,
over a third of rental households spent over 30% of their income for housing in most counties throughout the nation.
When measuring the supply of rental housing stock in 2021 vs 2011 by monthly cost (adjusted for inflation), it becomes
clear that rents have increased substantially, with the majority of units now renting at or above $1,400 per month, and
units renting at or above $2,000 per month representing the largest portion of rental stock. See Figures 2 through 4 for
additional information.
Figure 2. Annual Income Required to Afford the Median-Priced Home, 2021
Source: Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, “State of the Nation’s Housing 2023”; as of 9/28/23 prices and interest rates.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 12 of 37
Figure 3. Rental Households with Cost Burdens, 2021
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, “State of the Nation’s Housing 2023”; assuming cost-burdened households pay more than 30% of income
for housing.
Figure 4. Low Cost Rentals, California, 2011 vs 2021
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, “State of the Nation’s Housing 2023”. Includes both vacant and occupied rental units but excludes those
with no cash rent. Contract rents exclude utility costs paid separately. Rents are adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U for All Items Less Shelter.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 13 of 37
Housing Construction Trends
While the construction of new homes was already in a substantial downward trend across the United States since the
30-year peak in 2011, construction activity dropped even more sharply during the COVID-19 Pandemic. California’s
supply of housing units per capita has been on the decline for most of the last 25 years, both statewide and in all the
heavily populated regions. More people are competing for fewer homes, driving up housing prices. The effects of
increased housing demand can be exacerbated in areas with a high percentage of second homes that do not contribute
to the long-term housing supply, often sitting vacant most of the year.
Figure 5 illustrates the total number of housing units (occupied or vacant) compared to the total number of people in
California by region on an annual basis. Even with a trend of decreasing household sizes over the past decade
throughout California (and San Bernardino County), this figure shows that new housing construction is not keeping pace
with population growth.
Figure 5. Total Housing Units per 1,000 People, California, 1991-2016
Source: California State Association of Counties, as charted by Geoff Neill. “Southern Inland” represents San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties.
Additional contributing factors include the rising rates and costs of natural disasters, which are driving up insurance
premiums throughout much of America. The Mountain region of San Bernardino County is particularly susceptible to
wildfires and has seen rising rates, reducing housing affordability for existing and new residents. This issue was echoed
during the community outreach meetings held in the Mountain communities. Figure 6 compares statewide rates to
cities and communities that are more prone to natural disasters, which adds to the total cost of long-term housing and
reduces affordability for both owners and renters.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 14 of 37
The level of wildfire susceptibility and associated risks to people and property is one of the reasons the County
developed and adopted Policy HZ-1.2 (listed below) in the Hazards Element of the Policy Plan, along with other policies
in its Land Use Element, that would discourage new development in the Mountain region without proper design to
enhance safety and resiliency during time of disaster.
Policy HZ-1.2 New development in environmental hazard areas. We require all new development to be located
outside of the environmental hazard areas listed below. For any lot or parcel that does not have sufficient buildable
area outside of such hazard areas, we require adequate mitigation, including designs that allow occupants to shelter
in place and to have sufficient time to evacuate during times of extreme weather and natural disasters.
• Flood: 100-year flood zone, dam/basin inundation area
• Geologic: Alquist Priolo earthquake fault zone; County-identified fault zone; rockfall/debris-flow hazard area,
medium or high liquefaction area (low to high and localized), existing and County-identified landslide area,
moderate to high landslide susceptibility area)
• Fire: high or very high fire hazard severity zone
Figure 6. Insurance Risks and Premiums across the United States, 2023
Source: Bankrate and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023. Notes: Premiums shown are for $250,000 in dwelling coverage. The
erroneous identification of Lake Arrowhead as a “city” is noted but not corrected. Additionally, the rates shown above are averages and may not represent
the lower or higher rates experienced by individuals in each unincorporated community.
Housing Affordability by Occupation
An adequate supply of affordable housing for the local workforce is critical to the County’s economic success and its
residents’ prosperity. Of the top 25 fastest growing occupations in San Bernardino County, as projected through 2030,
only Registered Nurses and Managers have a median annual wage that is adequate to afford the median home sales
price (as of 2023) either as a single- or dual-income household. When looking at the median rents in San Bernardino
County, just over half (14/25) of the fastest growing occupations need dual incomes (totaling at least $76,800) to afford
the median rent for a 2-bedroom unit ($1,920 being the 50
th
percentile rent in San Bernardino County as of 2023
according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD). Furthermore, the top two occupations
(Home Health and Personal Care Aides and Fast Food/Counter Workers) need dual incomes (totaling at least $61,320)
to afford the median rent for a 1-bedroom unit ($1,533 being the 50
th
percentile rent in San Bernardino County as of
2023 according to HUD). See Figures 7 for additional information.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 15 of 37
There are a number of occupations that were commonly cited during outreach activities as “backbone” jobs critical to
the basic functions of the community and raising a family. Some, such as primary and secondary school teachers and
Sheriff deputies, are not in the top 25 occupations in terms of job growth and are therefore not shown in Figure 7. The
median wage for both of these occupations, as of 2023 for the San Bernardino County area, was roughly $100,000—a
wage that is adequate to afford the median home sales price and 2-bedroom (or larger) rental units. More localized
salaries for teachers (e.g., Morongo Unified School District 2022-2023 Teacher’s Salary and Big Bear Unified School
District 2023-2024 Teacher’s Salary) indicate a median wage closer to $90,000—still enough to afford the median home
sales and rental costs.
Figure 7. Projected Job Openings and Median Wages, San Bernardino County, 2020-2030
Source: Occupation and wages: California EDD, Top 25 Occupations Ranked by 10-Year Total Projected Job Openings (2020-2030), Median Annual Wage Q1
2023. Home price and affordability: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, as of 9/28/23 prices and interest rates. Median rent: US HUD, Office of Policy
Development and Research, 2023 50
th
Percentile Rent: $1,920 2-bd, $1,533 1-bd; Rent affordability: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 16 of 37
SHORT-TERM RENTAL TRENDS
A Brief Timeline of Short-term Rentals in San Bernardino County
Mountain Resort before 1990s. The Mountain region’s resort history started in the late 1800s, with hotels, camps, and
collections of cottages and cabins sprouting up around the various lakes. Through the 1990s, tourist accommodations
remained largely under the operation of hotel and management companies.
STR Companies Emerge in 1995 & 2008. Buoyed by the widespread adoption of the internet and other digital
technologies, two companies emerged that greatly facilitated the ability of individual homeowners to rent out their
property directly to visitors. First, Vrbo (vacation rentals by owner) launched its website in 1995 in Aurora, Colorado,
and allowed users to browse and book vacation rental properties managed by individual owners. While Booking.com
was founded shortly after in 1996 in the Netherlands, the site started as a travel fare aggregator, though it later become
the first hotel booking site to advertise vacation rentals.
As online lodging grew as a business, Airbnb grew as a startup in San Francisco in 2008, and became the first company
to allow guests to book a single room in a host’s home and pay using a credit card over the internet. As of August 2023,
Vrbo has 2 million properties (whole home only) in 190 countries and Airbnb has 7 million places (a combination of
whole home and private rooms) to rent across 191 countries.
County Activities between 2017 and 2020. The County established a formal short-term rental permit system in the
Mountain region in 2017, followed by an expansion into the Desert region in 2019. Also in 2019, the County began
working with T-Mobile to roll out a countywide 5G network, which expanded into rural Mountain and Desert
communities in 2020. The presence of reliable broadband infrastructure facilitated remote work and enhanced the
desirability of long- and short-term stays.
Influential Events and Trends
COVID-19, 2020 to 2022. The COVID-19 Pandemic started in early 2020, growing from an international concern in
January 2020 to a global pandemic in the span of three months. By March, countries began to seal borders, schools
closed for the year, shelter-in-place orders were issued, long-planned events were cancelled, and evictions were halted.
Throughout 2020, Southern California residents look to the Mountain and Desert region communities as safe and
desirable options for remote tourism reachable by car. Some of these residents, already required to work remotely,
begin to see these communities as options for long-term stays or even permanent relocations.
By 2021, a vaccine was developed and travel restrictions began to ease, with statewide tourism restrictions ending in
June 2021 and national tourism restrictions ending in November 2021. By February 2022, the Governor of California
had ended the vast majority of COVD-19 related executive orders. Throughout late 2021 and much of 2022, people
around the state and country travel extensively and surge into destinations located in and around the county’s
Mountain and Desert regions.
Baby Boomer Retirement Patterns, 2020 to 2030. By 2030, all members of the Baby Boomer Generation will be aged
65 or older. While the pace of retirement stayed relatively consistent between 2012 and 2019, with some decline even
as the cost of living forced some to remain in the workforce, the pace of retirement accelerated with the onset of the
Pandemic. Concerns about proximity to other people during the Pandemic, particularly for those of retirement age,
increased the appeal of the remote and rural setting found in Mountain and Desert region communities. Additionally,
Baby Boomer homeowners often purchased their homes many decades in the past and, with housing prices rising ever
higher, were flush with home equity. See Figure 8 for more details.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 17 of 37
Figure 8. Annual Increase in the Retired Baby Boomer Population (millions)
Source: Pew Research Center, 2021.
Remote Work Patterns, 2018 to 2022. Rates of working remotely surged during COVID due to stay-at-home orders and
quick improvements in remote meeting and computer network technology. The US Census reported that the number
of people working remotely tripled during COVID, rising from roughly 6% in 2019 to 18% in 2021. Research by payroll
companies, such as Gusto, found that the communications, technology, and professional services industries are
experiencing the highest rates or remote work, but that all industries are seeing increased rates, even those that are
strongly dependent on in-person work. While some companies have pushed for workers to come back to the office,
rates of remote work are projected to remain high by multiple demographic and occupational research entities. This
“new normal” means many workers are no longer restricted by proximity to their work when choosing a home to rent
or buy. See Figure 9 for more details.
Figure 9. Percentage of Workers Working Remotely by Industry, United States, 2017-2022
Source: Gusto, payroll research data, 2017-2022.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 18 of 37
Short-term Rental Statistics in Unincorporated San Bernardino County
53% of STRs were first listed in 2020 or later. Based on analysis by Granicus of permitted and unpermitted short-term
rentals, over half (53%) of currently active STRs were first listed on any one of over 60 internet platforms in the year
2020 or later. See Figure 10 for more details.
The number of STRs peaked across the entire unincorporated county in July 2022. Following the end of domestic and
international travel restrictions, the number of unique short-term rentals in unincorporated San Bernardino County
peaked at 7,749 units in July 2022. A secondary, though lower, spike occurred in the winter of 2022, followed by a
dramatic drop in the early part of 2023. While a similar seasonal surge took place in 2023, Granicus reported 6,395 STRs
in September 2023, which is nearly 1,400 below the 2022 peak and may indicate a market correction in multiple markets
of the unincorporated county. Additional datasets reported by STR research entities AlltheRooms and AirDNA indicate
that February 2024 listings are relatively consistent with the September 2023 figure, although occupancy rates are
lower both overall and in many of the most popular communities. For example, AirDNA reports occupancy rates were
down 3% in both Lake Arrowhead and Joshua Tree markets when comparing February 2023 and February 2024.
AllTheRooms reports a 4% drop in Lake Arrowhead and an 11% drop in Joshua Tree for the same time period.
Most STRs are in Big Bear City, Lake Arrowhead, and Joshua Tree. Over 3,400 STRs are located in one of three
communities: Big Bear City (1,400) and Lake Arrowhead (951) in the Mountain region, and Joshua Tree (1,082) in the
East Desert region. Three other communities represent much of the remaining balance of STRs: Sugarloaf (428) and
Crestline (278) in the Mountain region and Homestead Valley (295) in the East Desert region. See Figure 12 for more
details (note that not all communities are shown; those that are not shown do not contain a substantial number of
STRs). Additional County data and datasets reported by STR research entities AlltheRooms and AirDNA (as of February
2024) indicate that the number of STR listings has dropped in some communities but increased slightly in Big Bear City,
Lake Arrowhead, and Joshua Tree.
Very few STRs are owned by people who also live in the same area. Overall, roughly 13% of STR owners live within the
same zip code or community planning area as the STR. Roughly 15% of STR owners live within the same region and
could be considered local owners. Another 5% of STR owners live somewhere else in San Bernardino County. Over 93%
of STR owners live somewhere in California and roughly 40% of STR owners live in Los Angeles or Orange County. Only
a handful of properties are associated with international owners.
Only 8% of STR owners in Big Bear City and 7% of STR owners in Lake Arrowhead live locally (somewhere in the Mountain
region). In other Mountain region communities, the percentage of local owners can be much higher, but is only above
20% in places where the total number of STRs is relatively low. In the East Desert region, rates of local ownership are
higher, though still only 22% in Joshua Tree and 25% in Landers. See Figure 13 for more details.
LLCs were active in Joshua Tree but are not prominent elsewhere. While under 10% of all STRs are owned by limited
liability corporations (LLCs), sales to LLCs grew during the first two pandemic years. LLCs were especially active in Joshua
Tree during 2020 and 2021, representing 30% to 40% of all STR sales in those years. LLCs are commonly associated with
a form of corporate activity that can amass a number of STRs to operate as a disaggregated hotel. However, individuals
that only own one STR may still establish ownership through an LLC for matters related to privacy, asset protection, tax
advantages, and other reasons. See Figure 14 for more details.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 19 of 37
Figure 10. First Year of Listing as a Short-term Rental by Region, Unincorporated San Bernardino County
Source: Granicus, using County STR permit database and over 60 internet platforms. Note: Units that first listed prior to 2015 and those in the North Desert
are not shown on the chart.
Figure 11. Units Listed as Short-term Rentals, Unincorporated San Bernardino County, 2021-2023
Source: Granicus, using County STR permit database and over 60 internet platforms. Figures represent unique STR units.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 20 of 37
Figure 12. Number of Short-term Rentals by Community, Unincorporated San Bernardino County, 2023
Source: Granicus, using County STR permit database and over 60 internet platforms. Note: not every unincorporated community shown.
Figure 13. Percentage of Short-term Rental Owners that Live in the Same Region by Community, Unincorporated San
Bernardino County, 2023
Source: Granicus, using County STR permit database and over 60 internet platforms. Note: not every unincorporated community shown.
Figure 14. Percentage of Short-term Rental Sales to LLCs by Region and Select Communities, Unincorporated San
Bernardino County, 2015-2022
Source: Granicus, using County STR permit and Assessor databases and over 60 internet platforms.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 21 of 37
STR Market Evaluation
As STRs grew in popularity, other companies emerged to provide analytics and tools to serve individual and larger
investors evaluate markets both broadly (e.g., throughout California) and specific to individual submarkets or
geographies (e.g., Joshua Tree). The largest of these companies is AirDNA, with AllTheRooms a commonly used
alternative. Both provide a wide range of datasets, including trends on revenue, occupancy, and supply, to help
investors and property owners understand how certain markets are performing. AirDNA offers a market score for each
geographic area benchmarked against other every other market area using five metrics (details below), with values
assigned on a scale of 0 to 100 (with 100 being the best).
- Investability: cost of homes compared to the average short-term rental income of full-time rental properties
- Rental demand: frequency of rental bookings throughout the year
- Revenue growth: change in year-over-year revenue per property
- Seasonality: percentage difference between the minimum and maximum monthly average revenue in the past
year (difference in demand between peak and low seasons)
- Regulation: amount or complexity of regulations
Looking at both AirDNA and AllTheRooms metrics, STR investment value in the Mountain region appears to be on a
downward trend, while STR investment value in the East Desert region remains extremely high. Data from AirDNA and
AllTheRooms indicates that STR activity continues to grow in Joshua Tree and is viewed more favorably as a market for
STR investment compared to other places in the unincorporated county. For example, The STR market in Joshua Tree
is rated by AirDNA as 97/100 or “Great”, while AirDNA ratings for Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear City markets are
substantially lower.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 22 of 37
Housing Cost & Supply
CHANGES IN HOUSING VALUES
Home Values by Community
The change in home values by community was evaluated to identify patterns that could indicate whether short-term
rental activity was driving up housing costs in specific communities. Home values have been steadily increasing over
the past seven years across the country, with prices in California rising faster and to higher values compared to the
national median. See Figure 15 for more details.
Figure 15. Increase in Median Home Value, US, CA, and San Bernardino County, 2016 to 2023
Source: Zillow Home Value Index, comparing median home values between March 2016 and September 2023.
The rate of increase in the median home value between 2015 and 2023 for unincorporated Mountain and East Desert
communities was compared against the rates for the United States, California, unincorporated Valley region
communities (where STRs are not permitted), unincorporated North Desert communities (where STRs are not
prevalent), and incorporated cities in the Mountain and East Desert regions.
The results indicate that the unincorporated East Desert communities experienced the greatest rate of increase in home
value between 2015 and 2022 (avg. +266%), with the two East Desert incorporated jurisdictions demonstrating a similar
rate of increase (avg.+185%). The communities of Big Bear City and Lake Arrowhead saw comparatively modest rates
of increased home values (avg. +113%), that were only slightly higher than the Valley communities of Bloomington and
Mentone, and roughly the same as the North Desert communities of Phelan and Pinon Hills.
However, the dramatic rise in home values in the East Desert region was influenced by their relatively low home values
in 2015 (avg $124,000). By 2022, home values were $300,000 or more in all unincorporated areas, and many areas were
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 23 of 37
valued closer to $400,000. Home values dropped from their 2022 peak (avg -8%), with steeper declines in places with
the greatest number of STRs (avg -14%), as of September 2023. See Figure 16 for more details.
Figure 16. Home Values by Community, US, CA, and San Bernardino County, 2015, 2022, and 2023
Source: Zillow Home Value Index, comparing median home values in June 2015, July 2022, and September 2023.
Short-term Rentals Sales Prices
The sales prices of short-term rentals were compared to the sales prices of non-STR single-family homes. In tracking
sales prices between 2018 and 2022, the data indicates that STRs were typically sold at higher values compared to other
single-family homes (SFHs). While it may be presumed that STR properties sell for higher prices based on their potential
to generate income, the fact is that any property in the unincorporated Mountain and East Desert region can function
as a STR, and any theoretical value associated with income potential is already incorporated into the market prices of
all housing units. Certainly, a property with an existing track record of generating income as a STR may be easier to sell
(and at a higher price), but the differences in sales prices are at least partially the result of STR properties often being
in better condition, larger in size, and better located. See Figure 17 for more details.
Additional insight can be obtained by comparing sales prices of STR and non-STR SFHs in Big Bear City and Joshua Tree.
STR prices were similar to other SFHs in Big Bear, where STRs already have a long history. Big Bear City’s longer history
with STR activity is likely a big reason for the relatively minimal sales price differential between properties used as STRs
and those that are not. STR prices in Joshua Tree were similar to other SFHs, even after STR permits were allowed in
2019, with the sales price differential actually narrowing between 2019 and 2020. The sales price differential only
diverged once the Pandemic hit. See Figure 18 for more details.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 24 of 37
Figure 17. Sales Prices of Short-term Rentals, Unincorporated San Bernardino County, 2018-2022
Source: Granicus, 2023.
Figure 18. Sales Prices of Short-term Rentals, Big Bear City and Joshua Tree, 2018-2022
Source: Granicus, 2023.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 25 of 37
Short-term and Long-term Rental Values
Although the cost of long-term rental housing is steadily increasing, so too is the nightly price for a short-term rental in
the unincorporated Mountain and East Desert regions. Throughout these regions, as of 2023, STR owners needed only
have their property booked for an average of between six and nine nights per month (72 to 108 nights per year) to
generate the same income as the median monthly rent from a long-term tenant. This can also be portrayed as the ratio
between the two income options (LTR/STR Price Ratio). A lower ratio means that it takes fewer nights of STR activity to
equal a long-term contract. See Figure 19 for more details. Data using average daily rents for STRs and median rents for
long-term rents as of May 2024 indicates that the initial break-even number of nights is between 66 and 76 for the
three biggest STR markets (Big Bear City, Lake Arrowhead, and Joshua Tree).
Additional consideration is given to the potential value associated with an STR-operator being able to use their own
property (which would not be possible with a long-term renter), and the benefit that STR operation bestows by avoiding
risks and lost revenue associated with evicting poor or even non-paying tenants. Based on the initial break-even
numbers and this additional consideration, 60 nights is considered a reasonable threshold when evaluating a potential
property investor's decision to rent as a STR or long-term rental.
STR activity is often seasonal and few properties book up consistently each month and throughout the year. Based on
Granicus’s analysis of an early 2023 sample of over 2,000 STRs throughout the entirety of the unincorporated San
Bernardino County, only about 35% booked more than 60 nights per year and only 22% booked more than 90 nights
per year. Furthermore, only 8% generated income of $25,000 or more per year and just under half (44%) generated
less than $5,000 per year.
However, an examination of the County’s transit occupancy tax data for fiscal year 2022/2023 (July 1, 2022 to June 30,
2023) indicates the East Desert region may contain a larger number and proportion of STRs that rent more than 60
nights per year compared to the Mountain region. For example, approximately 355 STRs reported more than 60 nights
of rentals in Joshua Tree compared to 214 in Big Bear City and 208 in Lake Arrowhead during the referenced timeframe.
In Joshua Tree, these 355 units represent roughly 9% of the entire housing market in Joshua Tree, while the 214 and
208 units in Big Bear City and Lake Arrowhead represent less than 2% of their respective housing markets. The number
of nights rented may be larger given that Airbnb and Vrbo data was not available by community.
Figure 19. Comparison of Long-term and Short-term Rents, Unincorporated Communities, 2024
Community
Long-term Rent (LTR)
Avg Daily Rate
for STR
# STR nights to equal
12-month LTR revenue
Median Rent
12-month Revenue
Big Bear City
$2,095
$25,140
$381
66
Lake Arrowhead
$2,500
$30,000
$427
70
Crestline
$1,950
$23,400
$257
91
Running Springs
$2,000
$24,000
$273
88
Homestead Valley
$2,200
$26,400
$257
103
Morongo Valley
$1,745
$20,940
$309
68
Joshua Tree
$2,000
$24,000
$315
76
Source: Granicus methodology (2023) applied to May 2024 data with median long-term rent from Zillow and average daily rate from AirDNA.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 26 of 37
CHANGES IN OCCUPANCY
Occupancy Rates in Unincorporated Communities
The US Census offers the most complete and authoritative datasets to determine whether short-term rental activity
was displacing long-term renters. The percentage of housing units in 2010
1
and 2022
2
were compared based on the
amount occupied by a property owner, occupied by a long-term renter, or unoccupied and vacant for use as a
vacation/2
nd
home. The term “vacant/2
nd
home” may also be known as “seasonal home” and represent homes that are
used periodically by the property owner and/or as short-term rentals, but are neither occupied by an owner as a primary
residence nor made available for long-term rental occupancy.
Communities with Increased Year-round Occupancy Trends
The housing market in the Mountain region, in terms of occupancy, is relatively similar between 2010 and 2022. Based
on the latest available data, in Big Bear City, the occupancy patterns were almost exactly the same when comparing
2010 and 2022. In Lake Arrowhead, the percentage of vacation/2
nd
homes is lower in 2022 (-7%) compared to 2010
while the percentages of owner- and renter-occupied units are up (+5% and+2%, respectively), indicating that
vacation/2
nd
homes were converted into year-round units. In Crestline, the percentage of vacation/2
nd
homes is much
lower in 2022 (-9%) compared to 2010 and the percentage of owner-occupied units is up (+8%), indicating that a portion
of vacation/2
nd
homes were converted into year-round owner-occupied units. In Running Springs, comparing 2022 and
2010, the percentages of vacation/2
nd
homes and renter-occupied units are nearly the same (-1% and -2%, respectively),
while the percentage of owner-occupied units is up (+6% and higher than any value since before 2010). Additionally, in
the East Desert region, the Morongo Valley community saw increases in rates of year-round occupancy and decreases
in rates of vacation/2
nd
homes. See Figure 20 for more details.
Communities with Dynamic Occupancy Trends
While occupancy patterns in Morongo Valley are similar to unincorporated Mountain communities (decreased seasonal
housing and increased year-round occupancy when comparing 2010 and 2022), occupancy patterns in the Homestead
Valley and Joshua Tree communities are more dynamic (see more details in Figure 21). Between 2010 and 2017,
attendance at Joshua Tree National Park doubled (see Figure 22) and, influenced by a combination of a lack of nearby
hotel accommodations and a decent supply of low cost housing (median home values in Joshua Tree hovered around
$110,000 in 2015), rates of vacation/2
nd
homes and long-term rental occupancy increased substantially. Rates of
vacation/2
nd
homes increased from 5% to 19% in Joshua Tree and from 23% to 33% in Homestead Valley between 2010
and 2017. The majority of these increases appears to have come from the long-term ownership housing stock, with
rates of long-term ownership occupancy decreasing from 61% to 38% in Joshua Tree and from 53% to 48% in
Homestead Valley between 2010 and 2017.
For unknown reasons, the rate of year-round rental occupants in Joshua Tree rose from 31% in 2010 to a historical high
of 45% in 2014. In 2015, this rate began to dip but stabilized at 39% through 2019. During the COVID Pandemic, this
rate dropped to 37% in 2020 and 34% in 2021. However, this rate was still above the rate in 2010 (baseline comparison
year that represents a time that was not influenced by STR activity). For 2022, the rate of year-round rental occupants
dropped to 26%, which is an 8% drop from the previous year, 5% below 2010, and a historic low for Joshua Tree. Rates
1
2010 is used as a base reference as this year represents a time when Airbnb’s service was still relatively unused based on its
lack of presence on Google Trend Index (submitted searches) and the minimal number of listings in the United States.
2
US Census American Community Survey, 2022 5-year data released December 7, 2023 is the latest available data, reflects a
time that was post-Pandemic, and includes data that incorporates the peak of the STR market.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 27 of 37
of year-round owner occupants rose from 40% to 47% between 2020 and 2022, reflecting the surging demand to live
in Joshua Tree during the COVID Pandemic.
Figure 20. Unincorporated Communities and Year-round Occupancy Trends, 2010 vs 2022
Vacation/2nd Homes Year-round Owner Year-round Renter
Unincorporated Mountain Communities
Unincorporated East Desert Communities
Source: US Census 2010 & 2022 5-Year American Community Survey; figures rounded and results subject to margin of error. Data available for census-
designated places. Not shown is the “Other” vacant category, which typically represents 3% to 6% and includes the following categorical reasons for vacancy:
foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legals proceedings, preparing to rent/sell, held for storage of furniture, needs or is currently being repaired/renovated,
intended for year-round occupancy but vacant for 6+ months (extended absence), specific use housing, abandoned or possibly condemned, and unknown.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 28 of 37
Figure 21. Unincorporated Communities with Dynamic Occupancy Trends, 2010 to 2022
Source: US Census 2010 & 2011 through 2022 5-Year American Community Survey; figures rounded and results subject to margin of error. Data available for
census-designated places. “Other” represents “Vacant for other reasons” and includes the following categorical reasons for vacancy: foreclosure,
personal/family reasons, legals proceedings, preparing to rent/sell, held for storage of furniture, needs or is currently being repaired/renovated, intended for
year-round occupancy but vacant for 6+ months (extended absence), specific use housing, abandoned or possibly condemned, and unknown.
Figure 22. Joshua Tree National Park, Annual Attendance, 2010 to 2022
Source: National Park Service, as of 2022. In 2020, the Park was closed for approximately 2 months due to the COVID Pandemic.
While some of the drop in year-round rental occupancy in Joshua Tree may have come from the increase in ownership
occupancy, the data indicates that the long-term trend of rising rates of vacation/2
nd
homes (coinciding with the
increased numbers of STRs) is likely contributing pressures that reduce the supply of long-term housing. While the rates
of vacation/2
nd
homes only increased from 18% to 21% between 2019 and 2022, the overall year-round occupancy rate
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 29 of 37
for Joshua Tree is down from 92% in 2010 and 79% in 2019 to 73% in 2022. Prior to 2010, only 2% to 5% of all housing
units were recorded as vacation/2
nd
homes in the US Census.
In Homestead Valley, the overall year-round occupancy rate is 64% in 2022, which is slightly lower compared to 2019
(67%) and a bit lower than in 2010 (70%). However, the rate of vacation/2
nd
homes in Homestead Valley 2022 (26%) is
essentially unchanged from 2019, is substantially lower than rates between 2014 and 2017 (high of 35%), and is only
marginally higher than rates in 2010 (23%).
CHANGES IN VACANCY
Non-seasonal Vacancy Rates in Unincorporated Communities
US Census data was used to evaluate the long-term trends of housing supply and demand based on the vacancy rate of
ownership and rental housing after excluding vacation/2
nd
(aka seasonal) homes. For example, to determine the non-
seasonal ownership vacancy rate, the number of non-seasonal vacant homes for sale was compared to the overall
supply of units available for long-term ownership occupancy (occupied ownership units plus non-seasonal vacant
homes for sale). Housing units that were vacant because they were vacation/2
nd
homes were excluded from the
equation. While vacation/2
nd
homes are part of the housing market and technically available for purchase or conversion
to long-term rental housing, they are being removed from the equation in this section of the analysis to understand
what the vacancy rate would be if vacation/2
nd
homes were not available to the housing market.
A balanced vacancy rate for a housing market is typically around 4% to 6% for ownership and 5% to 8% for rental units
3
.
Rental tenants tend to move more frequently and so a higher vacancy rate helps the market operate more efficiently.
Vacancy rates within these ranges can indicate that there are enough available properties to meet demand but not so
many that there is an oversupply of units. Vacancy rates that are higher than the top end of the range can indicate that
there is more supply than demand, which may lower housing prices as prospective buyers/renters have multiple options
from which to choose. Vacancy rates that are below the low end of the range can indicate and result in the opposite.
These ranges are general indicators and are most applicable to incorporated cities and towns that are near job markets
and have an abundance of public services and amenities. In areas that lack infrastructure for new development and are
far from job markets and amenities, a vacancy rate closer to the lower end of the range may simply indicate both low
demand and supply. This would only be the case, however, if housing prices and/or rents remained relatively stable. A
vacancy rate closer to or even above the higher end of the range, if accompanied by high prices/rents, can also reflect
a market where property owners are willing to let units sit unsold or vacant in pursuit of prices/rents that are not
affordable to much of the market. Accordingly, trends in vacancy rates are best evaluated as an indicator of housing
conditions in a comparison between communities within a region and between regions within the county.
Regional and Community Comparison
The long-term trend of non-seasonal ownership and rental vacancy rates for various incorporated and unincorporated
communities in San Bernardino County are illustrated in Figures 23 through 26. Comparing rates in the Mountain and
East Desert regions, the Mountain region communities generally display much higher non-seasonal vacancy rates—for
both ownership and rental, and over the past 12 years and as of the latest available data. It should be noted again that
while this is the best available data, the Census data is subject to margins of error and the refinement of these datasets
can lead to distortions. Accordingly, it is the overall trend that should be considered.
3
Source: PlaceWorks and general industry standard, although there are entities that cite an upper threshold for a balanced
rental vacancy rate as high as 10% and a lower threshold for a balanced ownership rate as low as 2%.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 30 of 37
Figure 23. Non-Seasonal Ownership Vacancy Rate Trends, Mountain Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022
Source: US Census 2010 & 2011 through 2022 5-Year American Community Survey; figures rounded and results subject to margin of error. Data available for
census-designated places. A range of 4% to 6% is shaded in grey as a reference marker for what is typically considered a balanced ownership vacancy rate.
Figure 24. Non-Seasonal Ownership Vacancy Rate Trends, East Desert Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022
Source: US Census 2010 & 2011 through 2022 5-Year American Community Survey; figures rounded and results subject to margin of error. Data available for
census-designated places. A range of 4% to 6% is shaded in grey as a reference marker for what is typically considered a balanced ownership vacancy rate.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 31 of 37
Figure 25. Non-Seasonal Rental Vacancy Rate Trends, Mountain Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022
Source: US Census 2010 & 2011 through 2022 5-Year American Community Survey; figures rounded and results subject to margin of error. Data available for
census-designated places. A range of 5% to 8% is shaded in grey as a reference marker for what is typically considered a balanced rental vacancy rate.
Figure 26. Non-Seasonal Rental Vacancy Rate Trends, East Desert Region and Countywide, 2010 to 2022
Source: US Census 2010 & 2011 through 2022 5-Year American Community Survey; figures rounded and results subject to margin of error. Data available for
census-designated places. A range of 5% to 8% is shaded in grey as a reference marker for what is typically considered a balanced rental vacancy rate.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 32 of 37
Within the Mountain region, the only community in which the vacancy rate is currently (2022) below what is considered
balanced is Big Bear City, which exhibits a rental vacancy rate below 1% (a trend that can be seen going back to 2012).
Within the East Desert region, non-seasonal vacancy rates were lower across incorporated and unincorporated
communities, but were often within or slightly above what would be considered balanced between 2010 and 2017. The
communities of Joshua Tree and Morongo Valley stand out from the other areas, with Joshua Tree’s non-seasonal
ownership vacancy rate dipping substantially out of the balanced range in 2018 and staying at or around 1% through
2022. Morong Valley’s non-seasonal rental vacancy rate steadily dropped between 2018 and 2022, after exhibiting rates
that were within or above a balanced range for half of a decade.
Joshua Tree. While housing markets throughout the county, state, and across the nation exhibit low vacancy rates,
Joshua Tree’s ownership housing market is among the tightest. After removing homes that are vacant because they are
owned as vacation/2
nd
homes, the ownership vacancy rate in Joshua Tree hovered at or above the balanced range
through 2017. Starting in 2018, this rate dropped to 1% and remained at or below 1% through 2022. Housing values in
Joshua Tree began to rise from roughly $120,000 at the beginning of 2017 to $175,000 by the beginning of 2018, and
$209,000 by the beginning of 2020. Then, with the surge in demand created during the Pandemic, housing values
spiked, reaching $266,000 at the beginning of 2021 and $400,000 by the beginning of 2022. Home values peaked in July
2022 at $465,000 and have subsequently cooled a bit to $385,000 by the beginning of 2024 (due in part to increased
interest rates and relaxed demand post-COVID).
A tight housing ownership market is driving up rents in Joshua Tree. Although the non-seasonal rental vacancy rate
remains what is generally considered balanced (5% in 2021 and 8% in 2022), the increase in home prices during the
Pandemic and rises in interest rates in 2022 has made buying an obstacle to renters who would otherwise pursue
buying. This leads to more renters pursuing the same number of homes, which enables landlords to demand higher
rents, and the increased rents may be simply preventing residents from being able to afford renting a home in Joshua
Tree (which can result in a rise in non-seasonal rental vacancy rates). The average monthly rent for a 2-bedroom home
in Joshua Tree (as reported by Zumper) was roughly $750 prior to 2018, rising to roughly $1,000 through 2019, reaching
$1,250 in 2020, and $1,800 during 2021, and settling at an average of approximately $2,000 in 2022 and 2023. The
average monthly rent for a 3-bedroom home in Joshua tree was roughly $1,100 prior to 2018, rising to roughly $1,500
through 2019, reaching $3,000 during 2021, and settling down a bit to an average of approximately $2,500 in 2022 and
2023.
Morongo Valley. It appears that the COVID Pandemic was the primary driver of a tight rental market (non-seasonal
rental vacancy rate below 1% in 2022) and a surge in rental costs in Morongo Valley. Prior to 2021, the median monthly
rent was between roughly $800 and $900 (US Census). In 2021, median monthly rent rose above $1,000 and in 2022,
median monthly rent was reported to be in excess of $1,300. Zillow reported a peak average monthly rent of over
$2,700 in January 2023, although the latest reported average has fallen to $1,700 (which is still double the median rent
reported in 2020). The pattern of increases in home values for Morongo Valley was similar to Joshua Tree, with home
values below $130,000 before 2017, reaching $205,000 by the beginning of 2020. Then, with the surge in demand
created during the Pandemic, housing values spiked, reaching $247,000 at the beginning of 2021 and $328,000 by the
beginning of 2022. Home values peaked in July 2022 at $355,000 and have subsequently cooled a bit to $326,000 by
the beginning of 2024 (due in part to increased interest rates and relaxed demand post-COVID). These high housing
prices are likely contributing to rents staying above pre-Pandemic levels.
Big Bear City. The Pandemic also appears to be the primary driver of increases in rents and housing costs in Big Bear
City, despite a sustained decline in its non-seasonal rental vacancy rate: from 15% in 2012 to 5% in 2015 to below 2%
in 2017, with rates only falling more through 2022. This trend was also seen in the adjacent City of Big Bear Lake (in
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 33 of 37
contrast with trends in Crestline and Lake Arrowhead). The Big Bear subregion contains the greatest levels of public
services, amenities, and economic activity in the Mountain region, and is likely a popular destination for those seeking
relief from the comparatively high rent levels in the Valley region. However, according to the Census, median rent prices
rose gradually between 2015 ($1,011) and 2020 ($1,119). In 2021 and 2022, the Census reported median rent prices of
$1,269 and $1,384, respectively. Zillow reported a peak average monthly rent of $2,300 in February 2023, although the
latest reported average has fallen to $2,000 (which is still nearly double the median rent reported in 2020). Housing
values in Big Bear City began to rise from roughly $190,000 at the beginning of 2017 to $244,000 by the beginning of
2018, where they stayed relatively stabled through until the beginning of 2020 ($261,000). Then, with the surge in
demand created during the Pandemic, housing values spiked, reaching $298,000 at the beginning of 2021 and $401,000
by the beginning of 2022. Home values peaked in July 2022 at $452,000 and have subsequently cooled a bit to $419,000
by the beginning of 2024 (due in part to increased interest rates and relaxed demand post-COVID).
“Other” Occupancy Category
Looking further into the data, some years categorize a meaningful percentage of the housing stock as “Other.” This
“Other” category is as shown in a fourth column in Figures 20 and 21 and represents housing units that are vacant and
are unavailable for year-round or seasonal occupancy based primarily on a temporary condition. Unfortunately, a more
detailed breakdown of the number and reason for this category of vacancy is unavailable for most places in California
(this data table is only tabulated for a handful of large cities in each state). However, the categorical breakdown is
known and includes: foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legals proceedings, preparing to rent/sell, held for storage
of furniture, needs or is currently being repaired/renovated, intended for year-round occupancy but vacant for 6+
months (extended absence), specific use housing, abandoned or possibly condemned, and unknown.
The percentage of housing units categorized as “Other” appears to fluctuate between 3% and 6% in Joshua Tree and
between 5% and 10% in Homestead Valley. Looking at different years, there does not appear to be a correlation
between the “Other” and “Vacation/2nd home” categories. In other words, the “Other” category does not appear to
represent units that are in the process of transitioning from year-round occupancy to seasonal occupancy. While such
housing could be included in the “Other” category (e.g., a home being renovated for subsequent use as an STR), the
data trends appear to instead indicate that these “Other” units are more likely to correspond to homes that become
occupied on a permanent basis in the following year.
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Relationship and Timing of STR Permit to New Construction
Finally, County permitting data (finalized building permits) was reviewed to identify the amount and proportion of new
housing units built expressly for the purposes of STR activity. This replaces previous analysis based on year-built data.
As it was not feasible to interview all of these applicants to determine their intent behind the new construction (long-
term occupancy, purely vacation/2nd home, or STR), the County looked at the elapsed time between when an applicant
received a final building permit (when the County deems the unit suitable for occupancy) and when the applicant
received an STR permit. According to the County, obtaining a new STR permit takes roughly 50 to 60 days (including all
application and appeal timelines). An STR permit application can also be filed prior to the building permit being finalized,
and so a new housing unit may receive an STR permit as soon as one day after being issued a final building permit. To
identify housing units that were built expressly for the purposes of STR activity, the County identified six months as an
appropriate threshold. This threshold would mean that an applicant building a new housing unit would have applied
for an STR permit no later than four months after the new unit is deemed suitable for occupancy. Such a timeline would
seem to logically identify those who built a unit for the purposes of STR activity from the onset. Those who received an
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 34 of 37
STR permit after six months are presumed to have built the unit for other purposes, and decided later that STR activity
was a desirable option. This time period (more than six months later) includes units that may have been built by one
owner for some non-STR purpose, which were then sold to another owner who later obtained an STR permit. Obviously,
these are assumptions and there are likely some who always intended to use the new unit for STR permit but were
simply delayed in applying. And there are likely some who built the unit only with the intent for use as a vacation/2nd
home but decided to apply for an STR permit within a few months of occupancy. The six-month threshold was deemed
suitable for the purposes of this analysis.
Within the unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities, a total of 986 housing units were built between
December 2019 and May 2024. Of these, 606 (61%) were never associated with an active STR permit, and the balance
of 380 obtained an STR permit at some point after their building permit was finalized. Of these, 239 (24%) obtained an
STR permit within six months. These figures, however, are heavily influenced by STR activity in Joshua Tree, where a
total of 315 units were built and 133 (42%) obtained an STR permit within six months. When looking at all
unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities except Joshua Tree, a total of 671 units were built and only 106
(16%) obtained an STR permit within six months. Moreover, in Joshua Tree, only 37% of the 315 units are not associated
with an STR permit, while in all other unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities, 73% of the 671 units are
not associated with an STR permit. These figures indicate that new construction activity in Joshua Tree is driven largely
by interest in STR activity, but that is not the case in other parts of the unincorporated county. See Figure 27 for more
details.
Figure 27. Relationship and Timing of STR Permit to New Construction, Unincorporated Study Area, 2019-2024
Source: County of San Bernardino, 12/19 to 5/24. Note on legend: The “Non-STR” category references a new unit that has never been associated with an
active STR permit. The “STR permit” categories reference a new unit that obtained an STR permit in less than six months from receiving a final building permit
(“< 6 mo”) or a new unit that obtained an STR permit more than six months after receiving a final building permit (“> 6 mo later”). “Other Study Area” includes
unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities, except Joshua Tree.
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 35 of 37
External Studies and Articles on Short-term Rentals
The following is a list of studies, articles, and other documents that were reviewed in addition to those sources already
cited in this report’s tables and charts. These additional sources were reviewed and considered to understand the
potential impacts of STR activity on the long-term housing market (supply and affordability) in San Bernardino County—
particularly which factors, conditions, and contexts exert the greatest influence.
It should be noted that the various unincorporated communities and regional context of San Bernardino County are
relatively unique compared to other locations in California and especially elsewhere in other parts of America. As such,
all of the following sources of analysis and information were evaluated to obtain a broader understanding of the STR
context, and some were evaluated specifically for their potential applicability to San Bernardino County.
Moreover, the following is not intended to be an exhaustive list of every article or study completed in the last five years,
or even a listing of every source that may have been reviewed, including those articles, studies, and other documents
cited or provided in comment letters (e.g., comment letters submitted by the Morongo Basin Conservation Association).
The following also excludes those sources already listed in Appendices 2 and 3 of Granicus report on Short-term Rental
Data & Housing.
The materials reviewed in the preparation of this technical memorandum were gathered from the full spectrum of
viewpoints and perspectives to ensure a complete set of information was considered. It should be noted that each
study, article, or document was reviewed with the understanding that each author (and where applicable publisher or
funding source) has certain interests and may, even if unintentionally, present information or analysis in a manner that
favors their desired conclusion(s). Additionally, data that was cited in any of the materials listed below was reviewed
and compared with other comparable datasets to glean insight on whether the data and conclusions were applicable
to and valid for the County study area.
Anenberg, E., & Kung, E. (2018). Can More Housing Supply Solve the Affordability Crisis? Evidence from a Neighborhood
Choice Model. Finance and Economics Discussion Series, 2018(035). https://doi.org/10.17016/feds.2018.035
Awning. (2023, December 11). California Airbnb and Short term rental Regulations (2024 update).
https://awning.com/post/california-short-term-rental-laws
Barron, K. (2021, September 17). Research: When Airbnb listings in a city increase, so do rent prices. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2019/04/research-when-airbnb-listings-in-a-city-increase-so-do-rent-prices
[summarizes next
source attributed to Barron, et al.]
Barron, Kyle, Kung, Edward Proserpio, Davide (2020) The Effect of Home-Sharing on House Prices and Rents: Evidence
from Airbnb. Marketing Science 40(1):23-47. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1227
Beacon Economics. (2023, September 5). San Luis Obispo County Short Term Vacation Rentals and Workforce Housing
Study.
https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/slocal/Short_TermVacationRentalsAnd_Work
force_Housing_NexusStudy_2023_09_05_VisitSLO_c253878d-46f4-4e34-b0e6-271dbeeb1cee.pdf
Bekkerman, R. (2021, November 17). Research: Restricting Airbnb rentals Reduces development. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2021/11/research-restricting-airbnb-rentals-reduces-development
[summarizes next source
attributed to Bekkerman, et al.]
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 36 of 37
Bekkerman, Ron and Cohen, Maxime C. and Kung, Edward and Maiden, John and Proserpio, Davide, The Effect of Short-
Term Rentals on Residential Investment (August 23, 2021). [Authors associated with McGill University, Cal State
Northridge, and USC, respectively]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3874207
Bernard, G. (2023, September 1). Budget breakdown: For $404K, a first-time renovator revives a Joshua Tree
midcentury. Dwell.
https://www.dwell.com/article/la-vina-house-brian-ware-joshua-tree-midcentury-renovation-
ac793968
Botros, A. (2024, February 9). Airbnb investor rips South Lake Tahoe short-term rental ban. Fortune.
https://fortune.com/2024/02/09/airbnb-ban-lake-tahoe-investor-short-term-rental-armageddon/
Bradbury, R. (2022, December 7). Airbnb is running riot in Small-Town America. WIRED.
https://www.wired.com/story/airbnb-rentals-sedona-arizona/
Branson-Potts, H. (2024, May 24). Marin caps short-term rentals, saying coastal communities are dying. Los Angeles
Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-24/marin-county-clamps-down-on-short-term-rentals
CBS 8. ADUs rented out as short-term rentals. (2023, December 13).
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/investigations/short-term-rentals-and-adus/509-b577555d-54f3-44c8-9bcc-
75cca9bc746f
Dubetz, A., Horton, M., Kesteven, C., Milken Institute, & Center for Regional Economics and California Center. (2022).
Staying Power: The Effects of Short-Term Rentals on California’s Tourism Economy and Housing Affordability.
https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Short_Term_Rentals_California.pdf
Flemming, J. (2024, January 26). Palm Springs capped short-term rentals. Some home prices are dropping. Los Angeles
Times.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-23/palm-springs-capped-airbnb-rentals-now-some-home-
prices-are-in-free-fall
Kang, W., White, Y., Inland Center for Sustainable Development, & University of California, Riverside. (2022). Housing
affordability in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
https://icsd.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/2022-
02/afford_mismatch_report_v3_0.pdf
Koseff, A. (2023, May 31). Tax on short-term rentals like Airbnb could fund California affordable housing. CalMatters.
https://calmatters.org/politics/capitol/2023/05/airbnb-tax-california-housing/
Lee, T., Lowery, L., Geraghty, L., Funk, K., Carr, S., & National League of Cities. (2022). Short-Term Rental Regulations: A
guide for local governments. https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Short-Term-Rental-Regulations.pdf
Li, Hui and Kim, Yijin and Srinivasan, Kannan, Market Shifts in the Sharing Economy: The Impact of Airbnb on Housing
Rentals (September 8, 2021). Management Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3435105
Seiler, M. J., Siebert, R. B., & Yang, L. (2023). Airbnb or not Airbnb? That is the question: How Airbnb bans disrupt rental
markets. Real Estate Economics, 52(1), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12440
Wachsmuth, D. & Urban Politics and Governance research group, School of Urban Planning, McGill University. (2022).
The economic impacts of short-term rentals in Los Angeles.
https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-
2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf
Memo: Housing Element Program 4 | Summary of Short-term Rental Outreach and Study Findings
May 2024 • Page 37 of 37
Weber, B. (2023, October 11). How Short-Term rentals Increase homebuilding. California YIMBY.
https://cayimby.org/blog/how-short-term-rentals-increase-homebuilding
Wyaloge, Evan (2024, March 21). Is the Palm Springs Real Estate Party Over? Gap on Short-Term Rentals Could Return
Region to Its Hideaway Roots. SFGATE.
https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/is-the-palm-springs-real-estate-
party-over-cap-19193274.php