A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Riverside County planning commission backs stronger enforcement, sends short‑term rental amendments to Board

January 21, 2026 | Riverside County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Riverside County planning commission backs stronger enforcement, sends short‑term rental amendments to Board
The Riverside County Planning Commission voted 4‑0 on Jan. 21 to send proposed amendments to the county's Short Term Rental Ordinance (Ordinance 9 27) and related fee changes to the Board of Supervisors, with explicit directions to tighten enforcement and clarify who residents should call when problems arise.

Staff told the commission the county now has about 1,100 certified short‑term rentals (STRs) and presented a package of changes intended to improve enforcement, close procedural gaps and update STR application fees. Scott Bruckner of the county planning department said staff also plans a parallel administrative update to Ordinance 6 71 to align STR application fees with current deposit‑based fee rates.

The proposal would broaden the types of written notices code enforcement issues (advisory notices, cease‑and‑desist orders and citations) so violations create a clearer paper trail for escalation. "We are going to change it to a notice from code enforcement," Code Enforcement Director Brian Contino said, explaining that clearer notice language will allow staff to gather the documentation needed to suspend or revoke permits when operators repeatedly violate the rules.

Staff described a strengthened pre‑issuance screening so new applicants or owners seeking additional certificates could be denied if they have multiple verified violations on record. Contino said the proposed rule would permit withholding a permit where an applicant or owner has three verified violations within the applicable lookback period.

The package also includes operational clarifications: residents should call the county hotline/code enforcement first (answered 24/7) so complaints are logged and verified by staff; responsible operators must respond to verified noise complaints and, on a second confirmed noise violation within 24 hours, meet on‑site with code or sheriff personnel within 60 minutes; and the county will accept sheriff case notes as verification for citations when appropriate.

Staff proposed fee increases to reflect current deposit‑based fee levels. Bruckner said the county's prior fee update (July 2022) set an initial application fee at $740 and a renewal at $540; under the new calculation staff said the initial fee would increase to $1,040 and the renewal fee to $750 to align with comparable jurisdictions.

The commission also discussed interactions between STR rules and the temporary‑event permit code (Ordinance 3 48). Planning Director John Hildebrand urged care in drafting language so that occasional private events remain permissible while recurring commercial events on residential properties would be restricted or require a separate permit and, in some parts of the county, a distinct pathway (for example, permitted "rancho" event venues in parts of the Coachella Valley).

Residents who spoke during the hearing urged stronger enforcement rather than ordinance changes that rely solely on warnings. Janice Charnay, who said she represents more than a dozen families in Thousand Palms and B Bar H Ranch, asked the commission to extend the moratorium on new STR certificates indefinitely: "We are unanimously requesting that the current moratorium be extended indefinitely," she said, describing repeated weekend parties, fireworks and safety concerns. Other speakers from Wine Country pressed for immediate fines, occupancy verification at the door and zero tolerance for amplified music.

Staff presented complaint and enforcement data for the areas subject to the Board's temporary moratorium (Board interim ordinances 449,254 and 449,255). Between July and December staff recorded 25 hotline complaints in Thousand Palms (from 8 complainants about 6 properties) and 12 complaints in B Bar H Ranch (from 7 complainants about 8 properties). Staff reported that enforcement cases and citations increased after the moratorium, and concluded that concentrated enforcement and noise mitigation — not density caps alone — are the primary tools to address the problem.

Commissioners debated concrete edits to enforcement thresholds. After discussion the commission voted to recommend three principal clarifications be included when the package goes to the Board: (1) explicitly instruct residents to call code enforcement first (to create a county log and evidence trail rather than operator‑only notification); (2) clarify certificate‑specific occupancy limits tied to parcel size and district (the ordinance already includes 10/16/20 person tiers but commissioners asked staff to tighten certificate language so 10 on the certificate means 10 people on site); and (3) shorten the lookback for repeated‑violation calculation from 12 months to six months and reduce the total violation threshold that can trigger revocation from seven to five. Chair Gruich made the motion; Vice Chair Clack seconded; the motion passed 4–0.

The commission noted the Board has already adopted an interim moratorium on new STR certificates in Thousand Palms and B Bar H Ranch that is due to expire Feb. 28 and recommended staff bring the clarified package to the Board for consideration on Feb. 10. Staff also said appeal and hearing procedures for enforcement actions are referenced to the county's code enforcement procedures (Ordinance 7 25) and that staff would consider whether the STR ordinance should explicitly cite that process so applicants understand appeal timelines.

The commission asked staff to include clearer language about operator posting/contact information, how HOA covenants are handled (staff said applicants currently self‑certify HOA permission and the county will pursue enforcement steps if it later determines STR use is prohibited by private covenants), and to present options for SET team hours and coverage to the Board for policy consideration. The Planning Commission adjourned after scheduling follow‑up items and public outreach steps.

The Board of Supervisors will receive the commission's recommended amendments and edits on Feb. 10; any ordinance changes would require Board action before becoming binding.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee