Short-term rental rules divide Mendocino County residents, supervisors

MENDOCINO CO., 2/23/26 — As short-term rentals spread through parts of Mendocino County, some residents say the residential character of their communities has been replaced by a stream of visitors, late-night noise and dangerous situations in areas with no cell phone service.

“We have a right to enjoy our homes and not have dogs bark all night or thumping music that rattles the windows,” said Fort Bragg resident Jenny Shattuck, who said many of the properties near her have become short-term rentals.

On Feb. 3, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors reviewed 19 recommendations from the county’s Planning and Building Services aimed at regulating short-term rentals in unincorporated inland areas. The proposals — which range from good-neighbor policies to possible caps and enforcement changes — have sparked confusion and strong opinions among residents and rental owners alike.

The recommendations, developed after months of stakeholder meetings and a countywide survey, were intended to clarify where short-term rentals are allowed and how they are regulated. But supervisors rejected or questioned several key proposals, leaving uncertainty about what rules may ultimately govern the growing industry.

One of the biggest sources of confusion has been where the proposed rules would apply. The current discussion focuses on unincorporated inland areas of Mendocino County — meaning areas outside city limits and outside the state-regulated coastal zone. But those boundaries are not always obvious.The coastal zone, governed by the California Coastal Commission under the Coastal Act, extends varying distances inland. That means some properties near coastal communities such as Fort Bragg fall under coastal regulations. Properties within the four incorporated cities — Fort Bragg, Willits, Point Arena and Ukiah — are regulated by their respective city governments.

BCN-20260217-MENDOCOASTALZONEMAP-01

Now, the county must decide how to support a tourism economy that partially depends on short-term rentals while balancing the needs of property owners — many of whom rely on short-term rentals for income — with concerns from residents and officials about neighborhood safety, housing for essential workers and the challenges that arise when visitors are unfamiliar with rural areas.

For Shattuck, who lives on the border between the coastal and inland zones, that balance has already tipped. She said her neighborhood is now roughly half short-term rentals, and residents have had to deal with dogs running loose, late-night parties (there is no local noise ordinance, so calls to the sheriff accomplish little), safety hazards and even a fire that started from a backyard bonfire. With little to no cell service in the area, visitors often have no way to call for help — and about five years ago, that problem became a matter of life and death.

Shattuck said that one night around 2020, she and other neighbors heard screaming coming from a nearby short-term rental, which turned out to be a medical emergency.

“She’s screaming because her husband’s had a heart attack, but there’s no cell phone service. She can’t call,” Shattuck said. “We’re all having to call 911 because there’s someone screaming, but we don’t know where.”

She said it took first responders a half hour to determine where the screaming was coming from, and the patient was eventually helicoptered out for emergency medical treatment.

Real-world consequences of short-term rentals

Not long after, Shattuck had another experience that she said illustrates the impact short-term rentals have on the local workforce. She said that for a time, a neighboring property was rented to long-term tenants who were working professionals — two teachers, a physical therapist and a radiologist. When the property went up for sale, she said the renters wanted to purchase it together, but another offer came in well over asking price, and that buyer turned the property into a vacation rental. She said the tenants ended up moving away because they could not find housing elsewhere, and just weeks later she ended up in the emergency room.

“I have MS, and I needed an MRI because I was relapsing. They told me they don’t have a radiologist, and I would have to wait until next week, but they wouldn’t treat me until I had the MRI,” she said. “We lost two teachers, a physical therapist and a radiologist. Turning houses into vacation rentals has real-life consequences.”

Shattuck’s concerns about short-term rentals are echoed by Westport resident Rob Somerton, who said he has watched multiple homes in his area shift to short-term rentals. He worries that without caps, the turnover could quickly overwhelm the neighborhood.

“Some streets around me already have more than half the homes as short-term rentals,” he said. “At some point, they’re not neighbors anymore — the community goes. It becomes just a money-for-profit scheme in a very quaint, sweet little coastal village.”

Somerton also noted that some of the rentals are managed by larger companies, which he said are transforming neighborhoods that were once close-knit.

Owners may funnel income straight back into the community

Kelley Houghton, a self-employed cleaner and Fort Bragg resident who works with short-term rental hosts, said the rentals can benefit the community by supporting the tourism industry, local businesses and the taxes hosts pay.

Houghton said short-term rentals are just one component of the housing issue the county faces, and that looking at the broader picture shows there are additional factors.

“The easiest way to try to figure out the housing issue is to look it up. It’s easy to look up Airbnb — you go on their app, and you find out how many there are and what areas they’re in. It’s easy to say, ‘If there weren’t Airbnbs, people could live here,’” she said. “But the thing is, what they’re not looking up is how many houses are sitting vacant, because there’s no easy way to look that up.”

From her home, Houghton said she can see seven unoccupied houses on her court alone. She believes vacant second homes and investor-owned properties represent a larger and longer-standing issue than short-term rentals.

“There are wealthy people who buy second homes and barely use them,” she said.

Last spring, during county Planning and Building Services stakeholder meetings, several participants raised concerns about housing affordability for families and seniors on fixed incomes. Many noted that short-term rentals, such as those listed on Airbnb, help homeowners make ends meet by renting out portions of their property.

Some meeting attendees said that in some cases, owners prefer short-term rentals because they want to use their property at times. That means allowing a short-term rental does not necessarily remove a home from the long-term rental market, as some owners would not want to rent long term and lose use of their properties.

Houghton said many short-term rentals do not generate much more income than a long-term rental after overhead and slow seasons are factored in. However, she added that there are other reasons some owners may avoid long-term renters. One reason, she said, is that maintaining the property is easier with a short-term rental.

“You get to see and inspect and clean your property very regularly,” she said. “With a long-term rental, you’re not able to just pop in and check it out once a week and clean it. So there’s a huge risk of your property losing a ton of value if people don’t take care of it.”

She said one homeowner she cleans for is preparing to fully remodel a home after long-term renters moved out.

“Their house is completely destroyed,” she said.

Supervisors are still mulling over the myriad complexities

These resident experiences framed much of the discussion at the Feb. 3 Board of Supervisors meeting, where officials reviewed 19 recommendations from Planning and Building Services on how the county might regulate short-term rentals. The proposals covered a wide range of issues, but several key items drew the most attention from supervisors.

One proposal focused on a good-neighbor policy, which would require owners to notify surrounding residents when a short-term rental is active, check for concerns and provide contact information for issues that arise. Another set of recommendations explored caps on the number of short-term rentals in certain areas, intended to prevent neighborhoods from becoming dominated by visitors. Supervisors also discussed enforcement methods, including potential penalties for violations, and whether higher transient occupancy taxes, or TOT, could be implemented to fund community needs such as long-term housing.

While some measures, such as the good-neighbor policy, were broadly supported, others generated debate — particularly whether to limit corporate ownership or set strict caps in some areas. By the end of the meeting, supervisors had rejected or questioned several proposals, leaving uncertainty about which rules may ultimately take effect.

With resident concerns and owner perspectives in mind, the board then turned to the specifics of the Planning and Building Services recommendations, including several proposals that could directly affect how short-term rentals operate in the county.

Among the 19 recommendations under review, several stood out as particularly significant to both residents and owners. While not exhaustive, the proposals reflected the board’s focus on balancing neighborhood impacts with property rights and tourism needs.

Owner occupancy/hosted rental 

The board agreed that it was not necessary to have a strict owner-on-site rule, but it did support having a host or property manager close enough to respond within a set time, such as 15 or 20 minutes.

Three strikes 

The board agreed that three verified violations within a set time period could lead to revocation of a permit. The board asked staff to research best practices, such as a reasonable timeframe and whether the strikes stick with the property or with the host.

Corporate ownership 

Planning and Building Services recommended limiting permits to individuals and excluding corporate ownership. The board did not approve, for a variety of reasons. 

Some supervisors pointed out that individuals often create LLCs to protect themselves from lawsuits, and that a ban on corporate ownership could hurt local owners by opening themselves up to legal issues.

Fifth District Supervisor Ted Williams said he didn’t think there was a legal path forward to banning corporate permits. 

“I’m interested in this emotionally, but I don’t think there’s a legal way to do it,” Williams said.

However, in a subsequent interview, when asked about the possibility of banning outside corporate ownership while protecting LLCs that are owned by individuals from the county, Third District Supervisor John Haschak said it was on his mind. 

“I wondered about that afterward,” he said. “I’m no legal expert, and I was wondering the same thing. Is there a difference between a corporation and an LLC that residents of Mendocino County form? Can we ban outside ownership of a short-term rental? I think those are questions that I’ll probably bring up again,” he said.

Regional cap system

This proposal would limit short-term rentals to a share of the total housing stock. Overall, the board was open to it, but wanted to see more data first, with supervisors questioning how many are already operating in different areas. 

Second District Supervisor Maureen Mulheren said that she’s concerned about hurting existing short-term rentals with new policies and limiting people’s ability to make income from their property. 

“Especially as people age out of housing and age out of neighborhoods, hopefully we have younger people trying to figure out how to get into the market of home ownership and possibly investments,” she said. 

Discretionary review for short-term rentals accessed via private roads 

This proposal would require a more detailed permitting process for short-term rentals on private roads. There was some interest from the board, as all supervisors acknowledged the complexity of the issue, with Mulheren pointing out that a private road could be “a quarter mile or 24 miles.” It was also noted that this particular proposal would impact some districts, such as the fourth district, more heavily than others. 

One suggestion during the meeting was that requiring on site owner occupancy on private roads may curb some of the issues that neighbors face. 

In a follow-up interview, Haschak said questions remain about how any cap would be implemented, particularly in areas where short-term rentals already make up a large share of housing. He said the county would need accurate data and careful planning to avoid unintended consequences for both residents and property owners.

“If there are already communities inundated, then how do you get them into the model that we adopt?” he wondered. 

Planning and Building Services staff will use the board’s direction to develop a draft ordinance. The ordinance will be subject to California Environmental Quality Act review, followed by hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors before any final approval.

The outcome could shape not only how short-term rentals operate in Mendocino County, but whether rural neighborhoods remain primarily residential.