Simi Valley planning panel urges City Council to ban short-term rentals, citing enforcement and neighborhood impacts

The Simi Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously on March 4 to recommend that the City Council deny a proposed ordinance to regulate short-term rentals and instead adopt a citywide ban.

Staff presented draft amendments to the municipal code that would define short-term rentals (STRs), add them as a residential land use in Title 9, and establish permitting and performance standards in Title 5, including an annual permit limited to one per person or entity, required business tax certificates and a nuisance-response plan with three local contacts. Associate planner Alex Klingman told commissioners that staff’s platform review identified approximately 100 listings within the city and that under Senate Bill 346 the city would be able to request platform data only if an ordinance were in effect. "Short term rentals are private residences that are rented out for a period of less than 30 days," Klingman said during the presentation.

The draft also proposed occupancy and safety rules — the plan language before the commission included an occupancy calculation of two adults plus two children per bedroom and, as an alternative, an eight-person maximum per unit used in some Ventura County jurisdictions. Staff said permit applicants would be required to provide proof of liability insurance, display permit numbers on listings, and, for unhosted STRs, notify property owners within 200 feet at permit issuance or renewal.

Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to allowing STRs in neighborhoods. More than a dozen residents told commissioners STRs function as de facto hotels, create parking and noise problems, reduce housing supply and depress property values. "Short term rentals are businesses run strictly for profit," resident Anthony Easton said, urging commissioners to recommend a ban. Multiple speakers said four neighborhood councils unanimously recommended a ban and that petitions with hundreds of signatures had been submitted to the council.

Commissioners’ questions focused on enforceability and cost. Staff and consultants presented a range of revenue and expense estimates: an early staff estimate of gross STR revenue of roughly $125,000 was later shown in consultant materials as a larger estimate (about $230,000 total in certain tables), and staff said vendor and enforcement costs could be material. Staff described vendor options for identifying noncompliant listings (Deckard, HDL, Granicus), noting base and setup fees ranging from roughly $5,000 to $14,000 and vendor enforcement scenarios with first-year costs reported up to about $37,000 and recurring annual costs near $32,000, not including staff time. Staff also said consultants estimate about 80–100 active STRs after an initial drop-off when permits are required.

Commissioners debated trade-offs between imposing strict guardrails that could be costly to administer and banning STRs outright. Several commissioners cited neighborhood council input and the risk that the city would shoulder enforcement costs if platforms did not share data until a local ordinance existed. Vice Chairperson Rice moved — and Commissioner Mann seconded — a motion to recommend denial of ZS-2025-0006 and to ask the City Council to adopt a citywide ban. The motion passed unanimously.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory; the City Council will consider the matter and has the authority to adopt, modify, or reject the commission’s recommendation. The commission forwarded its record, the public comments and the staff report to the council for final action. The commission’s resolution read on the record was: Resolution SBPC2-2026, recommending denial of the proposed code amendments and, as recorded, establishing a recommendation for a citywide ban on STRs.

The council will receive the full administrative record and public testimony as part of its hearing process. The Planning Commission’s next scheduled meeting is March 25, 2026.