A public hearing to consider Simi Valley Municipal Code amendments (Z-S-2025-0006) to regulate (allow) short-term rentals in residential zones, a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and the introduction of an ordinance

City of Simi Valley
Staff Report

May 11, 2026

To: City Council

From: Department of Environmental Services
Stratis Perros, Environmental Services Director

Subject: A public hearing to consider Simi Valley Municipal Code amendments (Z - S-2025-0006) to regulate (allow) short-term rentals in residential zones, a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and the introduction of an ordinance

Recommendation

The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not adopt an ordinance amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code (Z-S-2025-0006) to allow short-term rentals in residential zones and, instead, to establish a citywide prohibition on short-term rentals.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the Planning Commission, Neighborhood Councils and short-term rental survey results in its determination whether to allow or ban short-term rentals.

Background

On December 15, 2025, Staff presented a draft short-term rental (STR) ordinance to the City Council. The Council proposed modifications to the ordinance and directed staff to present the ordinance to the Neighborhood Councils and the Planning Commission for input. Additionally, at the direction of the City Council, a STR survey was conducted in April 2026 to provide a statistically reliable understanding of the community’s perceptions, opinions, and concerns regarding STRs . The survey used rigorous methodological standards that yield valid, reliable measures of the opinions and behaviors of interest and data representative of the voter population.

STR Survey

The City contracted with True North Research, Inc. to conduct the Simi Valley STR survey. True North is a full-service survey research firm that has designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies at all levels of government, including STR -related surveys for the cities of Dana Point, Manhattan Beach, Solano Beach, Alhambra, and San Mateo, among many other communities.

The survey was administered to a random sample of 670 adults who are registered to vote in Simi Valley. However, o nly 500 survey participants were needed to obtain a statistically valid sample of the Simi Valley population. Among respondents, 61% have lived in Simi Valley for more than 15 years, 62.3 % are homeowners (of which 73% own detached, single-family residences), and 48% are age 50 or older. These characteristics

Agenda Item No.

are generally representative of the Simi Valley community. The Short-Term Rental Survey Summary Report, which includes all survey questions and results, is attached (Attachment I).

Regarding the initial opinion on STRs in Simi Valley, 70% of respondents opined that STRs should be allowed (12% believed they should be allowed and not regulated, and 58% believed they should be allowed under certain conditions and regulated).

Approximately one- quarter of respondents (24%) opined that STRs should not be allowed in Simi Valley under any conditions, whereas 6% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question. Several STR policy -related questions were also asked, including requiring the property to pass a safety inspection, issuing fines for non- compliance, and limiting the number of guests per bedroom. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of including these types of restrictions as part of an STR ordinance.

After the questions and statements were asked, which included several critical statements like Short-term rentals cause a lot of problems, including overcrowding, noise, and parking issues and Short-term rentals hurt the quality of life in a neighborhood by creating a revolving door of tourists , a final opinion question was asked regarding STRs. The number of respondents who opined that STRs should be allowed increased to 72% (8% allowed and not regulated, and 64% allowed under certain conditions and regulated). 24% remained of the opinion that STRs should not be allowed, and 5% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.

Neighborhood Councils

The proposed ordinance to allow and regulate STRs was reviewed by the four Neighborhood Council Executive Boards in January of 2026 (see page 29 of Attachment E). All four voted against it, with three recommending a prohibition on STRs. Key concerns included:

● Incompatibility with residential neighborhoods
● Enforcement challenges and costs
● Lack of limits on corporate ownership and the total number of STRs ● Parking, safety, and high guest turnover

Planning Commission

At the public hearing on March 4, 2026, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance and establish a citywide prohibition on STRs (Attachment E and F).

This recommendation was based on concerns regarding:

• Administrative and enforcement costs, and overall enforceability • Compatibility with residential neighborhoods
• Potential impacts related to parking, traffic, noise, and neighborhood safety • Potential impacts on residential property values

2 Public Hearing Noticing

Notice of tonight’s City Council public hearing was published in the Ventura County Star on April 17, 2026.

Environmental Analysis

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). No additional environmental review is required for this Ordinance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3). The proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA because it will not, by itself, make physical changes to the environment. The proposed Ordinance is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 and 15303 for activities that involve negligible or no expansion of use for existing facilities and for the conversion of existing small structure for another use.

Finally, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption that it will not affect the environment . A Notice of Exemption is attached as Attachment D.

Discussion

Two options are provided to the City Council for consideration: (1) adopt an ordinance amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code to allow and regulate STRs; or (2) prohibit STRs citywide. There are several elements that will be required for either option, such as a method for identifying STRs operating in the City ; c oordination across multiple City departments and a third-party vendor, HdL, for the collection of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT); and potential code enforcement efforts.

It should be noted that ‘party houses’ or similar event venues are already prohibited in residential zones. The proposed ordinance includes an additional prohibition on allowing paid events or group events with non-registered guests.

Regulatory Framework

The following sections outline the proposed regulatory approach under the two options, including key provisions and modifications previously directed by the City Council.

Option 1: Regulate (allow) STRs

Ordinance No. 1370 (Attachment C) would establish a comprehensive STR regulatory framework for permitting STRs. The ordinance also includes the following modifications as directed by City Council at the December 15, 2025, hearing:

3 • STRs will be allowed in multi-family dwellings, excluding apartments. • STRs would be allowed in ADUs, guest houses, etc., unless prohibited by California law.
• No annual cap will be implemented for STR permits.
• A person or legal entity may only hold one STR permit at a time. • A definition for ‘loud or unruly gathering’ was added instead of ‘illegal parties.’ • A distinction will be made between ‘hosted’ and ‘un- hosted’ STRs. Hosted STRs are those where the property owner lives on-site, renting a room/part of the home to the guest. Un- hosted means the host is absent and the guest has the entire property.
o The potential for a tiered fee system was discussed , with lower fees for hosted STRs. This is because hosted STRs are often ‘mom and pop’ operations versus commercial ones. However, a tiered system is not being proposed at this time.
o The nuisance response plan will not need to be mailed out for hosted STRs. • Bedroom occupancy will be limited to two adults and two children up to 12 years of age.
• Vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the STR must not park on a public street.
• Reporting for STR permit holders will be on a quarterly basis instead of monthly.

The Neighborhood Councils and Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and recommended consideration of the following modifications if short -term rentals are permitted:

• Stricter occupancy limits per unit, with a potential cap of eight occupants maximum, even for larger homes with four or more bedrooms.
• Inspections of dwelling units proposed for use as short -term rentals to verify compliance with applicable building, fire, and safety codes (such as smoke detectors, pool gates, and permitted structures).
• Limits on the number of short-term rentals permitted within close proximity to one another.
• Prohibiting the use of non-state exempt Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as short- term rentals.
• Caps on the maximum number of rental nights allowed per year and the total number of short-term rentals permitted citywide.
• A minimum nightly stay requirement.
• Requiring all short-term rentals to be hosted.

If the City Council chooses to provide direction based on this feedback, amendments to the proposed ordinance are provided as Attachment H.

Option 2: Prohibit STRs

Adoption of Ordinance No. 1369 (Attachment B) would amend the Title to the SVMC to define STRs and prohibit them in all residential zones.

4 Third-party vendor for STR regulation

If STRs are allowed in the City, HdL , a third-party vendor will administer the quarterly collection of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and the annual Business Tax Certificate (BTC). It would oversee the annual renewal of the BTC and the one -time issuance of the Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate. The City already contracts with HdL to administer BTC for businesses within the City. HdL would charge a one-time $2,500 setup fee to handle BTC and TOT administration for STRs.

HdL offers a ‘compliance’ component to their services with a team specializing in STRs.

This service would cost $13,975 for the first year, with ongoing annual costs of $9,750 thereafter, plus any applicable C onsumer Price Index (CPI) increases. This component could be utilized if STRs are either permitted or banned. The incorporation of this in cost recovery for permits is discussed further in the report.

Utilizing HdL would allow real -time monitoring of actively listed short -term rentals by scanning multiple hosting platforms. HdL can compare listing data with City permit records to identify non-compliant operators. This approach would allow City staff to obtain STR listing information quickly and on an ongoing basis.

HdL would supplement City efforts by issuing reminder notices, monitoring continued listings, conducting follow -up outreach, and referring unresolved violations to Code Enforcement for final action. Code Enforcement staff and the City Attorney’s Office could then pursue legal enforcement measures in extreme cases (see approach 1 below).

HdL’s higher first-year costs include an educational component with a series of City - approved educational programs, assisting STR hosts throughout the program with information and support with all aspects of becoming compliant, an online portal with links to FAQs, education packets, and support for registering, filing returns, and making payments online (if applicable).

Initial Mail-Out Program

Identifying short -term rentals operating in the City, and informing them of the new regulations, will be a key element of a regulation strategy . If STRs are permitted, HdL’s compliance component will achieve this goal. With a prohibition, a staff option may be available with SB 346 in lieu of the HdL component. City Staff would need a process to identify active listings, compare those listings to City records, and notify operators of the applicable requirements.

Enforcement Approaches

Three enforcement approaches are detailed on the next page. Option 1 is recommended for a permitting program. The other options may be used if STRs are prohibited.

5 1. Vendor Enforcement (HdL):

Ongoing monitoring and identification of violations using third- party vendor services. This approach would allow real -time monitoring of listings. It is the recommended approach for a permitting program.

2. Reactive Enforcement (Complaint-Based): Enforcement of short -term rentals operating in violation of a prohibition would occur in response to complaints. This is the City’s current approach for many Code Enforcement matters and would likely be the most cost-effective option.

3. In-house Enforcement (SB 346):

Ongoing monitoring and identification of short-term rentals operating in violation of a prohibition through SB 346 data requests at regular intervals coordinated by the City Attorney’s Office. It is important to note that SB 346 is untested, making it difficult to determine whether this approach will be effective.

If one particular approach is chosen in conjunction with a prohibition of STRs, it could be implemented during the first year and reevaluated for effectiveness . For reference, from 2025 through April 2026, the City has received 10 STR complaints for five addresses.

A review of nearby jurisdictions, where STRs are not allowed, shows a range of enforcement strategies, including fully complaint -based models (Camarillo), hybrid approaches (Moorpark), and fully proactive enforcement programs (Ojai). Where STRs are allowed, the City of San Buenaventura utilized Deckard as an outside consultant, and the County of Ventura hired two full-time staff to handle STR compliance.

Operational Violations

It is important to distinguish between violations of operating a short -term rental and violations resulting from the operation of a short-term rental.

Operational violations may include noise, parking, trash, or similar nuisance- related issues. These types of violations would be addressed through existing enforcement processes. Complaints received during normal business hours would be responded to by Code Enforcement staff. After -hours complaints would be handled by the Police Department. Note that previous cost estimates assumed that a Code Enforcement Officer would be hired for after-hours complaints; however, the Council determined this was not required at the December 15, 2025, City Council meeting.

Enforcement tools may include notices of violation, administrative citations, civil penalties, and potential legal action in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office. If short- term rentals are permitted, repeated operational violations could result in suspension or revocation of the short-term rental permit. If short-term rentals are prohibited, operational violations would be addressed through the City’s existing enforcement procedures.

6 Financial Impacts

Under an allow-and-regulate scenario, staff anticipate revenues after expenses between $151,847 and $162,743 per year. In a prohibited scenario, the estimated initial cost is $13,795, with annual costs to the City ranging from $2,250 to $9,750.

Several cost estimates were previously prepared to evaluate the potential financial impacts of STR regulation. Those estimates, however, were refined based on additional research and updated projections. It is important to understand that these estimates are approximate and may change during the actual implementation of STR regulations due to varying levels of compliance.

Option 1: Regulate STRs

A STR permitting program has two cost components. These would be the operation of the permitting program, i.e. , the cost of administering the permits, and the cost of responding to any violations arising from the operation of STRs within the City , “operational violations” as described above.

Of the approximately 100 known STR operations in the City, it is assumed that approximately 70 would obtain the required permits after implementation of an STR permitting program , consistent with assumptions based on previous reports, with revenues based on this. The estimated City’s costs are based on a Planner’s time for application review, coordinating with other staff on enforcement issues , a Building Inspector's time for pre-permitting inspections, and administrative staff time.

The goal with administering the permits would be cost recovery via fees. Staff worked with Revenue & Cost Specialists, the City’s permit cost consultant , to obtain representative staff times for STR permit administration.

The cost of HdL or the City Attorney and Code Enforcement time to enforce the SVMC with the permitting requirement would also need to be calculated, assuming that the cost would be split among the 7 0 permits. Year 2 costs for HdL ($9,750) are included in the cost recovery portion, as the setup fee and the education portion of the compliance component are considered one-time costs to be absorbed by the City. Staff has proposed the permit costs below, assuming that a minimum of 70 STRs would obtain permits in the City.

The first page of Attachment G itemizes the staff time to process an STR permit which determines the $741.14 cost of permit issuance. There would be higher first-year costs due to setup required for a permitting system, website updates (approximately $4,000 for staff time) , and the HdL administration setup cost ($2,500) . HdL’s compliance option includes $4,225 for an educational component (See Table 1 below) to help operators come into compliance.

7 Enforcement on Permitting Violations:

Enforcement related to operating a STR without permits would initially be handled by HdL.

This includes initial outreach to STR owner/operator from HdL indicating that they are out of compliance. If it is unsuccessful, the case would be turned over to Code Enforcement, with staff time spent issuing Notices of Violation (NOVs) and conducting inspections. City Attorney costs would apply when cases escalate to formal legal action. These costs are difficult to narrow down until a dditional annual data is collected. Estimated enforcement costs may range from approximately $ 360 per individual NOV case to approximately $8,000 for a case that escalates to full legal action. This would be an additional cost with potentially limited cost recovery.

Some costs may be recovered through nuisance abatement filings and through penalties and fines incorporated into the Simi Valley Municipal Code. SB 60 allows STR violation fines up to $1,500 for a first violation, $3,000 for a second violation, and $5,000 for subsequent violations

Enforcement on Operational Violations:

Enforcement related to operational violations , such as noise complaints, parking violations, nuisance issues associated with short-term rental activity, would be based on Police Department response time and Code Enforcement follow-up as needed.

This analysis assumes approximately four to 10 complaints annually, requiring Police Department response and potential coordination with Code Enforcement , depending on severity. Estimated annual costs for operational enforcement are anticipated to range from approximately $1,800 to $17,000 per year. Similar to permitting violations, this would be an additional cost to the city, and cost recovery is uncertain.

Regulating STRs – Revenues and costs
Staff prepared a conservative estimate of revenue and costs for regulating STRs (Table 1) based on 70 STRs operating in the City.

8 Table 1: Estimated Revenues and Costs to Regulate STRs (Excluding Enforcement)
Vendor (HdL)
Year 1 Year 2+
Estimated Permit Fee $44,468 $44,468
Business Tax Revenue $8,060 $8,060
Gross Receipts Tax Revenue $2,450 $2,450
Estimated TOT Revenue $152,233 $152,233
Total Estimated Revenue $207,211
Set Up Costs* $10,896 -
Permit Administration ** $44,468 $44,468
Total Estimated Cost $55,364 $44,468

NET REVENUE $151,847 $162,743
*Includes HdL setup costs, permitting system setup, education components, etc. **Permit administration is based on cost recovery described in the financial impact section above.

As noted above, the cost of City Attorney, Code Enforcement, and Police Department staff responding to both permitting and operational violations would also affect the City’s overall net revenue, depending on the frequency and severity of violations.

Staff explored the option of utilizing SB 346 in lieu of HdL; however, this approach has several uncertainties. While SB 346 may appear more cost-effective upfront, the data provided by hosting platforms may be incomplete, delayed, and in different formats from different platforms. T he law is relatively new and untested. Additionally, this approach would require significant ongoing staff time for mail -outs, enforcement, compliance tracking, and operator education. Staff would need to create new handouts and related materials and learn about all the platforms and how they operate, etc.

Option 2: Prohibit STRs
If the City Council adopts an ordinance prohibiting STRs, the financial impacts would consist of two components : identifying existing STRs and enforcing them to shut down through voluntary compliance and enforcement actions. These costs would vary depending on whether the City utilizes HdL or an in-house (SB 346) approach.

Staff recommends utilizing HdL to support implementation and enforcement of a ban, as HdL has already established tools for identifying active listings across multiple platforms, ensuring more complete and timely data compared to the new and untested SB 346 process as discussed above.

The City would first identify active STR listings and notify operators of the ban. The two options for ongoing monitoring costs are given below (Table 2). The in-house approach assumes that the data provided by operators is of sufficient quality for effective enforcement.
9 ● HdL (Vendor Approach): HdL provides ongoing monitoring of STR listings across multiple platforms, identifies non- compliant properties, and supports issuance of initial compliance notices. Estimated annual cost:
○ Year 1: $13,975 HdL setup fee
○ Year 2+: $9,750 (plus CPI adjustments)

● SB 346 (In -House Approach): The City w ould request listing data directly from hosting platforms. Staff would also prepare and distribute initial notices. Estimated costs:
○ Year 1: $ 4,495 i nitial data request+ $ 6,871.57 based on 40 hours of enforcement effort + $ 171.07 (one-time initial mail- out cost) totaling:
$11,537.64.
○ Year 2+: $750 to $1,500 for data requests only totaling $2,250.00.

If STRs are prohibited, the first year will require more resources to ensure compliance.

After initial notification, enforcement would focus on ensuring STRs stop operating. Some facilitators, such as Airbnb, actively remove listings from their platforms when STRs are not permitted in a city or when operators fail to provide a required local license number.

Table 2: Estimated Fixed Costs to Prohibit STRs
(Excluding Enforcement)

Vendor (HDL) In-house (SB346)
Year 1 Year 2+ Year 1 Year 2+
Total Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0
Set Up Cost $13,795.00 $0 $4,666.07 $0
Administration $0 $9,750.00 $6,871.57 $2,250.00
Total Estimated Cost $13,795.00 $9,750.00 $11,537.64 $2,250.00

A complaint-based (reactive) enforcement approach may be an option after Year 1. This is not separately costed, as it is already part of existing City services. However, it would generally result in lower overall costs, with expenditures dependent on the number of complaints received.

Ongoing compliance costs may range from approximately $360 per individual NOV case to approximately $8,000 for a case that escalates to full legal action involving the City Attorney’s Office. As mentioned before, some cost recovery may be possible when cases escalate, and fines are imposed. If there are continued operational violations from unpermitted STRs, these costs may range from $1,800 to $17,000 per year , based on 4 to 10 complaints a year.

Effective Date

While new ordinances take effect 31 days after adoption, staff recommends a deferred implementation date of January 1, 2027. This would allow staff to prepare any necessary contract amendments, set up the permitting system, and collect the most up-to-date STR data through HdL. Additionally, it would provide HdL or Code Enforcement with sufficient 10 time to prepare initial outreach materials and allow STR owners time to come into compliance. STR operators in the City would be required to have a valid permit by January 1, 2027 to avoid enforcement.

The following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1369 amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code to prohibit short -term rentals in residential zones and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

2. Introduce Ordinance No. 1370 amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code to regulate (allow) short-term rentals in residential zones and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

3. Provide Staff with other direction.

The Planning Commission recommends Alternative No. 1.

City Council Priority

This item supports three of the City’s Pillars of Excellence – Excellent City Government, Fiscal Stability, and Public Safety.

Suggested Motion

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 1369 amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code to prohibit short-term rentals in residential zones and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 1370 amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code to regulate (allow) short -term rentals in residential zones and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act

Summary

On December 15, 2025, staff presented a draft short -term rental ordinance, which was modified by the City Council and shared with the Neighborhood Councils and Planning Commission for input . Both had concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, enforcement challenges, and potential impacts, and ultimately recommended a citywide ban on STRs. Two options are provided for Council consideration: (1) allow STRs or (2) prohibit them along with associated enforcement approaches, operational considerations, and financial impacts. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not allow STRs in residential zones and instead establish a citywide prohibition on short-term rentals.

Prepared by: Alexandra Clingman, Associate Planner
11 Attachments

Attachment A – Public Hearing Procedure
Attachment B – Ordinance No. 1369 (to prohibit STRs)
Attachment C – Ordinance No. 1370 (to regulate/allow STRs) Attachment D – CEQA Notice of Exemption
Attachment E – March 4, 2026, Planning Commission Packet Attachment F – Draft March 4, 2026, Planning Commission Minutes Attachment G – Permit Fees & Enforcement Costings
Attachment H – Potential Ordinance Modifications
Attachment I – Short-Term Rental Survey Summary Report
12 Attachment A

PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE

HEARING DATE: May 11, 2026

1. CITY CLERK: This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider Simi Valley Municipal Code amendments (Z-S-2025-0006) to regulate short -term rentals in residential zones, a
determination that the amendments are exempt from the
California Environmental Qual ity Act, and the introduction of an ordinance. (Read by City Clerk including reading
Ordinance)

2. MAYOR: Before we begin, are there any ex parte communications to report?

3. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER: (Report)

4. MAYOR: Staff may begin with the oral report on this matter.

5. STAFF: (Report)

6. MAYOR: Any questions of staff from City Council Members? (Questions of staff and staff response)

7. MAYOR: At this time I would like to open the hearing for anyone in the City Council Chambers wishing to be heard on this matter?

8. AUDIENCE: Public Testimony and Comments

9. MAYOR: Does Staff desire to respond to any comments or issues raised?

10. STAFF: (Response to comments and additional City Council questions)

11. MAYOR: Any further comments or questions from City Council Members?

12. MAYOR: The hearing is now closed.

13. MAYOR: I will now entertain a motion.

13 14. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER : City Council Actions (by motion of any Council Member):

1) I move to introduce first reading of Ordinance No. 1369 amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code to prohibit short- term rentals in residential zones and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act. (does not require a second or a vote; requires reading of ordinance);

2) I move to introduce first reading of Ordinance No. 1370 amending the Simi Valley Municipal Code to regulate
(allow) short -term rentals in residential zones and a
determination that the amendments are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act. (does not require a second or a vote; requires reading of ordinance);

*Any action to refer the matter back to staff or to continue the matter requires a second and a vote.

15. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER : Second

16. MAYOR: (Call for vote)

17. MAYOR: Proceed to the next item.

14 Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.1369

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SIMI VALLEY PROHIBITING SHORT -TERM RENTALS

CITYWIDE AND AMENDING THE SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL

CODE TO PERMIT ONLY THOSE LAND USES IDENTIFIED
IN TITLE 9

WHEREAS, Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution empowers the City to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations governing land use, aesthetics, traffic, parking, public peace, and other matters related to public health, safety, and welfare, including conditions that may constitute public nuisances or health hazards, or that promote social, economic, or aesthetic considerations.

WHEREAS, s hort-term tenants who stay for only a few days or weeks in residential areas often have limited connection to local governance and community organizations. Prohibiting short-term rentals serves to preserve community stability and protect long-term residents from the secondary effects of transient commercial uses in residential neighborhoods.

WHEREAS, regulations that prohibit transient commercial uses of residential property are valid because they are rationally related to preserving and enhancing the residential character of a neighborhood and the stability of the community. (See Ewing v.

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1579.)

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General Plan, including the objective of maintaining the quality and character of the City’s residential neighborhoods.

WHEREAS, this Ordinance promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).

WHEREAS, o n December 15, 2025, Staff was directed by City Council to prepare a final ordinance with modifications to regulate short -term rentals (STRs) (the “Project”) and present the ordinance to Neighborhood Council and Planning Commission before returning to Council.

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2026, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council establish a citywide ban on STRs. This recommendation was based on concerns regarding administrative and enforcement costs, overall enforceability, compatibility with residential neighborhoods, impacts related to parking, traffic, noise, and neighborhood safety, and potential impacts on residential property values.

WHEREAS, the City reviewed the Project’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated under it (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”).
15 Ord. No.1369

WHEREAS, the City scheduled a public hearing regarding the proposed Project before the City Council for May 11, 2026. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed Project was posted as required by the SVMC.

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2026, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Project including this Ordinance.

WHEREAS, t his Ordinance, and its findings, are based on the entire administrative record considered during the May 11, 2026, public hearing, including the staff report and accompanying documents.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Amendments Adopted. The City Council amends the SVMC as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference. The City Clerk may make technical, clerical, corrections to Exhibit A as approved by the City Attorney.

SECTION 2: Short Term Rentals Prohibited; Public Nuisance. Short-term rentals (STR) is a prohibited land use within the City and consists of an occupancy of a dwelling unit, or part thereof, excluding garages, unconditioned storage areas, unconditioned accessory residential structures, vacant land and/or temporary structures, that is not a lodging hotel or motel, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting any fraction of a day as a full day, in exchange for consideration, whether paid in money, goods, or services. Since such land uses are not permitted by SVMC Title 9, as amended by this Ordinance, engaging in such uses is a misdemeanor and constitutes a public nuisance. Pursuant to Government Code § 50990(b), the City Council adopts and makes the provisions of Government Code § 50990 — the Short -Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 — applicable within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Simi Valley. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate administrative policies and procedures to implement this Section in a form approved by the City Attorney.

SECTION 3: Environmental Review. The City Council has determined that this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq .) because it will not result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2)), does not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15378), and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)). The Ordinance establishes regulatory standards and permit procedures only.

SECTION 4: Electronic Signatures . This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code § 16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

16 Ord . No.1369
SECTION 5: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

S
ECTION 6: Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

S
ECTION 7: Recordation and Publication . The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Simi Valley’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

S
ECTION 8: Effective Date . This Ordinance will go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.

PASSED
and ADOPTED this 11th day of May 2026.

A
ttest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
A
pproved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
17 Exhibit A
9-78.020 General Prohibitions
A. Except as provided in this title, it is unlawful to construct, reconstruct, or structurally alter any building or use any real property for any purpose other than is specifically permitted in the zone in which the building or land is located. Using any building or real property for a purpose prohibited by applicable law including this code is a misdemeanor. Unless otherwise specifically permitted by this title, and notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, no new use is permitted unless it is permitted by both State and Federal law. No structure shall be moved into an area, erected, reconstructed, added to, enlarged, structurally altered, or maintained, and no structure or land shall be used for any purpose, except as specifically provided and allowed by this Development Code, with respect to land uses, building heights, yards, area coverage, and lot width and with respect to all other regulations, conditions, and limitations prescribed by this Development Code as applicable to the same zone or subzone in which such use, structure, or land is located.

B. No person shall use or permit to be used any building, structure, or land or erect, structurally alter, or enlarge any building or structure, except for the uses permitted in this Development Code and in accordance with the provisions of this Development Code applicable thereto.

CB. No permit or entitlement may be issued or renewed for any use, construction, improvement, or other purpose unless specifically provided for or permitted by this Development Code title.

DC. No person obtains any right or privilege to use land or structure for any purpose or in any manner described in an application merely by the mere acceptance of filing an application.
18 Ord. No. 1369
Attachment C
ORDINANCE NO. 1370

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SIMI VALLEY FOR SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENTS (Z -S-2025-0006) TO REGULATE SHORT -

TERM RENTALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND A

DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution empowers the City to enact and enforce ordinances regulating conditions that may be public nuisances or health hazards, or that promote social, economic, or aesthetic considerations; and

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2025, Staff was directed by City Council to prepare a final ordinance with modifications to regulate short -term rentals ( STRs) (the “Project”) and present the ordinance to Neighborhood Council and Planning Commission before returning to Council; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2026 , the Planning Commission recommended that City Council deny the proposed ordinance and establish a citywide ban on STRs.

This recommendation was based on concerns regarding administrative and enforcement costs, overall enforceability, compatibility with residential neighborhoods, impacts related to parking, traffic, noise, and neighborhood safety , and potential impacts on residential property values; and

WHEREAS, the City reviewed the Project’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 2100, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”); and

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2026, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Project including, without limitation, this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, this Ordinance, and its findings, are based upon the entire administrative record considered during the May 11, 2026, public hearing including, without limitation, the staff report and accompanying documents.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council adopts the attached amendments to Titles 3, 5 and 9 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A.

19 Ord. No .1370
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary hereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, published in the County of Ventura and circulated in the City, and if applicable, to be posted, in accordance with Section 36933 of the California Government Code; shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a certified copy of this ordinance, together with proof of publication, to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of this City.

S
ECTION 3. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED
and ADOPTED this ___________ day of _________ 2026.

A
ttest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
A
pproved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
20 Exhibit A
Simi Valley Municipal Code Amendments (Z-S-2025-0006)

1. Title 9 Changes (all changes are underlined)
9-24.030 - Residential and Open Space District Land Uses and Permit Requirements TABLE 2-2
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
for
Residential and Open Space Zoning
Districts
P Permitted Use (2)
CUP Conditional Use Permit required
HP Home Occupation Permit required
— Use not allowed
LAND USE (1) PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific
Use
Regulatio
ns

OS RE RV
L
RL RM RMo
d

RH RVH MH

RETAIL & SERVICE USES
Short-Term
Rentals
P P P P P P(7) P(7) P(7) P(7) 5-46
N
otes:
(1) See Article 8 for land use definitions. All commercial nonmedicinal or medicinal cannabis, and industrial hemp uses, operations, and activities, including collectives and cooperatives, are prohibited (refer to Chapter 5-41 for Medicinal and Medicinal Cannabis Standards).
(2) A Planned Development Permit (Section 9- 52.050) is also required for all new development.
(3) Administrative Conditional Use Permit required.
(4) CUP not required for farm animals in A, L or H Overlay Zones. (5) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall not be subject to the CUP requirement for Telecommunications Facilities, as set forth in the above Table, and instead shall be subject to the permit requirements of Chapter 35 of Title 5 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code.
(6) See Section 9- 44.220 Residential Accessory Structures for additional development standards.
(7) Excluding apartments, as defined in this code. The exclusion set forth in this note does not apply to dwelling units held in separate ownership interest, including without limitation, townhouse or condominium dwelling units. 21 Ord. No. 1370
9 -80.020 - Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases As used in this Development Code, the following terms and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise.
* * *
S. Definitions, “S.”
* * *
Short-term rental (STR). The occupancy of a Dwelling Unit, or part thereof, excluding garages, unconditioned storage areas, unconditioned accessory residential structures, vacant land and/or temporary structures, that is not a lodging hotel or motel, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting any fraction of a day as a full day, in exchange for consideration, whether paid in money, goods, or services. This includes:

Hosted short-term rental. The property owner stays on- site, specifically between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. while guests rent a portion of the dwelling unit, or conditioned accessory residential structures as allowed by California law.

Un-hosted short-term rental. The property owner is off -site while guests rent the dwelling unit.
* * *

2. T
itle 3 Changes (All changes are underlined).

Chapter 1- Business Tax Certification
3-1.116 - Exemptions: Rentals.

The following rentals shall be exempt from the business tax provisions of this chapter:
(a) A person renting space as a boarding room in a single- family unit for a period of 31 days or longer, provided the unit is owner occupied; and/or (b) The rental of one dwelling unit, in whole or in part, for a period of 31 days or longer.
22 Ord. No. 1370

3. T
itle 5 Changes (The entire chapter below will be added to the SVMC) Chapter 46 - Short-Term Rentals
5-46.01 - Purpose and findings.

This chapter is adopted pursuant to the police powers of the City for the purpose of requiring the owner or owners of a residential dwelling unit that is used as a short-term rental, as defined herein, to apply for and secure a permit authorizing such use in the manner provided for by this chapter. The City seeks to facilitate short-term rentals while promoting responsible visitor and operator behavior and protecting the long-term residential character of its neighborhoods. 5-46.02 - Definitions.
“Department” means the Administrative Services Department. “Director” means the Administrative Services Director or designee. “Loud or Unruly Gathering” means a gathering of persons at any Residence where Loud or Unruly Conduct occurs at the Residence, and which threatens or interferes with the public health, safety or welfare, or the comfortable enjoyment of life and property and/or is in violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance as set forth in City of Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5-16.
“Operate” means to rent, let, lease, advertise, facilitate, or otherwise make a short- term rental available for occupancy.
“Owner” means any person who owns or operates a short-term rental. “Permit” means a short-term rental permit issued under this chapter. “Person” means any natural person or legal entity, however formed, as well as any trustee, heir, executor, administrator, receiver, or assign, or any combination of such persons
“Short-term rental” has the same meaning as set forth in section 9- 80.020 of this code.
5-46.03 - Scope.

The provisions of this chapter apply to all short -term rentals. These provisions do not apply to hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns, or similar transient lodging establishments.
5-46.04 - Authority to enforce chapter.
(a) The Director has the authority to administer and enforce this chapter, including reviewing applications for permits.
23 Ord. No. 1370
(b
) The Director may adopt supplemental regulations or policies to implement and interpret this chapter. These regulations or policies must conform with the purpose of this chapter.
5-46.05 - Permit required.

No owner may rent, offer to rent, or advertise for rent a short-term rental to another person without a permit.
5-46.06 - Application procedure.
(a) Application Required. Any person seeking to obtain a permit to operate a short-term rental must submit a complete written application, signed under penalty of perjury, to the City using a form adopted by the City for that purpose. An application for a per mit shall be filed and processed in compliance with this chapter.
(b) Application Fee. At the time of filing, each applicant must pay a nonrefundable application fee established by resolution of the City Council to defray the costs incurred by the City in the application process. The application and fee required under this section shall be in addition to any other license, permit, or fee required by any other section or chapter of this code.
(c) Application Insufficient to Operate. Submission of an application for a permit does not authorize the operation of a short -term rental unless and until a permit has been granted by the City.
(d) Application Contents. The City will not deem an application complete until all information and documents required under this chapter and any regulation or resolution adopted under this chapter have been provided to the City. At minimum, any applicant applying for a permit must submit the following information and documentation:
(1) The address of the short-term rental.
(2) A nuisance response plan containing the information required by this chapter.
(3) A transient occupancy registration certificate issued pursuant to Section 3-5.305 of this code.
(4) For an un- hosted short-term rental, a written declaration affirming that, at least five days after issuance of the permit, owners and occupants of all residences and businesses located within 200 feet from the approved short -term rental will be notified of the issued permit and will be informed in writing in a form acceptable to the City of the proposed use, provided a copy of the approved nuisance response plan, a copy of the Good Neighbor Policy, and the contact information with the City to seek additional information. 24 Ord. No. 1370
(5
) Proof of liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage arising from or related to the short-term rental.
(6) Such other information or documentation as may be deemed necessary by the City.
5-46.07 - Application review and decision.
(a) Application Review. Upon receipt of a complete and signed written application, each application for a permit must be reviewed to ensure that the application is consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The Director may approve a permit application only if he or she finds that the applicant fulfills the requirements as set forth in this chapter. A permit application will not be processed while a City enforcement action alleging a violation of this chapter or any provision of this Code is pending as to the subject property or the applicant, unless processing the application is required to resolve that enforcement action.
(b) Grounds for Denial. After the completion of the City's application review, the Director must deny the issuance of a permit if any of the following findings are made:
(1) The requirements of this chapter have not been satisfied, including if the applicant failed to submit a complete application, failed to submit any supplemental information or documentation upon request, or failed to pay the requisite application fee.
(2) The residential dwelling unit or area for rental proposed as a short - term rental is:
a. A dwelling unit or residential use for which California law requires rental occupancy terms longer than 30 days;
b. An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit for which California law requires rentals to be for terms longer than 30 days; or
c. An unconditioned space within a dwelling unit or accessory residential structure, a temporary structure, vacant land, recreational vehicle, or camping site.
(3) The applicant has made a false, misleading, or fraudulent statement or omission of fact to the city in the application, or in the permit application process.
(4) The short-term rental as applied for would be materially detrimental to the public health or safety, or would create or maintain a public nuisance, and that such impacts cannot be mitigated through reasonable permit conditions authorized by this chapter. 25 Ord. No. 1370
(c
) Decision. The Director must approve an application unless he or she determines grounds for denial exist. The Director must serve the applicant with a written decision stating whether the application is approved or denied.

The Director may approve the renewal application with conditions. In the event of denial, the notice must state the reasons for the denial and the right of the applicant to appeal the decision.
(d) Right to Appeal. An applicant may appeal the Director's decision denying an application for a permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. The Director's decision is final if no written appeal is timely submitted to and received by the City.
(e) Limit on Reapplication. If the Director denies the application, a new application may not be submitted for a period of one year. 5-46.08 - Permit restrictions.
(a) A permit is valid upon issuance until December 31 in the year in which it is first issued, and upon renewal, it is valid for a period of one year from January 1 through December 31 of each year, unless sooner suspended or revoked.
(b) A short-term rental permit may be issued only to the specific person listed on the application.
(c) A short -term rental permit may not be transferred from one person to another. A short-term rental permit does not run with the land. Any change to the organizational structure of the owner or any change of ownership of the short-term rental requires a new short-term rental permit. (d) A person may only hold one short -term rental permit at a time within the City.
5-46.09 - Permit renewal.
(a) Renewal Application Requirements. No short -term rental permit shall be renewed automatically. A permittee may apply for renewal of a permit by submitting a written application, under penalty of perjury, to the Director. It is the responsibility of the permittee to file an application to renew the permit at least 30 days before the expiration of the permit. Upon timely submission of a renewal application, the permit will remain effective until the permit is approved for renewal or denied. Applications for renewal shall be in a form required by the Director and include updates of all information required or submitted for the permit. The applicant must pay a fee in an amount to be set by the city council to defray the costs of processing the renewal license application. No permit may be renewed unless all City taxes owed by the applicant are paid in full. A permit application will not be processed while a City enforcement action alleging a violation of this chapter or any provision of this Code is pending as to the subject property or the applicant, unless processing the application is required to resolve that enforcement action. 26 Ord. No. 1370
(b
) Decision on Renewal Application. The Director must review the application for renewal and approve or deny the application. The Director may approve the renewal application with conditions. The Director must serve the applicant with a written decision stating whether the application is approved or denied. In the event of denial, the notice must state the reasons for the denial and the right of the applicant to appeal the decision. 5-46.10 - Grounds for suspension, revocation, and nonrenewal of permit. (a) The Director may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew any license issued under this chapter if he or she makes any findings necessary to deny a permit under Section 5-46.07.
(b) The permittee may appeal the Director’s decision denying a renewal application, or suspending or revoking a permit, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter.
(c) The Director must serve the permittee with a written notice of nonrenewal, suspension, or revocation. The notice must state the reasons for the action, the effective date of the decision, the right of the permittee to appeal the decision, and that the Director’s decision will be final if no written appeal is timely submitted to and received by the City. Suspension or revocation is effective 15 calendar days following the date of service of the notice. (d) If the Director revokes a permit, a new application may not be submitted for a period of two years.
5-46.11 - Appeals.

Any appeal right provided for in this chapter must be conducted as set forth in this section.
(a) An applicant or permittee may appeal a Director’s decision to deny, suspend, revoke, or not renew a permit by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days after service of the notice of decision. The appeal must be accompanied by the appeal fee established by City Council resolution.
(b) The notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant and must include: (a) the appellant’s name, address, and telephone number; (b) a copy of the notice of decision being appealed; (c) a concise statement of the grounds for appeal and the relief requested; and (d) any documents or other evidence the appellant requests the hearing officer to consider. (c) A timely and complete appeal stays the Director’s decision until issuance of the hearing officer’s final decision. If no timely and proper appeal is filed, the Director’s decision becomes final and effective upon expiration of the appeal period, and the appellant waives further administrative remedies. 27 Ord. No. 1370
(d
) The appeal must be heard by an independent hearing officer selected by the City Manager or his or her designee in a manner that avoids pecuniary or other bias.
(e) The City Clerk shall set the matter for a de novo hearing. The hearing must be held within a reasonable time as soon as practicable after the appeal is filed, and the City must provide the appellant at least 10 calendar days’ notice of the hearing date, time, and location.
(f) The City bears the burden to prove the grounds for the challenged action by a preponderance of the evidence; the notice of decision constitutes prima facie evidence of the stated grounds.
(g) The appellant may present witnesses and evidence. The hearing is informal; the formal rules of evidence do not apply, but privileges apply as provided by law, and irrelevant, collateral, or repetitious evidence may be excluded by the hearing officer.
(h) The hearing officer must issue a written decision within 15 calendar days after the close of the hearing.
(i) If the hearing officer finds no grounds to uphold the decision, the decision is rescinded. If the hearing officer finds one or more grounds, the decision shall identify the grounds and uphold the Director’s decision. The hearing officer’s decision is final and shall state: “The decision of the hearing officer is final. Judicial review of this decision is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.”
5-46.12 - Permitted occupancy.

Every permit issued by the City must specify the maximum number of overnight occupants allowed at the short -term rental and the maximum number of vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short -term rental, which must be parked at the property.
5-46.13 - Nuisance response plans.
(a) Each nuisance response plan accompanying an application for a permit must contain the following information and otherwise be in a form required by the City:
(1) The mailing address and telephone number of the owner or owners of the residential dwelling unit or units to be used as a short -term rental pursuant to the permit.
(2) The name, address and telephone number of the person or persons who will be available by telephone, and who will be responsible for promptly responding to or causing a prompt response to a nuisance complaint arising out of the occupancy or use of the short -term rental(s) by tenants, their visitors and/or their guests. For the 28 Ord. No. 1370
pur
poses of this chapter, a return telephone call to a complainant within 30 minutes of the initial complaint shall be deemed “prompt.” (3) No more than a total of three persons shall be designated in the response plan as a person responsible for responding to or causing a response to a nuisance complaint; and
(4) Only one such person shall be designated as the person responsible for responding to a nuisance complaint during any particular hours of the day, different days in a week, and/or different weeks of the year.
(5) The manner of responding to or causing a response to a nuisance complaint, including, but not limited to, the manner in which the complainant or complainants will be notified of the response and the method of documenting prompt responses and timely correct ive action.
(6) The manner of assuring timely corrective action to remedy the conditions that caused the nuisance complaint. For the purposes of this chapter, “timely corrective action” shall include, at a minimum, a telephone call to the primary adult occupant of the short -term rental within 30 minutes of the initial nuisance complaint.
(7) The proposed maximum number of overnight occupants, with supporting documentation identifying unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics, if any, that support a request for occupancy greater than the default cap of two adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom.
(8) The number of off -street parking spaces and number of bedrooms available at the short-term rental.
(b) At any time, an owner of a short-term rental may change the content of the nuisance response plan approved incident to the issuance of the permit by filing an amended response plan with the City. Such amended response plan shall contain all of the information and be in the form required by this section and shall be accompanied by the required fee in an amount established by City Council resolution.
5-46.14 - Notice of nuisance response plans.

Within five days of the approval and issuance of a permit required by this chapter, or the approval of an amended nuisance response plan in the manner provided for by this chapter, the permittee of an un-hosted short term-rental must provide proof to the City that the nuisance response plan/Good Neighbor Guidelines has been mailed by first class mail addressed to the owner or occupant of every property, any part of which is located within a 200- foot radius of the property that is to be used and occupied as an un-hosted short-term rental, pursuant to such permit. 29 Ord. No. 1370
5 -46.15 - Performance standards.

Each owner, and each tenant or occupant of a short-term rental, must at all times comply with or cause compliance with the performance standards applicable to short-term rentals they own, lease or occupy, as established by this section. (a) The owner shall ensure that the short -term rental complies with all current applicable codes regarding fire, building and safety, and all other relevant laws and ordinances.
(b) No person may list, offer to rent, or advertise for rent a short -term rental without including in the listing, offer, or advertisement the City permit number applicable to the short-term rental property in the form “City of Simi Valley Permit No. ____.” The permit number must be displayed or printed in the same size type as the largest type used in the main body of the offer or advertisement.
(c) The owner must require the primary overnight and daytime occupant of the short-term rental to be an adult 18 years of age or older. This adult must provide a telephone number to the owner and must be accessible to the owner by telephone at all times.
(e) The permittee must maintain liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage arising from or related to the short-term rental.
(f) Prior to occupancy, the owner must obtain the name, address, and driver’s license number or a copy of the passport of the primary adult occupant of the short-term rental. The owner must require that the adult sign a formal acknowledgement that he or she is legally responsible for the compliance of all occupants of the short-term rental or their guests with all provisions of this chapter. This information shall be provided by the responsible party identified in the nuisance response plan upon request of any police officer or employee of the City authorized to enforce this chapter or State law. (g) The owner must limit overnight occupancy of the short -term rental to a specific number of occupants, with the maximum number of overnight occupants being two adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom, unless a request for occupancy greater than two adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom has been approved through the permit process with supporting documentation identifying unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics, that supports the request. (h) The owner shall limit the number of vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short-term rental to a specific number of vehicles, with the maximum number of vehicles being the number of off-street parking spaces available at the property. In no case shall the number of uncovered, off - street parking spaces be less than one space. Such spaces must be exclusively reserved for the short -term rental during occupied stays. 30 Ord. No. 1370
V
ehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short -term rental must not park on any public street.
(i) Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection on scheduled trash collection days.

The owner of the short -term rental shall provide sufficient trash collection containers and service to meet the demand of the occupants. (j) Each lease or rental agreement for a short -term rental shall include the following terms, notifications and disclosures, which terms shall also be posted in a conspicuous location inside the unit:
(1) The maximum number of overnight occupants and day use visitors that are permitted.
(2) The maximum number of vehicles that overnight occupants may park at the short -term rental. Vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short-term rental must be parked on-site. (3) The trash pick-up day and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash or refuse on the exterior of the property. (4) Notification that the occupant may be cited or fined by the City and/or immediately evicted by the owner pursuant to State law, in addition to any other remedies available at law, for violating any other provisions of this chapter.
(5) Notification that failure to conform to the occupancy requirements of the short-term rental is a violation of this chapter.
(6) Notification that amplified sound, including radios, televisions and other electronic devices, is subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance as set forth in City of Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5-16. (7) A prohibition on loud or unruly gatherings, along with notification of the City’s right to recover the costs of special enforcement needed to address certain loud parties.
(8) The name of the managing agency, agent, rental manager, local contact person, or owner of the unit, and a telephone number at which that party may be reached at all times.
(9) A copy of the “Good Neighbor Guidelines,” which may from time to time be prepared by the City. These guidelines may include location- specific information, such as but not limited to neighborhood quiet hours, local speed limits, prohibition of wood- burning fire pits, or homeowners association policies.
(10) A copy of the nuisance response plan.
31 Ord. No. 1370
(
11) Notification that the property is subject to the City of Simi Valley’s Short-Term Rental Permit and Transient Occupancy Tax Programs. (12) A copy of this chapter of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code, as it may be amended from time to time.
(k) Upon receipt of a nuisance complaint or upon notification of an allegation that any occupant or guest of the short -term rental has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code or any State law, the owner shall promptly respond and take timely corrective action to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests. Failure of the owner to respond promptly or to take timely corrective action regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the short - term rental shall be a violation of this chapter. An owner is not required or authorized to act as a peace officer or to intervene in situations that pose a risk to personal safety. The owner, or his or her agent, shall maintain records of the name, violation, date, and time of each complaint, disturbance, response and corrective action.
(l) The owner shall cause a copy of the nuisance response plan to be posted in a conspicuous place within the property.
(m) The owner shall annually provide to the City written confirmation of compliance with all elements of the performance standards and the approved nuisance response plan and confirming that the nuisance response plan is current and accurate. The performance standards may be modified by the City upon request of the owner based upon site- specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a short-term rental occupant as may be required by State or Federal disability laws. All reque sts must be in writing and shall identify how the strict application of the standard conditions creates an unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a short-term rental would not be allowed. (n) By the 15th day of the month after each calendar quarter, the permittee shall submit to the Director, in the form and manner required by the Director, a report for the preceding three months stating (1) the total number of nights the short -term rental was rented (including nights booked through any hosting platform) and the nightly rate(s) charged, and (2) the amount of Transient Occupancy Tax due for those rentals.
(o) The permittee must install and maintain in continuous operation a noise monitor on the exterior of the short -term rental to ensure compliance with SVMC chapter 5- 16. The noise monitor shall be a sound level meter meeting the standards of the American Nati onal Standards Specifications for Sound Level Meters or another acoustical or decibel measurement device with similar capabilities and features that does not have a camera, record conversations, or store any personal data.
32 Ord. No. 1370
(p
) The use of the property is restricted to registered guests. Any event requiring paid admission is prohibited. Any activities, such as parties, gatherings, or other group events with non- registered guests, are prohibited.
5-46.16 - Permittee responsibility.

The permittee is responsible at all times for ensuring that the short -term rental is operated in compliance with this chapter, all other applicable provisions of this Code and State law, the Good Neighbor Guidelines, the approved nuisance response plan, and any rules or regulations adopted to implement this chapter. For purposes of enforcement, any act, omission, or failure by the permittee’s agent, officer, representative, contractor, guest, occupant, or any other person acting on the permittee’s behalf or with the permittee’s permission shall be attributed to the permittee.
5-46.17 - Cessation of use of a property as short-term rental.

Where a permittee determines to cease use of a permit, the owner must promptly cause a notice of such determination to be filed with the City. 5-46.18 - Short-term rental facilitator responsibilities. (a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 50990(b), the City hereby adopts and makes applicable within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries the Short - Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 (Gov. Code, § 50990 et seq.). The definitions set forth in Government Code Section 50991 are incorporated by this reference and shall apply to this section.
(b) Upon request by the City, each short -term rental facilitator shall report, in the form and manner prescribed by the City, the physical address, including nine-digit ZIP Code, of each short-term rental during the reporting period. (c) If the information provided under Subsection B is not sufficient for the City to identify a specific short-term rental at the provided address, the City may request (1) the assessor parcel number of the short-term rental and (2) the URL associated with the specific short-term rental listing. (d) A short-term rental facilitator shall include in the listing of a short-term rental any applicable local permit or license number associated with the short-term rental and any transient occupancy tax certification issued by the City. (e) A short -term rental facilitator must have a current, valid Business Tax Certificate from the City to facilitate any booking for a short -term rental within the City.
(f) A short-term rental facilitator’s failure to report the information required by this section may result in imposition of a civil penalty under Title, 1, Chapter 8 of this code.
33 Ord. No. 1370
5 -46.19 - Service requirements.

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
To: County Clerk From: City of Simi Valley
County of Ventura 2929 Tapo Canyon Road
800 S. Victoria Avenue Simi Valley, CA 93063
Ventura, CA 93001
Pr
oject Title: Z-S-2025-0006
P
roject Location - Specific: Citywide
P
roject Location - City: Simi Valley Project Location - County: Ventura D
escription of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:

Simi Valley Municipal Code amendments (Z -S-2025-0006) to regulate (allow) short -term rentals in residential zones, a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
N
ame of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Simi Valley 05/11/26 Date of Approval
N
ame of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Simi Valley Ex
empt Status: (check one)
M inisterial [Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268];
D eclared Emergency [Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)];
Em ergency Project [Sec. 21080(b)(4);15269(b)(c)];
C ategorical Exemption. State type and section number 15378 S tatutory Exemption. State code number
C ommon Sense Exemption [Sec. 15061(b)(3)]
T
ext of exemption and reasons why project is exempt:

The proposed Municipal Code Amendments are not subject to additional environmental review under CEQA, because it is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines as there is no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. If this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

Le
ad Agency
Contact Person: Alexandra Clingman Area Code/Telephone: (805) 583-6772 S
ignature: Date: 05/11/26 Title: Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman
S igned by Lead Agency
Da te received for filing at OPR:
35 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM

March 4, 2026

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner

SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS (Z-S-2025-0006) TO TITLE 9

OF THE SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO

REGULATE SHORT TERM -RENTALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WITH RELATED TITLE 3 (FINANCE) AND TITLE 5 (PUBLIC WELFARE)

AMENDMENTS PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Amendment Z-S-2025-0006 to regulate short term rentals in residential zones.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Over the last several years, “home- sharing” platforms have expanded the prevalence of short-term rental (STR) activity. On December 15, 2025, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the final preparation of a STR ordinance, including presenting to the Neighborhood Councils and Planning Commission for input , prior to City Council adoption. Refer to Exhibit 2 for the City Council staff report and other background information. The City Council report included a draft ordinance incorporating changes to SVMC to address various aspects of regulating STRs, including collecting Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT), business taxes, and performance standards.

Proposed Municipal Code Amendments

Regulating short-term rentals within the City will require changes to Titles 3, 5, and 9 of the SVMC.
• Title 3 (Finance): Clarifies definitions and facilitates collection of Business Taxes and TOT
• Title 5 (Public Welfare): Establishes STR permitting requirements and performance standards for the operation of an STR.
• Title 9 (Development Code): Adds STRs as residential land use in Table 2-2 and updates zoning definitions.

The Planning Commission’s purview is limited to the proposed amendments to Title 9 (Zoning). Proposed amendments to Title 3 (Finance) and Title 5 (Public Welfare), which establish operational and regulatory standards for STRs and are provided in Attachment A for context. While staff seeks the Planning Commission’s input on the operational

AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.1

Attachment E
36 2
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
standards in Title 5, final action on proposed amendments in Titles 3 and 5 will be taken by the City Council as part of its consideration of the overall ordinance.

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS

The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the four Executive Boards of the Neighborhood Councils (NCs) between January 8 and January 20, 2026. A summary of the meetings is provided in Exhibit 1.

All four NCs voted against the proposed STR ordinance with NC #2, 3, and 4 recommending a total ban of STRs. Concerns raised across all NC meetings included:

• Neighborhood Compatibility: Concern that STRs function as commercial uses and are incompatible with residential neighborhoods, particularly single-family areas.

• Enforcement and City Costs: Concern that enforcement would be a staffing and financial challenge, potentially outweighing Transient Occupancy Tax revenue, with reliance on neighbors to report violations.

• Corporate Ownership and Caps: Concern for corporate or LLC-owned STRs with no annual cap on total STRs Citywide.

• Parking, Safety, and Turnover: Concerns related to parking impacts, high guest turnover, and neighborhood safety.

• STR Platforms Oversight: Concern that STR platforms are numerous and evolving, creating monitoring challenges for the City.

The Neighborhood Councils provided the following suggestions on the draft ordinance:

• Consider stricter occupancy limits per room and per unit.

• Consider establishing caps on maximum number of rental nights per year, and the total number of STRs permitted citywide.

• Consider requiring inspections of dwelling units proposed for use as STRs to verify compliance with applicable building, fire, and safety codes (e.g., smoke detectors, pool gates, legal structures).

• Correct typographical errors in the draft ordinance.

If the Planning Commission or City Council chooses to provide direction based on this feedback, potential modifications could include:

1. Establish an occupancy limit to a maximum of eight people per night per STR, in addition to a bedroom occupancy limit . This would prevent over eight people occupying an STR that has, for example, four bedrooms. Example modified ordinance language:
37 3
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)

“Overnight Occupancy. The owner must limit overnight occupancy of the short - term rental to two adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom , not to exceed a total of eight occupants unless a request for occupancy greater than two persons adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom has been approved through the permit process with supporting documentation identifying unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics, that supports the request.”

2. Incorporate a pre-permitting inspection. The costs for a pre- inspection would be incorporated into the overall STR permit fee. Example modified ordinance language:

“Pre-Permitting Inspection. Prior to the initial issuance and each renewal of an STR permit, the Building Official or designee must conduct an inspection to ensure the dwelling and site are in compliance with the provisions of this section and other applicable building codes and regulations regarding access, fire, and other relevant health and safety standards. If any violation is identified during the inspection, no permit shall be issued under this section until the violation(s) is abated.”

3. Amend the Development Code to define STR’s and explicitly label them in the Residential Use Table (SVMC 9 -24.030 Table 2-2) and any applicable Specific Plans as “not permitted.”

Homeowners Association (HOA) Regulations

One question that was brought up frequently at the NC meetings was the impact of the ordinance on communities governed by HOAs. The adoption of an ordinance regulating short-term rentals does not override or supersede private restrictions imposed by HOAs, covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or other private agreements. While the City’s ordinance would establish minimum regulatory requirements for STRs within the City, it is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure compliance with any applicable HOA rules. If an HOA prohibits or restricts short- term rentals, the property owner must comply with those requirements regardless of City approval. Enforcement of HOA rules is a private matter between the HOA and the property owner, and the City does not enforce or intervene in HOA regulations.

ANALYSIS

A draft ordinance establishing a comprehensive STR regulatory framework is included as Attachment A of the attached Resolution. Key components are summarized below.

Title 3- Finance-Related Amendments (Informational Only)

The proposed amendments to Title 3 are informational only and will not be considered by the Planning Commission at this time. These items w ill be brought to City Council consideration as part of the final ordinance.

38 4
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
• Business Tax- Clarifies existing exemptions for rentals of 31 days or longer.

• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Definitions- Clarifies that existing TOT definitions already include short -term rentals (30 days or less) as taxable transient lodging.

This does not create a new tax or increase the tax rate.

These amendments would allow the City to issue Business Tax Certificates to STRs and collect Business Tax and TOT using the City’s existing vendor (HdL), consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 346. Contract amendments or additional agreements may be required.

For more detailed information on the finance-related amendments of Title 3, please refer to the December 15, 2025, City Council Staff Report (Exhibit 2).

Title 5- New Chapter 46: Performance Standards (Informational Only)

Staff seeks Planning commission feedback on the proposed amendments to Title 5 below. These items w ill be brought to City Council consideration as part of the final ordinance:

• Definitions- Establishes definitions applicable to short-term rentals, including:
o “Owner,” meaning any person who owns or operates a short -term rental; and
o “Person,” meaning any natural person or legal entity, however formed, including any trustee, heir, executor, administrator, receiver, assign, or any combination thereof.
o “Loud or Unruly Gathering” defined as a gathering of persons at any residence where loud or unruly conduct occurs and threatens or interferes with the public health, safety, or welfare, or the comfortable enjoyment of life and property, and/or violates the City’s Noise Ordinance set forth in Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5-16.

• Permit Restrictions- Prohibits renting, offering, or advertising an STR without a City permit. Permits are personal to the permittee, nontransferable, do not run with the land, and expire annually (December 31), with renewal required. A person or legal entity can only hold one permit at a time.

• Permit Applications and Fees - Applicants must submit a complete verified application. A completed application for a permit must include the following elements:
o Permit fees as determined by the City Council.
o A business tax certificate.
o A nuisance response plan (see below for more details). o Evidence of liability insurance.

• Approval of Permit – Grounds for Denial, Suspensions, or Revocation- The draft ordinance spells out procedures to approve, deny, suspend, or revoke a STR application or permit. No permits will be issued or renewed where:
o A STR permit has been suspended or revoked in the past 24 months. 39 5
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
o The proposed STR is located in a dwelling type or location that does not qualify under the ordinance, including prohibited dwelling types or locations for which California law requires rentals to be for terms longer than 30 days. o O utstanding fees and taxes are due, or if there are any open enforcement actions on the property.

The Director may suspend, revoke, or deny renewal of a short -term rental permit for any reason that would justify denial of an initial permit. Suspensions or revocations take effect 15 days after notice, and a revoked permit may not be reapplied for two years. Permit decisions may be appealed within 15 days by filing a written appeal and fee.

• Nuisance Response Plan- Each permit approval will require a nuisance response plan that provides the contact details of no more than three people who will be available to respond to nuisance complaints arising from the STR within 30 minutes at all times of day. For un-hosted STRs, this plan must be mailed out to all property owners within 200 feet of the STR every time a permit is issued or renewed. The nuisance response plan must also be posted visibly within the short- term rental unit for both hosted and un-hosted short-term rentals. A complaint that is not addressed by the STR owner can be escalated to the City by the complainant. The complainant also has the option to directly contact the City instead of the STR owner.

• Performance Standards - The performance standards section of the ordinance includes the following requirements:

o Owners must ensure STRs comply with all fire, building and safety, and applicable laws.
o All STR listings and advertisements must include the City -issued STR permit number.
o A primary adult (18+) occupant must be designated as responsible for the unit, be reachable at all times, and be responsible for guest conduct. o Owners must maintain at least $500,000 in liability insurance and collect identifying information from the primary occupant.
o Overnight occupancy is limited by bedroom count unless higher occupancy is approved through the permit process.
o Vehicles are limited to available off -street spaces; street parking by STR guests is prohibited.
o Adequate trash service must be provided, and trash must not be stored in public view.
o Good Neighbor Guidelines and the nuisance response plan must be posted inside the STR unit.
o Owners must promptly respond to complaints, take corrective action, and maintain records of complaints and responses.
o Nuisance response plans must be posted on- site, with annual compliance confirmation submitted to the City.
o Permit holders must annually confirm compliance with the performance standards and the approved nuisance response plan.
40 6
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
o Permit holders must submit quarterly rental activity and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) reports.
o Exterior noise monitors are required to ensure compliance with the City’s noise ordinance.
o Only registered guests are allowed; parties, events, and paid- admission activities are prohibited.

Violations, fines, and implementation of these, and the hiring of any required outside vendors, would be determined by the City Council.

Title 9 – Zoning Regulations
Proposed Development Code amendments include:
• Zoning- Adds STRs as a permitted use in all residential zones, subject to specific exclusions and the requirements of this ordinance. With this change, STRs would be allowed in eligible dwelling units, such as single-family dwellings, certain ADUs, and dwelling units held in separate ownership interests (e.g., townhomes and condominiums), but not apartments or any dwelling unit or residential use that California law requires to be rented for terms more than 30 days.

• Definitions- Adds a definition of “short -term rental” consistent with California law, as the occupancy of a “Dwelling Unit” (or a portion thereof) for 30 days or less, excluding garages, accessory structures, vehicles, and vacant land. This includes both hosted and un-hosted STRs.

Environmental Assessment

Alternatives

The Planning Commission may consider the following actions/alternatives:

1. Recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance (staff recommendation)

2. Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance and advise the City Council to take no further action regarding the regulation of STRs.

3. Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance and advise the City Council to direct staff to prepare an ordinance establishing a citywide ban on STRs.

41 7
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)

4. Recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance and direct staff to make additional modifications before returning to City Council.

INDEX Page

Planning Commission Public Hearing Procedure ............................................................ 8 Resolution No. 02-2026 ................................................................................................. 10 Attachment A: Proposed SVMC Text Amendments (Z-S-2025-0006) .................... 14 Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Councils Development Review Summary Exhibit 2: Combined November 18, 2024, August 4, 2025, and December 15, 2025, City Council Staff Reports
42 8
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE

HEARING DATE: March 4, 2026

Z-S-2025-0006

1. CHAIRPERSON: a) This is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of Z-S- 2025-0006, to consider
recommending to the City Council adoption of Simi
Valley Municipal Code amendments to regulate sort-term
rentals in residential zones.

b) Are there any ex parte communications to report?

c) May we have an oral report on this matter by staff?

2. STAFF: (Report)

3. ANY
COMMISSIONER: (Questions of staff)

4. CHAIRPERSON: We will open the public testimony portion of the hearing.

6. CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions for Staff?

7. CHAIRPERSON: Is there anyone in the Chamber wishing to be heard on this matter?

8. AUDIENCE: (Comments)

9. CHAIRPERSON: a) Are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? (Check with
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner, and staff members in the audience.)

b) If there are no further questions, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing.

c) Are there any comments or questions from members
of the Planning Commission?

10. ANY
COMMISSIONER: (Comments)

11. CHAIRPERSON: May I please have a reading of the Resolution?

12. RECORDING
43 9
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
SECRETARY: (Reads Number and Title of Resolution)

13. CHAIRPERSON: The Chair will now entertain a motion.

14. ANY
COMMISSIONER: I move to adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of Z-S-2025-0006, Simi Valley Municipal Code amendments to regulate short-term rentals.

I move to recommend denial of Z-S-2025-0006.

[Staff will prepare the resolution for the Planning Commission to ratify at the next meeting.]

15. CHAIRPERSON: A motion was made by Commissioner ___________.

16. CHAIRPERSON: May I have a Second?

17. ANY
COMMISSIONER: I second the motion.

18. CHAIRPERSON: Call for the vote.

19. RECORDING
SECRETARY: The motion (passes or fails).

20. CHAIRPERSON: There is no Appeal period for the Simi Valley Municipal Code Text Amendments, and the item will proceed to the
City Council with the Planning Commission’s
recommendation.

21. ANY
COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter until the meeting of ___.

22. ANY
COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter to a date uncertain.

23. CHAIRPERSON: Proceed to the next item.
44 10
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
RESOLUTION NO. SVPC 02-2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY RECOMMENDING TO THE

CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE
(TITLE 9) AMENDMENTS (Z -S-2025-0006) RELATED TO
SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WITH RELATED TITLE 3 AND
TITLE 5 AMENDMENTS PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE,

AND FINDING THE AMENDMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO OR

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTIONS 15378 AND 15061(b)(3)

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. On December 15, 2025, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance regulating short -term rentals in residential zones, including amendments to the Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to address Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collection, business taxes, and applicable performance standards.

B. The City reviewed the project’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”), and the City’s Environmental Guidelines.

C. The Director completed the review and scheduled the public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for March 4, 2026;

D. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its March 4, 2026, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Director.

SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment findings. The Planning Commission makes the following findings:

A. The amendment is consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations specified in the General Plan (Gov. Code, § 65860), in that the request is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

1. Policy HE 1.1 states: Provide a wide choice of new housing featuring a range of styles, types, densities, and amenities to accommodate the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community . The proposed short -term rental (“STR”) ordinance will allow for temporary housing to serve temporary and 45 RES. NO. SVPC 02-2026

ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
11 intermittent workforce needs, travel and tourism needs, and temporary housing or existing residents due to transitional housing needs.

2. Policy ED-5.1 states: Increase the opportunities to attract tourism related to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum and highway - traveling visitors between Ventura and Los Angeles Counties through visitor -oriented economic development, including lodging, dining, shopping, and entertainment establishments. The establishment of a STR program through the ordinance will support lodging options for visitors to Simi Valley and associated tourism activities tied to the City.

B. The City has considered the effect of this amendment on the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and against available fiscal and environmental resources, in compliance with California law (Gov. Code, § 65863.6), in that as stated in the above policies, temporary housing supports existing residents, temporary workers, and travelers/tourists. STRs fulfill these specialized housing needs without increasing environmental impacts due to the use of existing housing stock, and the permitting process would support fiscal impact to the City to help cover permitting and compliance.

C. Any occupancy limitations applicable to STRs operate solely as conditions of a STR permit intended to mitigate noise, parking, and nuisance impacts associated with transient use, and are not intended to establish or modify residential occupancy standards applicable to dwelling units generally.

SECTION 3 . Environmental Assessment. T he proposed Simi Valley Municipal Code Amendments are not subject to additional environmental review under CEQA, because it is not a “project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because the amendments have no potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the alternative, the amendments are exempt from CEQA under the “common sense” exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 4: Recommendation to City Council. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of SVMC Title 9 amendments for Code Amendments Z-S-2025-0006 set forth in the attached “Exhibit A .” Related Title 3 and Title 5 SVMC amendments are included in Exhibit “A” for reference only.

SECTION 5: Reliance on Record. Each of the findings and determinations in this Resolution is based on competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

46 RES. NO. SVPC 02-2026

ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
12 SECTION 6: Limitations. The Planning Commission’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the Planning Commission’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues.

The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 7: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 8: The Planning Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to any person requesting a copy.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 4th of March 2026.

Attest:

_________________________________ _________________________________ Krystal Ryan Lee Kennedy
Office Specialist II Chairperson Planning Commission

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

ALGERIA R. FORD, City Attorney

_________________________________ _________________________________ Joaquin Vazquez Sean Gibson
Deputy City Attorney Deputy Environmental Services Director/ City Planner

47 RES. NO. SVPC 02-2026

ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
13 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on March 4, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Krystal Ryan
Office Specialist II

48 ATTACHMENT A
ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
14 Simi Valley Municipal Code Amendments (Z-S-2025-0006)

1. Title 9 Changes (all changes are underlined)
9-24.030 - Residential and Open Space District Land Uses and Permit Requirements TABLE 2 -2
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
for Residential and Open Space Zoning
Districts
P Permitted Use(2)
CUP Conditional Use Permit required
HP Home Occupation Permit required
— Use not allowed
LAND USE(1) PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific
Use
Regulations
OS RE RVL RL RM Rmod RH RVH MH

RETAIL & SERVICE USES
Short-Term
Rentals
P P P P P P(7) P(7) P(7) P(7) 5-46
Not
es:
(1) See Article 8 for land use definitions. All commercial nonmedicinal or medicinal cannabis, and industrial hemp uses, operations, and activities, including collectives and cooperatives are prohibited (refer to Chapter 5- 41 for Medicinal and Medicinal Cannabis Standards).
(2) A Planned Development Permit (Section 9- 52.050) is also required for all new development.
(3) Administrative Conditional Use Permit required.
(4) CUP not required for farm animals in A, L or H Overlay Zones. (5) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall not be subject to the CUP requirement for Telecommunications Facilities, as set forth in the above Table, and instead shall be subject to the permit requirements of Chapter 35 of Title 5 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code.
(6) See Section 9-44.220 Residential Accessory Structures for additional development standards.
(7) Excluding apartments, as defined in this code. The exclusion set forth in this note does not apply to dwelling units held in separate ownership interest, including without limitation, townhouse or condominium dwelling units.
9-80.020 -
Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases
As used in this Development Code, the following terms and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise.
* * *
S. Definitions, “S.”
49 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
15 * * *
Short-term rental (STR). The occupancy of a Dwelling Unit, or part thereof, excluding garages, unconditioned storage areas, unconditioned accessory residential structures, vacant land and/or temporary structures, that is not a lodging hotel or motel, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting any fraction of a day as a full day, in exchange for consideration, whether paid in money, goods, or services. This includes:

Un-hosted short-term rental. The property owner is off-site while guests rent the dwelling unit.

* * *

2. Title 3 Changes (All changes are underlined and provided for reference).

Chapter 1 - Business Tax Certification
3-1.116 - Exemptions: Rentals.

The following rentals shall be exempt from the business tax provisions of this chapter:
(a) A person renting space as a boarding room in a single- family unit for a period of 31 days or longer, provided the unit is owner occupied; and/or (b) The rental of one dwelling unit , in whole or in part, for a period of 31 days or longer.

Chapter 5 - Transient Occupancy Taxes
3-5.302 - Definitions.

For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this article are defined as follows:
(a) “Hotel” shall mean any type of commercial establishment, or any portion of any type of commercial establishment, which provides for the occupancy of transients for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes, whether by the day, week, or month, including, but not limited to, hotels, inns, motels, and any other transient lodging such as short-term rentals.
(b) “Occupancy” shall mean the use or possession, or the right to the use or possession, of any room, or portion thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes.
50 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
16 (c) “Operator” shall mean the person who manages the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity.
(d) “Person” shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
(e) “Rent” shall mean the monetary value of the consideration charged for occupancy, including all receipts, cash, credits, property, and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. (f) “Tax Collector” shall mean the Finance Director.
(g) “Finance Director” shall mean the City Manager, City Clerk, or other officer designated by the City Manager to collect business taxes pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(i) “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less.

3. Title 5 Changes (The entire chapter below will be added to the SVMC and is provided for reference.)
Chapter 46 - Short-Term Rentals
5-46.01 - Purpose and findings.

This chapter is adopted pursuant to the police powers of the City for the purpose of requiring the owner or owners of a residential dwelling unit that is used as a short-term rental, as defined herein, to apply for and secure a permit authorizing such use in the manner provided for by this chapter. The City seeks to facilitate short-term rentals while promoting responsible visitor and operator behavior and protecting the long-term residential character of its neighborhoods. 5-46.02 - Definitions.
“Department” means the Administrative Services Department. “Director” means the Administrative Services Director or designee. “Loud or Unruly Gathering” means a gathering of persons at any Residence where Loud or Unruly Conduct occurs at the Residence, and which threatens or interferes with the public health, safety or welfare, or the comfortable enjoyment of life and property and/or is in violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance as set forth in City of Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5-16.
“Operate” means to rent, let, lease, advertise, facilitate, or otherwise make a short- term rental available for occupancy.
51 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
17 “Owner” means any person who owns or operates a short-term rental. “Permit” means a short-term rental permit issued under this chapter. “Person” means any natural person or legal entity, however formed, as well as any trustee, heir, executor, administrator, receiver, or assign, or any combination of such persons
“Short-term rental” has the same meaning as set forth in section 9-80.020 of this code.
5-46.03 - Scope.

The provisions of this chapter apply to all short -term rentals. These provisions do not apply to hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns, or similar transient lodging establishments.
5-46.04 - Authority to enforce chapter.
(a) The Director has the authority to administer and enforce this chapter, including reviewing applications for permits.
(b) The Director may adopt supplemental regulations or policies to implement and interpret this chapter. These regulations or policies must conform with the purpose of this chapter.
5-46.05 - Permit required.

No owner may rent, offer to rent, or advertise for rent a short-term rental to another person without a permit.
5-46.06 - Application procedure.
(a) Application Required. Any person seeking to obtain a permit to operate a short-term rental must submit a complete written application, signed under penalty of perjury, to the City using a form adopted by the City for that purpose. An application for a permit shall be filed and processed in compliance with this chapter.
(b) Application Fee. At the time of filing, each applicant must pay a nonrefundable application fee established by resolution of the City Council to defray the costs incurred by the City in the application process. The application and fee required under this section shall be in addition to any other license, permit, or fee required by any other section or chapter of this code.
(c) Application Insufficient to Operate. Submission of an application for a permit does not authorize the operation of a short -term rental unless and until a permit has been granted by the City.
52 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
18 (d) Application Contents. The City will not deem an application complete until all information and documents required under this chapter and any regulation or resolution adopted under this chapter have been provided to the City. At minimum, any applicant applying for a permit must submit the following information and documentation:
(1) The address of the short-term rental.
(2) A nuisance response plan containing the information required by this chapter.
(3) A transient occupancy registration certificate issued pursuant to Section 3-5.305 of this code.
(4) For an un-hosted short -term rental, a written declaration affirming that, at least five days after issuance of the permit, owners and occupants of all residences and businesses located within 200 feet from the approved short -term rental will be notified of the i ssued permit and will be informed in writing in a form acceptable to the City of the proposed use, provided a copy of the approved nuisance response plan, a copy of the Good Neighbor Policy, and the contact information with the City to seek additional information. (5) Proof of liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage arising from or related to the short-term rental.
(6) Such other information or documentation as may be deemed necessary by the City.
5-46.07 - Application review and decision.
(a) Application Review. Upon receipt of a complete and signed written application, each application for a permit must be reviewed to ensure that the application is consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The Director may approve a permit application only if he or she finds that the applicant fulfills the requirements as set forth in this chapter. A permit application will not be processed while a City enforcement action alleging a violation of this chapter or any provision of this Code is pending as to the subject property or the applicant, unless processing the application is required to resolve that enforcement action.
(b) Grounds for Denial. After the completion of the City's application review, the Director must deny the issuance of a permit if any of the following findings are made:
(1) The requirements of this chapter have not been satisfied, including if the applicant failed to submit a complete application, failed to submit any supplemental information or documentation upon request, or failed to pay the requisite application fee.
53 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
19 (2) The residential dwelling unit or area for rental proposed as a short - term rental is:
a. A dwelling unit or residential use for which California law requires rental occupancy terms longer than 30 days;
b. An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit for which California law requires rentals to be for terms longer than 30 days; or
c. An unconditioned space within a dwelling unit or accessory residential structure, a temporary structure, vacant land, recreational vehicle, or camping site.
(3) The applicant has made a false, misleading, or fraudulent statement or omission of fact to the city in the application, or in the permit application process.
(4) The short-term rental as applied for would be materially detrimental to the public health or safety, or would create or maintain a public nuisance, and that such impacts cannot be mitigated through reasonable permit conditions authorized by this chapter. (c) Decision. The Director must approve an application unless he or she determines grounds for denial exist. The Director must serve the applicant with a written decision stating whether the application is approved or denied.

The Director may approve the renewal application with conditions. In the event of denial, the notice must state the reasons for the denial and the right of the applicant to appeal the decision.
(d) Right to Appeal. An applicant may appeal the Director's decision denying an application for a permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. The Director's decision is final if no written appeal is timely submitted to and received by the City.
(e) Limit on Reapplication. If the Director denies the application, a new application may not be submitted for a period of one year. 5-46.08 - Permit restrictions.
(a) A permit is valid upon issuance until December 31 in the year in which it is first issued, and upon renewal, it is valid for a period of one year from January 1 through December 31 of each year, unless sooner suspended or revoked.
(b) A short-term rental permit may be issued only to the specific person listed on the application.
(c) A short -term rental permit may not be transferred from one person to another. A short-term rental permit does not run with the land. Any change 54 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
20 to the organizational structure of the owner or any change of ownership of the short-term rental requires a new short-term rental permit. (d) A person may only hold one short -term rental permit at a time within the City.
5-46.09 - Permit renewal.
(a) Renewal Application Requirements. No short -term rental permit shall be renewed automatically. A permittee may apply for renewal of a permit by submitting a written application, under penalty of perjury, to the Director. It is the responsibility of the permittee to file an application to renew the permit at least 30 days before the expiration of the permit. Upon timely submission of a renewal application, the permit will remain effective until the permit is approved for renewal or denied. Applications for renewal shall be in a form required by the Director and include updates of all information required or submitted for the permit. The applicant must pay a fee in an amount to be set by the city council to defray the costs of processing the renewal license application. No permit may be renewed unless all City taxes owed by the applicant are paid in full. A permit application will not be processed while a City enforcement action alleging a violation of this chapter or any provision of this Code is pending as to the subject property or the applicant, unless processing the application is required to resolve that enforcement action. (b) Decision on Renewal Application. The Director must review the application for renewal and approve or deny the application. The Director may approve the renewal application with conditions. The Director must serve the applicant with a written decision stating whether the application is approved or denied. In the event of denial, the notice must state the reasons for the denial and the right of the applicant to appeal the decision. 5-46.10 - Grounds for suspension, revocation, and nonrenewal of permit. (a) The Director may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew any license issued under this chapter if he or she makes any findings necessary to deny a permit under Section 5-46.07.
(b) The permittee may appeal the Director’s decision denying a renewal application, or suspending or revoking a permit, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter.
(c) The Director must serve the permittee with a written notice of nonrenewal, suspension, or revocation. The notice must state the reasons for the action, the effective date of the decision, the right of the permittee to appeal the decision, and that the Director’s decision will be final if no written appeal is timely submitted to and received by the City. Suspension or revocation is effective 15 calendar days following the date of service of the notice. 55 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
21 (d) If the Director revokes a permit, a new application may not be submitted for a period of two years.
5-46.11 - Appeals.

Any appeal right provided for in this chapter must be conducted as set forth in this section.
(a) An applicant or permittee may appeal a Director’s decision to deny, suspend, revoke, or not renew a permit by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days after service of the notice of decision. The appeal must be accompanied by the appeal fee established by City Council resolution.
(b) The notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant and must include: (a) the appellant’s name, address, and telephone number; (b) a copy of the notice of decision being appealed; (c) a concise statement of the grounds for appeal and the relief requested; and (d) any documents or other evidence the appellant requests the hearing officer to consider. (c) A timely and complete appeal stays the Director’s decision until issuance of the hearing officer’s final decision. If no timely and proper appeal is filed, the Director’s decision becomes final and effective upon expiration of the appeal period, and the appellant waives further administrative remedies. (d) The appeal must be heard by an independent hearing officer selected by the City Manager or his or her designee in a manner that avoids pecuniary or other bias.
(e) The City Clerk shall set the matter for a de novo hearing. The hearing must be held within a reasonable time as soon as practicable after the appeal is filed, and the City must provide the appellant at least 10 calendar days’ notice of the hearing date, time, and location.
(f) The City bears the burden to prove the grounds for the challenged action by a preponderance of the evidence; the notice of decision constitutes prima facie evidence of the stated grounds.
(g) The appellant may present witnesses and evidence. The hearing is informal; the formal rules of evidence do not apply, but privileges apply as provided by law, and irrelevant, collateral, or repetitious evidence may be excluded by the hearing officer.
(h) The hearing officer must issue a written decision within 15 calendar days after the close of the hearing.
(i) If the hearing officer finds no grounds to uphold the decision, the decision is rescinded. If the hearing officer finds one or more grounds, the decision shall identify the grounds and uphold the Director’s decision. The hearing officer’s decision is final and shall state: “The decision of the hearing officer 56 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
22 is final. Judicial review of this decision is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.”
5-46.12 - Permitted occupancy.

Every permit issued by the City must specify the maximum number of overnight occupants allowed at the short -term rental and the maximum number of vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short -term rental, which must be parked at the property.
5-46.13 - Nuisance response plans.
(a) Each nuisance response plan accompanying an application for a permit must contain the following information and otherwise be in a form required by the City:
(1) The mailing address and telephone number of the owner or owners of the residential dwelling unit or units to be used as a short -term rental pursuant to the permit.
(2) The name, address and telephone number of the person or persons who will be available by telephone, and who will be responsible for promptly responding to or causing a prompt response to a nuisance complaint arising out of the occupancy or use of the short -term rental(s) by tenants, their visitors and/or their guests. For the purposes of this chapter, a return telephone call to a complainant within 30 minutes of the initial complaint shall be deemed “prompt.” (3) No more than a total of three persons shall be designated in the response plan as a person responsible for responding to or causing a response to a nuisance complaint; and
(4) Only one such person shall be designated as the person responsible for responding to a nuisance complaint during any particular hours of the day, different days in a week, and/or different weeks of the year.
(5) The manner of responding to or causing a response to a nuisance complaint, including, but not limited to, the manner in which the complainant or complainants will be notified of the response and the method of documenting prompt responses and timely correct ive action.
(6) The manner of assuring timely corrective action to remedy the conditions that caused the nuisance complaint. For the purposes of this chapter, “timely corrective action” shall include, at a minimum, a telephone call to the primary adult occupant of the short- term rental within 30 minutes of the initial nuisance complaint.
57 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
23 (7) The proposed maximum number of overnight occupants, with supporting documentation identifying unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics, if any, that support a request for occupancy greater than the default cap of two adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom.
(8) The number of off -street parking spaces and number of bedrooms available at the short-term rental.
(b) At any time, an owner of a short-term rental may change the content of the nuisance response plan approved incident to the issuance of the permit by filing an amended response plan with the City. Such amended response plan shall contain all of the information and be in the form required by this section and shall be accompanied by the required fee in an amount established by City Council resolution.
5-46.14 - Notice of nuisance response plans.

Each owner, and each tenant or occupant of a short-term rental, must at all times comply with or cause compliance with the performance standards applicable to short-term rentals they own, lease or occupy, as established by this section. (a) The owner shall ensure that the short -term rental complies with all current applicable codes regarding fire, building and safety, and all other relevant laws and ordinances.
(b) No person may list, offer to rent, or advertise for rent a short -term rental without including in the listing, offer, or advertisement the City permit number applicable to the short-term rental property in the form “City of Simi Valley Permit No. ____.” The permit number must be displayed or printed in the same size type as the largest type used in the main body of the offer or advertisement.
(c) The owner must require the primary overnight and daytime occupant of the short-term rental to be an adult 18 years of age or older. This adult must provide a telephone number to the owner and must be accessible to the owner by telephone at all times.
58 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
24 (e) The permittee must maintain liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage arising from or related to the short-term rental.
(f) Prior to occupancy, the owner must obtain the name, address, and driver’s license number or a copy of the passport of the primary adult occupant of the short-term rental. The owner must require that the adult sign a formal acknowledgement that he or she is legally responsible for the compliance of all occupants of the short-term rental or their guests with all provisions of this chapter. This information shall be provided by the responsible party identified in the nuisance response plan upon request of any police officer or employee of the City authorized to enforce this chapter or State law. (g) The owner must limit overnight occupancy of the short -term rental to a specific number of occupants, with the maximum number of overnight occupants being two adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom, unless a request for occupancy greater than two adults and two children up to 12 years of age per bedroom has been approved through the permit process with supporting documentation identifying unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics, that supports the request. (h) The owner shall limit the number of vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short-term rental to a specific number of vehicles, with the maximum number of vehicles being the number of off-street parking spaces available at the property. In no case shall the number of uncovered, off - street parking spaces be less than one space. Such spaces must be exclusively reserved for the short -term rental during occupied stays.

Vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short -term rental must not park on any public street.
(i) Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection on scheduled trash collection days.

60 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
26 (k) Upon receipt of a nuisance complaint or upon notification of an allegation that any occupant or guest of the short -term rental has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code or any State law, the owner shall promptly respond and take timely corrective action to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests. Failure of the owner to respond promptly or to take timely corrective action regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the short - term rental shall be a violation of this chapter. An owner is not required or authorized to act as a peace officer or to intervene in situations that pose a risk to personal safety. The owner, or his or her agent, shall maintain records of the name, violation, date, and time of each complaint, disturbance, response and corrective action.
(l) The owner shall cause a copy of the nuisance response plan to be posted in a conspicuous place within the property.
(m) The owner shall annually provide to the City written confirmation of compliance with all elements of the performance standards and the approved nuisance response plan and confirming that the nuisance response plan is current and accurate. The performance standards may be modified by the City upon request of the owner based upon site- specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a short-term rental occupant as may be required by State or Federal disability laws. All requests must be in writing and shall identify how the strict application of the standard conditions creates an unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a short-term rental would not be allowed. (n) By the 15th day of the month after each calendar quarter, the permittee shall submit to the Director, in the form and manner required by the Director, a report for the preceding three months stating (1) the total number of nights the short -term rental was rented (including nights booked through any hosting platform) and the nightly rate(s) charged, and (2) the amount of Transient Occupancy Tax due for those rentals.
(o) The permittee must install and maintain in continuous operation a noise monitor on the exterior of the short -term rental to ensure compliance with SVMC chapter 5 -16. The noise monitor shall be a sound level meter meeting the standards of the American National Standards Specifications for Sound Level Meters or another acoustical or decibel measurement device with similar capabilities and features that does not have a camera, record conversations, or store any personal data.
(p) The use of the property is restricted to registered guests. Any event requiring paid admission is prohibited. Any activities, such as parties, gatherings, or other group events with non- registered guests, are prohibited.
61 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
27 5-46.16 - Permittee responsibility.

Except as otherwise provided or agreed, any notice required to be served by the City under this chapter must be completed by either by personal service by first - class mail. Service by mail is deemed complete at the time of deposit in the mail. 62 ZS20250006 PC Staff Report (kr)
28 5-46.20 - Enforcement.
(a) Violation Unlawful. It is unlawful and declared a public nuisance for any person to violate any provision of this chapter.
(b) Criminal and Administrative Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be criminally or administratively punished as set forth in Title 1 of this code.
(c) Civil or Equitable Enforcement. The City Attorney is authorized to bring a civil or equitable action, at his or her discretion, to seek the abatement of any violation of this code.
(d) Ongoing Violations. Each and every day a violation is maintained, caused, aided, abetted, concealed, suffered, or permitted is a separate offense. (e) Remedies Cumulative. The remedies, procedures, and penalties provided by this chapter are cumulative to each other and to any other available under City, state, or federal law.
63 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
Development Review Summary
Ne
ighborhood Council No: 1, 2, 3, and 4
NC Me
eting Date: January 8,13,15, and 20, 2026
Pr
oject No. Z-S-2025-0006
Pr
oject Description: Consideration of amendments to the Simi Valley Municipal Code to regulate short-term rentals
Case
Planner: Alexandra Clingman/Naren Gunasekera
Ne
ighborhood Council 1
Meeting Date: January 8, 2026
Au
dience members asked questions and made comments relating to: Potential negative impacts on property values and neighborhood quality, increased density, operation as lodging businesses, preservation of Simi Valley’s character, regulatory and enforcement costs, current number of rentals and related complaints, transie nts in neighborhoods, occupancy limits, noise monitoring, comparisons to neighboring cities, hotel occupancy and number of people per room. Eight residents spoke in opposition to short-term rentals. Four residents submitted cards opposing short -term rentals but did not speak. A petition with over 430 signatures requesting a ban was noted. One resident spoke in support, citing financial need and compliance efforts. Several residents urged the Council to vote against allowing short-term rentals.

Ci
ty Staff responded to the above questions as follows: Approximately 100 short - term rentals operate in Simi Valley. Neighborhood Councils and the Planning Commission provide recommendations. City Council makes the final decision. Simi Valley Police Department does not track which homes are short -term rental properties.

Noise monitors are not currently used. Short -term rentals are banned in Camarillo, Moorpark, and Ojai, and allowed in Agoura Hills, Oxnard, the City of Ventura, and Ventura County. Simi Vall ey Municipal Code does not specifically address short -term rentals. Hotel occupancy in Simi Valley is approximately 70%. Room occupancy limits were determined by reviewing standards from other cities and municipalities.

Execu
tive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to:

Financial benefits to real estate investors versus potential financial detriment to neighboring homeowners, differences between hosted and unhosted short -term rentals

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS
64 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
2 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
and associated cost differences, origin of the short-term rental regulations and identified community concerns, use of short -term rentals for displaced families and temporary housing, neighboring cities’ ordinances and data used in the City’s analysis, enforcement challenges with noise, trash, parking, fines, and vehicle limits, occupancy limits based on square footage rather than number of rooms, current number of short -term rentals and administrative costs, accountability concerns and potential neighborhood disruptions, and costs to ban short-term rentals.

Ci
ty Staff responded to the above questions as follows: The draft ordinance originated from community concerns. The City has received only a handful of complaints about short-term rentals, the most notable involving an event house with unpermitted alterations. A hosted short -term rental means a property owner or designated host is present on-site during the guest’s stay, for example, renting out a room while living in the home. An unhosted short-term rental means the entire property is rented out and no host is present during the stay. City staff reviewed ordinances from neighboring cities and municipalities while drafting the proposed ordinance. Parking enforcement will be managed through the nuisance response plan outlined in Title 5-46.14, Section C, F, and H of the performance standards. Residents can report parking violations using the designated contact number. If short -term rentals were banned, the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code would be updated to classify them as an unpermitted use. The cost of implementing a ban is still to be determined.

Upon c
onclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Sparky Cohen and seconded by Moses Amoghlian:

MOT
ION: Recommend to deny the consideration of amendments to the Simi Valley Municipal Code to regulate short-term rentals.

Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 1 No; 1 Abstention
Audience vote: 14 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The
motion carried.

Ne
ighborhood Council 2
Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
Au
dience members asked questions and made comment s relating to: Citywide or neighborhood specific permit limits, mechanism to protest a hotel business next door, short-term rentals not necessary in Simi Valley, Code Enforcement cannot effectively enforce short -term rentals, costly enforcement, urged limits based on the number of people per bedroom, several residents shared experiences living next to a short -term rental, opposition to hotel -type businesses in residential neighborhoods, concerns that corporations and real estate investors (including Limited Liability Comp anies or LLCs) can buy up single-family homes for short-term rentals, definition of “person” in ordinance 65 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY

3 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
language, and the lack of a draft ordinance for banning short-term rentals. Five residents submitted cards opposing short -term rentals, and a petition with over 430 signatures requesting a ban on short -term rentals was noted. Residents urged the Council to vote “No” on allowing short-term rentals in Simi Valley.

City Staff responded to the above questions as follows: Definitions, including “person,” are outlined in the proposed Title 5-46.02, which includes natural persons and legal entities. The City, including the Simi Valley Police Department, currently lacks data on whether short -term rentals are owned by individuals or LLCs. Senate Bill 346, effective October 13, 2025, allows cities and counties to require short -term rental facilitators to report property details, though its effectiveness remains uncertain.

Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to: The current number of complaints, ownership of short -term rental data, the Nuisance Response Plan, enforcement and staffing, concern about corporations or LLCs owning single-family homes, permitting, non-registered guests, noncompliance, parking, parties, group homes (licensed care facilities), mobile home parks, homeowners’ associations, City Council recommendations on the ordinance, how the City currently handles short - term rentals, th e cost of regulating versus not regulating, limits and timelines for reapplication after suspension or revocation, the Nuisance Response Plan/Good Neighbor Guidelines mailed to properties within a 200-foot radius of the short-term rental, and the cost to ban or keep short-term rentals unregulated.

City Staff responded to the above questions as follows: The City has only received a handful of complaints, the most significant involving a house with unpermitted changes.

The City, including the Simi Valley Police Department, currently lacks data on whether short-term rentals are owned by individuals or LLCs. Noise and parking issues are currently handled by Code Enforcement or the Police Department. Staff explained that the Nuisance Response Plan requires up to three 24/7 contacts for complaints and must be mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the short -term rental property line whenever a permit is issued or renewed. Owners must respond to the nuisance complaints within 30 minutes and remedy the situation. Permits are valid for one year (January 1 through December 31) and cannot be issued or renewed if a permit was suspended or revoked within the past 24 months. Permits may be revoked or suspended for violations of short -term regulations, public health and safety concerns, prior violations, or open enforcement cases, with fines set by City Council. Group homes (licensed care facilities) are regulated separately under the Simi Valley Municipal Code.

The City does not enforce Homeowners Association ( HOA) rules. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are the legally binding rules set by a HOA, and the City does not intervene in disputes with HOAs. Federal and State laws take precedence, followed by local (city/county) laws. HOA CC&Rs may impose stricter rules that do not conflict with public law. Financial impacts, violations, and fines are addressed in the December 15, 2025, City Council meeting staff report. Fiscal impacts, including staffing, are addressed in the August 4, 2025, City Council report. These reports are included in today’s packet as “attachments .” The new language and revised code sections recommended by City Council are shown as underlined text, while the deleted 66 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY

4 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
language is shown as strikethrough text. Staff shared a slide explaining that the definition for “loud and unruly gatherings” was added in place of “illegal parties.” A draft ordinance regarding a ban on or the cost to keep short-term rentals unregulated was not requested by the City Council.

Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Mike Shaw and seconded by George Bowman:

MOTION: Recommend to deny the amendments to the Simi Valley Municipal Code to regulate short-term rentals

Executive Board vote: 5 Ayes; 2 Noes; 3 Abstentions Audience vote: 4 Ayes; 0 Noes; 1 Abstention
Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.

Subsequent to the motion, the following amendment was made by George Bowman and seconded by Michael Shaw:

Amendment: Recommend to deny the amendments to the Simi Valley Municipal Code to regulate short-term rentals, and ban short-term rentals in Simi Valley

Executive Board vote: 5 Ayes; 5 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 5 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None

The amendment failed.

Neighborhood Council 3
Meeting Date: January 15, 2026

Audience members asked questions and made comments relating to: Opposition to short-term rentals, multiple speakers urged a Citywide ban, enforcement challenges, more than 90 short -term rental platforms, high City costs with loss first year, changes residential zoning to commercial zoning, neighborhood impacts, housing shortage, safety risks, need for inspections (smoke detectors, carbon monoxide alarms, pool safety), staffing needs including nights/weekends, Homeowner Association (HOA) disputes, economic impact on hotel businesses, hotels/motels at 72% occupancy, not a destination economy, petition with more than 430 signature supporting a ban was noted, resident wants short-tern rentals banned due to security concerns after a guest knocked on her door late at night thinking it was their rental, no exterior signage, reference to Moorpark’s ban as a model for Simi Valley, and need for a fair and balanced look at short-term rentals , including ban. Policy suggestions , if allowed: cap the number of 67 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY

5 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
rentals Citywide, limit occupancy based on bedrooms, prohibit corporate ownership of single-family homes, and provide a pathway for residents within 200 feet to protest nearby rentals.

City Staff responded to the above questions as follows: The City does not intervene in HOA disputes. Staff is here to get your feedback. Any feedback will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council at the upcoming public hearings.

Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to:

Citywide caps on permits, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), request for acronym definitions, cost estimates for banning or leaving short -term rentals unregulated, concerns about Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) purchasing single- family homes for short-term rentals, seniors and senior living facilities, housing affordability, staffing and enforcement costs, hosted versus unhosted rentals, parking enforcement, occupancy limits, support for short-term rentals noting family reliance during visits or emergencies, home occupation permits, age rules for children sharing rooms, noise monitors, concern over neighbor notification changing from before permit issuance to after issuance, and Moorpark’s process in addressing short-term rental policies.

City Staff responded to the above questions as follows: There are no caps in the current draft. All feedback will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. Business Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax Assessments are coordinated by an outside facilitator, HdL. The Planning Department manages development standards, while the Administrative Services Department and City Council handle financial aspects of this complex ordinance. If short -term rentals were banned, the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code and Table 2.2 (Residential District Uses) would be updated. Senior living facilities (licensed c are facilities) are regulated separately under the Simi Valley Municipal Code. A hosted short -term rental means the owner or designated host is present during the guest’s stay, for example, renting a room while living in the home. An unhosted short-term rental means the entire property is rented with no host present. City Council requested a draft ordinance to regulate short -term rentals. City Council did not request an ordinance to ban short -term rentals. The cost to ban short -term rentals is currently unknown. Senate Bill 346, effective October 13, 2025, allows cities to require short-term rental platforms to report property details. Existing tools, such as the noise ordinance, address noise-related issues. Noise and parking complaints are handled by Code Enforcement or the Police Department. Noise monitors can be installed to verify violations. Most operators do not want complaints. Neighbor notification timing (before versus after permit issuance) was addressed at the December 15, 2025, City Council meeting, which is available for viewing online. Moorpark initially drafted regulations but ultimately banned short-term rentals after strong public opposition.

68 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY

6 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by David Kritzer and seconded by Andy Goitia:

1 st MOTION: Recommend denial of the proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance

After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn after the following vote:

Executive Board vote: 10 Ayes; 1 No; 1 Abstention

The vote carried.

Subsequent to the withdrawal and additional discussion, the following motion was made by Serena Kahm and seconded by Melissa Hill:

2nd MOTION: Recommend approval of the proposed Short -Term Rental ordinance, with additional suggestions to restrict the number of nights allowed per year, base occupancy limits on the number of bedrooms rather than rooms, and establish a cap on the total number of Short-Term Rentals Citywide

Executive Board vote: 2 Ayes; 9 Noes; 1 Abstention Audience vote: 0 Ayes; 4 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion failed.

Subsequent to the failed motion, the following motion was made by David Kritzer and seconded by Richard Bebo:

3 rd MOTION: Recommend denial of the proposed Short-Term Rental ordinance and support a complete ban on Short-Term Rentals in Simi Valley

Executive Board vote: 10 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 4 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.

Neighborhood Council 4
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026

Audience member s asked questions and made comments relating to:

Neighborhood hotels/motels are incompatible with residential areas, lack of protest pathway for residents within 200 feet, multiple speakers urged Council to vote against short-term rentals, a petition with over 430 signatures requesting a ban was noted, need 69 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY

7 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
for a fair and balanced review including consideration of a ban, concern about no cap on short-term rentals, financial unsustainability, initial financial loss with limited cost recovery, safety risks from unknown visitors, resident wants short-tern rentals banned due to security concerns after a guest knocked on her door late at night thinking it was their rental, lack of exterior signage, no inspections for pool fencing or smoke detectors, enforcement challenges, after -hour complaints, Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) purchasing homes, residential streets not designed for commercial use, occupancy classification, Senate Bill 346, and City Council’s current stance. Multiple r esidents shared negative experiences with noise, parking, trespassing, and confrontations. Two residents spoke in support of regulati on, citing benefits such as home- like accommodation for extended family visits and financial assistance for homeowners.

City Staff responded to the above questions as follows: Single-family residences must comply with state standards enforced by Building and Safety and Code Enforcement. Home Occupation Permits check for open violations. There is no proposed pre-inspection. Senate Bill 346, effective October 13, 2025, allows cities to require short- term rental platforms to report property details, though its effectiveness remains uncertain. City Council has discussed short-term rentals three times. City Council meetings are available for viewing online, and staff reports have been included as attachments in today’s packet.

Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to:

Opposition to short-term rentals, consideration of constituents, enforcement challenges and potential issues with drug or halfway houses, fees , fines, comparisons with nearby cities’ costs or profits, revenue versus costs and cost recovery, staffing needs, after- hours coverage, permit requirements, role of Homeowner Associations (HOAs), use of noise monitors and data collection, occupancy limits, short-term rentals in apartments, parking enforcement, loud gatherings, lack of inspections for safety measures (e.g., smoke detectors, fenced pools), and the cost and constraints of enforcing a ban.

City Staff responded to the above questions as follows: City Council requested input from Neighborhood Councils. All feedback will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. Permits for short -term rentals differ from rehabilitation centers, which are addressed in the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code. Costs, permits, and fees have not yet been established. HOAs are between private parties; the City does not intervene.

Noise monitors can be installed by short-term rental owners to verify violations, and the City can request the collected data. Short-term rentals in apartments are not allowed under the proposed ordinance. The Police Department and Code Enforcement respond to noise and parking complaints. Administrative Services and City Council manage the financial aspects of the ordinance. Financial impacts, violations, and fines are detailed in the December 15, 2025, City Council staff report. Fiscal impacts and staffing are addressed in the August 4, 2025, City Council staff report. These reports are included in today’s packet as “attachments.” The costs and constraints of a ban would require a fee study. Senate Bill 346, effective October 13, 2025, may assist with enforcement by allowing cities to require short-term rental platforms to report property details, al though its effectiveness remains uncertain.
70 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY

8 NC 3/2-26(dsf)
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Deanna Block and seconded by Alessandro Neri:

MOTION: Recommend a ban on S hort-Term Rentals within the City of Simi Valley

Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Audience vote: 6 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.
71 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
November 18, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE

SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE REGULATION OF SHORT-

TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding short-term residential rentals.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
On October 21, 2024, the City Council directed staff to provide options to the City Council for regulations on short-term rentals within the City of Simi Valley. Staff is providing this report and requesting direction on whether t he City should initiate Simi Valley Municipal Code Amendments and/or policy updates to establish specific standards for short-term rentals.

Short-term rentals ( also referred to as “STRs,” “vacation rentals,” “short -term vacation rentals,” or “transient rentals”) are private residences rented in whole or in part , for a period of less than 30 -days. Online sites, such as Airbnb, HomeToGo, and VRBO list entire homes or rooms for rent. The City’s research of online sites determined there are between 30 and 50 STR units listed within the city limits. STRs in Simi Valley range from $100 to $350 per night, depending on the listing site and type (Refer to Tables 2 and 3).

At this time, the City does not define a STR, nor regulate short-term rentals. Over the past 10 years, the City has only received a few complaints involving STRs. The most significant was from an STR being marketed as an event venue that made major property modifications without permits. The other STR complaints expressed not wanting the home to be rented short -term or otherwise and had no actionable items to address. Staff also receives a handful of inquiries each year regarding the City’s STR regulations , typically from prospective operators.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Staff surveyed seven (7) jurisdictions on their STR rules and regulations, as demonstrated in Table 1.

AGENDA ITEM NO.
9A
72 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
Table 1 – STR Regulations in Surrounding Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Ordinance
in Place
Nature of
Ordinance
Notes
City of Agoura
Hills
Yes Allowed with a
permit
City of Camarillo Yes STRs Banned
City of Moorpark Yes STRs Banned
City of Ojai Yes STRs Banned
City of Oxnard Yes Allowed with a
permit
Limited permits offered in Coastal
Zone; and cannot be within 200
feet of any other STR property.

STR permit issued; enforcement
via third party vendor.

City of Ventura Yes Allowed with a
permit
The City is developing an
ordinance to regulate STRs,
including limiting the number of
units and density of allowed units.

Enforcement with 3 rd party
vendor.

County of
Ventura
Yes STR permits
required in
Coastal Zone
and Ojai Region
No outright ban on STRs
elsewhere.

Of those surveyed, four jurisdictions allow STRs with permits. These jurisdictions also work with third party vendors to regulate STRs, and/or have rules in place to limit where STRs can be located or the number of STRs allowed. Moorpark , Ojai and Camarillo do not permit STRs, arguing the need to preserve each individual city’s aesthetic and neighborhood characteristics. It should be noted that each of these cities still have available STRs listed on the various platforms that facilitate STRs.

Below is a breakdown of potential advantages and disadvantages of short-term rentals.

Advantages of Short-Term Rentals:

1. Tax Revenues for the City: If regulated, STRs have the potential to generate new permit fee revenue, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and sales tax revenue, captured from tenant spending when visitors stay in Simi Valley instead of a neighboring jurisdiction.

2. Supplemental Income for Homeowners: Renting out a home or portion of a home (room rental) for business, leisure, or temporary housing can generate new revenue for homeowners, helping them recover from their investments, make a profit, or provide additional discretionary income.
73 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)

3. Increase in Simi Valley Visitors: STRs provide a lodging option to supplement the limited number of hotel rooms in the City and provide additional local lodging options.

4. Support Local Businesses: Requiring STRs to collect and pay TOT the same way hotels are required to do would level the playing field between the two types of lodging. The Fiscal Impacts section provides additional discussion this topic. In addition, when visitors stay in Simi Valley instead of neighboring jurisdictions, visitors are more likely to frequent nearby businesses , including retail stores and restaurants.

Disadvantages of Short-Term Rentals:

1. Potential Loss of Housing Stock for Residents and Workforce: Although not likely a concern in Simi Valley, units removed from the permanent housing market and used for short -term rentals may reduce long -term rental options . A reduced housing stock results in increased rental prices for permanent housing, and has the potential to affect the City’s workforce, who will then resort to residing outside of Simi Valley with longer commute times into the city.

2. Impacts to Existing Hotels : STRs may impact existing hotels by increasing competition and lowering hotel occupancy rates, hotel revenues , and transie nt occupancy and tourism taxes to the City. In addition, Simi Valley’s hotels currently contribute to the Visit Simi Valley Tourism Assessment, which is not collected for STRs. Hotels also create employment opportunities for City residents and generate related sales tax revenue.

3. Neighbor Complaints: Neighborhood deterioration and noise have the potential to lead to neighborhood complaints. Though the City has noise restrictions (SVMC 5-

33.03), STRs have the potential to cause public nuisance via loud parties and gatherings. This has the potential to create enforcement issues for the City. The Regulatory Challenges and Impacts to City Staff and Resources Section provides additional information on this topic.

4. Potential Deterioration of Residences/Neighborhoods : Without the oversight or presence of a property manager/owner on site, consistent turnovern of STR renters has the potential to depreciate homes’ conditions. Other concerns include:
increased traffic coming through neighborhoods; vandalism; noise; overcrowding; turnover of people; and leaving trash out on the street s. Simi Valley has not experienced STR concerns at a level at or above ordinary property maintenance complaints as a whole and the City has existing re gulations in the Simi Valley Municipal Code to address most of the concerns listed above.

Fiscal Impacts
The City of Simi Valley charges a 10%TOT rate on hotel and motel stays. TOT funds are used to offset increased public service costs that may be incurred from tourists, including public safety, road maintenance and repair. The City collects approximately $2 million 74 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
from TOT each year. 1 Upon further research of other California jurisdictions that permit and tax STRs (including the cities of Orange, Vista, Indio, Fullerton, Oxnard, Ventura and the County of Ventura), staff has prepared the following financial findings. Staff makes an optimistic assumption for the rent and number of nights per year of 40 listed homes and rooms in the City 2, based on available data online. Staff makes findings, assuming that all listed STRs would comply with an STR ordinance.

Table 2 – Simi Valley STR Estimates
Number
Available STRs
Average Daily
Rate
Estimated Number of
Days Rented per Year
Entire Home3 12 $322.50 96
Room Only 28 $130.05 144
Table 3 – Potential STR Revenues per Year
Fees for Homes Fees for Rooms
Permit4 $936 $936
Business Tax Certificate $115 $115
Gross Receipts Tax $50 $25
Transient Occupancy Tax $3,096 $1,561
Total Per Year Per Unit $4,197 $2,637
Total Per Year for Available Units $50,365.68 $73,828.72 Should the aforementioned occur, Staff projects approximately $125,000 of gross revenues per year from STRs.

Regulatory Challenges and Impacts to City Staff and Resources:

Necessary considerations of an STR program development are associated with code enforcement, public safety , and administration of a program. Some issues to consider include:
• Administration of a STR Program: Staff would need to determine required applications, permitting, taxation and business registration requirements for such a program, which would involve, the Planning Division, Administrative Services , and Code Enforcement, and a third-party vendor for searching, tracking and enforcing business tax registrations. The City currently uses HdL to administer all Business Tax Certificates.
• Adjustment of Staff Time and Personnel Management: Since most STR stays occur during the weekends , Code Enforcement staff would need to adopt permanent work schedules incorporating nights and weekends to respond to code enforcement related complaints arising from STR. If absorbed within existing 1 There are 6 hotels in the City of Simi Valley
2 Based on Airbnb and VRBO search on 10/23/2024 that brought up 43 searches in the City. 3 Includes homes, guesthouses, and apartments.
4 Amount was based on average fee assessed by the seven jurisdictions mentioned above. 75 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
resources, two Code Compliance Officers could be redirected to night and weekend schedules, which would divert resources from other quality of life issues by about 20% due to work that can only be conducted during daylight hours such as knock and talks with residents. Additionally, notifications to STR violators would be delayed due to the inability to mail notices during weekend shifts. An alternative would be to hire an additional Code Compliance Officer at a total cost of approximately $120,000 per year.
• Overall Enforcement of a Program : As there are dozens of online vacation rental sites, such as Airbnb, VRBO, HomeToGo, FlipKey, and Booking.com, finding and ensuring that all STRs in Simi Valley are registered and permitted with the City would be time-consuming and divert staff away from current priorities. It would require a minimum of 2.5 staff members from Code Enforcement and Administrative Services to properly administer the program and ensure compliance. Some third-party vendors have enforcement services, which could primarily monitor permit s or conditions of said permit , however, on-the-ground enforcement would likely be borne by Police or Code Enforcement staff . Further, third-party enforcement may only target locations advertised online through popular rental portals. Word of mouth rentals are harder to track and would be extremely difficult to enforce (similar to a traditional home rental).

Enforcement Rules are already in Place
As an alternative approach to establishing a new ordinance, the City’s existing mechanisms for enforcement of complaints related to single -family dwellings can be utilized for issues related to short -term rentals. The Municipal Code has existing definitions for Bed and Breakfast Inns, Lodging Houses, and Boarding Houses, all of which require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Existing operators may be able to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to operate through one of the categories. The Environmental Services Director may apply specialized conditions of approval to restrict certain operational aspects such as number of renters, length of stay and parking availability.

The enforcement of Conditional Use Permit violations tied to STR can be handled through existing procedures, while complaints related to late night noise violations or on -street parking violations are currently be referred to the Police Department. Other types of complaints could be referred to Code Enforcement. However, there would still be an added cost to modify the City’s existing contract with HdL to administer the issuance and monitoring of Business Tax Certificates.

An STR program would approximately cost $18,470 annually, plus a one-time $5,000 set up cost, to track and issue permits with a third-party vendor, such as HdL, which currently administers the City’s Business Tax Certificate program. The vendor would track short - term rentals in the City through online listings, and coordinate with City Staff and STR owners to obtain City permits and business tax certificates. Additionally, it would cost the City approximately $321,304 annually to administer and enforce the program. This cost includes salaries and benefits for new and/or reallocated staff , including two Code Compliance Officers and 50% of a Sr. Management Analyst. While the City would generate $125,000 from tax revenue, the City would be subsidizing an STR program at approximately $214,774 per year.
76 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
The following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Direct staff to initiate Municipal Code Amendments to allow short-term rentals;

2. Direct staff to initiate a Municipal Code Amendment to prohibit short-term rentals;

3. Direct staff to provide more detailed research options for short-term rental zoning, enforcement and taxation rules and return with a report to the City Council within 6 months to allow for further direction on whether to proceed with an ordinance;

4. Do not initiate Municipal Code or policy amendments at this time; or,

5. Provide other direction.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
Staff has no suggested motion.

MEMORANDUM
August
4, 2025
TO: City
Council
FRO
M: Department of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: REQUEST FO R DIRECTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE SIMI VALLEY

MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE SHORT-T ERM RE NTALS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on short-term residential rental regulations.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
On October 21, 2024, the City Council directed staff to provide options to the City Council for regulations on Sh ort-Term Rentals (STR) within the City of Simi Valley following resident requests for the City Council to regulate STRs. On November 18, 2024, staff presented initial findings on STRs (Refer to Exhibit 1, page 10).

Following
a discussion, th e City Council directed staff to provide further research on surrounding jurisdictions’ STR policies and ordinances , and the costs and benefits of
STRs. Short-term rentals (also referred to as “STRs,” “vacation rentals,” “short-t erm vacation rentals,” or “transient rentals”) are private residences rented in whole or in part, for fewer than 30-d ays. Platforms like Airbnb, HomeToGo, and VRBO list these rentals.

Three
vendors were consulted regarding STR enforcement and taxation for the City of Simi Valley. Findings indicate there are approximately 100 STR listings in the City, with an
average nightly rate up to $200. For comparison, there are approximately 300 registered STRs in Ventura City and approximately 70 in Oxnard.

Over the past few years, STR-r elated
complaints have been minimal, with the
most significant involving an STR operating as an event venue with major unpermitted property modifications. More recently, following the last City Council item (Exhibit 1), staff have received three to four phone inquiries with requests to ban STRs in the City.

Staff is providing this report and requesting direction on whether the City s hould initiate Municipal Code Amendments and/or policy updates to establish specific standards for STRs.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Staff conducted additional r esearch to summarize regulations on STRs within Ventura County (Refer to Table 1).

AGENDA ITEM NO.

9A
78 Tab
le 1 – STR Rules in Ventura County
Jurisdiction Ordinance
Status
Regulation Summary
City of Ventura Allowed Active STR Permit, business license required, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collected
County of
Ventura
Allowed Active Temporary Rental Units (TRU) Permit,
business license required, TOT collected
Oxnard Allowed Active STR Permit, business license required, TOT collected
Port Hueneme Allowed without
Ordinance
Business license required, TOT collected
Thousand
Oaks
No Ordinance STRs not regulated
Moorpark Banned STRs not permitted
Camarillo Banned STRs not permitted
Ojai Banned STRs not permitted, Homeshares are allowed
with annual Zoning Clearance
Jurisdiction Rationales:

The f
ollowing rationales were identified for allowing STRs:
• Contribution to local tourism and economic growth (Ventura County). • Maintains a balance between tourism and residential stability (Oxnard) by allowing flexible lodging options, while imposing regulations that limit neighborhood disruption.
• Regulation reduces enforcement challenges associated with non- complaint STR operators (Oxnard, County of Ventura).
• Addresses community concerns over parking congestion and neighborhood congestion (Oxnard, Ventura County).
• Ensure TOT collection (Ventura County).
• STRs provide homeowners with additional income opportunities, which can help offset housing costs (Ventura County).

The f
ollowing rationales were identified for banning STRs:
• Prevents detrimental impact on neighborhoods ( noise, traffic, and public safety concerns from STRs) and preserves neighborhood character (Moorpark). • Prevents loss of long-term rental and affordable housing options. Maximizing the availability of affordable housing options by ensuring that no long- term rental properties are converted into short-term rentals (Moorpark and Ojai). • Protect the health, safety , and welfare of the temporary rental units’ renters, occupants, neighboring residents, as well as the general public and environment (Ojai).
79 Bel
ow is a breakdown of potential advantages and disadvantages of STRs:

Potential Advantages of Short-Term Rentals:

1. Tax Revenues for the City . STRs have the potential to generate new transient occupancy tax (TOT) and sales tax revenue, captured from spending when visitors stay in Simi Valley instead of a neighboring jurisdiction. If regulated, the City could collect the TOT, Business Tax Certificate fees, and registration fees.

2. Supplemental Income for Homeowners. Renting out a home or portion of a home (room rental) for business, leisure, or temporary housing can generate new revenue for homeowners, recover their investments, make a profit, or subsidize day-to-day expenses.

3. Increase in Simi Valley Visitors . In 2024, Simi Valley’s hotels averaged 72.5% occupancy for the full calendar year, which outperformed most of Ventura County average stays for the year. STRs provide an alternative lodging option to hotels in the City and provide lodging options locally rather than compelling visitors to stay outside of the City. This would help increase TOT revenues (refer to Exhibit 1).

4. Support Local Businesses. Requiring STRs to collect and pay TOT the same way hotels are required to would level the playing field between the two types of lodging. Refer to the Fiscal Impacts section for more information. In addition, when visitors stay in Simi Valley instead of neighboring jurisdictions, visitors are more likely to frequent nearby businesses, including retail stores and restaurants.

Potential Disadvantages of Short-Term Rentals:

1. Potential Loss of Housing Stock for Residents and Workforce. While most of the existing STRs are room rentals, they shift how homes are used; units removed from the permanent housing market and used for short -term rentals may reduce long-term rental options for the community. A reduced housing stock results in increased rental prices for permanent housing and has the potential to affect the City’s workforce, who will then reside outside of Simi Valley with longer commutes into the city.

2. Impacts to Existing Hotels . Unregulated STRs can impact existing hotels by increasing competition and lowering hotel occupancy rates, hotel revenues , transient occupancy, and tourism taxes to the City. Simi Valley’s hotels currently pay into the Visit Simi Valley Tourism Assessment, which is not currently collected for STRs. Hotels also create employment opportunities for City residents and related sales tax revenue whereas STRs do not create employment opportunities.

3. Neighbor Complaints . Tenant turnover and noise may lead to neighborhood complaints. STRs have the potential to cause public nuisance as a result of loud parties and gatherings , violating the City’s N oise Ordinance (SVMC 5 -33.03), requiring additional enforcement from the City (Refer to Enforcement Impacts below).
80 4. Potential Deterioration of Residences/Neighborhoods. Without the oversight or presence of a property manager/owner on site or close by, consistent turnover of STR renters may cause a decline in a home’s condition. Other concerns include:
increased traffic in neighborhoods; noise; and additional trash generated from short-term renters.

Potential Ordinance and Policy Implementations
If
the City Council wants to adopt a new STR Ordinance, staff recommends that the Ordinance include the following best practices and elements:

1. Good
Neighbor Policy. Some cities with a n STR Ordinance require adherence to a “Good Neighbor Policy” to ensure STRs do not disturb neighborhoods. The policy would be posted in the STR and made available on the city website. Some components of the policy include:
• No parking on streets or on yards. STR units must have adequate parking arrangements utilizing either the garage and/or driveway for guests to prevent congestion.
• Adherence to quiet hours and noise limitations, reflecting the Noise Ordinance. • Immediate response from STR operator to complaints from neighbors or City officials.
• Proper trash disposal and recycling practices.
• No events or parties.

2. One-t
ime or Annual Permit fees . In order to ensure ongoing compliance with the SVMC, a STR O rdinance could require a permit fee to cover processing and inspection costs, and potential renewal fees for annual reviews or inspections.

3. TO
T Collection and Annual Business Taxation. Owners would be required to pay into the City’s transit occupancy taxes (with a concurrent amendment to the City’s TOT Ordinance) and participate in the City’s Tourism Business Improvement District. In addition, Owners would be required to obtain a business tax certificate, which would be collected annually.

4. Fi
nes and Citations. The City Council could establish minor and major violations of the STR code, with potential permit revocation and escalating fines for noncompliant STR owners . Examples of fines from nearby jurisdictions are in Table 2 below.

5. Cons
tituent Portal. Creation of a city webpage to list registered and permitted STRs, to provide the community with transparency on registered STRs, contact information, and complaint forms.
81 Tab
le 2: STR Fines from Other Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Fine
Ojai • $1,500 for first violation, $3,000 for second violation within one year of first violation, and $5,000 fine for each
additional violation within one year of first violation, in addition to administrative costs and interest.
• Forfeiture of rents and other gross revenue unlawfully received during the period of violation.

Ventura
County
• Violations of regulations are punishable as a
misdemeanor/infraction criminal offense.
• County may impose civil administrative penalties of up to $1,000/day for confirmed violations.
• County maintains an online public complaint process,
which is monitored and, as appropriate, investigated by Code Compliance staff.

Big Bear
Lake
• $500/violation; second offense is $1,000/violation.

La Quinta • Fines range from $1,000-$5,000/violation.

STR Program Management
Sta
ff met with three vendors that help local governments manage STR compliance and enforcement. See Table 3 for a comparison among the companies, including the costs and services associated with administering STR programs. The vendors track STRs, support registration and permitting of STR owners/operators, collect taxes, and offer compliance campaigns to enforce illegal STR operations.

Dec
kard Technologies and Granicus offer 24- hour hotlines, for constituent complaints.

Deckard also offers a Constituent Portal to access permitted and registered STR information.

Th
e City is currently partnered with HdL for the administration of its Business Tax Certificates.
82 Tab
le 3: STR Vendor Comparison
Deckard
Technology
HdL Granicus
Base Cost $5,000/year $12,750/year + CPI +
price per account
Modular, varies by
service
Setup Fees None $5,000 Up to $14,000 for
all set up services
Address
Identification
Included Included $7,600/year
Compliance
Monitoring
Included Included $3,200/year
Rental Activity Included Included $2,800/year
Permitting and
Registration
Optional
$5,000/year
Optional
$25/account/year +
CPI
$3,500/year +
setup fees from
$3,660 to $7,000
Tax Payment
Portal (TOT)
Optional
$5,000/year
$18/account/year +
CPI
$3,500/year +
setup fees from
$3,660 to $7,000
Compliance Letter
Campaign
Optional
$1,500/year
Included Included with the
Compliance
module
24-hour Hotline &
Online Complaint
Form
Optional
$3,500/year
Not Recommended $2,500/year
Total Year One
Cost assuming
purchase of all
services/modules
$20,000/year $20,760*/year
(assuming 70 STRs)
$33,760/year to
$37,100/year
*Per conversations with vendors, 20 – 40% of STRs typically drop out after program initiation (due to reluctance to obtain a business license or collect TOT). Staff is using 30% drop off rate as an estimate.

SB 346: Short Term Rental Facilitator
In M
ay 2025, SB 346 passed the Senate and has been with the Assembly since May 2025, but has not yet been reviewed and voted on. This bill would authorize cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring online platforms, such as Airbnb and VRBO, to provide reports on short-term rental s to the City. The bill would allow a jurisdiction to impose a fine or penalty for failure to file a STR, and would allow the jurisdiction to initiate an audit of online platforms. A decision on the bill will likely be made in September 2025.

Shoul
d this bill pass , and a City ordinance be adopted , the City may not need all the services provided by a third-party vendor, such as address identification, compliance monitoring, and rental activity. Should the City move forward without an ordinance, but still collect taxes, this would result in cost savings , and the City could continue working with HdL on tax collections only. This has the potential to reduce the associated third - party vendor costs.
83 Fiscal Impacts
To i
mplement a STR Program, third-party vendor costs of $20,000 to $37,100 per year would be incurred to track and issue permits . Additionally, the City would incur approximately $254,000 in annual costs to administer and enforce the program. This cost includes salaries and benefits for new and/or reallocated staff, including one full-time Code Compliance Officer. While the City would generate approximately $230,000 from tax revenue (for 70 STR listings) , the City would be subsidizing a STR program at approximately $23,500 the first year. To cover costs and potentially generate revenue, the City would need to consider a minimum STR permit fee of approximately $1,350. The permit revenues in Table 4 are based on a permit fee of $936, which is the average fee of seven other jurisdictions with STR programs. For reference, a minor Zoning Clearance currently costs $120.37. Additional expenses can be anticipated with ongoing staff time with permitting/ consultant contract review, and one-time staff time and consultant services in preparing a STR Ordinance and related SVMC code amendments.

Tab
le 4: Estimated Revenues and Costs with a STR Ordinance Year 1 Year 2
Estimated Permit Revenue* $65,520 $65,520
Business Tax Revenue $8,060 $8,060
Gross Receipts Tax Revenue $2,450 $2,450
Estimated TOT Revenue $152,233 $152,233
Fines $2,360 $2,360
Total Estimated Revenue $230,623 $230,623
STR Vendor $37,000 $32,000
City Attorney $19,000 $19,000
Planning $42,400 $16,960
Code Enforcement $139,040 $139,040
Police Department $16,500 $16,500
Total Estimated Cost $ 253,940 $223,500
NET INCOME $-23,317 $7,123
* This is based on a permit fee of $936.

The
estimated permit revenues are based on 70 registered STRs. The City ’s costs are based on:
• ¼ of a Senior Planner’s time or Planning Consultant preparing the code (one time cost), reviewing applications, updating the website with STR address information, and coordinating with other Staff on enforcement issues. Staff anticipates that this could drop in year 2 and beyond to approximately 10%.
• 10% of the City Attorney’s time.
• A full-time Code Enforcement Officer.
• 10% of a Police Officer’s time.

Code
enforcement costs assumes one extreme case of enforcement every two years (i.e. a case with City Attorney involvement) and one moderate case with multiple attempts to bring an owner into compliance with involvement from Code Enforcement staff only. 84 Enforcement Impacts/Banning STRs
Enf
orcement of SVMC violations is permitted with or without amendments addressing STRs. Presently, any SVMC violation such as noise, parking, and property maintenance is addressed under current citywide procedures, whether the home is being rented as an STR, traditionally rented, vacant, or owner-occupied. Lack of an STR Ordinance does not preclude enforcement of these items.

If th
e City Council decides to explicitly ban STRs, staff will need to identify existing STRs and initiate enforcement on them. The cost for this would most likely be the highest in the first year to remove existing STRs and then ongoing costs after that to prevent new STRs from being created. An external vendor would be required to identify the STRs and Code Enforcement and City Attorney staff time will be required to enforce on the m. Vendor costs would range up to $37,000 for the first year and up to $32, 000 per year for subsequent years in order to identify addresses for STRs . Staff time could range from $217,000 for the first year to remove existing STRs to $191,500 per year for subsequent years for continuing enforcement.

The f
ollowing alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Di
rect staff to initiate Municipal Code Amendments to explicitly ban short-term rentals;

2. Di
rect staff to initiate Municipal Code Amendments to allow Short-Term Rentals with identified regulations;

3. Do not
initiate Municipal Code Amendments for STRs and allow issues to be managed through existing provisions in the municipal code; or

4. Pr
ovide other direction.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
St
aff has no suggested motion.

SUMMARY
On N
ovember 18, 2024, staff provided preliminary research on Short-Term Rentals and potential impacts of STRs to the City of Simi Valley, based on a citizen inquiry to regulate STRs based on potential neighborhood impacts. Very few STR complaints are received annually and can be addressed with existing Municipal Code standards (e.g. noise, parking, property maintenance). Pursuant to that presentation, City Council requested of Staff further information on the costs and benefits of an STR program, partnershi p with third-party vendors, and enforcement with fees. Staff analyzed potential elements for a STR program, including the good neighbor policy. Staff prepared further analysis of the associated costs and benefits of an STR O rdinance, including staff time and resource costs. Based on the findings, the program would likely create a deficit for the City in establishing a STR Ordinance in year one and the potential for ongoing program deficits based on permit fees and ongoing enforcement . Due to the limited number of citizen complaints, which can be addressed using traditional neighborhood enforcement, a STR 85 Ordinance may not be necessary at this time. The potential benefit of collecting Transient Occupancy Taxes from STRs may be offset by program establishment and ongoing management, and proactive enforcement. Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to proceed with a STR policy or ordinance.
______
______________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
Pr
epared by: Zarui Chaparyan, Associate Planner
INDEX Page
Ex
hibit 1: November 18, 2024, City Council Staff Report………….10 Exhibit 2: Good Neighbor Policy Examples………………………….16
86 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
November 18, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE

SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE REGULATION OF SHORT-

TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding short-term residential rentals.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Staff surveyed seven (7) jurisdictions on their STR rules and regulations, as demonstrated in Table 1.

AGENDA ITEM NO.
9A
EXHIBIT 1
87 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
Table 1 – STR Regulations in Surrounding Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Ordinance
in Place
Nature of
Ordinance
Notes
City of Agoura
Hills
Yes Allowed with a
permit
City of Camarillo Yes STRs Banned
City of Moorpark Yes STRs Banned
City of Ojai Yes STRs Banned
City of Oxnard Yes Allowed with a
permit
Limited permits offered in Coastal
Zone; and cannot be within 200
feet of any other STR property.

STR permit issued; enforcement
via third party vendor.

City of Ventura Yes Allowed with a
permit
The City is developing an
ordinance to regulate STRs,
including limiting the number of
units and density of allowed units.

Enforcement with 3 rd party
vendor.

County of
Ventura
Yes STR permits
required in
Coastal Zone
and Ojai Region
No outright ban on STRs
elsewhere.

Below is a breakdown of potential advantages and disadvantages of short-term rentals.

Advantages of Short-Term Rentals:

3. Increase in Simi Valley Visitors: STRs provide a lodging option to supplement the limited number of hotel rooms in the City and provide additional local lodging options.

Disadvantages of Short-Term Rentals:

3. Neighbor Complaints: Neighborhood deterioration and noise have the potential to lead to neighborhood complaints. Though the City has noise restrictions (SVMC 5-

Fiscal Impacts
The City of Simi Valley charges a 10%TOT rate on hotel and motel stays. TOT funds are used to offset increased public service costs that may be incurred from tourists, including public safety, road maintenance and repair. The City collects approximately $2 million 89 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
from TOT each year. 1 Upon further research of other California jurisdictions that permit and tax STRs (including the cities of Orange, Vista, Indio, Fullerton, Oxnard, Ventura and the County of Ventura), staff has prepared the following financial findings. Staff makes an optimistic assumption for the rent and number of nights per year of 40 listed homes and rooms in the City 2, based on available data online. Staff makes findings, assuming that all listed STRs would comply with an STR ordinance.

Regulatory Challenges and Impacts to City Staff and Resources:

Necessary considerations of an STR program development are associated with code enforcement, public safety , and administration of a program. Some issues to consider include:
• Administration of a STR Program: Staff would need to determine required applications, permitting, taxation and business registration requirements for such a program, which would involve, the Planning Division, Administrative Services , and Code Enforcement, and a third-party vendor for searching, tracking and enforcing business tax registrations. The City currently uses HdL to administer all Business Tax Certificates.
• Adjustment of Staff Time and Personnel Management: Since most STR stays occur during the weekends , Code Enforcement staff would need to adopt permanent work schedules incorporating nights and weekends to respond to code enforcement related complaints arising from STR. If absorbed within existing 1 There are 6 hotels in the City of Simi Valley
2 Based on Airbnb and VRBO search on 10/23/2024 that brought up 43 searches in the City. 3 Includes homes, guesthouses, and apartments.
4 Amount was based on average fee assessed by the seven jurisdictions mentioned above. 90 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
resources, two Code Compliance Officers could be redirected to night and weekend schedules, which would divert resources from other quality of life issues by about 20% due to work that can only be conducted during daylight hours such as knock and talks with residents. Additionally, notifications to STR violators would be delayed due to the inability to mail notices during weekend shifts. An alternative would be to hire an additional Code Compliance Officer at a total cost of approximately $120,000 per year.
• Overall Enforcement of a Program : As there are dozens of online vacation rental sites, such as Airbnb, VRBO, HomeToGo, FlipKey, and Booking.com, finding and ensuring that all STRs in Simi Valley are registered and permitted with the City would be time-consuming and divert staff away from current priorities. It would require a minimum of 2.5 staff members from Code Enforcement and Administrative Services to properly administer the program and ensure compliance. Some third-party vendors have enforcement services, which could primarily monitor permit s or conditions of said permit , however, on-the-ground enforcement would likely be borne by Police or Code Enforcement staff . Further, third-party enforcement may only target locations advertised online through popular rental portals. Word of mouth rentals are harder to track and would be extremely difficult to enforce (similar to a traditional home rental).

An STR program would approximately cost $18,470 annually, plus a one-time $5,000 set up cost, to track and issue permits with a third-party vendor, such as HdL, which currently administers the City’s Business Tax Certificate program. The vendor would track short - term rentals in the City through online listings, and coordinate with City Staff and STR owners to obtain City permits and business tax certificates. Additionally, it would cost the City approximately $321,304 annually to administer and enforce the program. This cost includes salaries and benefits for new and/or reallocated staff , including two Code Compliance Officers and 50% of a Sr. Management Analyst. While the City would generate $125,000 from tax revenue, the City would be subsidizing an STR program at approximately $214,774 per year.
91 STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
The following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Direct staff to initiate Municipal Code Amendments to allow short-term rentals;

2. Direct staff to initiate a Municipal Code Amendment to prohibit short-term rentals;

4. Do not initiate Municipal Code or policy amendments at this time; or,

5. Provide other direction.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
Staff has no suggested motion.

SUMMARY
On October 21, 2024, the City Council requested Staff to review STRs, including their feasibility, effectiveness, fiscal and staffing impacts. While benefits to STR regulations include tax revenue generation and supplemental income for City residents, there is a lack of STR complaints and a limited number of STRs within the City. Coupled with program expenses and enforcement, a STR Ordinance could outweigh the aforementioned benefits. Given the presented, Staff requests direction from the City Council regarding possible amendments to the Municipal Code. ____________________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
Prepared by: Zarui Chaparyan, Associate Planner
92 Local Resources
Milpitas Police Emergency – 9-1-1 or (408) 263-1212
Milpitas Police Non-Emergency – (408) 586-2400
Animal Services: (530) 587-5948
Code Enforcement: (408)-586-3072
Compliance and Potential Fines
The City of Milpitas makes every effort to work with
guests and property managers to resolve issues of
non-compliance with the Short-Term Rental Ordi-
nance before issuing citations or fines. Repeat or
excessive non- compliance, however, may result in
fines of up to $500 per day or more for the guest,
property owner, or both.

Local Contact Person Information
Your host is required to designate a local contact
person who is able to respond in person to any code
compliance matters related to your rental within one
hour.

Your rental’s local contact person information is:

Name: __________________________________
Phone Number: ___________________________
Pets
Pets must always be secured on the property.

Please
do not leave pets unattended or allow them to roam
unleashed, and always clean up after them.

The Short Term-Rental program is administer by the Milpitas Planning Department.

If you have general program question please contact us at 408-586-3279 , or by email at [email protected] www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/short-term-rentals
Welcome to the City of Milpitas!
The Good Neighbor Manual highlights the guidelines that visitors must follow during their stay in a short
-
term rental unit.

For your enjoyment of the unit and to preserve the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood.

Here are some tips for homeowners and

travelers on how to Stay Neighborly

Noise
Quiet hours are from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Consider
moving indoors after 10 p.m. and be considerate
of neighbors when conducting any outdoor activi-
ties
Occupancy
Overnight occupancy (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) of short-
term rentals is limited to two adults per bedroom,
plus one additional adult. Children under 16 do not
count towards this limit. Check with your host
about any questions related to occupancy limits.

Parking
Park only in the designated parking areas provid-
ed for
your rental unit. Do not block any driveway.

Waste and Recycling
Don’t be a litterbug! Please put your trash in the
proper containers both inside the rental and out-
side.

EXHIBIT 2
93 Rules to Vacation by
Do not exceed the occupancy limit
Do not exceed the stated occupancy at any time during
your stay. The maximum number of adult occupants may
be less than the total maximum occupancy.

NO PARTIES ALLOWED.

No parking in street or yard
Parking is only permitted in the driveway, designated
parking spaces, and garage. This includes trailers. The maximum number of vehicles permitted is on the exterior sign.

No amplified music 24/7
Amplified music is not permitted to be heard beyond the property line 24/7. Close your windows to avoid music
carrying beyond the property line.

Head inside at 10:00 p.m.

Noisy outdoor activities and spa use are prohibited from 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

Take your furry friend with you
Take your dog with you so they do not disturb
surrounding neighbors. You will find that Big Bear Lake is very dog-friendly!
Take trash to dumpster locations
Trash needs to be taken to a local dumpsite unless there are commercial trash bins at your property (condo).

Clean Bear trash locations:
41790 Garstin Drive & 39690 Big Bear Blvd.

Consequences
Unfortunately, a few of our guests refuse to
extend common courtesy and neighborly
behavior toward the guests and residents
around them. For those guests who have come
to party and disrupt the peace and tranquility
of the neighborhoods, there are costly and
severe consequences.

Fines
The minimum fine for violating the rules stated
previously is $500 per violation. A second
offense is $1000 per violation.

Eviction
Unruly guests who blatantly disregard the rules
and expectations will be evicted without a
refund. In addition, costly citations may be
issued to the undersigned.

Signature of Guest
(ID to be verified by Check-in Agent)
Print name:_____________________________
Address:_______________________________
City State Zip:__________________________
Signature:______________________________
Date:___________________________________
Good
Neighbor
Policy
94 Welcome to the City of Big
Bear Lake!
Southern California’s Premier 4-Season
Resort Community
Thank you for choosing to vacation in Big Bear Lake. We are pleased to welcome over 1.2 million visitors per year to our beautiful community. Whether you are here to
enjoy the abundant natural features and amenities found in our surrounding forest or looking for some rest and
relaxation in our quiet and tranquil residential
neighborhoods, we trust your experience will be world-
class.

While enjoying your time in our mountain community,
we’d like to remind you of some important community
expectations for guests staying in our residential
neighborhoods. We also want to provide some tips that
will make your stay more enjoyable and help you
vacation like a local. The last thing we want is for your visit to be interrupted by one of our Compliance Officers.

We think you and your family & friends can have an
amazing vacation while still being respectful and
considerate to the neighbors around you.

Expectations for guest
behavior
Sound carries differently at higher elevations
(thinner air) and in varying topography than it
does on flat land at sea level. Sound in the
mountains can carry for miles (listen for the
coyotes at night). A normal private
conversation between two people on a deck
may be clearly heard from many houses away.

Amplified music can me heard a mile or more
away from the stereo speaker.

For these reasons, we have strict rules about
amplified music and outdoor activities at night.

Please help us maintain our quiet neighbor-
hoods and enjoy the amazing stillness and
tranquility that the forest provides.
“A private conversation
between two people on a
deck may be heard clearly
from many houses away.”
Be a Good Neighbor
A big part of Big Bear Lake’s charm is the
friendly and helpful residents. If you are
fortunate enough to be staying at a home near a
full-time resident and see them on their deck or
in their yard, introduce yourself! Many of our
residents enjoy meeting visitors and providing
tips on activities and restaurants.

Visit careforbigbear.com for more information.

Visit Like a Local
If you extend your visit beyond the weekend,
you will see the large amounts of litter and
trash left behind by the weekend visitors. Here
are some tips to help you and your family
preserve our natural playground for the next
generation.

1. Leave no tr ace. Simply put, whatever you
take into the forest, bring back out –
including broken sleds.

2. Don’t litter. There are dumpsters located at
all trailheads and picnic areas. If a bin is
full, find another. Animals will tear bags
open and spread trash throughout the
forest.

3. Pick up after your pet. Please bag your
p
et’s waste AND TAKE IT TO A
DUMPSTER. Leaving your pet’s waste in a
bag on the side of a trail is littering.

4. Keep the peace. If you are going to listen to
music while hiking or enjoying the lake,
use headphones instead of a Bluetooth
speaker.
95 GOOD

NEIGHBOR

BROCHURE FOR

VACATION

RENTAL GUESTS
Welcome to
La
Quinta,
California!

REACH US AT
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
760.777.7000
www.PlayInLaQuinta.com
[email protected]

MISSION STATEMENT
To preserve the quality of life in
the City of La Quinta by evoking
a true collaboration of hosts, guests,
and community, encouraging tourism
in our Gem of the Desert.

Please review the important information in
this brochure regarding your stay in a
short-term rental property.

La Quinta is surrounded by the beautiful
Santa Rosa mountains offering year-round
sunshine, scenic hiking and biking trails,
world-class golf, premiere shopping and
dining, and much more!
Memorable Guests. Memorable Moments.

Memorable LaQuinta.

Vacation LQ Rental Hotline: 760.777.7157
Sheriff's Department: 760.836.3215
96 ____________________________
The City of La Quinta
asks for your full
cooperation
Renters are advised that the following rules
will be strictly enforced. Failure to comply
may result in citations, fines and/or
expulsion from the rental property. If a
citation is issued, fines range from $1000 -
$5,000 per violation.

City residents have the right to call a 24/7
short-term vacation rental hotline to report
violations of the rules outlined in this
brochure.

NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS

PERMITTED
Number of
Bedrooms
Total
*Overnight
Occupants
Total ** Daytime
Occupants (Including
Overnight Occupants)
0-Studio 2 2-8 1 2-4 2-8 2 4-6 4-8 3 6-8 6-12 4 8-10 8-16 5 10-12 10-18
6 12-14 12-20
7 14 14-20 8 16 16-22 9 18 18-24 *Overnight (10:01 p.m. - 6:59 a.m.)
**Daytime (7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.)
NOISE
Please keep any music to an appropriate
level.

TRASH
Rental properties should be kept clean
with no visible trash. Please keep all trash
containers out of street view.

PARKING
Onsite parking is limited to approved
carports, garages, and driveways. Renters'
vehicles should not block a neighbor's
driveway. Additional vehicles are
encouraged to park directly in front of the
rental property.

SPECIAL EVENTS
Special event permits are required for gathering in
vacation rental properties that exceed the number
of allowable people outlined in this brochure.

Special event permits must be applied for by the
homeowner or the homeowner's authorized agent
45 days prior to an event.

ANIMALS/PETS
The City requires that all dogs be on a
leash whenever they are in unclosed areas
or on public streets. Please pick up and
dispose of your pet's waste. Loud animals
often result in neighbor complaints.

Please be mindful of our desert weather, it
is always illegal to leave your pet
unattended in a vehicle.

Vacation LQ Rental Hotline: 760.777.7157
Sheriff's Department: 760.836.3215
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
________________________________
________________________________
For additional information please see
La Quinta Municipal Code 3.25
____________________________
The homeowner or an authorized
agent will be expected to answer and
respond to the Hotline complaint calls
within 30 minutes or the La Quinta
Police Department will be called.
20 97
City of Lake Elsinore ♦ 130 S. Main Street ♦
951.674.3124 www.lake-elsinore.org
98 99

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

STAFF REPORT
Dec
ember 15, 2025
To: City
Council
From: D
epartment of Environmental Services
Stratis Perros, Environmental Services Director
Subje
ct: Consideration of a draft ordinance to regulate short-term rentals and collect Transient Occupancy Tax, and request for direction
Staff Recommendation
It
is recommended that the City Council provide policy direction on the proposed ordinance t o r egulate short-term rentals (STRs), including collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT), Business Taxes (BTC), and Tourism Marketing District (TMD) assessments; establishment of service fees and fines; authorization to use consulting services for tracking and collection; and receiving input from the Neighborhood Councils and Planning Commission.

Background
Ov
er the last several years, “home- sharing” platforms have expanded the prevalence of STR activity. The City Council was provided with options for STR regulations on November 18, 2024, and August 4, 2025 (both in Attachment D ). The City Council directed Staff on August 4, 2025, to return to the Council once a pending State law, Senate Bill (SB) 346, was approved, to determine what an ordinance should cover.

Additionally, the Council directed Staff to make the necessary modifications to Title 3, Chapter 1 – Business Taxes, Chapter 5 – Taxes, and Chapter 7 – Tourism Marketing District, to allow for the collection of business taxes, TOT, and TMD assessments on STRs.

SB
346 was approved on October 13, 2025. The law requires STR facilitators such as Airbnb, Vrbo, and other rental platforms (facilitators) to share data with cities and counties, if the jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance to this effect, to improve tax collection. SB 346 allows cities and counties to adopt ordinances requiring STR rental facilitators to report key information that verifies the physical location, licensing, and tax status of each STR . The City would be able to request identifying information for STRs operating within the City on a quarterly basis.

The C
ity would also be able to impose administrative fines or penalties on STR facilitators who fail to provide this information and be able to audit STR facilitators to document the receipt of TOT due and payable to the City, if the STR facilitator is responsible for collecting and remitting TOT. SB 346 does not preclude the City from adopting an ordinance regulating STRs within the City. Amendments to the existing Simi Valley AGENDA ITEM NO.

9A
100
Municipal C ode (SVMC) sections would be necessary to collect taxes and the TMD assessment, if directed by the City Council.

SVMC
Section 3-5 Article 3 – Transient Occupancy Taxes authorizes the City to collect TOT. This article, the “Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Law of the City of Simi Valley,” includes definitions of establishments subject to TOT, a rate of 10 percent of the rent charged by an operato r, and requires the payment to the Finance Director (‘Tax Collector’) on a quarterly basis. There is also an additional assessment for the Simi Valley Tourism Marketing District (SVMC 3 -7), which consists of a two percent tax . The City Council can choose to include STRs in the TMD.

SVMC
Section 3 -1 Article 1 – Business Tax Certificate authorizes the City to issue a business tax certificat e, and Article 2 – Business Taxes authorizes the City to collect business tax. This section includes definitions and establishes which businesses are subject to the section and which are exempt.

The dr
aft ordinance is a policy vehicle intended to present choices for Council consideration before the ordinance advances to the Planning Commission for formal public hearing and recommendation.

Discussion
A dr
aft ordinance that establishes a comprehensive regulatory program for STRs and the collection of taxes and assessments is included as Attachment A. In short, the City would implement an STR program in which applicants must meet rigorous standards, undergo intensive review and scrutiny, and can be removed if noncompliant. After receiving input from the City Council and community, key components are proposed to minimize neighborhood concerns and to create a process for homeowners to provide STR services responsibly. Components would include:
• Def
initions and Allowed Zones (Single Family homes only; no ADUs or accessory structures to be rented)
• STR Application/Permitting Fees (maximum number of permits) • Performance Standards (e.g. Insurance, HOA approval, occupancy limits, no unpermitted guests, noise monitor, parking requirements, Good Neighbor Policy) • Nuisance Response Plans (neighbor notifications, nuisance responses by owner) • Violations, Fines, and Appeals
• Grounds for Denial, Suspension, or Revocation
• STR Application/Permitting Fees (maximum number of permits in City) • BTC, TOT, and TMD Collection
The
components of the draft ordinance are further detailed in the sections below.

Finance-Related Amendments (TOT, Business Tax, and TMD) Bu
siness Tax (Title 3, Chapter 1)
101
The draft ordinance clarifies certain rental exemptions for rentals of 31 days or longer.

TOT Def
initions (Title 3, Chapter 5)
The d
raft ordinance clarifies the definition of “hotel” to make it expressly clear that the existing definition includes transient lodging such as STRs . Although STRS have not historically been registered or remitting TOT , STR stays of 30 days or less are already within the City’s existing TOT scheme as taxable “transient” lodging. As such, t he proposed definitional edits do not impose a new tax or increase the tax rate. Accordingly, the amendment is not an “impose, extend, or increase” of a local tax that would trigger voter-approval requirements.

TM
D (Title 3, Chapter 7).

The d
raft ordinance includes STRs within the TMD boundaries and applies the TMD assessment (two percent of gross short -term sleeping room rental revenue), excluding stays over 30 consecutive days. Because the TMD is a district formed under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets and Highways Code S ection 36600 et seq.), expanding the assessed class to include short -term rentals may require additional statutory steps beyond a municipal code amendment, such as amending the management district plan and assessment methodology, preparing any required updated reports, and completing the required notice, public hearing, and petition and ballot procedures
The ab
ove amendments to Title 3 of the Municipal Code, shown in Sections 3 through 5 of Attachment A , would allow the City to issue Business Tax Certificates to STRs operating in the City , collect business tax, and collect TOT via HdL, the City’s existing vendor. These changes would incorporate the terminology and definitions in SB 346 to enable the City to enforce audits and fines as laid out in State law.

Overview of the Regulatory Framework
The
draft ordinance’s STR provisions are organized into two integrated components: a regulatory ordinance providing for permitting and enforcement and zoning amendments, implemented through amendments to Titles 5 and 9, respectively:
• ST
R Permit Program and Operating Standards (Title 5, [New] Chapter 46) o Per
mit requirement; applicability/exemptions
o Permit application contents (including neighborhood notification) and fees established by Council resolution
o Administrative decision; denial criteria
o Permit duration, renewal process, non-transferability, and (if retained) the citywide permit cap
o Nuisance Response Plan requirements and required distribution/posting of the plan and Good Neighbor Guidelines
102
o Operating (“performance”) standards, including advertisement disclosures, occupancy/parking limits, insurance, reporting, noise-monitor requirements, and event restrictions
o STR facilitation responsibilities
o Enforcement tools: fines, suspension/revocation, appeals process • Zoni
ng (Title 9)
o Modi
fications to the land use table
o Addition of an “STR” definition in the Development Code Glossary Overview of the Regulatory Framework (Title 5, New Chapter 46) Regul
ations for STRs are proposed to be included in Title 5 (Public Welfare) and broken out into the subcategories below:

Per
mit Requirements
The or
dinance prohibits renting, offering, or advertising an STR without a City permit .

Permits are personal to the permittee, nontransferable, do not run with the land, and expire annually (December 31), with renewal required. Permits can be limited to a quantity set by the City Council (if a desire to limit). The draft includes a placeholder for a citywide annual permit cap.

Per
mit Applications and Fees
Appl
icants must submit a complete, verified application. A completed application for a permit would require the following elements:
• Per
mit fees
• A business tax certificate
• A nuisance response plan (see below for more details) • Evidence of insurance
• Homeowners Association (HOA) approval, if the home is within an HOA • A written declaration that a notification of the proposed permit and the nuisance response plan has been provided to all property owners within 200 feet, and that the Good Neighbor Policy (see below for more details) will be posted, along with parking requirements and occupancy limits, in visible locations in the STR.

As
the final ordinance is developed and the permitting system implemented, additional documentation may be added to the above list.

To i
mplement a STR Ordinance, the City Council must adopt permit fees. These fees may cover processing time spent on the STR application review and issuance, and related expenses to administer the program.
103
Nuisance Response Plan
Eac
h permit approval will require a nuisance response plan that provides the contact details of no more than three people who will be available to respond to nuisance complaints arising from the STR at all times of day. This plan will need to be mailed out to all property owners within 200 feet of the STR every time a permit is issued or renewed.

This will also need to be posted visibly within the STR. This would potentially allow minor nuisance issues to be resolved by the STR owner. The STR owner has 30 minutes to respond to a nuisance complaint and remedy the situation. A complaint that is not addressed by the STR owner can be escalated to the City by the complainant. A sample nuisance response plan from the City of Goleta is included as Attachment B.

Appr
oval of Permit – Grounds for Denial, Suspensions, or Revocation The dr
aft ordinance spells out procedures to approve, deny, suspend, or revoke a STR application or permit. No permits will be issued or renewed where a STR permit has been suspended or revoked in the past 24 months, where a STR is proposed in a location/structure that is not a bedroom or a single- family home (see Definitions section below), when outstanding fees and taxes are due, or if there are any open enforcement actions on the property. Permits may be revoked or suspended for violations of the STR regulations or when the City believes there may be dangers to the public health and safety.

Per
formance Standards
The per
formance standards section of the ordinance includes the following requirements:
• That an S
TR operator ensures that all applicable health and safety requirements, such as adherence to the Building Code, etc., are met
• That the City Permit is displayed in the STR
• Insurance is obtained
• That HOA approval (if applicable) be provided
• That information about the occupants of the STR is maintained • That occupants be limited to two per bedroom
• That vehicles will be limited to the number of off-street parking spaces (exclusively available for STR tenants)
• Trash would need to be kept out of public view, except for the purpose of scheduled trash collection
• Events and parties are prohibited. Use of the short -term rental is limited to the registered overnight guests, and the property may not be used for any event that charges admission or otherwise involves paid entry
• A noise monitor is required to be in continuous operation, with express privacy - oriented constraints. Noise-restricted hours would coincide with the City’s Noise Ordinance
• A nuisance response plan would need to be maintained, and complaints responded to appropriately
104
• A Good Neighbor Policy, developed by the City, would also need to be posted in the STR. An example of a Good Neighbor Policy is included as Attachment C The S
TR owner would need to ensure renters are informed of all City requirements. The STR owner would also need to ensure that they maintain records of rental nights, TOT revenues, etc., as required by the City or the vendor handling TOT collection.

Vi
olations/Fines/Appeals
Vi
olations can range from operating a STR without a permit to violating the performance standards and conditions of a STR permit. This would include the owner/agent not responding to a nuisance complaint in a timely manner. Violations related to a STR operation would be responded to by a Code Compliance officer or the Police Department, depending on the nature and time of the violation. This may require additional staffing and costs to support a 24-hour response.

Fi
nes in line with current State Law may be authorized by the City Council for violations of the STR regulations. Pursuant to Government Code section 36900, health and safety fines for STR infraction violations range from:
$1,5
00 for a first violation,
$3,000 for a second violation, and
$5,000 for a third violation in the same year
(Includes the option for a hardship waiver).

Not
e that Administrative Citations would provide a more efficient method to penalize STR violations than the current enforcement practices available to Staff. An outside vendor, such as HDL, may be required to enforce TOT compliance, as they have the tools necessary to identify STR businesses. The proposed ordinance would include the ability to appeal decisions and include revocation options for permits being violated.

Shor
t-Term Rental Facilitators (Platform) Provisions
The d
raft ordinance adopts a local mechanism invoking the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 (Gov. Code, § 50990 et seq.). STR facilitators include companies that advertise STRs online and by other means. Regulations include:

1. Requi
ring facilitators to have a Business Tax Certificate.

2. Provide information on STRs within the City in line with SB 346 requirements.

3. Remove unpermitted STR listings.

Thi
s would allow the City to audit the records of STR facilitators and potentially impose fines in line with SB 346.
105
Definitions
The def
initions for both STRs and facilitators have been included in the ordinance. The former definition limits STRs to only single -family homes or rooms within a home. STRs cannot be operated in garages, accessory residential structures (ADUs, JADUs , guest homes, pool houses), vehicles, or vacant land. State law prohibits STRs (rentals 30 days or less) within ADUs currently. These definitions are in line with the definitions provided in SB 346 and reflect best practices to restrict STRs to the primary dwelling units.

Zoning Amendments (Title 9)
Tabl
e 2-2 of SVMC Section 9-24.030 will be modified to include STRs as a permitted use in residential zones where only single- family residences are allowed. STRs will not be permitted in zones where multi -family development is allowed, in order to avoid these being created in multiple -family structures or attached single- family dwellings. Title 9’s glossary is amended to define “short -term rental” consistent with occupancy of a single- family dwelling (or part thereof, excluding certain areas/structures) for 30 days or less .

The permitted use will be subject to standards and procedures laid out in Title 5 (Public Welfare) above.

Implementation Steps
Im
plementation of the STR regulations will require the following, once City Council has provided further guidance on how they wish Staff to proceed:
o Ordinance finalization by Staff and the City Attorney o Potentially presenting the ordinance to the Neighborhood Councils o Conducting a Planning Commission Public Hearing
o Public Hearing in front of the City Council for final approval o Preparation and adoption of Council resolutions related to permit fees and administrative fines for STR violations . Cost recovery for implementing and enforcing the ordinance would be a priority
o Administrative Services to work with an outside vendor for STR monitoring, TOT collection, etc. This could entail a contract amendment, RFP, and/or supplemental budget requests
o Information Services, in consultation with Environmental Services , to prepare a permitting system, utilizing Energov
o Environmental Services /Administrative Services to prepare additional documentation, guides, etc.

In
addition to the above steps, which may take 6 to 8 months, depending on public feedback, there may be further City Council action required on fines, administrative citations, etc.

Findings
The pr
oposed Zoning Text Amendment to permit STRs complies with the following findings, pursuant to SVMC 9-73.070:
106
A. The a
mendment is consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 65860), in that the request is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
a. Policy HE 1.1 states: Provide a wide choice of new housing featuring a range of styles, types, densities, and amenities to accommodate the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community; in that the proposed STR ordinance will allow for temporary housing to serve temporary and intermittent workforce needs, travel and tourism needs, and temporary housing or existing residents due to transitional housing needs. b. Policy ED-5.1 States: Increase the opportunities to attract tourism related to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum and highway - traveling visitors between Ventura and Los Angeles Counties through visitor-oriented economic development, including lodging, dining, shopping, and entertainment establishments, in that establishment of a STR program will support lodging options for visitors to Simi Valley and associated tourism activities tied to the City.

B. Th
e City has considered the effect of this amendment on the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and against available fiscal and environmental resources, in compliance with State law (Governmen t Code Section 65863.6) , in that as stated in the above policies, temporary housing supports existing residents, temporary workers, and travelers/tourists. STRs fulfill these specialized housing needs without increasing environmental impacts due to the use of existing housing stock, and the permitting process would support fiscal impact to the City to help cover permitting and compliance.

Environmental Assessment
The pr
oposed Municipal Code Amendments are not subject to additional environmental review under CEQA, because it is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. If this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines S ection 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a signi ficant effect on the environment.

Financial Impact
A pr
oactive STR ordinance and TOT process may result in a net loss of $23,317 in the first year and net income of $7,123 in subsequent years. 107
Preparation of SVMC revisions will require staff time and City Attorney review fees. Minor revisions can be absorbed as routine business. The implementation of more comprehensive regulations on STRs may incur costs of up to $250,000 in the first year and $220,000 in subsequent years (based on assumptions), as indicated in the August 4, 2025, staff report. This would include staff time to prepare and implement the regulations, a permitting system, and the hiring of a STR vendor. A supplemental budget request will be included if an Ordinance to implement an STR program is adopted.

City Council Priority
Th
is item supports three of the City’s Pillars of Excellence – Excellent City Government, Fiscal Stability, and Public Safety.

Suggested Motion
I m
ove that the City Council direct staff to finalize an ordinance to regulate short -term rentals that incorporates SB 346, establishes service fees and fines, and includes the collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes , Business Taxes , and Tourism Marketing District assessments.

Summary
Ov
er the last several years, “home- sharing” platforms have expanded the prevalence of STR activity. The City Council was provided with options for regulations on STRs on November 18, 2024, and August 4, 2025 (both in Attachment D). The City Council directed Staff on August 4, 2025, to return to the Council once a pending State law, SB 346, was approved, to determine what an ordinance should cover. Additionally, the Council directed Staff to make the necessary modifications to Title 3, Chapter 1 – Business Taxes, Chapter 5 – Taxes, and Chapter 7 – Tourism Marketing District, to allow for the collection of business t axes, TOT, and TMD a ssessments on STRs. It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to the Departments of Environmental Services and Administrative Services on preparing an ordinance to regulate short-term rentals, collection of Transient Occupancy Tax es, Business Taxes, and Tourism Marketing District assessments; establishment of service fees and fines; authorization to use consulting services for tracking and collection; and receive input from the Neighborhood Councils and Planning Commission.

Pr
epared by: Naren Gunasekera, Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Atta
chments
Atta
chment A – Draft Ordinance
Attachment B – Sample Nuisance Response Plan
Attachment C – Sample Good Neighbor Policy
Attachment D – November 18, 2024, and August 4, 2025, City Council Staff Reports 108
Attachment A

DRAFT ORDINANCE
ORDI
NANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY AMENDING TITLES 3, 5, 7 , AND 9 TO

REGULATE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THE

COLLECTION OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
WH
EREAS, the City of Simi Valley is authorized by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to protecting the life, health, and safety of its residents and all people within the geographical boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, the proliferation of unregulated short -term rentals has created conditions affecting neighborhood stability, residential character, noise, parking, and public safety, thereby requiring reasonable municipal oversight; and WHEREAS, the City currently lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework governing short-term rentals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to regulate short-term rentals to require business tax certificates for short-term rentals, and to collect Business Tax and Transient Occupancy Taxes, including Tourism Marketing District Taxes, in order to protect, the heath, safety, and welfare of the community, and to adopt clear standards to ensure responsible operation and mitigate adverse impacts; and.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticing the matter in accordance with State law and the Simi Valley Municipal Code, conducted a public hearing on the proposed short -term rental ordinance, received and considered all testimony and evidence, and thereafter adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the staff report, the administrative record, and all public testimony presented at its own duly noticed public hearing on the ordinance; and WHEREAS, enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the ordinance have occurred.
109
NOW
, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI
VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Findings . The findings noted in the City Council staff report dated [DATE], and the recitals set forth above, are hereby adopted as findings.

SECTION 2. Environmental Assessment . The City Council finds and determines this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. Amendment of Title 3, Chapter 1 of the SVMC . Title 3 [Finance], Chapter 1 [Business Tax Certification] of the Simi Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with new language and revised code sections shown as underlined text:
3-1.116 - Exemptions: Rentals.

SECTION 4. Amendment of Title 3, Chapter 5 of the SVMC . Title 3 [Finance], Chapter 5 [Transient Occupancy Taxes] of the Simi Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with new language and revised code sections shown as underlined text:
3-5.302 - Definitions.

For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this article are defined as follows:
(a) “Hotel” shall mean any type of commercial establishment, or any portion of any type of commercial establishment, which provides for the occupancy of transients for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes, whether by the day, week, or month, including, but not limited to, hotels, inns, motels , and any other transient lodging such as short-term rentals.
110
(b) “O
ccupancy” shall mean the use or possession, or the right to the use or possession, of any room, or portion thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes.
(c) “Operator” shall mean the person who manages the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity.
(d) “Person” shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
(e) “Rent” shall mean the monetary value of the consideration charged for occupancy, including all receipts, cash, credits, property, and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. (f) “ Tax Collector” shall mean the Finance Director.
(g) “ Finance Director” shall mean the City Manager, City Clerk, or other officer designated by the City Manager to collect business taxes pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(i) “ Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less.

SECTION 5. Amendment of Title 3, Chapter 7 of the SVMC . Title 3 [Finance], Chapter 7 [Tourism Marketing District] of the Simi Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with new language and revised code sections shown as underlined text, and deleted language shown as strikethrough text:
3-7.07 - Boundaries.

The renewed TMD includes all lodging businesses , including short-term rentals, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the boundaries of the City as described in the Management District Plan. 3-7.08 - Assessments.

A. Each business in the benefit zone shall pay an assessment of two (2%) percent of gross short -term sleeping room rental revenue charged and received from transient hotel guests occupants who do not make the hotel lodging their principal place of residence. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days.

B. Any modification to the benefit zone or program of activities for which the assessments are to be levied would be subject to notification of all affected businesses within the TMD and a public hearing before the City Council. At 111
such public hearing, the City Council shall hear all protests and receive evidence, including written protests, for and against such modifications, including the inclusion of additional hotels or lodging businesses. assessments on newly established hotels lodging businesses shall commence immediately upon the first day of operation and after the public hearing for inclusion of such property.

C. The method of assessment established by this chapter shall not be changed without written notice to all businesses in the TMD and a public hearing held by the City Council. At such a public hearing, the City Council shall hear all protests and receive evidence, including written protests, for and against the establishment of any change in the method of assessment.

SECTION 6. Amendment of Title 5 of the SVMC . Chapter 46 [Short-Term Rentals] is hereby added to Title 5 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code to read in full as follows:

Chapter 46 - SHORT-TERM RENTALS
5-46.01 - Purpose and findings.

This chapter is adopted pursuant to the police powers of the City for the purpose of requiring the owner or owners of a residential dwelling unit that is used as a short-term rental, as defined herein, to apply for and secure a permit authorizing such use in the manner provided for by this chapter. The City seeks to facilitate short-term rentals while promoting responsible visitor and operator behavior and protecting the long-term residential character of its neighborhoods. 5-46.02 - Definitions.
“Department” means the Administrative Services Department, or his or her designee.
“Director” means the Administrative Services Director or designee. “Operate” means to rent, let, lease, advertise, facilitate, or otherwise make a short- term rental available for occupancy.
“Owner” means any person who owns or operates a short-term rental. “Permit” means a short-term rental permit issued under this chapter. “Person” means any natural person or legal entity, however formed, as well as any trustee, heir, executor, administrator, receiver, or assign, or any combination of such persons
“Short-term rental” means the occupancy of a single- family residence, or any portion of a single-family residence, for 30 consecutive calendar days or less, 112
count
ing any fraction of a day as a full day, in exchange for consideration, whether paid in money, goods, or services.
5-46.03 - Scope.

The provisions of this chapter apply to all short -term rentals. These provisions do not apply to hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns , or similar transient lodging establishments.
5-46.04 - Authority to enforce chapter.
(a) The Director has the authority to administer and enforce this chapter , including reviewing applications for permits.
(b) The Director may adopt supplemental regulations or policies to implement and interpret this chapter. These regulations or policies must conform with the purpose of this chapter.
5-46.05 - Permit required.

No owner may rent, offer to rent, or advertise for rent a short-term rental to another person without a permit.
5-46.06 - Application procedure.
(a) Application Required. Any person seeking to obtain a permit to operate a short-term rental must submit a complete written application, signed under penalty of perjury, to the C ity using a form adopted by the C ity for that purpose. An application for a permit shall be filed and processed in compliance with this chapter.
(b) Application Fee. At the time of filing, each applicant must pay a nonrefundable application fee established by resolution of the City Council to defray the costs incurred by the C ity in the application process. The application and fee required under this section shall be in addition to any other license, permit, or fee required by any other section or chapter of this code.
(c) Application Insufficient to Operate. Submission of an application for a permit does not authorize the operation of a short-term rental unless and until a permit has been granted by the City.
(d) Application Contents. The City will not deem an application complete until all information and documents required under this chapter and any regulation or resolution adopted under this chapter have been provided to the City. At minimum, any applicant applying for a permit must submit the following information and documentation:
113
(1) T
he address of the short-term rental.
(2) A nuisance response plan containing the information required by this chapter.
(3) A transient occupancy registration certificate issued pursuant to Section 3-5.305 of this code.
(4) A written declaration affirming that, at least 30 days prior to issuance of the permit, occupants of all residences and businesses located within 200 feet from the proposed short -term rental have been notified of the proposed permit and have been informed in writing in a form acceptable to the City of the proposed use and the contact information with the City to seek additional information or register concerns or objections.
(5) Proof of liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage arising from or related to the short-term rental.
(6) Such other information or documentation as may be deemed necessary by the City.
5-46.07 - Application review and decision.
(a) Application Review. Upon receipt of a complete and signed written application, each application for a permit must be reviewed to ensure that the application is consistent with the requirements of this chapter . The Director may approve a permit application only if he or she finds that the applicant fulfills the requirements as set forth in this chapter . A permit application will not be processed while a City enforcement action alleging a violation of this chapter or any provision of this Code is pending as t o the subject property or the applicant, unless processing the application is required to resolve that enforcement action.
(b) Grounds for Denial. After the completion of the City's application review, the Director must deny the issuance of a permit if any of the following findings are made:
(1) The requirements of this chapter have not been satisfied, including if the applicant failed to submit a complete application, failed to submit any supplemental information or documentation upon request, or failed to pay the requisite application fee.
(2) The residential dwelling unit or area for rental proposed as a short - term rental was established as an accessory d welling unit, junior accessory d welling unit, guest house, pool house, recreational vehicle, or camping site.
114
(3
) The applicant has made a false, misleading, or fraudulent statement or omission of fact to the city in the application, or in the permit application process.
(4) The short-term rental as applied for would be materially detrimental to the public health or safety, or would create or maintain a public nuisance, and that such impacts cannot be mitigated through reasonable permit conditions authorized by this chapter. (c) Decision. The Director must approve an application unless he or she determines grounds for denial exist. The Director must serve the applicant with a written decision stating whether the application is approved or denied.

Additional requests will be placed on a wait list until a space opens up. 5-46.09 - Permit renewal.
(a) Renewal Application Requirements . No short -term rental permit shall be renewed automatically. A permittee may apply for renewal of a permit by submitting a written application, under penalty of perjury, to the D irector. It is the responsibility of the permittee to file an application to renew the permit at least 30 days before the expiration of the permit. Upon timely submission 115
of a
renewal application, the permit will remain effective until the permit is approved for renewal or denied. Applications for renewal shall be in a form required by the Director and include updates of all information required or submitted for the permit. The applicant must pay a fee in an amount to be set by the city council to defray the costs of processing the renewal license application. No permit may be renewed unless all City taxes owed by the applicant are paid in full. A permit application will not be processed while a City enforcement action alleging a violation of this chapter or any provision of this Code is pending as to the subject property or the applicant, unless processing the application is required to resolve that enforcement action. (b) Decision on Renewal Application. The Director must review the application for renewal and approve or deny the application. The Director may approve the renewal application with conditions. The Director must serve the applicant with a written decision stating whether the application is approved or denied. In the event of denial, the notice must state the reasons for the denial and the right of the applicant to appeal the decision. 5-46.10 - Grounds for suspension, revocation, and nonrenewal of permit. (a) The Director may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew any license issued under this chapter if he or she makes any findings necessary to deny a permit under Section 5-46.07.
(b) The permittee may appeal the D irector’s decision denying a renewal application, or suspending or revoking a permit , in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter.
(c) The Director must serve the permittee with a written notice of nonrenewal, suspension, or revocation. The notice must state the reasons for the action, the effective date of the decision, the right of the permittee to appeal the decision, and that the Director’s decision will be final if no written appeal is timely submitted to and received by the City. Suspension or revocation is effective 15 calendar days following the date of service of the notice. (d) If the Director revokes a permit, a new application may not be submitted for a period of two years.
5-46.11 - Appeals.

Any appeal right provided for in this chapter must be conducted as set forth in this section.
(a) An applicant or licensee may appeal a Director’s decision to deny, suspend, revoke, or not renew a permit by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days after service of the notice of decision.

The appeal must be accompanied by the appeal fee established by City Council resolution.
116
(b) T
he notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant and must include: (a) the appellant’s name, address, and telephone number; (b) a copy of the notice of decision being appealed; (c) a concise statement of the grounds for appeal and the relief requested; and (d) any documents or other evidence the appellant requests the hearing officer to consider. (c) A timely and complete appeal stays the Director’s decision until issuance of the hearing officer’s final decision. If no timely and proper appeal is filed, the Director’s decision becomes final and effective upon expiration of the appeal period, and the appellant waives further administrative remedies. (d) The appeal must be heard by an independent hearing officer selected by the City Manager or his or her designee in a manner that avoids pecuniary or other bias.
(e) The City Clerk shall set the matter for a de novo hearing. The hearing must be held within a reasonable time as soon as practicable after the appeal is filed, and the City must provide the appellant at least 10 calendar days ’ notice of the hearing date, time, and location.
(f) The City bears the burden to prove the grounds for the challenged action by a preponderance of the evidence; the notice of decision constitutes prima facie evidence of the stated grounds.
(g) The appellant may present witnesses and evidence . The hearing is informal; the formal rules of evidence do not apply, but privileges apply as provided by law, and irrelevant, collateral, or repetitious evidence may be excluded by the hearing officer.
(h) The hearing officer must issue a written decision within 15 calendar days after the close of the hearing.
(i) If the hearing officer finds no grounds to uphold the decision, the decision is rescinded. If the hearing officer finds one or more grounds, the decision shall identify the grounds and uphold the Director’s decision. The hearing officer’s decision is final and shall state: “The decision of the hearing officer is final. Judicial review of this decision is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.”
5-46.12 - Permitted occupancy.

Every permit issued by the City must specify the maximum number of overnight occupants allowed at the short -term rental and the maximum number of vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short-term rental, which can be parked at the property.
117
5-46.13
- Nuisance response plans.
(a) Each nuisance response plan accompanying an application for a permit must contain the following information and otherwise be in a form required by the City:
(1) The mailing address and telephone number of the owner or owners of the residential dwelling unit or units to be used as a short -term rental pursuant to the permit.
(2) The name, address and telephone number of the person or persons who will be available by telephone, and who will be responsible for promptly responding to or causing a prompt response to a nuisance complaint arising out of the occupancy or use of the short -term rental(s) by tenants, their visitors and/or their guests. For the purposes of this chapter, a return telephone call to a complainant within 30 minutes of the initial complaint shall be deemed “prompt.” (3) No more than a total of three persons shall be designated in the response plan as a person responsible for responding to or causing a response to a nuisance complaint; and
(4) Only one such person shall be designated as the person responsible for responding to a nuisance complaint during any particular hours of the day, different days in a week, and/or different weeks of the year.
(5) The manner of responding to or causing a response to a nuisance complaint, including, but not limited to, the manner in which the complainant or complainants will be notified of the response and the method of documenting prompt responses and timely correct ive action.
(6) The manner of assuring timely corrective action to remedy the conditions that caused the nuisance complaint. For the purposes of this chapter, “timely corrective action” shall include, at a minimum, a telephone call to the primary adult occupant of the short -term rental within 30 minutes of the initial nuisance complaint.
(7) The proposed maximum number of overnight occupants, with supporting documentation identifying unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics, if any, that support a request for occupancy greater than two persons per bedroom.
(8) The number of off -street parking spaces and number of bedrooms available at the short-term rental.
(b) At any time, an owner of a short-term rental may change the content of the nuisance response plan approved incident to the issuance of the permit by 118
fi
ling an amended response plan with the City. Such amended response plan shall contain all of the information and be in the form required by this section and shall be accompanied by the required fee in an amount established by City Council resolution.
5-46.14 - Notice of nuisance response plans.

Promptly following the approval and issuance of a permit required by this chapter, or the approval of an amended nuisance response plan in the manner provided for by this chapter, the permittee must provide proof to the City that the nuisance response plan/ Good Neighbor Guidelines has been mailed by first class mail addressed to the owner or occupant of every property, any part of which is located within a 200-foot radius of the property that is to be used and occupied as a short- term rental, pursuant to such permit.
5-46.15 - Performance standards.

Each owner, and each tenant or occupant of a short-term rental, must at all times comply with or cause compliance with the performance standards applicable to short-term rentals they own, lease or occupy, as established by this section. (a) The owner shall ensure that the short -term rental complies with all current applicable codes regarding fire, building and safety, and all other relevant laws and ordinances.
(b) No person may list, offer to rent, or advertise for rent a short -term rental without including in the listing, offer, or advertisement the City permit number applicable to the short-term rental property in the form “City of Simi Valley Permit No. ____ .” The permit number must be displayed or printed in the same size type as the largest type used in the main body of the offer or advertisement.
(c) The owner must require the primary overnight and daytime occupant of the short-term rental to be an adult 18 years of age or older. This adult must provide a telephone number to the owner and must be accessible to the owner by telephone at all times.
(d) If the property is located within a homeowners association, provide a letter of authorization.
(e) The permittee must maintain liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage arising from or related to the short-term rental.
(f) Prior to occupancy, the owner must obtain the name, address, and driver’s license number or a copy of the passport of the primary adult occupant of the short-term rental. The owner must require that the adult sign a formal acknowledgement that he or she is legally responsible for the compliance of all occupants of the short-term rental or their guests with all provisions of 119
thi
s chapter. This information shall be provided by the responsible party identified in the nuisance response plan upon request of any police officer or employee of the City authorized to enforce this chapter or State law. (g) The owner must limit overnight occupancy of the short -term rental to a specific number of occupants, with the maximum number of overnight occupants being two persons per bedroom, unless a request for occupancy greater than two persons per bedroom has been approved through the permit process with supporting documentation identifying unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics, that supports the request (h) The owner shall limit the number of vehicles associated with the overnight occupancy of the short-term rental to a specific number of vehicles, with the maximum number of vehicles being the number of off-street parking spaces available at the property. In no case shall the number of uncovered, off - street parking spaces be less than one space. Such spaces must be exclusively reserved for the short-term rental during occupied stays. (i) Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection on scheduled trash collection days.

The owner of the short -term rental shall provide sufficient trash collection containers and service to meet the demand of the occupants. (j) Each lease or rental agreement for a short -term rental shall include the following terms, notifications and disclosures, which terms shall also be posted in a conspicuous location inside the unit:
(1) The maximum number of overnight occupants and day use visitors that are permitted.
(2) The maximum number of vehicles that overnight occupants may park at the short-term rental.
(3) Notification that on-street parking is extremely limited in some areas of the City.
(4) The trash pick-up day and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash or refuse on the exterior of the property. (5) Notification that the occupant may be cited or fined by the City and/or immediately evicted by the owner pursuant to State law, in addition to any other remedies available at law, for violating any other provisions of this chapter.
(6) Notification that failure to conform to the occupancy requirements of the short-term rental is a violation of this chapter.
120
(7) N
otification that amplified sound, including radios, televisions and other electronic devices, is subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance as set forth in City of Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5-16. (8) A prohibition on illegal loud parties, along with notification of the City’s right to recover the costs of special enforcement needed to address certain loud parties.
(9) The name of the managing agency, agent, rental manager, local contact person, or owner of the unit, and a telephone number at which that party may be reached at all times.
(10) A copy of the “Good Neighbor Guidelines ,” which may from time to time be prepared by the City. These guidelines may include location- specific information, such as but not limited to neighborhood quiet hours, local speed limits, prohibition of wood- burning fire pits, or homeowners association policies.
(11) Notification that the property is subject to the City of Simi Valley’s Short-Term Rental Permit and Transient Occupancy Tax Programs. (12) A copy of this chapter of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code, as it may be amended from time to time.
(k) Upon receipt of a nuisance complaint or upon notification of an allegation that any occupant or guest of the short -term rental has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code or any State law, the owner shall promptly respond and take timely corrective action to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests. Failure of the owner to respond promptly or to take timely corrective action regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the short - term rental shall be a violation of this chapter. An owner is not required or authorized to act as a peace officer or to intervene in situations that pose a risk to personal safety. The owner, or his or her agent, shall maintain records of the name, violation, date, and time of each complaint, disturbance, response and corrective action.
(l) The owner shall cause a copy of the nuisance response plan to be posted in a conspicuous place within the property.
(m) The owner shall annually provide to the City written confirmation of compliance with all elements of the performance standards and the approved nuisance response plan and confirming that the nuisance response plan is current and accurate. The performance standards may be modified by the City upon request of the owner based upon site- specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a short-term rental occupant as may be required by State or Federal disability laws. All requests must be in writing and shall identify how the strict 121
appli
cation of the standard conditions creates an unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a short-term rental would not be allowed. (n) By the 15th day of each month, the permittee shall submit to the Director , in the form and manner required by the Director, a report for the preceding month stating (1) the total number of nights the short-term rental was rented (including nights booked through any hosting platform) and the nightly rate(s) charged, and (2) the amount of T ransient Occupancy Tax due for those rentals.
(o) The permittee must install and maintain in continuous operation a n oise monitor on the exterior of the s hort-term rental to ensure compliance with SVMC chapter 5-16. The noise monitor shall be a sound level meter meeting the standards of the American National Standards Specifications for Sound Level Meters or another acoustical or decibel measurement device with similar capabilities and features that does not have a camera, record conversations, or store any personal data.
(p) The use of the property is restricted to registered guests . Any event requiring paid admission is prohibited. Any activities, such as parties, gatherings, or other group events with non- registered guests , are prohibited.
5-46.16 - Permittee responsibility.

The permittee is responsible at all times for ensuring that the short -term rental is operated in compliance with this chapter, all other applicable provisions of this Code and State law, the Good Neighbor Guidelines, the approved n uisance response plan, and any rules or regulations adopted to implement this chapter. For purposes of enforcement, any act, omission, or failure by the permittee’s agent, officer, representative, contractor, guest, occupant, or any other person acting on the permittee’s behalf or with the permittee’s permission shall be attributed to the permittee.
5-46.17 - Cessation of use of a property as short-term rental.

Where a permittee determines to cease use of a permit, the owner must promptly cause a notice of such determination to be filed with the City. 5-46.18 - Short-term rental facilitator responsibilities. (a) Pursuant to Government Code S ection 50990(b), the City hereby adopts and makes applicable within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries the Short - Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 (Gov. Code, § 50990 et seq.). The definitions set forth in Government Code Section 50991 are incorporated by this reference and shall apply to this section.
122
(b) U
pon request by the City, each short -term rental facilitator shall report, in the form and manner prescribed by the City, the physical address, including nine-digit ZIP Code, of each short-term rental during the reporting period. (c) If the information provided under S ubsection B is not sufficient for the City to identify a specific short-term rental at the provided address, the City may request (1) the assessor parcel number of the short-term rental and (2) the URL associated with the specific short-term rental listing. (d) A short-term rental facilitator shall include in the listing of a short-term rental any applicable local permit or license number associated with the short-term rental and any transient occupancy tax certification issued by the City. (e) A short -term rental facilitator must have a current, valid Business Tax Certificate from the City to facilitate any booking for a short -term rental within the City.
(f) A short-term rental facilitator’s failure to report the information required by this section may result in imposition of a civil penalty under Title, 1, Chapter 8 of this code.
5-46.19 - Service requirements.

Except as otherwise provided or agreed, any notice required to be served by the City under this chapter must be completed by either by personal service by first- class mail. Service by mail is deemed complete at the time of deposit in the mail. 5-46.20 - Enforcement.
(a) Violation Unlawful. It is unlawful and declared a public nuisance for any person to violate any provision of this chapter.
(b) Criminal and Administrative Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be criminally or administratively punished as set forth in Title 1 of this code.
(c) Civil or Equitable Enforcement. T he City Attorney is authorized to bring a civil or equitable action, at his or her discretion, to seek the abatement of any violation of this code.
(d) Ongoing Violations. Each and every day a violation is maintained, caused, aided, abetted, concealed, suffered, or permitted is a separate offense. (e) Remedies Cumulative. The remedies, procedures, and penalties provided by this chapter are cumulative to each other and to any other available under City, state, or federal law.
123
SECTION 7. Amendment of Title 9, Chapter 9-24 of the SVMC. Chapter 9- 24 [Residential and Open Space Zoning Districts ] of Title 9 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, solely to add the following new land use classification and related Note, shown as underlined text . The City Clerk and Code Publisher are directed to insert the following row in Table 2-2 under the heading “RETAIL & SERVICE USES,” immediately after the row titled “ Medical Services - Hospitals,” with all other provisions of 9-24.030 and Table 2-2 remaining unchanged:
9-24.030 - Residential and Open Space District Land Uses and Permit Requirements TABLE 2-2
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for
Residential and Open Space Zoning Districts
P Permitted Use (2)
CUP Conditional Use Permit required
HP Home Occupation Permit required
— Use not allowed
LAND USE (1) PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific
Use
Regulations OS RE RVL RL RM RMod RH RVH MH

RETAIL & SERVICE USES
Short-Term
Rentals
P P P P P P(7) — — — 5-46
Not
es:
(1) See Article 8 for land use definitions. All commercial nonmedicinal or medicinal cannabis, and industrial hemp uses, operations, and activities, including collectives and cooperatives, are prohibited (refer to Chapter 5-41 for Medicinal and Medicinal Cannabis Standards).
(2) A Planned Development Permit (Section 9- 52.050) is also required for all new development.
(3) Administrative Conditional Use Permit required.
(4) CUP not required for farm animals in A, L or H Overlay Zones. (5) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall not be subject to the CUP requirement for Telecommunications Facilities, as set forth in the above Table, and instead shall be subject to the permit requirements of Chapter 35 of Title 5 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code.
(6) See Section 9- 44.220 Residential Accessory Structures for additional development standards.
(7) Excluding multi-family dwellings.

SECTION 8. Amendment of Title 9 , Chapter 9- 80 of the SVMC . Chapter 9- 80 [Definitions/Glossary] of Title 9 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, solely to add the following new definition, shown as underlined text. The City Clerk and Code Publisher are directed to insert the following definition in appropriate alphabetical order under the subsection S. , with all other provisions of Section 9-80.020 remaining unchanged:
124
9-80.
020 - Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases
As used in this Development Code, the following terms and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise.
* * *
S. Definitions, “S.”
* * *
Short-term rental. The occupancy of a Single- Family Dwelling, or part thereof, excluding garages, unconditioned storage areas, accessory residential structures, vacant land and/or temporary structures, that is not a lodging hotel or motel, for a period of 30 consecutive days or less.

SECTION 9. Severability. If any part of this ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.

SECTION 10. Electronic Signatures . This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code S ection 16.5.

Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary hereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, published in the County of Ventura and circulated in the City, and if applicable, to be posted, in accordance with Section 36933 of the California Government Code; shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a certified copy of this ordinance, together with proof of publication, to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of this City.

SECTION 12. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PA
SSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ______________, 2025. 125
Atte
st:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Appr
oved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
Carolyn Johnson
Administrative Services Director
126
1 PROPERTY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
2 OWNER NAME (IF MORE THAN TWO, USE AN ADDITIONAL SHEET OF PAPER) 3 PHONE 4 MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
5 OPTIONAL SECOND OWNER NAME 6 PHONE
7 MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
NUISANCE COMPLAINT CONTACTS:

CONTACT NO. 1
8 DAY/TIME DESIGNATION r 24 HOURS PER DAY, 7 DAYS PER WEEK OR:

TH F SA
9 CONTACT NAME
10 CONTACT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
11 PHONE 1 12 PHONE 2
CONTACT NO. 2
13 DAY/TIME DESIGNATION r 24 HOURS PER DAY, 7 DAYS PER WEEK OR:

TH F SA
14 CONTACT NAME
15 CONTACT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
16 PHONE 1 17 PHONE 2
CONTACT NO. 3
18 DAY/TIME DESIGNATION r 24 HOURS PER DAY, 7 DAYS PER WEEK OR:

TH F SA
19 CONTACT NAME
20 CONTACT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
21 PHONE 1 22 PHONE 2
The following person(s) will be available by telephone, and will be responsible for promptly responding to a nuisance complaint arising out of the occupancy of the short term rentals by tenants, their visitors and/or guests. A return telephone call to a complainant within thirty (30) minutes of the initial complaint shall be deemed "prompt."

SU M TU W

SU M TU W
City of Goleta
Nuisance Response Plan
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B • Goleta, CA 93117

TU WSU M
In accordance with Goleta Municipal Code Sec. 5.08.060 the following nuisance response plan is submitted. A letter has been mailed to the occupant and/or owner of properties located within a 200-foot radius of the vacation rental advising of its use. A copy of this Nuisance Response Plan will be placed on the city's Internet web site for public access.

No more than a total of THREE persons can be designated and only ONE can be designated during any particular period of time.

THERE MUST BE A DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON 24 HOURS PER DAY, 7 DAYS PER WEEK. BELOW IS THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE DAYS AND TIMES OF EACH DAY.

Attachment B
127
Ventura County Temporary Rental Unit
Program
Good Neighbor Guidelines
The County of Ventura is pleased to welcome you as a temporary rental unit guest. We hope you enjoy your stay here.

As a TRU guest, we ask that you be respectful of the long-term residents that live in this neighborhood year-round by complying with the requirements below.

For a complete list or requirements for TRU guests, Please see the County’s Temporary Rental Unit ordinance, for our coastal region Ordinance Sec 8175-5.21.8 / Non-coastal region ordinance Sec. 8109-4.6.8
You, and your visitors, must comply with the following:
• Keep the number of overnight occupants and day -use visitors within the permitted maximum.
• Park on in spaces assigned to your unit and obey posted parking signs. • Please obey all speed limits and watch for children.
• Place trash in appropriate containers. Avoid overfilling and follow applicable rules for storing refuse containers on the exterior of the property. • Comply with the County’s Noise ordinance, VCNCZO Sec 8109 -4.6.8.3 / VCCZO Sec. 8175-5.21.8.3- No use or activity associat ed with a homeshare or short - term rental shall at anytime create unreasonable noise or disturbance. Quiet hours shall be observed from 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Attachment C
128

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
August 4, 2025
TO: City Counc
il
FROM: Departm
ent of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: REQUEST FO R DIRECTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE SIMI VALLEY

MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE SHORT-TERM RENTALS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on short-term residential rental regulations.

Following a discussion, th e City Council directed
staff to provide further research
on surrounding jurisdictions’ STR policies and ordinances , and the costs and benefits of STRs
. Short-term rentals (also referred to as “STRs,” “vacation rentals,” “short-t erm vacation rentals,” or “transient rentals”) are private residences rented in whole or in part, for fewer than 30-d ays. Platforms like Airbnb, HomeToGo, and VRBO list these rentals.

Three vendors were consulted regarding
STR enforcement and taxation for the City
of Simi Valley. Findings indicate there are approximately 100 STR listings in the City, with an average nightly rate up
to $200. For comparison, there are
approximately 300 registered STRs in Ventura City and approximately 70 in Oxnard.

Over the past few years, STR-r elated complaints have been minimal, with the
most significant involving an STR operating as an event venue with major unpermitted property modifications. More recently, following the last City Council item (Exhibit 1), staff have received three to four phone inquiries with requests to ban STRs in the City.

Staff
is providing this report and requesting direction on whether the City should initiate Municipal Code Amendments and/or policy updates to establish specific standards for STRs.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Staff
conducted additional r esearch to summarize regulations on STRs within Ventura County (Refer to Table 1).

AGENDA ITEM NO.

9A
Attachment D
129
Table 1
– STR Rules in Ventura County
Jurisdiction Ordinance
Status
Regulation Summary
City of Ventura Allowed Active STR Permit, business license required, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collected
County of
Ventura
Allowed Active Temporary Rental Units (TRU) Permit,
business license required, TOT collected
Oxnard Allowed Active STR Permit, business license required, TOT collected
Port Hueneme Allowed without
Ordinance
Business license required, TOT collected
Thousand
Oaks
No Ordinance STRs not regulated
Moorpark Banned STRs not permitted
Camarillo Banned STRs not permitted
Ojai Banned STRs not permitted, Homeshares are allowed
with annual Zoning Clearance
Jurisdiction Rationales:

The followin
g rationales were identified for allowing STRs:
• Contribution to local tourism and economic growth (Ventura County). • Maintains a balance between tourism and residential stability (Oxnard) by allowing flexible lodging options, while imposing regulations that limit neighborhood disruption.
• Regulation reduces enforcement challenges associated with non- complaint STR operators (Oxnard, County of Ventura).
• Addresses community concerns over parking congestion and neighborhood congestion (Oxnard, Ventura County).
• Ensure TOT collection (Ventura County).
• STRs provide homeowners with additional income opportunities, which can help offset housing costs (Ventura County).

The follo
wing rationales were identified for banning STRs:
• Prevents detrimental impact on neighborhoods ( noise, traffic, and public safety concerns from STRs) and preserves neighborhood character (Moorpark). • Prevents loss of long-term rental and affordable housing options. Maximizing the availability of affordable housing options by ensuring that no long- term rental properties are converted into short-term rentals (Moorpark and Ojai). • Protect the health, safety , and welfare of the temporary rental units’ renters, occupants, neighboring residents, as well as the general public and environment (Ojai).
130
Below i
s a breakdown of potential advantages and disadvantages of STRs:

Potential Advantages of Short-Term Rentals:

Potential Disadvantages of Short-Term Rentals:

4. Potential Deterioration of Residences/Neighborhoods. Without the oversight or presence of a property manager/owner on site or close by, consistent turnover of STR renters may cause a decline in a home’s condition. Other concerns include:
increased traffic in neighborhoods; noise; and additional trash generated from short-term renters.

Potential Ordinance and Policy Implementations
If the C
ity Council wants to adopt a new STR Ordinance, staff recommends that the Ordinance include the following best practices and elements:

1. Good Nei
ghbor Policy. Some cities with a n STR Ordinance require adherence to a “Good Neighbor Policy” to ensure STRs do not disturb neighborhoods. The policy would be posted in the STR and made available on the city website. Some components of the policy include:
• No parking on streets or on yards. STR units must have adequate parking arrangements utilizing either the garage and/or driveway for guests to prevent congestion.
• Adherence to quiet hours and noise limitations, reflecting the Noise Ordinance. • Immediate response from STR operator to complaints from neighbors or City officials.
• Proper trash disposal and recycling practices.
• No events or parties.

2. One-time
or Annual Permit fees . In order to ensure ongoing compliance with the SVMC, a STR O rdinance could require a permit fee to cover processing and inspection costs, and potential renewal fees for annual reviews or inspections.

3. TOT C
ollection and Annual Business Taxation. Owners would be required to pay into the City’s transit occupancy taxes (with a concurrent amendment to the City’s TOT Ordinance) and participate in the City’s Tourism Business Improvement District. In addition, Owners would be required to obtain a business tax certificate, which would be collected annually.

4. Fines and C
itations. The City Council could establish minor and major violations of the STR code, with potential permit revocation and escalating fines for noncompliant STR owners . Examples of fines from nearby jurisdictions are in Table 2 below.

STR Fines from Other Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Fine
Ojai • $1,500 for first violation, $3,000 for second violation within one year of first violation, and $5,000 fine for each
additional violation within one year of first violation, in addition to administrative costs and interest.
• Forfeiture of rents and other gross revenue unlawfully received during the period of violation.

Big Bear
Lake
• $500/violation; second offense is $1,000/violation.

La Quinta • Fines range from $1,000-$5,000/violation.

STR Program Management
Staff me
t with three vendors that help local governments manage STR compliance and enforcement. See Table 3 for a comparison among the companies, including the costs and services associated with administering STR programs. The vendors track STRs, support registration and permitting of STR owners/operators, collect taxes, and offer compliance campaigns to enforce illegal STR operations.

Deckar
d Technologies and Granicus offer 24- hour hotlines, for constituent complaints.

Deckard also offers a Constituent Portal to access permitted and registered STR information.

The Cit
y is currently partnered with HdL for the administration of its Business Tax Certificates.
133
Table 3: STR Vendor Comparison
Deckard
Technology
HdL Granicus
Base Cost $5,000/year $12,750/year + CPI +
price per account
Modular, varies by
service
Setup Fees None $5,000 Up to $14,000 for
all set up services
Address
Identification
Included Included $7,600/year
Compliance
Monitoring
Included Included $3,200/year
Rental Activity Included Included $2,800/year
Permitting and
Registration
Optional
$5,000/year
Optional
$25/account/year +
CPI
$3,500/year +
setup fees from
$3,660 to $7,000
Tax Payment
Portal (TOT)
Optional
$5,000/year
$18/account/year +
CPI
$3,500/year +
setup fees from
$3,660 to $7,000
Compliance Letter
Campaign
Optional
$1,500/year
Included Included with the
Compliance
module
24-hour Hotline &
Online Complaint
Form
Optional
$3,500/year
Not Recommended $2,500/year
Total Year One
Cost assuming
purchase of all
services/modules
$20,000/year $20,760*/year
(assuming 70 STRs)
$33,760/year to
$37,100/year
*Per conversations with vendors, 20 – 40% of STRs typically drop out after program initiation (due to reluctance to obtain a business license or collect TOT). Staff is using 30% drop off rate as an estimate.

SB 346: Short Term Rental Facilitator
In May 2
025, SB 346 passed the Senate and has been with the Assembly since May 2025, but has not yet been reviewed and voted on. This bill would authorize cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring online platforms, such as Airbnb and VRBO, to provide reports on short-term rental s to the City. The bill would allow a jurisdiction to impose a fine or penalty for failure to file a STR, and would allow the jurisdiction to initiate an audit of online platforms. A decision on the bill will likely be made in September 2025.

Should thi
s bill pass , and a City ordinance be adopted , the City may not need all the services provided by a third-party vendor, such as address identification, compliance monitoring, and rental activity. Should the City move forward without an ordinance, but still collect taxes, this would result in cost savings , and the City could continue working with HdL on tax collections only. This has the potential to reduce the associated third - party vendor costs.
134
Fiscal Impacts
To implem
ent a STR Program, third-party vendor costs of $20,000 to $37,100 per year would be incurred to track and issue permits . Additionally, the City would incur approximately $254,000 in annual costs to administer and enforce the program. This cost includes salaries and benefits for new and/or reallocated staff, including one full-time Code Compliance Officer. While the City would generate approximately $230,000 from tax revenue (for 70 STR listings) , the City would be subsidizing a STR program at approximately $23,500 the first year. To cover costs and potentially generate revenue, the City would need to consider a minimum STR permit fee of approximately $1,350. The permit revenues in Table 4 are based on a permit fee of $936, which is the average fee of seven other jurisdictions with STR programs. For reference, a minor Zoning Clearance currently costs $120.37. Additional expenses can be anticipated with ongoing staff time with permitting/ consultant contract review, and one-time staff time and consultant services in preparing a STR Ordinance and related SVMC code amendments.

Table 4:

Estimated Revenues and Costs with a STR Ordinance
Year 1 Year 2
Estimated Permit Revenue* $65,520 $65,520
Business Tax Revenue $8,060 $8,060
Gross Receipts Tax Revenue $2,450 $2,450
Estimated TOT Revenue $152,233 $152,233
Fines $2,360 $2,360
Total Estimated Revenue $230,623 $230,623
STR Vendor $37,000 $32,000
City Attorney $19,000 $19,000
Planning $42,400 $16,960
Code Enforcement $139,040 $139,040
Police Department $16,500 $16,500
Total Estimated Cost $ 253,940 $223,500
NET INCOME $-23,317 $7,123
* This is based on a permit fee of $936.

The esti
mated permit revenues are based on 70 registered STRs. The City ’s costs are based on:
• ¼ of a Senior Planner’s time or Planning Consultant preparing the code (one time cost), reviewing applications, updating the website with STR address information, and coordinating with other Staff on enforcement issues. Staff anticipates that this could drop in year 2 and beyond to approximately 10%.
• 10% of the City Attorney’s time.
• A full-time Code Enforcement Officer.
• 10% of a Police Officer’s time.

Code enforc
ement costs assumes one extreme case of enforcement every two years (i.e. a case with City Attorney involvement) and one moderate case with multiple attempts to bring an owner into compliance with involvement from Code Enforcement staff only. 135
Enforcement Impacts/Banning STRs
Enforc
ement of SVMC violations is permitted with or without amendments addressing STRs. Presently, any SVMC violation such as noise, parking, and property maintenance is addressed under current citywide procedures, whether the home is being rented as an STR, traditionally rented, vacant, or owner-occupied. Lack of an STR Ordinance does not preclude enforcement of these items.

If the C
ity Council decides to explicitly ban STRs, staff will need to identify existing STRs and initiate enforcement on them. The cost for this would most likely be the highest in the first year to remove existing STRs and then ongoing costs after that to prevent new STRs from being created. An external vendor would be required to identify the STRs and Code Enforcement and City Attorney staff time will be required to enforce on the m. Vendor costs would range up to $37,000 for the first year and up to $32, 000 per year for subsequent years in order to identify addresses for STRs . Staff time could range from $217,000 for the first year to remove existing STRs to $191,500 per year for subsequent years for continuing enforcement.

The foll
owing alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Direc
t staff to initiate Municipal Code Amendments to explicitly ban short-term rentals;

2. Direc
t staff to initiate Municipal Code Amendments to allow Short-Term Rentals with identified regulations;

3. Do not ini
tiate Municipal Code Amendments for STRs and allow issues to be managed through existing provisions in the municipal code; or

4. Provi
de other direction.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
Staff
has no suggested motion.

SUMMARY
On Nove
mber 18, 2024, staff provided preliminary research on Short-Term Rentals and potential impacts of STRs to the City of Simi Valley, based on a citizen inquiry to regulate STRs based on potential neighborhood impacts. Very few STR complaints are received annually and can be addressed with existing Municipal Code standards (e.g. noise, parking, property maintenance). Pursuant to that presentation, City Council requested of Staff further information on the costs and benefits of an STR program, partnershi p with third-party vendors, and enforcement with fees. Staff analyzed potential elements for a STR program, including the good neighbor policy. Staff prepared further analysis of the associated costs and benefits of an STR O rdinance, including staff time and resource costs. Based on the findings, the program would likely create a deficit for the City in establishing a STR Ordinance in year one and the potential for ongoing program deficits based on permit fees and ongoing enforcement . Due to the limited number of citizen complaints, which can be addressed using traditional neighborhood enforcement, a STR 136
Ordinance may not be necessary at this time. The potential benefit of collecting Transient Occupancy Taxes from STRs may be offset by program establishment and ongoing management, and proactive enforcement. Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to proceed with a STR policy or ordinance.
___________
_________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
Prepare
d by: Zarui Chaparyan, Associate Planner
INDEX Page
Exhib
it 1: November 18, 2024, City Council Staff Report………….10 Exhibit 2: Good Neighbor Policy Examples………………………….16
137
STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
November 18, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE

SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE REGULATION OF SHORT-

TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding short-term residential rentals.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Staff surveyed seven (7) jurisdictions on their STR rules and regulations, as demonstrated in Table 1.

AGENDA ITEM NO.
9A
EXHIBIT 1
138
STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
Table 1 – STR Regulations in Surrounding Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Ordinance
in Place
Nature of
Ordinance
Notes
City of Agoura
Hills
Yes Allowed with a
permit
City of Camarillo Yes STRs Banned
City of Moorpark Yes STRs Banned
City of Ojai Yes STRs Banned
City of Oxnard Yes Allowed with a
permit
Limited permits offered in Coastal
Zone; and cannot be within 200
feet of any other STR property.

STR permit issued; enforcement
via third party vendor.

City of Ventura Yes Allowed with a
permit
The City is developing an
ordinance to regulate STRs,
including limiting the number of
units and density of allowed units.

Enforcement with 3 rd party
vendor.

County of
Ventura
Yes STR permits
required in
Coastal Zone
and Ojai Region
No outright ban on STRs
elsewhere.

Below is a breakdown of potential advantages and disadvantages of short-term rentals.

Advantages of Short-Term Rentals:

3. Increase in Simi Valley Visitors: STRs provide a lodging option to supplement the limited number of hotel rooms in the City and provide additional local lodging options.

Disadvantages of Short-Term Rentals:

3. Neighbor Complaints: Neighborhood deterioration and noise have the potential to lead to neighborhood complaints. Though the City has noise restrictions (SVMC 5-

Fiscal Impacts
The City of Simi Valley charges a 10%TOT rate on hotel and motel stays. TOT funds are used to offset increased public service costs that may be incurred from tourists, including public safety, road maintenance and repair. The City collects approximately $2 million 140
STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
from TOT each year. 1 Upon further research of other California jurisdictions that permit and tax STRs (including the cities of Orange, Vista, Indio, Fullerton, Oxnard, Ventura and the County of Ventura), staff has prepared the following financial findings. Staff makes an optimistic assumption for the rent and number of nights per year of 40 listed homes and rooms in the City 2, based on available data online. Staff makes findings, assuming that all listed STRs would comply with an STR ordinance.

Regulatory Challenges and Impacts to City Staff and Resources:

Necessary considerations of an STR program development are associated with code enforcement, public safety , and administration of a program. Some issues to consider include:
• Administration of a STR Program: Staff would need to determine required applications, permitting, taxation and business registration requirements for such a program, which would involve, the Planning Division, Administrative Services , and Code Enforcement, and a third-party vendor for searching, tracking and enforcing business tax registrations. The City currently uses HdL to administer all Business Tax Certificates.
• Adjustment of Staff Time and Personnel Management: Since most STR stays occur during the weekends , Code Enforcement staff would need to adopt permanent work schedules incorporating nights and weekends to respond to code enforcement related complaints arising from STR. If absorbed within existing 1 There are 6 hotels in the City of Simi Valley
2 Based on Airbnb and VRBO search on 10/23/2024 that brought up 43 searches in the City. 3 Includes homes, guesthouses, and apartments.
4 Amount was based on average fee assessed by the seven jurisdictions mentioned above. 141
STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
resources, two Code Compliance Officers could be redirected to night and weekend schedules, which would divert resources from other quality of life issues by about 20% due to work that can only be conducted during daylight hours such as knock and talks with residents. Additionally, notifications to STR violators would be delayed due to the inability to mail notices during weekend shifts. An alternative would be to hire an additional Code Compliance Officer at a total cost of approximately $120,000 per year.
• Overall Enforcement of a Program : As there are dozens of online vacation rental sites, such as Airbnb, VRBO, HomeToGo, FlipKey, and Booking.com, finding and ensuring that all STRs in Simi Valley are registered and permitted with the City would be time-consuming and divert staff away from current priorities. It would require a minimum of 2.5 staff members from Code Enforcement and Administrative Services to properly administer the program and ensure compliance. Some third-party vendors have enforcement services, which could primarily monitor permit s or conditions of said permit , however, on-the-ground enforcement would likely be borne by Police or Code Enforcement staff . Further, third-party enforcement may only target locations advertised online through popular rental portals. Word of mouth rentals are harder to track and would be extremely difficult to enforce (similar to a traditional home rental).

An STR program would approximately cost $18,470 annually, plus a one-time $5,000 set up cost, to track and issue permits with a third-party vendor, such as HdL, which currently administers the City’s Business Tax Certificate program. The vendor would track short - term rentals in the City through online listings, and coordinate with City Staff and STR owners to obtain City permits and business tax certificates. Additionally, it would cost the City approximately $321,304 annually to administer and enforce the program. This cost includes salaries and benefits for new and/or reallocated staff , including two Code Compliance Officers and 50% of a Sr. Management Analyst. While the City would generate $125,000 from tax revenue, the City would be subsidizing an STR program at approximately $214,774 per year.
142
STRccmtg11-18-24(klk)
The following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Direct staff to initiate Municipal Code Amendments to allow short-term rentals;

2. Direct staff to initiate a Municipal Code Amendment to prohibit short-term rentals;

4. Do not initiate Municipal Code or policy amendments at this time; or,

5. Provide other direction.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
Staff has no suggested motion.

SUMMARY
On October 21, 2024, the City Council requested Staff to review STRs, including their feasibility, effectiveness, fiscal and staffing impacts. While benefits to STR regulations include tax revenue generation and supplemental income for City residents, there is a lack of STR complaints and a limited number of STRs within the City. Coupled with program expenses and enforcement, a STR Ordinance could outweigh the aforementioned benefits. Given the presented, Staff requests direction from the City Council regarding possible amendments to the Municipal Code. ____________________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
Prepared by: Zarui Chaparyan, Associate Planner
143
Local Resources
Milpitas Police Emergency – 9-1-1 or (408) 263-1212
Milpitas Police Non-Emergency – (408) 586-2400
Animal Services: (530) 587-5948
Code Enforcement: (408)-586-3072
Compliance and Potential Fines
The City of Milpitas makes every effort to work with
guests and property managers to resolve issues of
non-compliance with the Short-Term Rental Ordi-
nance before issuing citations or fines. Repeat or
excessive non- compliance, however, may result in
fines of up to $500 per day or more for the guest,
property owner, or both.

Local Contact Person Information
Your host is required to designate a local contact
person who is able to respond in person to any code
compliance matters related to your rental within one
hour.

Your rental’s local contact person information is:

Name: __________________________________
Phone Number: ___________________________
Pets
Pets must always be secured on the property.

Please
do not leave pets unattended or allow them to roam
unleashed, and always clean up after them.

The Short Term-Rental program is administer by the Milpitas Planning Department.

For your enjoyment of the unit and to preserve the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood.

Here are some tips for homeowners and

travelers on how to Stay Neighborly

Parking
Park only in the designated parking areas provid-
ed for
your rental unit. Do not block any driveway.

Waste and Recycling
Don’t be a litterbug! Please put your trash in the
proper containers both inside the rental and out-
side.

EXHIBIT 2
144
Rules to Vacation by
Do not exceed the occupancy limit
Do not exceed the stated occupancy at any time during
your stay. The maximum number of adult occupants may
be less than the total maximum occupancy.

NO PARTIES ALLOWED.

No amplified music 24/7
Amplified music is not permitted to be heard beyond the property line 24/7. Close your windows to avoid music
carrying beyond the property line.

Head inside at 10:00 p.m.

Noisy outdoor activities and spa use are prohibited from 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

Clean Bear trash locations:
41790 Garstin Drive & 39690 Big Bear Blvd.

Fines
The minimum fine for violating the rules stated
previously is $500 per violation. A second
offense is $1000 per violation.

Eviction
Unruly guests who blatantly disregard the rules
and expectations will be evicted without a
refund. In addition, costly citations may be
issued to the undersigned.

Signature of Guest
(ID to be verified by Check-in Agent)
Print name:_____________________________
Address:_______________________________
City State Zip:__________________________
Signature:______________________________
Date:___________________________________
Good
Neighbor
Policy
145
Welcome to the City of Big
Bear Lake!
Southern California’s Premier 4-Season
Resort Community
Thank you for choosing to vacation in Big Bear Lake. We are pleased to welcome over 1.2 million visitors per year to our beautiful community. Whether you are here to
enjoy the abundant natural features and amenities found in our surrounding forest or looking for some rest and
relaxation in our quiet and tranquil residential
neighborhoods, we trust your experience will be world-
class.

We think you and your family & friends can have an
amazing vacation while still being respectful and
considerate to the neighbors around you.

Amplified music can me heard a mile or more
away from the stereo speaker.

For these reasons, we have strict rules about
amplified music and outdoor activities at night.

Visit careforbigbear.com for more information.

1. Leave no trac e. Simply put, whatever you
take into the forest, bring back out –
including broken sleds.

2. Don’t litter. There are dumpsters located at
all trailheads and picnic areas. If a bin is
full, find another. Animals will tear bags
open and spread trash throughout the
forest.

3. Pick up after your pet. Please bag your
pet’
s waste AND TAKE IT TO A
DUMPSTER. Leaving your pet’s waste in a
bag on the side of a trail is littering.

4. Keep the peace. If you are going to listen to
music while hiking or enjoying the lake,
use headphones instead of a Bluetooth
speaker.
146
GOOD

NEIGHBOR

BROCHURE FOR

VACATION

RENTAL GUESTS
Welcome to
La Qui
nta,
California!

REACH US AT
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
760.777.7000
www.PlayInLaQuinta.com
[email protected]

MISSION STATEMENT
To preserve the quality of life in
the City of La Quinta by evoking
a true collaboration of hosts, guests,
and community, encouraging tourism
in our Gem of the Desert.

Please review the important information in
this brochure regarding your stay in a
short-term rental property.

Memorable LaQuinta.

Vacation LQ Rental Hotline: 760.777.7157
Sheriff's Department: 760.836.3215
147
____________________________
The City of La Quinta
asks for your full
cooperation
Renters are advised that the following rules
will be strictly enforced. Failure to comply
may result in citations, fines and/or
expulsion from the rental property. If a
citation is issued, fines range from $1000 -
$5,000 per violation.

City residents have the right to call a 24/7
short-term vacation rental hotline to report
violations of the rules outlined in this
brochure.

NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS

TRASH
Rental properties should be kept clean
with no visible trash. Please keep all trash
containers out of street view.

SPECIAL EVENTS
Special event permits are required for gathering in
vacation rental properties that exceed the number
of allowable people outlined in this brochure.

Special event permits must be applied for by the
homeowner or the homeowner's authorized agent
45 days prior to an event.

Please be mindful of our desert weather, it
is always illegal to leave your pet
unattended in a vehicle.

Vacation LQ Rental Hotline: 760.777.7157
Sheriff's Department: 760.836.3215
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
________________________________
________________________________
For additional information please see
La Quinta Municipal Code 3.25
____________________________
The homeowner or an authorized
agent will be expected to answer and
respond to the Hotline complaint calls
within 30 minutes or the La Quinta
Police Department will be called.
148
City of Lake Elsinore ♦ 130 S. Main Street ♦
951.674.3124 www.lake-elsinore.org
149
150
AGENDA ITEM NO.

#
MINUT

ES OF THE MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD

TREE ADVISORY BOARD
Cit
y Council Chamber March 4,2026
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063

1. CALL

TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was called to order at 6:30 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

Present: Chairperson Kennedy; Vice Chairperson Rice; Commissioners Christmann, Mann

Absent: Commissioner Tolson

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the agenda as submitted.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 21, 2026
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the minutes as submitted.

6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT – None

7. PUBLIC STATEMENTS – None

8. CORRESPONDENCE
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that there is correspondence that was received regarding agenda items 5, 7, 11.A.1.

The Supplemental copies were provided to the Planning Commission and copies for the public are at the table in the lobby.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR – None

10. CONTINUED BUSINESS – None
Attachment F
151
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 2 March 4, 2026

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Z-S-2025-0006; To consider recommending to the C ity Council adoption of Amendments to Title 9 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code (development code) to regulate Short Term-Rentals (STR) in residential zones, with related Title 3 ( Finance) and Title 5 ( Public Welfare).

Staf
f Contact: Alexandra Clingman
(805) 5 83-6772
The fo
llowing were ex parte communications to report:

Commissioner Mann stated that he has spoken to several people that he works with and on a personal level that are against STRs in Simi Valley.

Commissioner Christmann stated that she has engaged in discussions with numerous individuals from the Simi Valley Rotary, as well as contacts from her personal and professional life. The consensus among them is that STRs should be prohibited in Simi Valley, except for one person who supports STRs.

Chairperson Kennedy shared that he received a call from a chairperson of a Neighborhood Council who filled him in on the discussions from their meeting about STRs. He also mentioned having coffee with long-term Simi Valley residents and a family friend who had experience with STRs for a year in Simi Valley, discussing their insights during that time.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project.

Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera and Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman gave a presentation of the staff report.

Vice Chairperson Rice inquired about the number of hosted versus un- hosted STRs in Simi Valley. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman indicated that this data is currently unavailable. Rice then asked whether any of these STRs are situated in areas with affordable housing. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman replied that this information is not available, but it could be a topic for future research.

Commissioner Christmann inquired about which Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) can operate as STRs. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman clarified that, according to California law, ADUs measuring 800 square feet or less must have an occupancy of at least 30 days, which means they cannot be used as STRs.

However, larger ADUs, those exceeding 800 square feet, would be permitted to function as STRs under the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Christmann also 152
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 3 March 4, 2026
asked about the regulations for individuals who own both a primary residence and an ADU, specifically regarding whether they can rent both properties simultaneously. In response, Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman explained that only one permit is permitted per owner. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera added that the regulation applies to one permit per property, with a maximum occupancy of eight people. Commissioner Christmann asked for clarification on the process for addressing nuisance complaints within a 30 -minute window.

Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman stated that un- hosted STRs are required to provide three contacts for homes located within 200 feet of the property for immediate communication. If the issue is not resolved within 30 minutes after hours, the parties concerned may reach out to the Police Department.

Commissioner Christmann questioned whether there is a limit on the number of STRs allowed within a specific radius, similar to regulations in Oxnard. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman confirmed that there is no such limitation under the current proposal.

Chairperson Kennedy raised a question about whether establishing a limit on the radius would pose a density problem. Commissioner Christmann replied that in Oxnard, STRs cannot be situated closer than 200 feet from each other. In response, Chairperson Kennedy expressed his belief that this indeed relates to density concerns.

Commissioner Mann inquired whether permits are granted as one per owner or one per property. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman clarified that the current proposal allocates one permit for each property owner. Commissioner Mann then raised concern about the possibility of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) owning several properties through different LLCs renting them out as STRs . Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman confirmed that there are no regulations in place to prevent this.

Chairperson Kennedy inquired about the measures in place to prevent property owners from placing their properties into multiple LLCs, thereby circumventing the regulations that allow only one STR per individual. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman clarified that while the City does not govern private property ownership, the permitting process is designed to ensure that only one permit is issued per person. Chairperson Kennedy further questioned whether a permit could be held by both an individual and an entity. Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez explained that the legal definitions encompass both natural persons and entities, indicating that it is possible to have one permit for a natural person and another for an entity. This means there is nothing to stop different LLCs from owning multiple properties within the same overarching company. Commissioner Mann ask ed if someone with 10 LLCs could have 10 STRs under those entities. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera confirmed that an individual owning 10 LLCs could, indeed, have ownership of 10 properties, and the City would verify ownership through County records. Vice Chairperson Rice suggested limiting STRs to primary residences, as is practiced in other cities. Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez responded that a potential approach could require a natural person to reside in the 153
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 4 March 4, 2026
property for a specific number of days each year. Commissioner Christmann then asked how this could be effectively regulated. In response, Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez indicated that a form could be submitted, confirming that the property owner has indeed lived in the home.

Commissioner Christmann inquired whether the absence of an ordinance means the City cannot obtain data from VRBO or Airbnb for STRs in our City. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman confirmed this is indeed the case. Chairperson Kennedy then asked if the proposed ordinance mandates that permit numbers must be displayed online for STRs and whether the City has a process in place to remove listings from online platforms that lack proper permits in accordance with SB346. Both Associate Planner Clingman and Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera clarified that SB346 does permit the removal of property listings when necessary and mentioned that there are third- party consultants equipped with platforms to facilitate this. Chairperson Kennedy also raised a question about the possibility of imposing fines on additional listings without permits if the City decides to limit the number of STRs allowed . Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez responded that the municipal code under Title 1 outlines all enforcement options available.

Commissioner Christmann inquired about the qualifications that would apply if there were a limit on the number of STRs permitted in the city. In response, Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman clarified that there currently isn't a limit and expressed there could be a consider ation to recommend a limit. Commissioner Christmann then questioned whether there is a cap on the number of nights a guest can stay at an STR. Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman confirmed that no such limit exists. Commissioner Christmann asked if there is any data available regarding the costs of third-party enforcement in Ventura. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera replied that we only have cost data related to third-party enforcement in Simi Valley.

Commissioner Mann inquired about the difference between the two tables in Exhibit 2 regarding revenue. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera explained that the first table was created by staff through a review of online platforms to estimate the number of units in Simi Valley. The second table, however, was provided by an outside consultant, which confirmed there are between 80 and 100 STRs in the City, leading to varied revenue figures. Commissioner Christmann then asked whether the revenue depicted in Exhibit 2 accounted for in- house enforcement or a third- party vendor. Principal Planner Gunasekera clarified that the first table indicates in-house enforcement and noted that information regarding third- party enforcement costs can be found on page 6, table 3 of Exhibit 2.

Chairperson Kennedy opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. 154
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 5 March 4, 2026

The following persons submitted speaker cards not wishing to speak that are in opposition:
• Richard Hollman
• Staven McCormick
• Linda Stickel
• Don Wismar
• Carroll Fernandez
• Ron Voogd
The following persons submitted speaker cards that would like to speak that are in opposition:
• Anthony Eason
• Alynne Eason
• James McGillis
• Patricia Fleury
• Fred Butler
• Anne Reiss
• Heidi Best
• Gary Anderson
• Ann Duran
• Leo Pretti
• Carol Thomaier
• Heather Moss
Chairperson Kennedy asked if staff are the any comments from the statements that the public had made that they wish to address.

Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman provided clarification regarding Ms.

Fleury’s inquiry about the maximum number of occupants allowed in STR. It’s proposed that the limit be set at 8 occupants, with no more than 2 adults and 2 children per room. Additionally, to address any potential safety concerns at the site, a pre-permit site inspection requirement could be implemented prior to STR approval. In response to Ms. Best’s query about the Neighborhood Council's stance on STRs, details can be found in Exhibit 1.

Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera addressed the question about whether the revenue accounts for all 100 STRs within the City. According to a consultant, new permitting systems typically see about a 20% decrease in STRs, which means that the revenue figures represent approximately 80 STRs in the City.

Deputy Environmental Services Director /City Planner Sean Gibson addressed concerns regarding taxation for STRs. He confirmed that STRs will be required to obtain a business tax certificate, pay transient occupancy tax, and secure various permits throughout the City. In response to inquiries about the process, he explained that there are four Neighborhood Councils where the public is 155
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 6 March 4, 2026
encouraged to express their opinions. Following that, any zoning code proposals will be presented to the Planning Commission. If approved, the next step involves bringing the proposal to the City Council for final deliberation and approval. Mr.

Gibson also expressed gratitude for the community's engagement, thanking everyone who attended, sharing their thoughts, and informed the Planning Commission of their support or opposition to the matter.

Chairperson Kennedy closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Commission comments:

Commissioner Christmann inquired whether any analysis had been conducted regarding projected revenue during the Olympics. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera indicated that such information is currently unavailable.

Commissioner Christmann then asked if the expenses related to the site inspection were included in the overall project costs. Naren Gunasekera clarified that the figures presented in the staff report are merely estimates and, should STRs be approved, a fee study and cost analysis would need to be performed to determine the final permit costs. Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez further noted that state laws impose restrictions on the types of fees that can be charged, which differ from the taxes that are paid.

Commissioner Christmann inquired about the recovery process for costs related to noncompliance with illegal STRs within the City. Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez clarified that placing a lien on the property could be a viable method for recovering those costs.

Commissioner Mann pointed out that Moorpark currently prohibits STRs but noted that there are rental listings available online. Commissioner Mann inquired about the City’s approach to enforcing a ban on illegal STRs if such a decision is made.

Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera responded by clarifying that the listing referenced by Commissioner Mann pertains to unincorporated areas of Ventura County. He also mentioned that under SB346, there will be options available for enforcement.

Chairperson Kennedy inquired about the enforcement options available if there i s not an established ordinance. In response, Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera clarified that we could outline STRs in an ordinance to facilitate enforcement measures. Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez commented that many companies tend to adhere to city regulations as long as there i s an existing ordinance. Additionally, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson mentioned that there are specialized firms capable of identifying unauthorized STRs.

Commissioner Christmann inquired about the potential costs associated with hiring an external company to locate STRs within the City should a ban be implemented.

Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman referenced Exhibit 2 on page 14, noting that vendor costs could reach up to $37,000 in the first year, followed by 156
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 7 March 4, 2026

approximately $32,000 in each subsequent year —excluding the time required by staff.

Chairperson Kennedy expressed that, based on his experience, banning certain activities will not eliminate violations. Instead, he suggests it might be more effective to impose limits on STRs within the City. Commissioner Rice expressed that should the City Council proceed with the approval, he would like to see stringent restrictions on STRs to ensure enforceability. He also feels that whether STRs are banned or approved, the decision will impact the City financially.

Commissioner Christmann recently discussed research published by the UCLA Law Review and LA Times, expressing uncertainty about whether permitting STRs would generate revenue for the City. He raised concerns about the potential impact of STRs on housing affordability within the City.

Commissioner Mann expressed uncertainty about whether a ban on STRs would benefit the City. However, he emphasized that if the decision is made to permit STRs, he would like to see significantly more regulations than those currently proposed.

Chairperson Kennedy stated that if we ban STRs he believes that we will still see STRs within the City during the World Cup and the Olympics.

Chairperson Kennedy reopened the Public Testimony of the hearing limiting each person to speak under 2 minutes.

The following persons submitted speaker cards and spoke in opposition:
• Leo Pretti
• Linda Stickel
• Heidi Best
• Anthony Eason
• Gary Anderson
• Jill Abele
• Anne Reiss
Fred Butler spoke again stating that he was in Opposition at first and now may be leaning to being in support of STRs.

Anne Duran was in opposition and did not want to speak.

Chairperson Kennedy closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman informed Mr. Butler that STR permits will need to be renewed on an annual basis. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera further noted that the rentals must provide quarterly reports on rental income and tax contributions.
157
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 8 March 4, 2026

Commissioner Christman n expressed her concerns about the neighbors being responsible for enforcing issues related to the STRs patrons. She highlighted the challenges they face in trying to reach out to the owners. Furthermore, she conveyed her belief that the C ommission should take the public's request into account and recommend a ban on STRs.

Commissioner Rice stated that he is in favor of the denial of STRS.

Commissioner Mann expressed his concern that the projected expenses will most likely exceed what was proposed, while the anticipated income will likely be much lower than expected. He supports the recommendation to ban STRs throughout the City.

Deputy City Attorney Joaquin Vasquez emphasized to the commission that their decisions should be based on findings. He noted that if the commission wishes to deny a request, there’s no need to instruct staff to draft supporting findings; however, they must provide clear reasons for the denial.

VICE CHAIRPERSON RICE MOVED THAT THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI

VALLEY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF ORDINANCE

AND ESTABLISH A CITYWIDE BAN ON SHORT

TERM RENTALS
Commissioner Mann seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioners Mann, Christmann, Vice
Chairperson Rice, and Chairperson
Kennedy

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Commissioner Tolson

B. OTHER – None

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
A. STAFF – None
B. PLANNING COMMISSION – None
C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD – None
D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD – None
158
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 9 March 4, 2026

13. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on March 25, 2026.

Minutes prepared by:

Krystal Ryan
159
Attachment G
Permit Fees & Enforcement Costings
Permit Fees/Cost Recovery
Hours Rate Total
Planning 2 $164.15 $328.30
Building Inspector 1 $169.38 $169.38
Office Assistant 0.5 $64.34 $32.17
HDL Admin cost - - $72
Total Staff Cost $601.85
N umber of Permits Vendor/SB 346 Cost Cost/permit
HDL Compliance 70 $9,750 $139
Permit Fees $741.14
160

Permitting Violations – Enforcement
Expenses:

Permitting
enforcement Rate Hours Total
Code Enforcement
- NOV Low: $179.43 2 $358.86
Code Enforcement
- NOV High: $179.43 6 $1,076.58
Code Enforcement
- Civil Fine Low: $179.43 16 $2,870.88
Code Enforcement
- Civil Fine High: $179.43 32 $5,741.76
City Attorney
Action - Low $187.3 6 $1,123.8
City Attorney
Action - High $187.3 12 $2,247.6

One NOV violation = $358.86
One Code (Civil Fine High) + City Attorney Action (High) = $7,989/36

161

Operational Violations – Enforcement
Operational Violations
Department Hourly
Rate
Hours Per Case
(Low)
Hours Per Case
(High)
Cases Per Year
(Low)
Cases Per Year
(High)
Annual Cost Low Annual Cost
High
Code Enforcement $179.43 1 5 4 10 $717.72 $8,971.50
Planning $164.15 0.25 1 4 10 $164.15 $1,641.49
Police Department 154.37 1 4 6 10 $926.22 $6,174.80
Total $1,808.09 $16,787.79

162
Attachment H
Potential Short-Term Rental Ordinance Modifications

If City Council chooses to regulate and allow short -term rentals, the following is a list of proposed ordinance modifications as recommended by Planning Commission and Neighborhood Councils.

1. Establish an occupancy limit of eight people per night.

“Overnight Occupancy. The owner or operator of a short -term rental must limit overnight occupancy to no more than two adults and two children under twelve (12) years of age per bedroom, not to exceed a total of eight (8) occupants. A greater occupancy may be approved through the permit process upon submission of satisfactory evidence demonstrating unusual size, interior layout, or other physical characteristics of the dwelling that support the requested occupancy.”

2. Require a pre-permitting inspection. *

“Pre-Permitting Inspection. Prior to the initial issuance or renewal of a short-term rental permit, the Building Official or designee must inspect the dwelling unit and site to verify compliance with the provisions of all applicable building, fire, access, health, and safety regulations. No permit may be issued or renewed until all identified violations have been corrected.”

*The proposed ordinance authorizes the City to require additional information and documentation as part of the application process. Pre- permitting and renewal inspections may already be covered within this authority.

3. Establish a proximity limit between short-term rentals.

“Separation Requirement. No short -term rental permit may be issued for a property located within two hundred (200) feet of another property holding an active short-term rental permit. Distance must be measured in a straight horizontal line from the nearest property lines of each parcel, as shown in City records.”

4. Prohibit accessory dwelling units from use as short-term rentals.

“Ineligible Dwelling Units. No short-term rental permit may be issued for any of the following dwelling types:
a. Apartment units. Unconditioned accessory structures
c. Accessory Dwelling Units”

5. Establish a citywide cap on permits.

“Maximum Number of Permits. The total number of active short -term rental permits issued citywide may not exceed one hundred (100) at any time.”

163
Attachment H

6. Establish a cap on annual rental days.

“Maximum Annual Rental Days. A short-term rental may not be rented for more than ninety (90) days total during any calendar year. Any portion of a rental day, including arrival or departure days, counts as one full rental day.”

7. Establish a minimum stay requirement.

“Minimum Rental Term. No short-term rental may be rented for fewer than three (3) consecutive nights.”

8. Require all short-term rentals to be hosted.

“Hosted Rentals Only. All short-term rentals must be owner-hosted. The property owner must remain physically present on-site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during any guest stay. Un-hosted short-term rentals are prohibited.” 164
165

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
166
Table of Contents
iCity of Simi Valley True North Research, Inc. © 2026
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Changes to Improve Simi Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Initial Opinion of STRs in Simi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Reasons for Opinion of Short-Term Rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Short-Term Rental Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Regulations for Short-Term Rental Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Related Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Final Opinion of STRs in Simi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 167
List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 ii
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Subgroup Breakdown of Suppo rt for Short-Term Rental Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2 Change in Support for Allowing & Regulating Short-Term Rentals in Simi Valley by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 3 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 168
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 iii
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in Simi Valley, Homeownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 3 Quality of Life by STR Property in Neighborhood, Experienced Problem With STR & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 4 Quality of Life by Type of Home & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 5 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 6 Initial Opinion Regarding Shor t-Term Rentals in Simi Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 7 Initial Opinion Regarding Short-Term Rentals by Years in Simi Valley, Homeownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 8 Initial Opinion Regarding Short-Term Rentals by Quality of Life, STR Property in Neighborhood, Experienced Problems With STR & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 9 Initial Opinion Regarding Short-Term Rentals by Type of Home & Age. . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 10 Reasons for Position on Short-Term Rentals in Simi Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 11 Support vs. Opposition to Proposed Short-Term Rental Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 12 Support for Short-Term Rental Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 13 Agreement with Statements About Short-Term Rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 14 Final Opinion Regarding Short-Term Rentals in Simi Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 15 Final Opinion Regarding Short-Term Rentals by Years in Simi Valley, Homeownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 16 Final Opinion Regarding Short-Term Rentals by Quality of Life, STR Property in Neighborhood, Experienced Problems With STR & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 17 Final Opinion Regarding Short-Term Rental s by Type of Home & Age . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 18 Margin of Error due to Sampling @ 95% Conf idence Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 169
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 1
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, home-sharing platforms such as Airbnd and Vrbo have facilitated an increase in short-term rental properties (STRs) across Southern California. Municipalities have responded with a wide range of policies, from highly restrictive bans, to moderate regulation, to permissive policies based on the view that STRs are a driver of touris m and the local economy.

Recognizing a need to establish a formal policy related to STRs, the City of Simi Valley is in the process of preparing an ordinance for City Council’s consideration that would define STRs in the Municipal Code, establish permitting requirements and performance standards, as well as spec- ify procedures for regulating STRs in the future.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The purpose of the survey described in this report was to provide the City of Simi Valley with a statistically reliable understanding of the community’s per- ceptions, opinions, and concerns as they relate to short-term rentals. Do residents think STRs should be allowed in Simi Valley? Are they supportive of the City permitting and regulating STRs? What types of requirements and regulations do residents feel are appropriate for STRs? Answers to these and related questions will help City Council and staff finalize the City’s STR ordinance.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 2 1 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a random sample of 670 adults who are registered to vote in the City of Simi Val- ley. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Admin- istered in English and Spanish between April 9 and April 14, 2026, the average interview lasted 15 minutes.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer for- mat. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and anal yzing the data. And, for the interested reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 24).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North Research (True North) thanks the City of Simi Valley for the opportunity to design and conduct the su rvey and for providing background materials (staff reports and draft ordinance) to inform the research.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Simi Valley. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the opinions, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Thro ugh designing and implementing scientific sur- 170
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 2City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
veys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, establishing fiscal pri- orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted ov er 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies at all levels of government—including more than 500 studies for California municipalities and special districts. 171
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 3
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Simi Valley with a statistically reliable understanding of the comm unity’s perceptions, opinions, and concerns as they relate to short-term rentals to help info rm the preparation and refinement of a STR ordi- nance. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research.

Do residents generally
approve of allowing
STRs in Simi Valley?
For the purposes of the survey, short-term rental properties were defined as private homes that are rented for less than 30 days at a time, often on a daily or weekly basis. When ask ed at the beginning of the survey if STRs should be allowed in Simi Valley, 12% of respondents indicated that STRs should be allowed and should not be regulated, whereas an addi- tional 58% felt that STRs should be allowed under certain conditions and should be regulated. Approximately one-quarter of respondents (24%) were of the opinion that STRs should not be allowed in Simi Valley under any conditions, whereas 6% were unsure or unwilling to answer the ques- tion.

Although opinions naturally varied across subgroups, it’s instructive that a majority of respondents in every subgroup were of the opinion that STRs should be allowed under certain conditions and should be regu- lated. This pattern was even fo und among respondents who reported experiencing problems with STRs in their neighborhood. Support for allowing STRs under certain conditions and with regulations also grew over the course of the interview as respondents learned more about the City’s proposed STR policy and associated requirements/regulations, as well as being exposed to a balanced set of positive and negative state- ments about STRs. At the conclusion of the interview, 63% of respon- dents favored allowing STRs under certain conditions and subject to regulations.

What attitudes do resi-
dents hold about STRs?
When reviewing residents’ attitudes about STRs, it’s clear that they see both sides of the STR debate—whic h helps explain why they generally prefer a balanced position of allowing STRs provided they meet certain requirements and are regulated. Attitudinally, a solid majority of respon- dents were in agreement that If someone owns a property, they should have the right to rent it on a long-term or short-term basis (69%), People who vacation here provide a much-needed boost to our local economy, stores, restaurants, and businesses (64%), The taxes paid by people who visit Simi Valley help pay for the things we need including road repair, parks, and public safety (62%), and Most short-term rental owners are responsible people - there are just a few bad apples (58%). 172
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 4City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Although positive statements related to STRs tended to have higher lev- els of agreement, statements that focused on potential negative impacts of STRs also resonated. A majority of respondents agreed that It's already hard to find affordable housing in Simi Valley. Allowing short- term rentals will make it even harder (59%), Short-term rentals cause a lot of problems including overcrowding, noise, and parking issues (58%), and Short-term rentals hurt the quality of life in a neighborhood by cre- ating a revolving door of tourists (56%). The only statement tested for which a majority did not agree was This City will lose money with this policy. It will cost more to permit, monitor and regulate short-term rent- als than the City will receive from permit fees and taxes (38%).

Is there support for the
City’s proposed STR pol-
icy, and what require-
ments do residents
support placing on
STRs?
The City of Simi Valley is considering a policy that would allow short- term rental properties in the city under certain conditions, including they have all necessary permits, business licenses and insurance, they follow 'good neighbor' rules related to occu pancy limits, safety, noise, and nui- sance, and they agree to regulation s, monitoring and performance stan- dards. After informing respondents of the above, the survey found that 63% of respondents were in support of the policy, one-third (33%) were opposed, and 5% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.

Consistent with their interest in allowing but also regulating STRs, every requirement or regulation tested that could be part of the City’s STR pol- icy found solid support. More than three-quarters of respondents sup- ported requiring STRs to pass a building, fire, and safety code inspection (85%), permanently revoking permits fr om properties that have a history of repeat violations (82%), and issuing mandatory fines for the owner of a short-term rental when there ar e verified violations and code com- plaints (78%). Approximately two-thirds of respondents favored limiting the number of short-term rentals allowed in a neighborhood (67%), while 59% also favored limiting the number of guests in a STR to two adults per bedroom.
173
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 5
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge respondents’ opinions regarding the quality of life in Simi Valley, as well as their ideas for how it can be improved.

QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of Simi Valley using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, three-quarte rs of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Simi Valley, with 18% reporting it is excellent and 58% stating it is good.

Approximately 20% of respondents surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas less than 5% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Simi Valley and less than 1% were unsure.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Simi Valley? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE
Figures 2-4 show how ratings of the quality of life in Simi Valley varied by length of residence, home ownership,
survey language, whether they have a STR in their neigh- borhood, whether they have experienced problems with
STRs in their neighborhood, gender, type of home, and
age.

When compared to their respec tive counterparts, quality of life ratings (excellent an d good) were notably higher among those who have lived in the City less than five
years, home owners, individuals who completed the sur-
vey in Spanish, those living in single family homes, and seniors. It’s worth noting that the presence of STRs in a neighborhood had little impact on quality of life ratings.

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SIMI VALLEY, HOMEOWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE Excellent

17.6 Good

57.5 Fair

20.1 Poor

4.4 Very poor

0.1 DK/NA

0.2 21.9

11.0 15.8

43.2 60.4

46.6 68.2 58.2

48.2 Excellent

22.1 14.9 13.5 18.0 11.0
Good

64.5 55.264.955.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Live rent free w/ others
English Spanish
Years in Simi Valley (Q1) Homeownership Status (QD1) Survey Language % Respondents
174
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 6City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY STR PROPERTY IN NEIGHBORHOOD, EXPERIENCED PROBLEM WITH STR & GENDER FIGURE 4 QUALITY OF LIFE BY TYPE OF HOME & AGE
CHANGES TO IMPROVE SIMI VALLEY The next question in this series asked respon- dents to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Simi Valley a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 5 on the next page.

Nearly one quarter of respondents could not think of a change to Simi Valley that they desired (14%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed/everything is fine (10%). Among the specific changes desired, limiting growth and development was the most common (12%), followed by improving shopping and dining opportunities (1 1%) and providing recreation activities and events for all ages (9%).

23.2 22.1 14.8

60.0 57.9

58.1 58.3

17.318.814.318.4
Excellent

20.3 58.0 57.6 56.7
Good

59.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes No Not sure Yes No None / Not
sure in
neighborhood
Male Female
STR Property in Neighborhood (QD4) Experienced Problems With STR (QD5) Gender % Respondents

7.8 13.5 18.2

32.4 43.8

64.4 55.9

65.8 56.4
Excellent

18.4 22.8

11.3 11.6 9.0
Good

61.9 35.3

63.241.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Single family Townhome Condo Apartment 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Type of Home (QD2) Age
% Respondents
175
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 7City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make Simi Valley a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY

13.7 12.2

11.1 10.0

9.0 6.0

5.8 5.6

5.5 5.0

5.0 4.6

3.1 2.9

2.7 2.5

2.1 1.9

1.7 1.6

5.4 5.0
05 1 0 1 5
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Limit growth, development
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Provide rec activities, events, for all ages
Improve parks, rec facilities
Improve infrastructure, streets, roads
Enforce traffic laws
Address homeless issues
Support small, local businesses
Improve Town Center
Clean up, beautify City
Support, encourage economic growth
Improve public safety
Address racism, discrimination issues
Provide more nightlife
Provide more affordable housing
Fix, upgrade rundown buildings
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve street lighting
Improve City Council, Gov process
Provide, improve hospitals, healthcare options
% Respondents
176
Initial Opinion of STRs in Simi
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 8
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NITIAL O PINION OF STR S IN S IMI
Having measured residents’ opinions regarding the quality of life in Simi Valley, the survey tran- sitioned to the topic of short-term rentals—commonly referred to as short-term vacation rentals.

After defining short-term rental properties as private homes that are rented for less than 30 days at a time, often on a daily or weekly basis, the survey simply asked respondents which of the three opinions shown in Figure 6 best describes their own.

Overall, 12% of respondents indicated that short-term rentals should be allowed in Simi Valley and should not be regulated, whereas 58% felt that STRs should be allowed under certain condi- tions and should be regulated. Approximately one-quarter of respondent s (24%) were of the opinion that STRs should not be allowed in Simi Valley under any conditions, whereas 6% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.

Question 4 Next, I'd like to ask you questions about s hort-term rental properties - also known as short-term vacation rentals. To be clear, a short-term rental is a private home that is rented for less than 30 days at a time, often on a da ily or weekly basis. Which of the following best describes your opinion about short-term rental properties in Simi Valley? FIGURE 6 INITIAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN SIMI VALLEY Figures 7-9 show how initial opinions regarding STRs in Simi Valley varied across key subgroups.

Although opinions varied, it’s instructive that a majority of respondents in every subgroup were of the opinion that STRs should be allowed un der certain conditions and should be regulated.

This pattern was even found among respondents who reported experiencing problems with STRs in their neighborhood.

DK/NA

5.9 Should not be
allowed under
any conditions

23.8 Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated

58.2 Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated

12.1 177
Initial Opinion of STRs in Simi
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 9City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 7 INITIAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY YEARS IN SIMI VALLEY, HOMEOWNERSHIP STATUS &

SURVEY LANGUAGE
FIGURE 8 INITIAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY QUALITY OF LIFE, STR PROPERTY IN NEIGHBORHOOD,

EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS WITH STR & GENDER

15.6 10.5 13.1 12.8 6.9 10.1 12.4 8.6

54.7 59.1 56.9 54.3 68.0

75.2 58.4

56.4 19.6 26.3 23.9 27.6 17.8

7.8 23.7

24.0 2.5

10.0 4.1 6.0 5.3 7.3 6.8 5.5 11.1

6.8 70.8

19.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Live rent free w/ others
English Spanish
Years in Simi Valley (Q1) Homeownership Status (QD1) Survey Language % Respondents
DK/NA
Should not be
allowed under
any conditions
Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated
Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated

16.9 17.0 10.1 11.5 3.5

33.9 10.5 9.7 15.9

50.5 56.7

61.4 51.9

51.3 60.5

59.0 55.4

60.0 27.2

23.8 22.1

28.5 44.3

1.1 23.7 28.0

18.7 6.0 5.4 2.4 6.4 8.1 0.8 4.5 6.8 7.0 5.3

10.6 60.9

22.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Excellent,
good
Fair, poor,
very poor
Yes No Not sure Yes No None / Not
sure in
neigh-
borhood
Male Female
Quality of Life (Q2) STR Property in Neighborhood (QD4) Experienced Problems With STR (QD5) Gender % Respondents
DK/NA
Should not be
allowed under
any conditions
Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated
Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated
178
Initial Opinion of STRs in Simi
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 10City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 9 INITIAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY TYPE OF HOME & AGE REASONS FOR OPINION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS After identifying respondents’ initial opinions regarding STRs in Simi Valley in Question 4, Question 5 simply asked them if there was a particular reason for their positi on. Question 5 was presented in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to identify any reason(s) that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 10 on the next page. The answers are shown separately for those who felt STRs should be allowed and regulated (light green bars), not allowed under any conditions (red bars), or should be allowed and should not be regulated (dark green bars).

Among the majority (58%) who felt STRs should be allowed under certain conditions and should be regulated, the most commonly cited reasons for their position were related to availability of housing (22%), balancing property rights with limits (11%), requirements for rules, permitting, and accountability (10%), and mentions of community/neighborhood protection (10%). In other words, respondents in this group felt that STRs should be allowed, but focused on the need for limiting and regulating STRs.

Among the one-quarter of respondents who felt that STRs should not be allowed under any con- ditions, the most frequently cited reasons for their po sition were mentions of housing availabil- ity/affordability (9%) and concerns about the impact of STRs on neighborhood/community character (7%), noise, parties, and nuisance (4%), and community safety and crime (3%).

Finally, among the 12% of respondents who felt that STRs should be allowed and should not be regulated, most explained their position by refere ncing property rights and personal freedom (3%), identifying the benefits of STRs for local businesses and the local economy (3%), or indi- cated they had no preference/were indifferent (3%).

4.0 7.1 8.1

20.2 11.9 9.4 10.0 9.9

54.1 67.9

58.9 61.5

65.3 51.9 57.6 55.0

31.3 6.4 23.7

14.2 17.5

35.8 26.1 26.5

4.7 10.5

18.5 9.3 4.0 5.3 3.0 6.4 8.6

11.8 60.5

23.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Single family Townhome Condo Apartment 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Type of Home (QD2) Age
% Respondents
DK/NA
Should not be
allowed under
any conditions
Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated
Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated
179
Initial Opinion of STRs in Simi
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 11City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 5 Is there a particular reason why you feel short-term rentals <insert option selected from Q4 starting with 'should….>?
FIGURE 10 REASONS FOR POSITION ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN SIMI VALLEY 22 11
10 10
6 6
5 4
3 9
7 3
2 2
1 1
1 3
3 3
2 1
20 8
4 2
1 0 5 10 15 20 25
Housing availability concerns
Property rights with limits
Rules / Permits / Accountability
Community / Neighborhood protection
Economic / Tourism benefits
Prevent nuisances (Noise / Party issues)
Prevent overconcentration / Overuse
General benefit / Usefulness of STRs
No strong reason / Indifference
Balance between freedom and control
Housing availability / Affordability
Neighborhood / Community character
Noise / Parties / Nuisance
Safety / Crime concerns
Inappropriate commercial / Hotel use
Traffic / Parking issues
Overconcentration / Too many STRs
No strong reason / Indifference
General opposition / Dislikes
Property rights / Personal freedom
Economic / Business benefits
No strong reason / Indifference
Limited Government / Anti-regulation
Conditional support (with minor limits)
Personal experience / Familiarity
Not sure / No particular reason
Prefer not to answer
They should be allowed under certain
conditions and be regulated
They should not be allowed under
any conditions
They should be allowed
and should not be
regulated
% Respondents
180
Short-Term Rental Policy
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 12
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S HORT -T ERM R ENTAL P OLICY
The City of Simi Valley is considering a policy that would allow short-term rental properties in the city under certain conditions, including they have all necessary permits, business licenses and insurance, they follow 'good neighbor' rules rela ted to occupancy limits, safety, noise, and nui- sance, and they agree to regulations, monitori ng and performance stan dards. After informing respondents of the above, Question 6 asked they whether they generally support or oppose the proposed policy.

As shown in Figure 11 below, 63% of respondents indicated they strongly (34%) or somewhat support (29%) the policy as described in Questi on 6. One-third of respondents stated they strongly (25%) or somewhat oppose (8%) the policy, whereas 5% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.

Question 6 The City of Simi Valley is considering a policy that would allow short-term rental properties in the city under certain conditions, including they have all necessary permits, busi- ness licenses and insurance; they follow 'good neighbor' rules related to occupancy limits, safety, noise, and nuisance; and they agree to regulations, monitoring and performance standards. In general, do you support or oppose the policy just described? FIGURE 11 SUPPORT VS. OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED SHORT-TERM RENTAL POLICY SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 1 on the next page sh ows how support for the City’s proposed STR policy varied across key subgroups. The blue column (Approximate % of Voter Uni- verse) indicates the percentage of the voter universe that each subgroup category comprises, whereas the green column shows the percentage in each subgroup that supported the STR policy as described in Question 6. When compared to their respective counte rparts, support for the proposed policy was highest among individuals who currently live rent-free with others (89%), respondents who live in neighborhoods that have experienced problems with STRs (77%), indi- viduals living in condominiums (76%), those who completed the survey in Spanish (72%), and females (71%).

Strongly support

33.8 Somewhat
support

28.8 Somewhat
oppose

7.9 Strongly oppose

24.7 Not sure

4.3 Prefer not to
answer

TABLE 1 SUBGROUP BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL POLICY REGULATIONS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES Most respondents agreed that although STRs should be allowed in Simi Valley, they should also be subject to requirements and regulations. The objective of Question 7 was to present respondents with a short list of spe- cific requirements that could be part of the City’s STR policy and identify whether respondents generally favored or opposed each requirement fo r STRs in Simi Valley. The specific require- ments tested, as well as respondents’ reactions to the requirements, are shown in Figure 12 on the next page.

A majority of respondents favored imposing every requirement tested in Question 7. That said, support was strongest for requiring STRs to pa ss a building, fire, and safety code inspection (85%), permanently revoking per mits from properties that have a history of repeat violations (82%), and issuing mandatory fines for the owner of a short-term rental when there are verified violations and code complaints (78%). Approxima tely two-thirds of respondents favored limiting the number of short-term rentals allowed in a neighborhood (67%), while 59% favored limiting the number of guests in a STR to two adults per bedroom.

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely
Support % Not sure
Overall 100 62.6 4.3
Less than 5 16 67.0 0.0
5 to 9 15 68.4 3.2
10 to 14 7 67.3 1.1
15 or more 62 60.9 6.1
Excellent, good 75 64.8 3.6
Fair, poor, very poor 25 56.4 6.4
Own 69 61.2 3.1
Rent 23 62.5 4.2
Live rent free w/ others 9 89.3 0.0
Yes 18 65.5 2.4
No 61 65.3 3.7
Not sure 21 54.7 5.9
Yes 9 57.0 0.0
No 8 76.5 5.3
None / Not sure in neighborhood 83 62.5 4.2
Single family 80 65.5 3.9
Townhome 7 58.2 1.0
Condo 3 76.2 7.4
Apartment 11 57.7 3.5
18 to 29 19 68.3 4.5
30 to 39 18 67.5 4.0
40 to 49 14 48.7 3.8
50 to 64 22 65.3 6.8
65 or older 26 60.4 2.5
Male 52 58.2 4.3
Female 48 71.4 3.3
English 93 61.9 4.0
Spanish 7 72.3 8.9
Gender
Survey Language
Age
Type of Home (QD2)
Years in Simi Valley (Q1)
Homeownership Status
(QD1)
STR Property in
Neighborhood (QD4)
Experienced Problems
With STR (QD5)
Quality of Life (Q2)
182
Short-Term Rental Policy
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 14City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 7 As part of the policy, short-term rental pr operties could be subject to a variety of requirements. As I read the following list of requirements, please indicate whether you would favor or oppose this requirement for short-term rental properties in Simi Valley.

FIGURE 12 SUPPORT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS

84.6 81.9

78.2 66.8

59.4 7.4

8.2 8.0

16.4 20.3

8.0 10.0

13.8 16.7

20.4 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
The property must pass a building, fire, and safety code inspection
Permanently revoking permits from properties that have a history of repeat violations
Issuing mandatory fines for the owner of a short-term rental when there are verified violations, code complaints
Limiting the number of short-term rentals allowed in a
neighborhood
The number of guests is limited to a maximum of two adults per bedroom
Q7aQ7eQ7dQ7cQ7b
% Respondents
Favor Oppose DK/NA
183
Related Opinions
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 15
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

R ELATED O PINIONS
As the City of Simi Valley deliberates on the proposed STR ordinance, residents will likely be exposed to different statements about STRs and their impacts in the community. Proponents of STRs will present arguments to persuade Council and the community as to the merits of STRs, while opponents will likely share their concerns about the negative impacts of STRs. Recognizing that the City’s consideration of a STR policy may engender future discussion and debate regard- ing the topic, the objective of Question 8 was to expose respondents to the types of statements they may encounter about STRs—both positive and critical—to understand how the statements may align with respondents’ current opinions. Ques tion 8 also served an instrumental purpose in ensuring that respondents hear “both sides” of the STR debate before being asked their final opinion about whether STRs should be allowed in Simi Valley, and under what conditions.

For each of the statements show n on the left of Figure 13, respondents were simply asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with th e statement. For all but one of the statements tested, a majority of respondents agreed with th e statement—indicating that Simi Valley resi- dents often see both sides of the STR debate. Overall, respondents expressed the highest level of agreement that If someone owns a property, they should have the right to rent it on a long- term or short-term basis (69%), People who vacation here provide a much-needed boost to our local economy, stores, restaurants, and businesses (64%), and The taxes paid by people who visit Simi Valley help pay for the things we need including road repair, parks, and public safety (62%).

A majority also agreed that Most short-term rental owners are responsible people - there are just a few bad apples (58%).

Question 8 People have expressed different views about short-term rentals in Simi Valley. As I read the following statements, I'd like to know whether you agree or disagree with each state- ment.

FIGURE 13 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS

36.6 27.2

25.5 35.1

25.5 32.7

30.9 24.9

32.3 36.6

36.4 23.6

32.8 25.5

24.6 13.0

14.8 17.6

14.5 10.3

14.0 11.4

13.6 12.4

4.2 8.9

14.1 15.4

17.1 11.8

8.3 32.2

12.1 9.7

9.5 15.6

10.6 18.6

22.7 17.6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
If someone owns a property, they should have the right to rent it on a long-term or short-term basis
People who vacation here provide a much-needed boost to local economy , stores, restaurants, businesses
The taxes paid by people who visit Simi Valley help pay for the things we need including road repair, parks, public safety
It’s already hard to find affordable housing in Simi Valley; allowing short-term rentals will make it even harder
Most short-term rental owners are responsible people, there are just a few bad apples
Short-term rentals cause a lot of problems including overcrowding, noise, parking issues
Short-term rentals hurt the quality of life in a neighborhood by creating a revolving door of tourists
City will lose money with policy; will cost more to permit, monitor, regulate short-term rentals than City will receive from permit fees, taxes Q8cQ8aQ8bQ8fQ8dQ8eQ8gQ8h
% Respondents
Strongly agree Smwt agree Sm wt disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA 184
Related Opinions
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 16City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Although positive statements related to STRs ten ded to have higher levels of agreement, state- ments that focused on potential negative impacts of STRs also resonated. A majority of respon- dents agreed that It's already hard to find affordable housing in Simi Valley. Allowing short-term rentals will make it even harder (59%), Short-term rentals cause a lot of problems including over- crowding, noise, and parking issues (58%), and Short-term rentals hurt the quality of life in a neighborhood by creating a revolving door of tourists (56%). That said, less than four-in-ten respondents agreed with the statement This City will lose money with this policy. It will cost more to permit, monitor and regulate short-term rentals than the City will receive from permit fees and taxes (38%).
185
Final Opinion of STRs in Simi
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 17
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F INAL O PINION OF STR S IN S IMI
Public opinion about policy issues is often not ri gid, especially for topics that some residents may not have considered at any depth to this point. After providing respondents with a summary of the proposed STR policy, potential requirements and regulations for STRs, as well as exposing them to both positive and negative statements about STRs and their impact in a community, the survey again asked respondents which of the statements shown in Figure 14 best matches their own.

Question 9 Sometimes people change their mind about a topic once they have more informa- tion about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about short-term rental properties, which of the following best describes your opinion about short-term rental properties in Simi Valley? FIGURE 14 FINAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN SIMI VALLEY At this point in the survey, the percentage
who felt STRs should be allowed and should
not be regulated declined to 8%, while the
percentage who felt STRs should be allowed
under certain conditions and be regulated
increased to 64%. The percentage of respon-
dents who felt STRs should not be allowed
under any conditions remained steady at
24%, with approximately 5% being unsure or
unwilling to share their opinion
For the interested reader, figures 15-17
show how respondents’ positions on STRs in
Simi Valley varied across subgroups at the
conclusion of the interview.

FIGURE 15 FINAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY YEARS IN SIMI VALLEY, HOMEOWNERSHIP STATUS &

SURVEY LANGUAGE
Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated

7.8 Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated

63.5 Should not be
allowed under
any conditions

24.1 DK/NA

4.6 7.0 1.2

9.0 7.8 5.5 5.1 8.0 5.7

63.5 65.7

62.3 60.6 68.4

80.4 62.6

76.0 22.3 28.2 24.8 28.3 17.3

9.5 24.8

13.5 5.1 7.2 4.8 4.0 3.4 8.8 5.1 4.6 4.8

7.4 72.3

15.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Live rent free w/ others
English Spanish
Years in Simi Valley (Q1) Homeownership Status (QD1) Survey Language % Respondents
DK/NA
Should not be
allowed under
any conditions
Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated
Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated
186
Final Opinion of STRs in Simi
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 18City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 16 FINAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY QUALITY OF LIFE, STR PROPERTY IN NEIGHBORHOOD,

EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS WITH STR & GENDER
FIGURE 17 FINAL OPINION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY TYPE OF HOME & AGE

10.7 8.4 6.4 8.3 1.0

17.6 6.9 9.1 6.8

57.4 62.3 66.0 58.6

52.7 74.3

64.1 58.3 68.9

27.1 23.7 22.7 29.6

41.8 0.7

24.5 28.1 19.2

4.6 4.8 5.6 5.0 3.5 4.5 7.3 4.6 4.5 5.0

6.9 65.7

22.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Excellent,
good
Fair, poor,
very poor
Y e sN o N o t s u r e Y e sN o N o n e / N o t
sure in
neigh-
borhood
Male Female
Quality of Life (Q2) STR Property in Neighborhood (QD4) Experienced Problems With STR (QD5) Gender % Respondents
DK/NA
Should not be
allowed under
any conditions
Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated
Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated

4.4 2.7

9.8 10.0 6.7 7.9 6.5 8.1

55.0 74.0 58.3

66.9 75.0

58.9 63.6 55.6

36.6 9.6 22.4

14.2 17.6

28.4 25.7 31.7

4.2 4.1

13.7 9.5 8.8

0.7 4.9 4.2 4.6

7.3 65.1

23.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Single family Townhome Condo Apartment 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Type of Home (QD2) Age
% Respondents
DK/NA
Should not be
allowed under
any conditions
Should be
allowed under
certain
conditions, be
regulated
Should be
allowed, should
not be regulated
187
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 19
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C HANGE IN S UPPORT
Table 2 provides a closer look at how support for allowing STRs under certain conditions and regulations changed over the course of the survey by calculating the difference in support between the Initial Test (Question 4) and Final Test (Question 9) within various subgroups of respondents. The percentage of support for allowi ng STRs under certain conditions and regula- tions at the Final Test (Question 9) is shown in the column with the heading % Should be Allowed, Regulated. The column to the right shows the dire ction and magnitude of change when com- pared to the Initial Test (Question 4). Positive differences appear in green, negative differences appear in red.

TABLE 2 CHANGE IN SUPPORT FOR ALLOWING & REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN SIMI VALLEY BY SUBGROUP Over the course of the survey, all subgroups wi th the exception of one (those living in apart- ments) exhibited an increase in support for allowing STRs in Simi Valley under certain conditions and provided that they are su bject to regulations—averaging +5% overall. The largest net increases in support for this position were found among those who completed the survey in Spanish (+20%), individuals who indicated they had one or more STRs in their neighborhood but had not experienced problems (+14%), respondents age 30 to 39 (+10%), females (+9%), and those who had lived in the City of Simi Valley between 10 to 14 years (+9%).

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Should be
Allowed,
Regulated
Change From
Initial Test (Q4)
Overall 100 63.5 +5.3
Less than 5 16 72.3 +1.5
5 to 9 15 63.5 +8.8
10 to 14 7 65.7 +6.6
15 or more 62 62.3 +5.4
Excellent, good 75 65.7 +4.7
Fair, poor, very poor 25 57.4 +6.9
Own 69 60.6 +6.2
Rent 23 68.4 +0.4
Live rent free w/ others 9 80.4 +5.1
Yes 18 62.3 +5.6
No 61 66.0 +4.5
Not sure 21 58.6 +6.7
Yes 9 52.7 +1.3
No 8 74.3 +13.7
None / Not sure in neighborhood 83 64.1 +5.1
Single family 80 65.1 +4.6
Townhome 7 55.0 +0.9
Condo 3 74.0 +6.1
Apartment 11 58.3 -0.7
18 to 29 19 66.9 +5.4
30 to 39 18 75.0 +9.7
40 to 49 14 58.9 +7.0
50 to 64 22 63.6 +6.0
65 or older 26 55.6 +0.6
Male 52 58.3 +2.9
Female 48 68.9 +8.9
English 93 62.6 +4.2
Spanish 7 76.0 +19.6Survey Language
Experienced Problems
With STR (QD5)
Type of Home (QD2)
Age
Gender
Years in Simi Valley (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Homeownership Status
(QD1)
STR Property in
Neighborhood (QD4)
188
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 20
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 3 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
In addition to questions directly related to STRs, the study collected basic demographic information about respon-
dents and their households. Some of this information was gathered during the interview, although much of it was col- lected from the voter file. The profile of the Simi Valley voter sample represented in this report is shown to the left in Table 3.

Total Respondents 670
Years in Simi Valley (Q1)
Less than 5 16.0
5 to 9 15.0
10 to 14 6.7
15 or more 61.0
Prefer not to answer 1.3
Homeownership Status (QD1)
Own 62.3
Rent 20.6
Live rent free w/ others 7.8
Prefer not to answer 9.2
Type of Home (QD2)
Single family 72.8
Townhome 6.2
Condo 2.4
Apartment 9.9
Prefer not to answer 8.7
STR Property in Neighborhood (QD4)
Yes 17.4
No 59.1
Not sure 20.5
Prefer not to answer 3.0
Experienced Problems With STR (QD5)
Yes 8.8
No 7.8
None / Not sure in neighborhood 79.6
Prefer not to answer 3.7
Gender
Male 48.2
Female 45.0
Non-binary 0.5
Prefer not to answer 6.3
Party
Democrat 31.9
Republican 37.2
Other / DTS 31.0
Age
18 to 29 18.8
30 to 39 18.2
40 to 49 14.2
50 to 64 22.4
65 or older 26.4
Registration Year
Since June 2016 47.2
Before June 2016 52.8
Household Party Type
Single dem 14.1
Dual dem 8.2
Single rep 14.8
Dual rep 13.9
Other 24.2
Mixed 24.8
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 59.5
No 40.5
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 80.3
No 19.7
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
Yes 75.5
No 24.5
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Yes 34.2
No 65.8
Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
Yes 25.2
No 74.8
Survey Language
English 93.2
Spanish 6.8
189
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 21
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Based on background do cuments provided by the City (staff reports and draft STR ordinance), Dr . McLarney of True North Research developed a questionnaire that covered the topics of inte rest and avoided possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because ask- ing the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.

Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only individuals who re ported they know of residential properties in their neighbor- hood that are being rented on a short-term basi s (Question D4) were asked if they have experi- enced any problems with the ST Rs in their neighborhood (Question D5). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 24) identifi es the skip patterns and programming instructions used in the survey to ensure each respondent received the appro- priate questions.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the ques- tionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interview- ers when conducting telephone interviews. Th e CATI program automatically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question item s, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also pr ogrammed into a passcode- protected online survey application to allow onlin e participation. The inte grity of the question- naire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into households in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. Once finalized, the questionnaire was professionally translated into Spanish to allow for data collection in English and Spanish.

SAMPLE The survey was conducted using a stratifi ed and clustered random sample of adult residents drawn from the universe of registered voters in the City of Simi Valley. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified by age, gender, location, and party affilia- tion within the City, and clusters were created to represent specific profiles on these attributes.

Individuals were then randomly selected based on their demographic profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile is unreachable or prefers to not participate in the survey, they are replaced by an individual with a similar profile. It also ensures that the final sample is balanced propor tionately by key demographics and is represen- tative of all voters in the city.

STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design noted above, True North ensured that the final sample was representative of voters in the City of Simi Valley. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters in the city. Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 670 respondents for a partic ular question and what 190
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 22City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
would have been found if all 85,771 registered vo ters in Simi Valley had been surveyed for the study.

Figure 18 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage re sult occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% prov ide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.8%.

FIGURE 18 MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING @ 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL Within this report, figures and tables show ho w responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as age, gender, and partisan affilia tion. Figure 18 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ- uals asked a question (or in a particular subgro up) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Te lephone interviews averaged 16 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is stan- dard practice not to call during the day on we ekdays because most working adults are unavail- able and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample.

Voters recruited via email and text were assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only individ- uals who received an invitation could access the online survey site, an d that each individual could complete the survey only one time. During the data collection period, email reminder notices were also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. A total of 670 surveys were completed between April 9 and April 14, 2026. 670 Respondents
± 3.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
191
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 23City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and cross- tabulations.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question. 192
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 24
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 1
City of Simi Valley
Short Term Rental Policy Survey
Final Toplines (n=670)
April 2026
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Simi (SEE-Mee) Valley. Were conducting a confidential survey of voters about important issues in the city and Id like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.

Section 2: Quality of Life
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in Simi Valley.

Q1 How long have you lived in Simi Valley?
1 Less than 1 year 4%
2 1 to 4 years 12 %
3 5 to 9 years 15 %
4 10 to 14 years 7%
5 15 years or longer 61 %
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Simi Valley? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 18%
2 Good 58%
3 Fair 20%
4 Poor 4%
5 Very poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make Simi Valley a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 14%
Limit growth, devel opment 12%
Improve shopping, di ning opportunities 11%
193
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 25City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Simi Valley Short Term Rental Policy Survey April 2026 True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 2
No changes needed / Everything is fine 10 %
Provide rec activities, events, for all ages 9%
Enforce traffic laws 6%
Address homeless issues 6%
Improve infrastructure, streets, roads 6%
Improve parks, rec facilities 6%
Improve public safety 5%
Clean up, beautify City 5%
Support small, local businesses 5%
Improve Town Center 5%
Support, encourage economic growth 5%
Provide more affordable housing 3%
Fix, upgrade rundown buildings 3%
Provide more nightlife 3%
Address racism, discrimination issues 3%
Reduce traffic congestion 2%
Improve City Council, Gov process 2%
Improve street lighting 2%
Provide, improve hospitals, healthcare
options 2%

Section 3: Initial Opinion - STRs
Next, Id like to ask you questions about short-term rental properties also known as short- term vacation rentals. To be clear, a short-term rental is a private home that is rented for less than 30 days at a time, often on a daily or weekly basis.

Q4 Which of the following best describes your opinion about short-term rental properties in Simi Valley?
1 They should be allowed and should not
be regulated 12% Ask Q5
2 They should be allowed under certain
conditions and be regulated 58% Ask Q5
3 They should not be allowed under any
conditions 24% Ask Q5
98 Not sure 5% Skip to Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q6
194
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 26City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Simi Valley Short Term Rental Policy Survey April 2026 True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 3
Q5
Is there a particular reason why you feel short-term rentals <insert option selected from Q4 starting with should
.>? If yes, ask: Please describe your reason. Verbatim
responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below, separated by response at Q4.

Shoul d be allowed and should not be regulated
Property rig hts / Personal freedom 3%
Econom ic / Business benefits 3%
No str ong reason / Indifference 3%
Limit ed Government / Anti-regulation 2%
Personal ex perience / Familiarity 1%
Conditi onal support (with minor limits) 1%
Shoul d be allowed under certain conditions and be regulated Housing availability concerns 22%
Property rig hts with limits 11%
Com munity / Neighborhood protection 10%
Rules / Permits / Accountability 10%
Prevent nuisances (Noise / Party issues) 6%
Econom ic / Tourism benefits 6%
Prevent overconcentration / Overuse 5%
General b enefit / Usefulness of STRs 4%
No str ong reason / Indifference 3%
Balance between freedom and control 2%
Shoul d not be allowed under any conditions
Housing availability / Affordability 9%
Neighbor hood / Community character 7%
Noise / Parti es / Nuisance 4%
Safe ty / Crime concerns 3%
Traffic / Par king issues 2%
Inappropria te commercial / Hotel use 2%
Overconcentration / Too many STRs 1%
General oppositi on / Dislikes 1%
No str ong reason / Indifference 1%
Not sure / No particular reason 20%
Prefer not to answer 8%
195
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 27City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Simi Valley Short Term Rental Policy Survey April 2026 True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 4
Section 4: STR Policy
Q6
The City of Simi Valley is considering a policy that would allow short-term rental properties in the city under certain conditions, including:
o They have all necessary permits, business licenses and insurance o They follow good neighbor rules related to occupancy limits, safety, noise, and nuisance
o And they agree to regulations, monitoring and performance standards In general, do you support or oppose the policy just described? Get answer, if support or oppose ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)? 1 Strongly support 34%
2 Somewhat support 29%
3 Somewhat oppose 8%
4 Strongly oppose 25%
98 Not sure 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q7
As part of the policy, short-term rental properties could be subject to a variety of requirements.

As I read the following list of requirements, please indicate whether you would favor or oppose this requirement for short-term rental properties in Simi Valley.

Ra ndomize
Favor
Oppose
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A The property must pass a building, fire, and
safety code inspection 85% 7% 4% 4%
B The number of guests is limited to a
maximum of two (2) adults per bedroom 59% 20% 16% 5%
C Limiting the number of short-term rentals
allowed in a neighborhood 67% 16% 12% 4%
D
Issuing mandatory fines for the owner of a
short-term rental when there are verified
violations and code complaints
78% 8% 10% 4%
E
Permanently revoking permits from
properties that have a history of repeat
violations
82% 8% 6% 4%
196
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 28City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Simi Valley Short Term Rental Policy Survey April 2026 True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 5
Section 5: Related Opinions
Q8
People have expressed different views about short-term rentals in Simi Valley. As I read the following statements, Id like to know whether you agree or disagree with each statement.

Here is the (first/next) one:_____. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Ra ndomize
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A
People who vacation here provide a much-
needed boost to our local economy, stores,
restaurants, and businesses.
27%
37% 10% 18% 7% 2%
B
The taxes paid by people who visit Simi
Valley help pay for the things we need
including road repair, parks, and public
safety
26%
36% 10% 14% 13% 1%
C
If someone owns a property, they should
have the right to rent it on a long-term or
short-term basis.
37% 32% 12% 15% 2% 2%
D
Most short-term rental owners are
responsible people there are just a few
bad apples.
25%
33% 11% 14% 15% 2%
E
Short-term rentals cause a lot of problems
including overcrowding, noise, and parking
issues.
33%
25% 19% 11% 10% 1%
F
Its already hard to find affordable housing
in Simi Valley. Allowing short-term rentals
will make it even harder.
35%
24% 16% 10% 14% 2%
G
Short-term rentals hurt the quality of life in
a neighborhood by creating a revolving
door of tourists.
31% 25% 23% 14% 7% 1%
H
This City will lose money with this policy. It
will cost more to permit, monitor and
regulate short-term rentals than the City
will receive from permit fees and taxes.
25%
13% 18% 12% 30% 2%
197
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 29City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 6: Final Opinion - STRs
Q9
Sometimes people change their mind about a topic once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about short-term rental properties, which of the following best describes your opinion about short-term rental properties in Simi Valley?
1 They should be allowed and should not
be regulated 8%
2 They should be allowed under certain
conditions and be regulated 64%
3 They should not be allowed under any
conditions 24%
98 Not sure 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Section 7: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 Do you own or rent your residence in Simi Valley?
1 Own 62%
2 Rent 21%
3 Live rent free with others 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 9%
D2 Which of the following best describes your home?
1 Detached, single family residence 73%
2 Townhome 6%
3 Condominium 2%
4 Apartment 10%
5 Mobile home 1%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 7%
D3 Do you currently own residential property in the City that you rent to others on a short- term basis?
1 Yes 1%
2 No 93%
99 Prefer not to answer 6%
198
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 30City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D4 Do you know of any residential properties in your neighborhood that are being rented on a short-term basis?
1 Yes 17% Ask D5
2 No 59% Skip to End
98 Not sure 21% Skip to End
99 Prefer not to answer 3% Skip to End
D5 Have you experienced any problems associated with the short-term rental properties in your neighborhood?
1 Yes 51%
2 No 45%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey.

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 48%
2 Female 45%
3 Non-binary 1%
4 Prefer not to answer 6%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 32%
2 Republican 37%
3 Other 10%
4 DTS 21%
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 19%
2 30 to 39 18%
3 40 to 49 14%
4 50 to 64 22%
5 65 or older 26%
199
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 31City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Simi Valley Short Term Rental Policy Survey April 2026 True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 8
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2020 27%
2 Jun 2016 to before Nov 2020 20%
3 Jun 2012 to before Jun 2016 7%
4 Before June 2012 45%
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 14%
2 Dual Dem 8%
3 Single Rep 15%
4 Dual Rep 14%
5 Single Other 16%
6 Dual Other 9%
7 Dem & Rep 7%
8 Dem & Other 12%
9 Rep & Other 5%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 1%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 59%
2 No 41%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 80%
2 No 20%
S8 Likely November 2026 Voter
1 Yes 76%
2 No 24%
S9 Likely June 2026 Voter
1 Yes 34%
2 No 66%
200
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 32City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S10 Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
1 Yes 25%
2 No 75%
S11 Survey Language
1 English 93%
2 Spanish 7%

Simi Valley City CouncilMay 11, 2026

Simi Valley City Council
May 11, 2026