Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to I get to use the gavel. Uh the planning commission meeting of March 4th, 2026 will come to order. All rise for the pledge of allegiance. Remove your hats. Thank you. Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All right, roll call. Will the secretary please call the roll? Commissioner Mann. Here. Commissioner Tolson. Commissioner Chrisman. Here. Vice Chairperson Rice.

Here. Chairperson Kennedy. Here. [snorts]

Uh approval of the agenda. May I have a motion for the approval of the agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. I'll second it. I have a motion which made by uh Commissioner Chrisman and was seconded by Commissioner Mann. Unless there are any objection, the agenda stands approved. All right, approval of the minutes. State You know, I'm going to read this state part. Okay. Next item, item five, approval of the minutes. May I have a motion for approval of the meeting minutes of January 21st, 2026. I motion to approve the minutes of the meeting from January 21st, 2026. I hear a second? I'll second. I motion was made by Commissioner Mann and is second by Commissioner Chrisman. Unless there are any objections, the minutes are approved. Minutes stand approved. The secretary will now read the declaration of conflict. If any member of the planning commission may have a conflict of interest or any reason why that member must abstain from consideration of any member any matter on this agenda, he or she should declare at this time. Uh seeing none, we'll move on to public statements. Next item, item seven, public statements. This is the time allotted for public statements or comments on all items other than public hearing items. If there's anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard, each speaker may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes.

Okay, seeing none. Uh next item is item eight, correspondence. Is there any correspondence from the deputy director or city planner? Yes, Chairman Kennedy, members of the commission. We provided to you and the public a supplemental staff report regarding agenda items 5, 7, and 11 A1. The report is provided to you at your desk and provided in the lobby for viewing. Thank you. Consent calendar, next item. Item number nine, consent calendar. At this time, there are no items on the consent calendar. Next item, item 10, continued business. I believe there's no continued business this time. That brings us to new business. Item number [clears throat] 11, new business. Item number 11 A1, public hearing. This is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of Z as Let me do the dash. Z-S-2025-0006 to consider recommending to the city council adoption of Simi Valley Municipal Code amendments to regulate short-term rentals in residential zones. Are there any ex parte communications to report? Uh yes. I have spoken with several people. I can go ahead and name them regarding their positions against STRs. Do I need to name them? I don't think so. Titles? Not necessary, but if there's just the substance, if you could summarize the

basis to inform your colleagues of Uh just several people that I work with and that I know on a personal level have just called me to express their uh that they're against short-term rentals in Simi Valley. That's all. Thank you, Commissioner Mann. I too have spoken to quite a few people that I know from my private life also, anywhere that we associate ourselves with and business and and uh Rotary. Uh the major the consensus was that we should deny uh the short-term rentals uh and I got one voice that we should allow them. Uh I also uh had a call from uh one of the neighborhood council um chairman on short-term rentals and kind of relate to me what went on at that uh neighborhood council meeting. Uh I've also spoke to the guys I have coffee with every morning and uh long-term residents of Simi Valley here about uh some of their neighborhoods and and short-term rentals and uh also talked to uh a friend of the family that actually had a short-term rental for about a year here. He was uh transferred to Phoenix temporarily for work and used his house here as a short-term and some of his experiences. That's all I have on that. Uh may we have an oral report on this matter by staff? Yes, Chairperson Kennedy, members of the Planning Commission. Uh this is the item to consider short-term rentals. It would be a recommendation to the city council for um final consideration. Our principal planner, Arnold Gonzales Caceres, is here and associate planner, Alex Lingman, is here for the presentation. Alex. Good evening, planning commissioners. Tonight, we will we will be reviewing short-term rentals and the direction that city council has given staff um regarding potential regulations.

In 2024, City Council began to consider options for regulating STRs following concerns raised about a home that was being used as a short-term rental in the community. Short-term rentals are private residences that are rented out for a period of less than 30 days. There are two types of STRs, hosted or unhosted. A hosted STR is when the property owner lives on site and typically will rent out a room or a portion of the home. An unhosted STR is when the owner is not present during the guest's stay and the guest can rent out the entire home. These rentals are commonly advertised on platforms such as Airbnb, HomeAway, and VRBO. And when staff reviewed these platforms, approximately 100 listings were identified within the city. At this time, the city does not regulate short-term rentals, meaning STRs are not formally defined in the municipal code, and the city does not issue permits for their operation. Common concerns about STRs are related to noise, parking, and safety impacts on neighborhoods. The city received three complaints last year and one in 2024 related to STRs. Staff also receives occasional inquiries at the counter, mostly from prospective operators seeking clarification about the city's regulations. City Council has considered STR regulations on multiple occasions. After the first discussion in November of 2024, the council revisited the topic again in August of 2025 and directed staff to return after the adoption of Senate Bill 346. This bill was passed in October of 2025 and requires STR platforms to share data with cities, but only if they have an ordinance in place.

Under SB 346, the city may be able to audit online platforms and impose penalties for unpermitted STRs. Most recently, on December 15th of 2025, staff presented a draft ordinance to the city council. The council made modifications and then directed staff to present the ordinance to neighborhood councils and finally to Planning Commission for input. Regulating STRs within the city will require changes to titles 3, 5, and 9 [snorts] of the municipal code. Title 3 would facilitate the collection of business taxes and transient occupancy taxes. Title 5 would establish permitting requirements and performance standards. And title 9 would add STRs as a residential land use in the zoning code. While the Planning Commission's purview this evening is limited to the proposed amendments to title 9, staff requests feedback on the standards of title 5. Final action on titles 3 and 5 will be taken by the city council as part of consideration of the final ordinance. The proposed title 9 amendments would formally add STRs as a permitted use within residential zones. STRs would be allowed in single-family homes, certain ADUs, town homes, and condos held in separate ownership. They would not be permitted in apartments or any units that state law requires to be rented for longer than a period of 30 days, such as state-exempt ADUs. They would also not be permitted in garages, accessory structures, vehicles, or vacant land.

And again, staff is requesting your feedback on the title 5 performance standards, which would establish a permitting and operational framework for these STRs. Under title 5, a city permit would be required to operate a short-term rental and would be limited to one per person and would expire annually. Permit applications require payment of fees as set by City Council, a business tax certificate, and proof of liability insurance. Title 5 also includes procedures for approval, denial, suspension, or revocation. Also, each STR would be required to maintain a nuisance response plan, which essentially provides three contacts available to respond to complaints within 30 minutes at any time. For unhosted STRs, this notice must be mailed to property owners within 200 ft upon permit issuance or renewal. Performance standards would ensure compliance with fire, building, and safety codes. Occupancy would be limited to two adults and two children per bedroom. Guest vehicles would not be permitted to park in the street or on the street. Exterior noise monitoring devices would be required to ensure compliance with the city's noise ordinance. And loud or unruly gatherings or paid events would be prohibited. The city has existing civil enforcement tools within title 1 of the municipal code, and the City Council may choose to amend those procedures under their purview. Prior to the meeting tonight, the proposed ordinance was reviewed by all four neighborhood councils. All voted against it with three recommending a total ban. Their main concerns were about

neighborhood compatibility, enforcement challenges and costs, corporate ownership, lack of caps on the number of STRs in the city, and parking and safety impacts. As a result, they suggested stricter occupancy limits, an annual STR permit cap, and pre-permit inspections. And if the Planning Commission or City Council chooses to provide direction based on this feedback, potential modifications could include enforcing an eight-person maximum occupancy, which would be in line with Ventura County regulations, requiring inspections prior to permit issuance and renewal, or amending the development code to prohibit STRs in residential zones completely. A frequent question during the meetings was how STRs work in communities that are governed by HOAs. It's important to clarify that the adoption of a city ordinance to regulate STRs does not override private HOA restrictions or CC&Rs. Property owners are responsible for complying with their HOA rules. So, if an HOA prohibits STRs, the owner must comply regardless of city approval. Enforcement of HOA regulations is a private matter and the city does not intervene. To approve the proposed ordinance, it must meet required findings for a code amendment pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 9-73. Staff has determined that the ordinance meets the required findings and it that's detailed in the resolution. Just to reiterate, the Planning Commission's purview tonight is for the changes to Title 9. However, we're seeking your suggestions on the standards that are proposed for Title 5.

And with that, the Planning Commission may make the following recommendations to City Council. The first being adoption of the proposed ordinance. Second, denial of the ordinance and take no further action. Third is denial of the ordinance and establish a citywide ban on STRs. Or fourth would be an adoption of the ordinance with suggested modifications. And this concludes staff's presentation. We are available for any questions. Uh any questions from Oh, they're already in the queue. Um Ms. Klingman, [clears throat] do we have any idea and we probably don't, but do we have any idea how many STRs are hosted versus unhosted? No, we don't have that data.

Uh for the current STRs in the city? No, we don't have that data. Um and are any of those STRs located in affordable housing? [snorts] We don't have that data either, but something we could potentially look into. Okay, thank you. Chair Chair-person Chrisman, yes. Uh you are the chairperson. Oh, sorry. [laughter and gasps] You were the last

you for that. Um what are certain ADUs that would be allowed? So, um per state law, state exempt ADUs, which are 800 square feet or less, they require an occupancy of 30 days or greater. So, ADUs outside of that realm, basically greater than 800 square feet, um would 80 they would be allowed to be STRs. Per the draft of the ordinance, uh it says one one house or one one property per owner. What if they have a primary house and an ADU detached that would fall under two different uh categories? How would that be regulated, if at all? You'd be issued one um STR permit per owner, so that should be that would be one

both, but they cannot rent them both individually. Meaning if they have an ADU in the backyard, could they rent uh the house and ADU together as an Airbnb or VRBO? I guess if it's part of one property, they get one permit per property, not per unit, I guess. Yeah, it's one permit per property. Um so, I guess you could technically rent both. However, we we are suggesting that eight-person cap, so Um when they have when they have 30 minutes to address the nuisance complaint, who is that complaint going to?

[clears throat]

So, complaints can come from surrounding neighbors and they as we mentioned for unhosted STRs, surrounding neighbors within 200 feet get the contacts of three people that they can contact directly. Um but complaint people who are making the complaint are also able to contact the city if they're not receiving um action within that 30 minutes. So, What I'm trying to understand is basically enforcement is firstly put put on the neighbors, not necessarily the city. Unless someone calls the city first. Um And what would be the enforcement after hours or weekends? PD. Okay. How it is now as well. Mm. Uh It says here uh do do we have anything about how many STRs uh can be in a radius as a part of the ordinance? Not as Oxnard, I saw that they have it. Not as currently proposed. I might have more questions, but somebody else go ahead. Tag onto the radius question. Is that a density issue, how many In Oxnard, there is ordinance in place that it can only be one within 200 feet. So, it is a density issue then. Okay. My question is is it one permit per owner or one permit per property? It's Go ahead. It's per owner. So, if an owner owns two properties, he only can Airbnb one of them? As proposed. What if it's a LLC that owns multiple properties? The same thing, just one per LLC, one per But there's nothing that would prevent one owner from having 10 properties in 10 different LLCs all having Airbnbs. Okay.

Uh I'll tag onto that question. Um If the ordinance restricts STR permits to individual property owners, what process will the city use to uh verify uh beneficial ownership and prevent properties from being placed into corporate or LLC structures to avoid the rule? So, the city doesn't regulate private property ownership. So, really what's in place is the permitting standards of just restricting it to one person per permit or one permit per person, I should say. Uh so, that that person could be an LLC or a business entity at this time. The definition If I could interject, just to clarify, so um the definition of a person, everyone loves legal definitions, includes a um a natural person and an entity. So, if you have Acme Corporation that pulls in one permit, then Acme Corporation would be limited to that one person permit. However, if you have Acme LLC, then that particular other business entity could get another permit. Or if you have Suzy Jones, that natural person could get one permit. So, when we're talking about limitations to one person, it's one per natural person, one per entity as well. So, let me make sure I understand that, cuz one of the questions that I heard earlier was the dark money or large corporations coming in buying up properties uh for short-term rental purposes. So, in that scenario, they would only be able to do one under that Blackstone entity and not multiple properties. I'll interject to say, yeah, it depends on the form. This isn't to say that

[snorts]

business entities do not use and people that we know when they hold property or doing investments, they might have a holding company as an LLC that does one thing. They might have a similarly named uh uh LLC that does another thing. So, um there it is limited per entity as they register in Delaware or California, but outside of that limitation to that specific LLC, corporation, um partnership, outside of that, there's nothing preventing another entity from getting another permit, if that makes sense. So, Kind of. Okay, so Alan Mann can form 10 LLCs, each with a different name, different everything. I can now get 10 permits in our city under this proposed plan. One person, 10 LLCs, cuz each property is owned by its own LLC. Correct? Yes. I mean, there's lim- there's the extent of how much documentation we asked from an owner and the the the the the ordinance has a bit of uh it's open-ended in terms of what additional documentation we can req- request from an owner. Well, they would just show you a grant deed that says it's owned with, you know, LLC.

Yeah, I mean, but there's I mean, if if and I I have some experience with this on the private side. Um you can you can request uh like the the the incorporation documents and things like that. And if they have the same signatory, you can kind of pierce that corporate veil sometimes. But it depends on how much we'll have to do that for every single permit and that's I guess the question is, what is our what is our city going to ask? Are they're just asking for a deed? Are they asking for corporate resolutions? And is there something in our in our ordinance that's going to say corporations cannot have or one owner cannot have multiple LLCs? I don't think we can include that in our ordinance. So, the ordinance would be each LLC Generally, we would have the applicant and we would confirm that with the the county tax records that we have to confirm the ownership and that that's the extent. So. But but can't you limit um an STR to somebody's primary residence as well? They do that in some cities. So, that that person has to live on that property for a certain number of days each year, but they're allowed to use it as an STR for a certain number of days. I think that would prevent um an LLC, wouldn't it? I mean That's That is another approach that some cities take. Um they might say it needs to be your primary residence and you can live there you have to live there 180 days, 200 days, pick a number. Um which means that a natural person has to live there for that particular time. So, that that's a mechanism to to side step the the gamesmanship we're talking about. Isn't primary residence more than 6 months? Uh it depends on on the framework. That's often one it it can be defined different ways. We can specify what primary

residence is, but typically for these ordinances, they'll the person, the property owner, the person on the deed will attest that the owner themselves or someone with the percentage of the interest or someone that's a trustee to the family trust that holds the property will be living there for a stated threshold number of days um to ensure that it's not being held by a corporate entity and you have someone living there. How would that be regulated? You have the attestation and you have the enforcement mechanism if if there's a certain level of activity. Um but it it's a lot of times it it becomes scout's honor until um there are enforcement issues that have to be deployed. Uh I'm I have a question, but um does anybody else have more questions?

[snorts] Um my understanding is from uh from the presentation is that if the city doesn't have an ordinance, then the city cannot request data from VRBO, Airbnb. Uh and that ordinance could be a denial, too, but that would allow the city to have that data. Is that correct?

That is correct. Thank you. So, I'll tag onto that question. Um so, does the proposed ordinance require permit numbers to be displayed on online listings? And does the city have a process to require platforms to remove listings that are operating without a valid permit under SB 346? The current ordinance does require that um listings include the city's permit number. Um as far as a mechanism for enforcing that, um Technically, SB 346 does give cities the ability to request those listings to be pulled. Um we had also in the past spoken to um consultants who handle this kind of thing like Deckard and things like that. They can they also have methods of communicating with these um platforms to pull those listings that are not permitted. Um but as to whether we're hiring one of those is still it's a city council decision. Thank you. It kind of dovetails into another question of uh if they're not let's say we do have a cap of 100 and uh it within the city and uh there're no other permits available until somebody gives up a permit or doesn't renew a permit or it gets taken away and there are additional listings that show up on these VRBO sites and such, is that a finable enforcement action that we can take against uh those non-compliant uh STRs? I'll jump in there. Um so, for any any operator that does not have a permit, um if you

um want to spend some fun time looking at the municipal code, go to title one and um whether it's for STRs or any other unauthorized use, you have a variety of tools including administrative citations and fines, um criminal penalties, any violation of an ordinance um can be enforced as a criminal misdemeanor. You have a nuisance action where the city can get uh can declare it to be a nuisance and require remediation. Uh our office can go to court and get an injunction where a judge requires the operator to uh stop the operation within a stated number of days. So, a few arrow arrows in the city's enforcement quiver, if you will. Thank you for that clarification. What would be the qualifications if we do have the limit of number of units uh per per year? Would they be graded somehow so the first 100 or how however many get it or how how would the process work? I don't think we have anything in place now, but we'd be open to suggestions on that. I've seen from other um jurisdictions, I think it was Ventura County potentially where after the first 100 it's it is boils down to a wait list at that point, but to to determine the first 100, I don't think we have a a method for that.

So, just first come, first served there. Um I have more questions. Is there a limit on the number of minimum number of nights? As proposed, no, there's not. Um and I have one more then I'm going to let somebody else talk. Um does do you have any data in the city of Ventura, how much does it cost for the third-party enforcement? Let me double-check. I know we've done some of that research in prior city council um meeting, so it may be in part of exhibit two, but let me just double-check. We have data for Simi Valley. Uh but Simi Valley doesn't have a third-party enforcement.

We've we've gotten quotes from third from consultants. Thank you. I guess I just missed that. Since we're talking about finances, unless I'm jumping in somebody else's pool here. Uh exhibit two is kind of deceiving because there's in exhibit two, there's the page numbers duplicate. Exhibit two, the first page five, table three, potential STR revenues per year. I'll let everybody catch up. Exhibit two, the first page five, you have table two, then you have table three. Table two shows total per year for available units. This is I'm assuming it lists as potential STR revenues per year of $50,000 for the homes, fees for the rooms, $73,000. So, we have staff projects approximately $125,000 of gross revenue from STRs. That sound about right? Okay. Jumping over to uh further on exhibit two, City of Simi Valley memorandum dated August 4th, 2025, go to page Hang on a minute. Go to page seven. Oh. So, page seven, exhibit two, this is table four. This has estimated permit revenue, business tax revenue, gross receipts revenue, total estimated revenue $230,000. Where am I missing the difference? The

first one was 120,000 and this one is jumped to 230,000. So, the first one was when we just looked at Airbnb and tried to guestimate how many units were there in Simi Valley. Okay. The second one was when we actually spoke to It's It's an evolutionary process. Okay. So, the second second time we had outside consultants that we got actual costs for. Actual revenue from?

Actually Yeah, actual like costs for doing the like for being third-party consultants to handle this process. And during that process was when they figured out that there were about 80 to 100 STRs. Okay. So, initially we were like it's it's a very basic research. And then we were given further direction by the city council to do more detailed research. Okay. And then as we went It's kind of the iterative process.

Okay. Obviously, I I looked at the numbers. So, if I if we're correct on table four, estimation of the first year with income being 230, expenses being 253, it's going to cost the city $23,000 based on quarter of a senior planner, 10% of city attorney's time, full-time new code enforcement officer, 10% of police officer's time. Year two, the estimations for the revenue are the same, 230. The costs are down slightly. It looks like uh Which cost went down? It's mostly the the vendor because there's um fixed costs that the there's setup costs that each vendor has. Okay. That is in the first year and then it's

went down from 42 to 16. Again, because the 42 includes the our time right now to put the put the ordinance together. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, then that shows in theory a net income to the city of 7,000 if we do the the whole STR thing. Okay. I just couldn't find figure out why we such a difference from Yeah, if you look at On page four, table two is 12 entire home STRs and 28 room only STRs, which is what we used for that estimate. Okay. While we spoke to companies like Deckard and H- HDL who told us that there's about 80 to 100 STRs based on because they have the tools to actually Right. trawl all these sites and figure it out. Okay. So, that's the difference.

So, just in increased number of STRs. Yeah. Okay. Is that an with an in-house code enforcement or a third-party vendor? And it seems like it's in-house. Yeah, full-time in-house code enforcement officer available after hours. Thank you. So, what is the estimation on the third-party vendor? Uh If you look on page six of exhibit two, there's table three STR vendor comparison. Um Deckard Technology has a base cost of $5,000 per year. HDL has um 12,750. Granicus is modular. Uh the setup fees, Deckard doesn't have any setup fees. HDL has 5,000. Granicus is 14,000. It's kind of um They they each have different components that you can pick and choose. Um For example, for our December 15th hearing, I think we we we we decided to go with HDL sort of on on a initial basis and they just they we included their cost just for handling uh sort of the mechanics of getting business tax certificates and getting uh TOT taxes. But there's enforcement, there's compliance letter campaigns, there's all these other little things that uh a consultant can add on to their services. So, you're estimating that in the second year, it's going to cost less for a vendor. Yeah, because there's no setup cost. They they charge a one-time setup cost. Thank you.

[snorts]

Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? No. I'm sure we'll have questions later. Okay, um we will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Oh, we did that already. Sorry. Uh right here. Uh is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? And I have green cards. So, uh I'm going to walk through the does not want to speak cards first. Richard Holman, um resident in opposition. Stephen McCormick, uh doesn't represent anybody but himself in opposition. Uh Linda Stickel, I hope I did that correctly, in opposition. Don Wismar, I know a Wismar. In opposition. Carol Fernandez, in opposition. And I'm going to mess this up. Ron Voogd, V O O G D, in opposition. Here are the cards uh that would like to speak. And I'll do what the council does. I'll name three names and uh come on up uh at when you would like to speak. Anthony Easton, Alan Easton, and Jamie McGillis. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Anthony Easton and I'm a resident of Simi Valley.

41 years ago, after accepting a job in Woodland Hills, I had the opportunity to choose a new new place to live. I narrowed my choice to the San Fernando Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley. After months of research and comparing, my wife and I chose Simi Valley. We liked the feeling of community, the school district, and the safety rating of the city. Many people have moved to Simi Valley since, and I believe they have for similar reasons. People do not move to a city, buy a home, pay off a 30-year mortgage, and retire expecting to have a business open right next door to them. Short-term rentals are businesses run strictly for profit. The idea that the majority of these are run by a by mom and pops trying to make ends meet is pure fantasy. In fact, it is estimated that 70% of these businesses are owned by outside investors, not by residents. Airbnb and other STR facilitators promote the invasion of our neighborhoods with these businesses. STR owners claim they care about our community while disregarding the feelings and rights of the homeowners they negatively affect. Allowing a neighborhood motel with a constant revolving door of strangers should be unacceptable to anyone caring about their community and their neighbors. It is very telling that when we surveyed people during our two-month petition campaign, nearly everyone, including people who use STRs, didn't want to live next to one. STRs are not compatible with current municipal code, code, the general plan, or the Simi Valley development code. These were designed and enacted to protect residential housing zones in our city. The city The Simi Valley development

code defines a single-family dwelling as a building designed for and or occupied exclusively by one family. These single-family dwellings were not designed or built to be used as transient lodging businesses in our neighborhoods. Business owners, outside investors, and facilitators like Airbnb want to persuade cities STRs are needed in their communities. STRs are a convenience, not a necessity. There are other options available to visitors and for those who need temporary lodging. I urge you to vote for staff's option alternative number three, which is recommend denial of the proposed ordinance and advise the city council to direct staff to prepare an ordinance establishing a citywide ban on STRs. Thank you.

[applause]

Good evening. My name is Allyn Easton and I have lived in Simi Valley for 41 years. No one chooses to live next door to a short-term rental. Petitions signed by residents to ban all STRs were submitted at the city council meeting on December 1st, 2025. The city council has never publicly acknowledged receiving them. Additionally, those petitions were not mentioned or provided from the city council or staff as part of your STR packet. All four neighborhood councils voted overwhelmingly that STRs are not wanted or needed. Two of the neighborhood councils made motions to ban STRs, and that is a very strong statement that should not be ignored. STRs are not compatible with existing city zoning code, which was designed to have residential zones separate from business areas. An STR is not just using a room in a residential house as a home office for a business. The homes that become STRs are the business. They become neighborhood motels for transient guests. This is not why neighborhood homes were built. There are studies that show property values are decreased if you live next to or near an STR. 60% of all buyers see STRs as a negative. 31% of all buyers would pay more for a home in a city that bans STRs altogether. Each STR negatively impacts five to seven surrounding homes directly. STRs affects the supply of affordable

housing taking away availability from possible full-time residents. Residents that are interested in contributing and supporting neighborhood communities. Transients are not. The safety and character of our neighborhoods is being compromised by the constant number of transient staying at STRs. Existing motels and hotels support the lodging needs of visitors. Most importantly, the majority of residents want a ban of all short-term rentals. The planning commission needs to listen to the will of the people. STRs are not wanted in our city. Please vote for alternative three to deny the proposed ordinance and recommend to the city council to have staff create an ordinance for a ban on all STRs citywide. Thank you very much.

[applause]

Chairperson Kennedy, um members of the planning commission and staff, I'm James McGillis. I'm a 19-year resident here in Simi Valley. I'm here to address you today regarding a matter that deeply affects the character and well-being of our community, namely the proliferation of short-term rental properties in our city. I want to express my strong opposition to the continued operation of short-term rentals within our neighborhoods. While I understood that the I understand that these rentals may offer a perceived convenience for travelers, the negative consequences far outweigh the benefits. First, the increase in short-term rentals has contributed to a significant reduction in long-term housing for residents. As more properties convert into short-term rentals, the supply of affordable rental housing for families, students, and workers has diminished, driving up the prices and exacerbating our housing crisis. Second, the transient nature of short-term guests undermines the stability and cohesion of our neighborhoods. [clears throat] Residents who have lived here for years suddenly find themselves surrounded by unfamiliar faces with little chance to build lasting relationships or maintain a sense of community. This constant turnover can erode the trust and neighborliness of our area, forcing residents to become unofficial policing agents for the city. Third, the presence of STRs can impact the safety and security of our streets. With a regular influx of strangers, it becomes more difficult for residents to identify and respond to suspicious activity, leaving our communities more vulnerable. In summary, protecting the availability of long-term housing, preserving neighborhood stability, and safeguarding the quality of life for all residents must remain our highest priorities. Please stand with all four neighborhood councils and the 430 residents who signed our petitions. Vote to deny the code changes and advise the city council

to direct staff to prepare an ordinance establishing a citywide ban on short-term rentals. Thank you. [applause] I [clears throat]

Excuse me. I have speaker cards for Patricia Fleury, Fred Butler, and Ann Reese. I think some of the presentations that have been given are very good. So, I just want to touch on a couple of issues. My name is Patricia Fleury. I beat everybody. I've been here since 1974. And that was the day when the cowboys were still around, you know, and we had come from Redondo Beach. So, that was quite funny at the time. Some of the things that I question is one of your slides said something about a maximum of eight people. Is that correct in a unit? But yet your other proposal stated two adults and two children per bedroom. You got a five-bedroom house and you're going to have 20 people in this house living next to you in a residential area. That's got to be deleted. That isn't right. So, your four bedrooms are what? 16 people. And the thing about the our house that we have next door that started out as an Airbnb from a realtor who bought the house. She made the dining room into a bedroom. And so you got five bedrooms, 20 people, and two bathrooms. It's not sanitary. There's no yard work that they do. There's a complaint from the the renters that they don't have a gardener. The backyard is complete dirt. So, you're in a very lovely Fountainwood tract living next to

poverty, really. I mean, or a business relationship. So, please take that into consideration. That isn't right. And there again, it's been brought out it lowers the value of our house. The parking when she made it into an Airbnb, six people, three trucks in the driveway with a motorcycle. And then where did the other three park? They parked in front of people's houses. It doesn't belong here. We didn't move here to be And you know what Simi Valley has become? Apartments, condos, townhouses. Everywhere you look, they're taking our shopping center. And it's proposed that they're going to make it into there again, what? Apartments or condos. Please don't continue on this path. Please vote against it. Ban it and help our community look like it's supposed to. Thank you.

[applause]

GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY to uh speak here. Um You've obviously done a lot of legal work, a lot of thought. You've put a lot of energy and thought into this, but I think the bulk of it is unenforceable. The reason why Are Are you Fred Butler? I'm sorry. I am Fred Butler.

you. I'm still Fred Butler. I think a lot of it's unenforceable because it's kind of out there, but nobody can really see it. And the reason why I say that is because we have a code enforcement on using keeping your motor homes and trailers on the street. Yet it's not enforced. I had a neighbor left his out there for months. I finally complained and well, okay. And And that was obvious. Anybody driving by could have seen it. Nothing was done. I think our police department have way more important things to do than call for somebody's making noise. I have lived next door to a short-term rental maybe 3 months, 6 months. Okay, you get new people all the time. The house next door to me is five-bedroom. So, if I think she misunderstood two people room, so that's 10 people. Your cars can't be on the street, but I think it's not going to work out well. Uh the other thing is it does affect your property prices. I sold my mom's house after she passed away in Chatsworth. And there was a party house down the street. Literally across the street. It probably cost me $300,000 cuz everybody saw on the news, on the the website that's a party house. And so I ask you, do you want one next to your house? Do you want to have new people maybe two and three times a week in your neighborhood? New people, new noise, dogs, cats, whatever. Just the commotion. We are a stable community and that's why everybody likes it. And I've been here since '74, also. So So, I I would really strongly urge you

to say no and take whatever legal aspects you need to clarify and and ban them. Cuz uh I don't want to live by one. I probably you don't either. So, forget the legal part. Do you want one next to your house? Thank you very much. [applause]

Good evening. So nice to be able to speak to you guys. Um my name is Anne Reese and I've lived in Simi Valley since 1984. Like other people have mentioned, we specifically moved here to raise our four kids where there are good schools, stable communities, where you know your neighbors, and the thing that really drew us was how safe it was when we first moved here. Um I see that um Moorpark, Camarillo, and Ojai have outright banned STRs. I would consider those three cities to be more along our lines of stable communities as opposed to Ventura or I see in the back of this packet, we've got things from Lake Elsinore and La Quinta and you know it's it's amazing to me uh that also there's a little paragraph here and maybe I'm reading this wrong, but they after you have the 125,000 dollars uh tax revenue, the city would be subsidizing the STR program at approximately 214 $774 per year. And it would cost the city $321,304 annually to administer and force the program. The cost includes salaries, benefits for new and/or real allocated staff including two code compliance officers. And as the gentleman just said, if you've ever called code enforcement, it takes quite a while. I want to know who's going to be there at 3:00 a.m. when I have a

noise complaint. I've been lucky enough never to live next door to a short-term rental, but uh we do have a neighbor that has multiple ADUs on her property. The police have had to be called out a couple of times due to the arguments that the 12 cars in this one quiet little neighborhood, where are they parking? That's not where I want to live. That's not the street I want my grandkids riding their bikes up and down. You guys have a really unique opportunity here to be on the cutting edge and to join Camarillo, Moorpark, and Ojai and say, "No, we this is the line we are not going to cross. We are not going to allow short-term rentals." You don't get this opportunity very often. We can talk about adding various things, but why why are we even considering this right now? There are four neighborhood councils. I was at one of the council meetings. It was very loud and everybody agreed no short-term rentals. Frankly, the city council asked the the uh neighborhood councils to get together and discuss this. They have all given their findings. Why is no one paying attention to those four neighborhood councils? Um we the people are speaking to you tonight. I didn't want to come out here. Uh it's cold, I'm old, and I'm not feeling terrific, um but I came out here cuz it is my duty to let you know this is how we feel. This is how everyone in this room feels. Thank you for doing the right thing.

[applause]

All right, we have some more people that would like to speak on this subject. Heidi Best, Gary Anderson, and Leo Pretty, I believe. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Heidi Best. I've been a resident of Simi for 11 years. Um my sister, who lives nearby, has been a resident since 1987. Um I serve on a neighborhood council. I'm here as an individual. I cannot represent the neighborhood council, but I do serve on one and we had a very lively discussion um when this came to pass in front of our neighborhood council and it was unanimous. I'm not sure if you are told when each neighborhood council votes how many on the council voted against it, but ours was absolutely unanimously against this. Um one of the considerations was the income, that it's a loss of income for the first year of the program and a potential gain, not really guaranteed, but a potential gain in the years that follow. There are some considerations there in terms of the number of individuals who are going to choose to pay this fee. Now, we estimate there are 100 STRs currently, um but it is an estimate. Of those, I'm not clear how many of them would be willing to pay this fee and perhaps the numbers are based on the assumption that all would want to pay this fee and would participate in this program. If that's not the case and you have perhaps half as many participating, I doubt that the income received is ever going to reach the costs of the program.

So, a lot of this is a guess that you have no way of knowing is going to come to pass, that it's going to be of some financial benefit. Now, I understand that some of the city council members are have approached this as an opportunity to raise income without raising taxes and that we need some new source of income. And I just want you to take into consideration that it's entirely possible that not only will this not provide income, but it will be an ongoing cost to the city based on the fact that we do not know the answer to a number of these factors. I also want consideration of the fact that there is no specific recommendation on how we approach those individuals who are choosing not to participate and not paying the fee and we go after them with a fine. How are going to get them to pay that fine? And if they choose not to pay that fine, are you going to put a lien on their house? Are you going to find some way to make them pay this fine? And how much do the costs increase to find a way to make them pay that fine? I think that there are a lot of unknowns and I think that it's something to consider on whether or not this would be really truly viable as an income source and among all of the other fabulous reasons that have been expressed, it's something to consider and I urge you to vote no on I think that's option three to vote for a complete ban. Thank you.

[applause]

Good evening, members. My name is Gary Anderson. I live on the other side of Tapo Canyon right below El Patio and there's a uh Airbnb on our street. So, I live here and it's one, two houses over. Majority of the time it's all right. But there's times it's really bad. Trash all over the place. I had a car that parked on their side of the street, which is fine, but they're facing the wrong way. The guy can't see me. He pulls out. Luckily, I drive like an old lady and I've always driven that way. And so I stopped, he comes up and what are you doing there? And the reason that I bring this up is it's because he doesn't care. It's not his house. So, like one of the other people said, my mom died last year and you can tell by my age she was pretty old, she was. So, my mom's right next to me. So, my cousin is a real estate agent and we have to do disclosures. And she says, "Um that's awful close. You may have to disclose that." Disclose it for what? She says, "It wrecks your property value." I thought for a second I'm going like, "Duh." Of course it wrecks my property value. Who's going to reimburse me for my property value? My taxes going to go down? Is Joaquin going to say, "Hey, um Gary's got a good court case here. Let's do something and we better take care of this guy." You're going to have all these people doing that. And if you notice the color of the hair of the most people out here, they're older and they're probably not as broke as they look. So, anyway, there's legal issues with this and a lot of different things, but it boils down to what my dad always said to me. He said, "Gary, you got a right to be a good citizen

and a right to be a good neighbor. If you follow those two rules, you'll have very few problems. I have issues with anybody that puts their profit above what they do to their neighbor or to anybody else. It's wrong. I have a moral issue with that. So, please um don't make our houses worse, you know? It's It's difficult, and we all need that home that we go home to our our bed tonight where we feel safe and warm and away from the world. It's really important cuz I have lived in places where it's been really really super loud. I don't want to see that happen to Simi. We lived in the San Fernando Valley all of my life. We moved out here in '96 because of what happened to Simi that what happened in in the San Fernando Valley. And we're starting to get that way. But we have ways to control it. We have good people up here and over here. I know you guys work real hard on this. I appreciate that. Get Get the facts. But it's an issue because you can't control who's going to be renting that house. So, please vote for What is What do we call it? Option three or alternative? So, number three because I know in your heart of hearts you don't want one of these next door to you. Most of us just want to be left alone. Please help us to be left alone. Thank you for your time.

[applause]

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for hearing us. Uh I've been here uh every time we've had this meeting. I'm not quite sure how many more times we need to do this, and I appreciate both of you answering my emails uh that I sent you. Uh I'm There's not really that much for me to say. I'm just going to echo what they say. Just a couple of things that I don't think we it's [clears throat] been really thought through is Excuse me. is the enforcement. When you buy When you put When you buy the tags on your car, I can go park in front of your house, anybody's house. That is a That is a state right. A state legislation issue of of control of your of your vehicle. There's nothing stopping me from parking in front of Anthony's house or anybody else's house legally. And I And I pay for that, and it should be that way. So, as far as controlling only only four people You could only park in the driveway. That's fantasy. That's never going to happen. All the guy has to do is just park two two blocks up and walk to the house. We've got the World Cup coming, and we've got the Olympics coming. It's going to be a madhouse anyway. If we don't stop this now, it's going to only get worse. It's not worth the finances or the money that's going to generate for the money it's going to cost you. It's just doesn't make sense in so many different levels. Look, I'm all for progress. You know, I came here in '94. And um I raised my children here, too. Um and I'd like to keep it that way. You know, I came from the Valley. I remember when the Valley was a great place to raise children. I drag raced on Van Nuys Boulevard. I went through all of that. I went to Notre Dame High School. It was a lot of fun. It won't be a lot of fun if we keep if we put this this this uh proposal through. It just won't be. You know, look at the other cities that said no. They said it for the same reasons, for the same complaints, in the same worries we put out. I know you guys have done a lot of work, and I appreciate that so we could have a really good look on that. If one day you have the yays to the

numbers of no nays you had as far as all the voting, then you could always amend it. Say, get rid of this. This is a bad law. We've done it before in our Constitution. We could do it with the City Council and anything in our uh our jurisdiction. It's overwhelming that people are saying we don't want this. It's not It's not close. It's not 60/40. We're in the high 90s on it. I is I don't think there's really that much to think about. Even if it was a good idea, it's not what the people want, and it's not a good idea. It really isn't. I live two houses down from Anthony up from Anthony's. And I had those I had the dump trucks parked right in front of my house. They were actually breaking the law cuz they're a commercial vehicle. But how about if they weren't? How about if it was just a normal car? I don't appreciate that. That's not why I moved out to Simi. You know, I understand we need progress, but we have motels and we have hotels. We're not a one-horse town anymore, but we don't need to do this. We really don't. It is bad in every sense of the word. And as far as the police or the council or the laws trying to control this, it's not going to work. It's not going to work. Like I said, I just mentioned one thing as far as the parking. He could just go park two blocks down. And what are you guys going to do about that? It's legal. They're not breaking the law. He would just walk to his friend's house and stay there. And we have the Olympics and the World Cup coming. And I really don't want this here in the next few years at least. And like I said, if it gets to the point that one day you have the people that want it as much as the people that don't want it, change the law. A- A- Add something to the city to the city uh charter. But right now, I I don't think there's really much to think about. And like I said, even if it was a good idea, we don't want it. And it's not a good idea. Thank you for listening to me.

[applause]

All right. [clears throat] Excuse me. All right, we're down to Carol Thomeier. Okay, close. I'll I'll take close. And uh Heather Moss. Good evening. Yeah, Carol Thomeier. Yeah, I've lived in neighborhood uh council one for 50 years, and I do oppose the um short-term rental. A lot of our neighboring uh communities have banned them, and so I'm asking for a ban. Thank you. [applause]

You You must be Heather. I'm Heather. Good evening. My name is Heather Moss. I'm a 15-year resident of Central Simi Valley, and I work in the local business community here. I urge you to recommend a citywide ban of all short-term residential rentals or STRs. At its core, the issue is the commercialization of residential neighborhoods, something Simi Valley zoning has long prohibited. Residential areas are meant for people who live here, not for transient lodgers. Yet STRs have slipped in, turning houses into unregulated short-term lodging for a revolving door of strangers staying 1 to 30 nights. These STRs function as de facto hotels, even though the homes and surrounding infrastructure and street space were not designed or equipped for commercial lodging. With no onsite oversight, a single house can cycle through dozens to hundreds of transient lodgers in a single year, disrupting daily neighborhood life, bringing additional public safety and crime concerns, straining infrastructure, and reducing long-term housing opportunities for tenants and home buyers. STRs create a significant liability risk for the city. Hotels are built, zoned, insured, and legally responsible for their entire premises. STRs are different. Homes operating as de facto hotels are adjacent to public sidewalks, streets, side paths, and easements. Yet STR host insurance does not cover those public access areas. Any injury or incident there exposes the city to direct liability.

STRs impose substantial safety, financial, and legal risk without providing any financial offset currently. The city's own projections show that regulating STRs would result in an estimated $23,000 first-year loss. And even if transient occupancy tax were collected on STR stays, enforcement and liability costs could easily exceed any revenue. Neither the listing platforms nor the city inspect or vet these properties. Many STRs in Simi Valley operate with unfenced swimming pools in violation of state law and have other flagrant hazards. Yet there is no enforcement and no accountability. A preventable drowning or other tragedy could easily occur. STRs are incompatible with and intrude upon residential neighborhood life. I speak from personal experience. STRs near my home have brought a constant barrage of tourists and unruly lodgers, boisterous bachelorette groups, late-night noise, trash, and monopolized parking. In one alarming incident, Airbnb lodgers pounded on my front door demanding entry into my home after mistaking it for a nearby STR. Unlike hotels, STRs have no onsite staff, security, or emergency protocols. Yet give a relentless stream of strangers unfettered access into our residential neighborhoods.

STRs compete with licensed lodging. Hotels and motels must comply with zoning and licensing laws, ADA requirements, inspections, safety standards, onsite staff, insurance mandates, and tax collection. STRs avoid these requirements while diverting business from regulated lodging establishments. In Simi Valley, most STRs are owned by remote offsite multi-property investors rather than local hosts, and they do not operate with the required safeguards of commercial lodging. Meanwhile, Simi Valley's data shows our local hotels have had a high vacancy rate, nearly 30% annually, which indicates STRs are siphoning business from legitimate local lodging. Nearby cities, Moorpark, Calabasas, Camarillo, and Ojai have wisely banned STRs. Simi Valley must do the same. It is imperative. I recommend a citywide ban on all short-term residential rentals. Please go with option three. That is the most responsible decision for our city. Thank you so much.

[applause]

Okay, that was uh the last of the cards that I have. Uh is there anyone else wishing to be heard? Okay. Um at this time, are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? And I'd like to check with the uh deputy director, city planner, anyone else here? Go ahead. Yes.

Alex, go ahead if you have any questions and I'll follow up. Thank you. Um to clarify Miss Flurry's uh question about the occupancy, so as proposed, the ordinance um allows a maximum occupancy of two adults plus two children per bedroom. Um we did hear that as a concern at neighborhood council, so a suggested or um optional language that could potentially be added in to the code if commission wants to consider that or city council. Um Oh, you can't see it on the screen. Thank you. This is suggested language. This comes from um Ventura County, where they limit um the maximum amount of occupancy to eight occupants, regardless of how many bedrooms. So that's um that highlighted section is an idea of where you could add it into our proposed ordinance. Um another topic that came up was site safety concerns. Um we did also hear that concern at neighborhood council, and similarly, in Ventura County, they have this uh language that would require a pre-permitting and renewal uh site inspection. So for things like the swimming pool fences, smoke detectors, uh stuff like that. This could be something that could be added to the code if commissioner council chooses to do so. Um and then in response to Miss Best's um question, um the NC voting results are provided as exhibit one to the planning commissioners. Thank you. And there was one question about the revenue, whether the revenue reflects all 100 estimated STRs in the city. Uh our consultants told us generally, when a permitting system gets implemented,

there's about a 20% drop-off. So that estimate is calculated on about 80 STRs. 80 STRs. 8 0. 8 0. Thank you, Alex Nohr. And um there was one comment about um whether if short-term rentals [snorts]

uh had to pay taxes or revenues under the ordinance, they would be required to pay a business tax certificate, transient occupancy tax, and various city permits, just to clarify uh that comment should an ordinance be passed. And I also um there was a comment about the process. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight to speak. Um there's probably a lot of concern about is are we here in a neighborhood council? Uh why are we going through this process? This is kind of a civics lesson, and city Simi Valley, um we have our four neighborhood councils, which is not common in most cities, so it's another means for the public to come out and speak their concerns. So we've done that as part as part as as part of considering a new ordinance, everything has to go through the planning commission when it's a zoning code proposal, whether to propose a new rule or whatever. So this is part of the public hearing process, and a lot of you heard about the public hearing notice, so you came out to speak. So um all these comments would be forwarded to the city council, which makes the final determination of whatever happens tonight. So I we are listening to all the testimony presented. Uh so we'd like to uh just uh bear with the process. There's a lot of research involved and lots of things to put together, but

[snorts]

um we are proceeding with this matter assuming a decision is made tonight to take it to the city council. So thanks for hanging Thanks for hanging in there. Okay, if there are no further questions, we will close the uh public testimony portion of the hearing. Seeing none. Um are there any comments or questions from members of the planning commission at this time? [clears throat] You go ahead. I don't have any questions, just comments. So if any other planning commissioners have uh questions, I'll let them go ahead and do that now. I I do have Do you have questions? Ladies first. Uh thank you. Uh do you have any analysis on what is the projected val- revenue or influx of new Airbnbs during the Olympics? No, we have no idea about that. Um was the that inspection uh that we talked about just now calculated into the cost? Uh the the estimates that are included in the all the staff reports are basically kind of estimates based on what other jurisdictions are doing. When we if if the city council does approve this, they would need to go through the sort of the the cost analysis for What's the term that I'm forgetting it? Um uh A fee study to determine what the fee

application fees we would charge. Yeah, so what what we have so far in draft format does include cost for staff time, does include a building and safety inspection, and all those things. Those would all be factored into the final permit costs. Thank you.

could interject, cuz it has come up uh a few times. Just want to clarify the difference between um the fee, which was just discussed, and there are uh state law limits on the fees that could be charged. So ultimately, the city can only charge the fee in order to recover its cost. So it can be iterative, which is, let's say, later down the line, staff wants to hire a company to go online and look for listings that aren't matching with permits. They could pass through that cost, but they would have to amend the ordinance to include that additional cost. So it it can be a moving target, but the idea is that the city the cost the city is incurring is going to get recovered through the fee it charges the people that pull the permits. And then separately, we have the tax side, where as Sean mentioned, we have TOT um tax recovery. Thank you. Thank you. I I guess to piggyback on that, uh if there is non-compliance, whether we allow it or not allow it, whe- whether it's a denial or not, how would that cost be recovered? For, let's say, that somebody mentioned, and I'm sorry, I wrote down everybody's names, but um that they don't want to enroll into the program that now exists. How would we recover that cost because the attorney fees would add up? Those are Those are existing mechanisms. So if you have someone that starts doing vehicle repairs at their home, or someone that has an illegal STR, then um under the different scenarios I was describing before, let's say it's declared a nuisance, and then the city abates the nuisance, um gets an order that the use must cease by a certain date, those are all recoverable costs, and those can be

leaned on the property, or um be a special assessment. So those are all recoverable. It's It's difficult to get there and go through that process, and it's time-consuming, um but those are existing existing tools. Thank you. I just wanted to add one other thing as far as the fines. Um just as far as compliance goes, I I think the general rule is that sometimes um you can administrative fine someone as much as you want, and sometimes that's just a cost of that person doing business. So um it's really about getting compliance. So fines are only one tool, and sometimes you need to escalate things in order to get compliance. Thank you. Can I make just a quick comment on that? Um if you lived in that house, Uh we're We'll get back to that. We're we let you talk again. Okay. Oh, sorry. Uh Currently, the city of Moorpark bans Airbnbs. If you look at Airbnb's website, there's like 30 Airbnbs listed. You can't speak for Moorpark, but if we're going to look at an ordinance of banning Airbnbs, how does the city enforce actually banning Airbnbs when people are blatantly going to do it regardless? So, a couple of things. One thing is I'm not like where where what Airbnb shows you as Moorpark is not actually Moorpark. I live in Moorpark, so I'll I look at those Airbnbs every now and then um just out of curiosity. Um a lot a lot of it's unincorporated Ventura County that they're calling Moorpark.

Okay. Uh so, that's one thing. Uh there are options various options to whether we're going to actively hunt down these Airbnbs uh like the the the vendors that we have uh Deckard and things like that. They can troll the websites and hunt down those Airbnbs. That's one option where is SB 346 and maybe Walkin can add to this technically provides us with the ability to request um these all these companies to provide us with lists of Airbnbs that operate in the city as to whether we can get how many hoops they make us jump through that jump through to get that information is depends. Um but if we can figure it out, then we would probably do what Walkin mentioned in terms of the enforcement. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. So, I'll tag on to that one. So, with SB 346 and data sharing with the Airbnbs, if we have an ordinance in place, right? Then that becomes available to us for the non-compliant or those that don't have a permit. However, if we don't have an ordinance in place like today, right? Where we have an estimated 80 to 100 uh short-term rentals, right? It's strictly a reactive um enforcement that we really have no mechanism for. Is Am I reading that correctly? I believe so and I I believe all we have to do in terms of having an ordinance in effect is to define STRs in the code and potentially if we ban them all out, then so Walkin. That's correct. And I would say now um some of the companies I I forget which one are more cooperative than others, but um in other city clients even before this new law, um they would be a good partner as far as sharing

listings and taking down listings. I think this will put wind in the sails of of cities to get that information without having to rely on a business to be a good actor. Um and staff is correct that as long as you have an ordinance of some semblance, whether you're banning it um or regulating it, um that will unlock the key to get the information from the companies. Thanks for that clarification. And just a follow up on that, whether an ordinance to allow them or not allow them is in place, there are specialized companies that do track down short-term rentals for a fee for a city, for example, and will identify what's being rented. That would be a cost to the city versus SB 346, which might be less of a cost, but you could still use a private company to do what SB 346 allows. I I have a question, too. Um if we, let's say, are to ban it, do we know the estimated cost of finding who is breaking those like rules? Finding them? Well, what is what is the estimated

tracking down the STRs? Um We would need a company like Deckard. And I believe they had a one-time setup fee of something something like $5,000 and then an annual fee of 5,000. It is on page six, the other page six, uh exhibit two. I believe we did that research. I see it in exhibit two on page eight, PDF page 14. Um under enforcement impacts in banning STRs, an external vendor would be required to identify STRs and code enforcement and city attorney staff time would be required. The vendor costs would be would range up to 37,000 for the first year and 32,000 per year subsequent to that. Um to identify the addresses for STRs. That doesn't include staff time. Thank you. Okay. Um Here I'll I'll tell you what my concern is and I'm I'm in the enforcement business in another aspect of my life and uh when you ban something outright, uh you're still going to have violators. Uh we don't have any ordinance in place now and uh we've got a lot of these in town and I hear your stories and I understand. I've been here since '84 and raised my kids here, too. Um but if we put very tight guardrails around this,

right? Uh the city does and make it difficult uh for STRs to uh be bad actors in this town and put a cap on them. I'm I'm thinking that uh that might be a better direction than outright banning and actually gets you better results. So, that's just my thought process uh coming from another portion of my life. So, are there any other comments from staff? In in some ways um Chairperson, I agree. Um and because of that, I think that one thing I would like to pass forward to the city council is is it one thing we need to do is we need to limit the if if this was to go if the city council's to go forward that we would definitely need to limit the number of ST STRs to a number under 100. It would need to be limited to primary residence uh primary residence only, somebody who lives on that site for 275 days. Um there would have to be yearly inspect inspections to make sure that they're up to code. Uh minimum number of days would have to be three, so you don't have people who are just renting it out for one day to have a party. Um it would have to prohibit prohibit affordable housing. Um there would have to be event bans, which was in the staff report. Uh limit the number of people to a maximum of eight uh regardless of the size of the house. Um permit numbers would have to be displayed online. Uh limit the number of STR days to a maximum of 90 per year cuz that's 275 minus Anyway, that's what I came up with. Um however, I you know, um I don't know. I could still be swayed because my problem with this is is that both ways, it's going to cost the city money. If if we ban it outright, it's going to cost us money. If we do this, it's going to cost us money because I understand um the presentation, but it's not going to work out that way. Those people are going to cost more money than what we expect and we're not

going to make as much money as we expect. It just never works out that way. Um those salaries are going to go up. Um that company's going to ask for more money in 2 years. Um it's just a given. So, I I feel like we're really in a pickle here. Um so, I think that probably the best thing is just to make this very, very restrictive. It's probably the best thing to do. So, that that way we can enforce it. But that that's where I'm at at [snorts] the moment. Commissioner Mann? Can I ask Bob? I did, but you can [laughter]

Again, lady first. Thank you. So, um I did some additional research and 6% of all Airbnb hosts in LA generate 35% of revenue and that was published by UCLA Law Review. Uh additionally, 72% of Airbnb listings in Los Angeles, on the other hand, uh are assumed to be operating illegally. That was published August 28th, 2025 by LA Times. So, like like both of you said, Commissioner Rice, I I do struggle uh uh with with what is the smartest thing to do first of all because it really doesn't seem like it's going to create some great revenue for the city. Uh but secondly, my my concern is with the affordability of the homes. I do believe that maybe temporarily the the uh value of the homes that are nearby STRs is maybe going to go down when they're operating. But with uh companies being able to buy unlimited number because they can, as Commissioner Mann said, can register 20 LLCs or however many LLCs they want, I feel like the affordability of our homes is not going to stay the same and we are one of the most affordable cities to live in in Ventura County and and my concern is that we're not going to stay affordable. Uh I think the on California level, uh ADUs were uh allowed that easily because we wanted to be affordable. We wanted to have a path to to affordability. And if these ADUs are now going to become little hotels, uh I I just struggle with how are we actually helping affordability and

homeless and home crisis in in California. But I'm I'm open to be swayed. Well, don't count on me to sway you cuz uh I have stayed at Airbnbs when I travel abroad. Uh but they're typically more of a hotel-style setting, an apartment. Uh I don't remember staying in a residential neighborhood in in any major city I've ever stayed in when I traveled abroad. I hate any prospect of costing the city money. And it's kind of like no matter what we do, if we try to ban them, there's potential is to cost the city money. If we don't ban them, it's going to cost the city money. It's really what's going to be the fairest thing to those people that either have the Airbnbs or those that don't want Airbnbs living next to them. And I'm not sure which way. Both parties have an argument. Uh an outright ban maybe the lesser of the evils and uh let let it fly from there with the city council what they want to do. As a minimum, the current ordinance as planned it needs to have a lot more regulations put into it. It it it there just needs to be more and I would add into yours that there should be a restriction for how many Airbnbs can be next to each other. Other cities have done it, so there's certainly a precedent. Um So, the proximity that um That's correct. Commissioner Chrismon was talking about earlier. Correct. There there we don't want a whole street of them. Uh and I think we also need to limit if we're going to go down that path and limit I'm not sure which way we're going to go. Uh there needs to be a an overall limit as well cuz I think with the World Cup coming in, the Olympics coming in, and the fact that Airbnb offers bonuses to new hosts for bringing properties on, you're going to see a greater number of influx and you're going to see just again more problems. And I do agree with Vice Chair Weiss, no matter what plans

the city has for cost, expenses are always going to be higher than what you expect and income is always going to be lower than what you expect. So, it's going to cost the city just a ton of money trying to regulate them, which is why I'm kind of thinking maybe we just, you know, bypass that whole thing and just outright ban them and move on from there. So. [applause]

Not really sure which way. I'm going to wait and see whoever wants to make a um brave enough to make a motion and go from there. Are you brave enough? Nope. Nope. Not right now. Well, I guess we can talk about it some more. All right. So, it's been brought up several times, so I'll I'll go ahead and touch on that with the World Cup and and um the Olympics coming in and us being a safest city and in proximate uh to a lot of those venues, I think we're going if we outright ban them, uh we're going to see them here anyway. Right? And uh you're going to uh you're going to see that uh they're going to come here and it's going to be hard if we don't have anything in place to enforce them with. I I that's just the the devil that I see coming. But I mean, if we do have a ban, we will have a place to enforce them. I'm I'm just I'm I could be swayed both ways. And it's still going to cost the city money either way. Oh, it's definitely going to cost the city money. That's there's no doubt about that. Um especially if you put these very strict proximity limit cap uh um all the pre-permitting, occupancy limits, all the rest of that that's really going to reduce the the amount of uh Airbnbs that we would have. So, that's going to affect the cost as well. Uh

[snorts]

like I said, I'm just not sure that the devil we have today um is going to help by banning them. So. So, after we opened the meeting, we had a comment from the public. If the council the commissioner wants to reopen the meeting. Yeah, you guys want to reopen the meeting? I'm good. Everybody should have their say. Okay, we're going to we're going to go back and reopen the meeting to public comments here. If you can try to restrict your comments to just 2 minutes, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. You you were the first one, so. Uh Leonard Preddy, still Leonard Preddy. Okay. Um I understand what you're saying that it's hard to control, but you it's sort of like saying we have a wonderful freeway, so if somebody's going at 130 miles an hour, you're breaking the law. So, it's going to cost the city money either way. One way, you don't affect the quality of life of those that have invested together hundreds of years inside this city. So, it and it's unfair for the people let's say if you have one, I can't have one because she has one on my block, I can't have one. It just creates a lot of inequalities. Th- There it's to me it to me it's a no-brainer. There's Having it will create more problems than solutions. The fact that if somebody with the World Cup, you're absolutely right, people are going to do it illegally anyway. People are going to drink alcohol before they're 21. That doesn't make it right. They're breaking the law, you go after the people that break the law if you can. You're not going to get everybody like you won't get all the speeders, but you're going to get some of them. But if you don't have something banning it, you're going to have problems later on. This is what I'm saying. If it turns out later on that it's worth us doing it, that you don't have the 90/10 that you have now that you're facing, then change it. But now it's regardless of the Olympics and they're going to be and people even if they don't have the Olympics, they're still going to rent rooms in their home.

We understand this. But if you don't say no, you can't do it, a lot of people are going to do it. You know, there's not a perfect solution, but one at least protects our quality of life more. There's just there's no comparison. [applause] You know? And it's not fair. It's not fair that if you have it on your house and I'm four houses down, I can't because the ordinance says only one per block or whatever you guys are going to come up It it it makes no sense, guys. It really does. It's wrong in so many levels. If it's going to cost us money, well, the devil's in the details. There's a lot of stuff that costs us money. At least this is going to cost us money and preserve our quality of life. That's all I got to say. [applause]

My name is Linda Sickle. I've lived here 9 years. I came from a community in Palm Springs where we had rentals. We knew we had the rentals. Everybody that moved there knew it. That's what it was. Um it was controlled. It was okay. But this is a community that is not and was never set up like Palm Springs. For one thing, we have you said more park, Thousand Oaks, who were the other counties that said that said no. Why don't you ask them why they said no? Get their info. It's going to cost like you said, one way or the other. But if you put a deterrent, and you put it so these companies that come in and buy these houses, they're going to be deterred because they know there's going to be a battle and this is not what the community wants. How many square miles is Simi Valley? Does anybody know? It's not going to hold that kind of entertaining to rentals weekly, daily. A lot of them do it daily. So, I think you need to think about it and maybe ask those other counties why they did it. And maybe you might come to uh some reasoning. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[applause]

I'll be short and sweet. I just want to say that if you know it's going to cost money one way or the other, why not listen to the people? I mean, we've been really clear here. The people do not want this. So, if you say, "Well, let's put some rules in place and it's going to be better." The people do not want this. So, if it's going to cost one way or the other, please listen to the people. Thank you. [applause]

I promised to be kind. The LLCs are waiting for your decision on this dais. They're waiting for it. If you approve it and you allow them, you're opening this city up to dark money of an unexpected amount and nature. You will see a flood. You will see the gates open. If you deny, if you have the guts to deny here, for us, the people who've told you 430 petitions, four neighborhood councils, all the people that are here today have told you not one person standing to say, "Yes, please approve these." Boy, if you don't do this for us, we will remember every one of you and what you did. If you do listen to the people, if you do go with the people, we will remember that as well and we will applaud you. Thank you very much.

[applause]

All right, let's get to the gentleman in the front row here. And then we're going to have two more. Yeah. He's had his hand up the whole time. I'm sorry. Next. Is he Is he next? Go ahead. No, no, you Go ahead. [laughter]

Go ahead. Sure. Losing control here. Okay, that's understandable. Okay, I'm still Fred, by the way. And thank you for letting me speak. Okay, um initially I was 100% against it. I'm kind of leaning toward uh Commissioner Kennedy that it's it people are going to break rules, we are going to have issues. If we I've heard a couple things that you have to live in the house for, you know, uh 3 quarters of the year. Maybe only have like you have to pay for, whether you stay there or not, four nights, that's going to deter a lot of people. And so maybe it's possible and the other thing I haven't heard and I don't know how you would uh go about it is um if I have a house and I do this, do I report to the city once a year to get a permit and then I never talk to you again? Or do I have to get a permit every uh month or every client and now you know exactly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. And so you got to see the armor on here. Maybe it's not a terrible idea, but you certainly need a lot of specifications. Thank you. Thank [applause] you. I went to LA Unified, so forgive me if my math isn't great.

[snorts] But if there's five houses that are affected by one and they decide to sue because of the property value, what's your math on that? But let's say all 100 of them don't. Say it's 50. What's the math? You better look at it in terms of total cost. You understand if you're I don't know which ones of you are business people. Total cost because you're going to get a reaction from people like us and we know how to band together. We can make it very difficult on the city. I don't mean to say that as a threat, it's a promise. Thank you. [applause]

Just make sure everyone fills out a speaker card if you haven't filled out a speaker card already. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't plan on speaking tonight. My name is Jill Abla. I live in District 1. Uh good evening, Commissioners. Um Commissioner Kennedy, I when I came into this meeting this evening, I kind of felt like you did. I'm I and in a way I would have to say I'm very much personal property rights and I I'm against bans in general. I think that's un-American. And I was hoping that we could find a way to balance the needs of the community between all of the residents and the owners of STRs and the needs for people uh that for renting an Airbnb. And I've done that before myself. They're they're very convenient. But as I've listened to the testimony tonight, I've listened to the hard work that the staff has put in in this regulation, it two things have become apparent. One, it seems like it's very difficult for an owner to comply with a lot of this regulation. The harder we make those guardrails on the on the regulation, the more difficult that becomes and the more difficult it becomes to enforce. And so during the course of this hearing tonight, I'm I've been swayed a little diff- differently. I and I I understand your struggle, but um I think either way you're you're going to have trouble enforcing it. It might make sense to look at this like a zoning issue. Maybe these types of um uh re- um buildings, uh use of the buildings don't belong in residential neighborhoods. Maybe they do belong uh more in commercial areas like existing hotels and therefore I think I would support uh a regulation that would uh exclude them from residential areas and enforce it that way. I hope that helps you tonight. Thank you. Uh could you fill out a card? Thank you. And last and I'm going to have one last speaker. Thank you.

And I am still Ann Reese. Um [laughter]

uh anecdotally, and I know this has there's there's no backing behind this. I have four adult children. I was talking with them over the weekend about the short-term rental, whether we should ban it or not. My son said, "Mom, I live in Moorpark. We're it's not allowed. It's great." Now, are there short-term rentals in Moorpark? Who knows? Um my daughter lives in Wood Ranch and she goes, "Well, I'm in a gated community. There's nobody who's coming in for a short-term rental." Which leads me to the point is we've got two tiers here. You know, people who who may not be coming out and saying my property values are going down are are in in effect um maybe going to bear the brunt of the parties and the parking and what such. Um you guys, like I said before, be man up, so to speak.

[laughter]

We have told you what we want. I understand it's going to cost the city, but as other people have brought up, it's going to cost the city anyway. Um if we have a ban of some sort in place, then you can move from there. Not having anything is dangerous and and kicking the can down the road some more. I was here in 1984. People did rent their homes out for the Olympics. We all knew that that happened, that's going to happen now, too. But that's very different than these short-term rentals. Um you know, so anyway, please do the right thing.

[applause] Okay, we're we're going to go ahead and close the public uh comment section of the meeting. Thank you. Okay. Uh this is a no talk. Ban STRs, okay. And Andurian is a uh in opposition. Ban STR. Ann Duran. Oh, I'm going to get it right. Duran Duran. All right. Um okay, so uh that brings us uh any more By the way, any more comments from the commission? Yes. After hearing that. Yes, uh go ahead. want to let staff Yeah, I already closed the public portion.

Does staff want to respond to anything first? Okay. I'm out of order. Yes, staff first. Um I just wanted to respond to Mr. Butler. Um STR permits would be required to be renewed annually. Um to answer your question. There you are. Annually. Once a year. And and they would be required to report on uh rentals and tax income every quarter. Okay, now Commissioners. And I have

thing that I didn't touch on, which I wrote down a lot of concerns, is also that to me it's obnoxious and I don't I don't mean it in an unkind way, but to have the neighborhood and do the enforcement. Meaning that they get three contacts and then they have to try and get the owners or whoever the point of contact is, I feel like that would cause so much more problems, so much conflict. And I I just don't see how that would work out to be a great solution. I I I just see how somebody could really get hurt because if they are experiencing this and these are great people. You guys are great people. I'm not pointing fingers at any one of you. Maybe you, Mr. McGillis.

[laughter]

But uh but I'm I'm just saying that that could cause so much conflict and so much drama in the communities and we live in Simi and I feel like our our Simi community is a community that is most of the time united. And and I don't see that as a great thing. I do have two Airbnbs in Lake Havasu, so I am talking as somebody who that is on the opposite side uh and I have stayed at Airbnbs. However, uh today I I strongly believe that since we are not really making a decision for City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. I strongly believe that we should side with all of these voices. All right. Um Yeah, I like I said, I just thought that, you know, we need to pass on um ideas to City Council because City Council's going to do what City Council's going to do regardless of what we say. Um they don't always listen to us. Um believe it or not, just like we don't always listen to neighborhood councils, so Um but we do read what the city the neighborhood councils send us, believe it or not. Um all of it. So, um I I Honestly, I think that uh I'm in favor of denial of this and I'd be willing to motion to deny this, but um I want to hear Commissioner Mann first, so.

[applause]

I can't remember who brought it up, but one of you brought up the fact that nobody is here in favor of short-term rentals. So, kind of speaks volumes that the citizens that care the most about their community are the ones that are here. So, we certainly take that into consideration. Um A lot of areas that somebody else mentioned that they don't have Airbnbs is because a lot of those areas are heavily regulated by HOAs. HOAs have great enforcement and finding ability far superior to that of the city in some cases. And in most of those cases, the HOAs will just fine somebody into oblivion so that they don't have Airbnbs or VRBOs in their areas. Uh part of my my whole thing has been it's about money and I kind of think that if we ban them we have some control over the costs where we don't ban them and we direct staff and recommend City Council to somehow come up with all these different ways to try and regulate them, it's just going to be a cost nightmare. Expenses are going to be higher than what we think and income will be a lot lower than what we think. So, I will definitely have no problem with if you want to make the motion or I'm happy to make the motion to go ahead and regulate or ban outright ban STRs. Recommend recommend City Council to outright ban them. Commish uh sure. Chairperson Kennedy, did you want to add anything or Say again? Did you have to call for

read the resolution.

Yeah. Well, if I may, uh just want just some procedural fun. Um So, 2 weeks ago, I was here providing training to the Planning Commission. Um We didn't have the beautiful audience we have tonight. But um for those that may have listened to the recording or were bored enough to tune in from home, um one of the points I made is that uh decisions have to be substantiated by findings. And so, I'm I'm hedging that here um in a specific way, so I I want to be clear. Um So, as applies here, if there is a desire to deny, there is not a need for staff to rewrite findings to for denial. Why is that? Um Um that's because you are not the you're a recommending body tonight. You're not the final decision-maker tonight. Had this been a CUP, a variance, something where the buck stops with you, subject to appeal, um then I would say we need to rewrite some findings, have some basis for a denial. So, given that, um I don't think it's necessary to have formally written findings supporting a denial. However, I would recommend that should there be a denial, I would recommend, especially to help staff relay your desire and your wishes, uh to at least give some reasons on the record for um the basis of denial. Um That's my spiel. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Well, there's no compatibility issue with um municipal code and it doesn't apply to CEQA. So, Uh so, okay. Um if if based on things that I've heard Yes.

um uh there could be thoughts that the zoning code amendment as proposed Yeah. um would not be able to mitigate the impacts of noise, traffic, what have you, that uh the public has identified on on the record or that that's in the administrative record. Okay. That's that's one one nugget. There might be other ones related to cost or other things. I don't want to put words in the commission's mouth, but Cost was the reason we were going to deny. valid points that they can be made. And City Council will get all of our comments in their staff report.

That exactly, yeah. And but I think to the extent you can distill them um as a group, that would be helpful for staff to to pass along um in case the council doesn't have a chance to watch the full recording. I mean, they're not watching us now? Like we watch them on Mondays? All the time. All the four hours.

meet Mondays, right? I got the night right? Okay, good. I can't believe they're not watching us. Jeez. Okay, any further comments? All right. Uh this uh intersection, may I please have a reading of the resolution? Resolution number SVP 2-2026. 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 Section 15378 and 15061 B3. Thank you. The chair will now entertain a motion. I moved I move to recommend denial of ZS2025-0006. Is that with the recommendation of ban? I feel like we had four options.

Y- uh it was recommendation number three, but it's not on my thing I have. Uh can we get that up on the screen, please? Yeah. Recommendations. It's not It's all we have is denial. A denial of the ordinance and establish a citywide ban on STRs. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. Okay, do we do we take a vote now? Do we need any more specifics as to denial of the ordinance? We do that after the vote.

That would be my recommendation based on cost and public input. Well, can it be also that I mean, bottom line is they want to change the uh adoption They basically want to change code to allow STRs in residential neighborhoods. Yes, and it and the the change to residential neighborhood would be harmful to It's not compatible. It's not compatible with

a business use into a residential neighborhood. That, in my opinion, is not compatible. And my concern is future for the ability of our homes, too. They want to change the They want to change the municipal code Okay, for traffic reasons, parking reasons. Well, that goes to mitigation, right? The current proposal doesn't mitigate for a lot. for a lot of and enforceability. A- and I think I'm hearing a few different comments about if the mover is comfortable with

I'm comfortable with everything that's been stated, yes. I'm okay with the reasons stated. All right. We have a motion, we have a second. And that's for denial of the ordinance and establish a citywide ban on STRs. Can we have a vote? Let me vote for John. [laughter]

Jeez, no, don't do that. Commissioner Kennedy. Yeah, he locked it twice. What am I doing? Does it say Is it blue? There it is. There you go. All right. Okay, we we have a vote. There you go. [applause]

There you There you go. The vote passes unanimously. I want to say thank you to the staff before you leave. Hang Hang on, we're not done yet. Okay, uh vote has been made. 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 Committee's recommendations. [snorts]

Thank you. Make sure you go to the City Council meeting to also Yeah, please. I don't I don't believe it's been scheduled. The agenda will be posted, so check the the website for the agendas. Yeah, we still have a meeting. Sorry. [laughter] All right. All right, we're still in a meeting here, folks. Security. [snorts]

Security. Do I get to use the gavel? Here we go. Order in the house. All right, uh is there any other business at this time? Deputy Director. Yes, oral communications and reports. Chairman Kennedy, staff has no communications or reports tonight. Do any commissioners have anything to report? No. Uh does staff have anything or this is the mobile hit mobile home rent mediation board to staff have anything to report?

No items tonight. Tree Advisory Board, does staff have anything to report? We have no items tonight. I believe you may have had one email to your boxes about a tree removal permit. Yes. Uh okay, this concludes the meeting March 4th, 2026. The next scheduled meeting will be March 25th, 2026. Meeting is adjourned.