Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Residents urge ban on short-term rentals as state law on platform reporting nears effect

October 20, 2025 | Simi Valley, Ventura County, California


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

Residents urge ban on short-term rentals as state law on platform reporting nears effect
Several residents urged the Simi Valley City Council on Oct. 20 to ban residential short-term rentals and to require council members or staff to recuse themselves if they have financial interests in local rental properties.

The comments came during the public statements section. “Before the council acts on the issue of short term rentals, the public should know if any council member or member of city staff has a financial interest in any local rental property. If so, said party should recuse themselves,” said Anthony Eason, a Simi Valley resident. Eason and another speaker cited Senate Bill 346, which they said Gov. Newsom recently signed and which they described as authorizing local governments to require short-term rental platforms to share data to help enforce local rules.

Why it matters: speakers said regulating short-term rentals could require new enforcement capacity and could affect neighborhood character and property values. One commenter provided staff-cost estimates for a local permitting and enforcement program and urged the council to weigh those before acting.

Speakers asked the council to adopt a “good neighbor” policy, require permits, collect transient occupancy taxes and business license fees, codify fines and citations, and publish a public-facing registry with contact and complaint information. “The city of Simi Valley should immediately ban all residential short term rentals,” Eason said.

Eason and another commenter gave specific cost and staffing figures they attributed to staff work estimates: up to $37,000 to track and issue permits; approximately $254,000 to add an additional code enforcement officer, portions of planning and police time, and other implementation costs; and a projected first-year shortfall “up to a $23,000 loss,” as stated in the public comment.

Speakers also urged that any zoning changes be reviewed by the Planning Commission in open hearing and noted SB 346’s effective date. “Even if SB 346 is not challenged, it’s still not be enacted until 01/01/2026,” one commenter said.

Council response: Council Member Rhodes invited interested residents and subject-matter experts to contact him directly to help shape any local proposal and noted there are existing ebike and sidewalk safety regulations to consider in public education efforts. Rhodes said staff and council will need expertise to draft enforceable, clear local rules.

No council motion to change policy or direct staff to draft regulations was made at the Oct. 20 meeting. The matter was discussed only in public comment and council-member remarks.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal