Work Needed on New Santa Barbara Renter Eviction Rules, Council Says

Santa Barbara renters hoping for swift, stronger eviction protections will have to wait. City Councilmembers agreed informally on Tuesday that proposed amendments to the city's just cause eviction ordinance need more work — and more conversation with landlords — before they're ready for a final vote, the Noozhawk reported.

The decision comes at a tense moment in the city's housing politics. Just weeks ago, the council approved a rent stabilization ordinance capping annual rent increases and creating a rental unit registry — and a referendum petition is already underway to overturn it. That backdrop loomed large over Tuesday's discussion, with councilmembers weighing how far to push tenant protections without triggering a second referendum campaign.

What the Amendments Would Do

The amendments, first considered earlier this year and expanded with new proposals from tenant advocates, would tighten the rules governing when and how landlords can evict tenants in Santa Barbara.

Among the most significant changes: if a property owner or family member moves into a unit after taking it off the rental market, they would be required to stay for 36 months. If they leave sooner, the owner would have to offer the unit back to the displaced tenant at the prior rent and reimburse "reasonable" move-in expenses. Owners would also be limited to moving themselves or a relative into just one unit per property.

Other proposed provisions include:

• Language access: Eviction notices would have to be provided in the tenant's primary language.
• School-year protections: During the school year, landlords could not evict tenants to move in themselves or family members if a child would be displaced, or if the tenant works for a school, college or university.
• Habitability and non-payment: Landlords could not evict a tenant for withholding rent over habitability issues, and could not evict for non-payment unless the amount owed equals a full month's rent.
• Nuisance definition: Calling 9-1-1, being a crime victim, having a past conviction, or an arrest at the property would not, by itself, constitute a nuisance justifying eviction.
• Temporary displacement pay: Tenants displaced fewer than 30 days for property improvements would receive $150 per day for lodging and $30 per day for meals — but only if they keep paying rent during the displacement.
• Fewer exemptions: Three existing exemptions — for owner-occupied duplexes, housing built in the last 15 years, and individually owned homes and condos — would be removed.

Councilmembers Search for Middle Ground

Several councilmembers made clear they weren't ready to sign off. Councilmembers Mike Jordan and Eric Friedman, along with Mayor Randy Rowse, said the ordinance felt one-sided and asked city staff to hold more conversations with property owners and landlords, according to the Noozhawk.

Councilmember Meagan Harmon, while supportive of preventing tenant displacement, urged compromise — and pointed to the referendum threat hanging over the city's rent stabilization ordinance as a cautionary tale.

"I would like to avoid another referendum here," Harmon said. "I'm sorry, I don't want to miss the forest for the trees here and to say I'm unwilling to compromise on anything and then for this to be a referendum just like the other ordinance and then we lose it altogether."

Councilmember Kristen Sneddon — also a Santa Barbara City College professor — suggested college students should be included in the school-year protections, noting that many students are housing insecure and that displacement is highly disruptive to their academic records. She and Harmon both suggested the protections may not need to extend to school administrators. Sneddon also called for incentives recognizing "gold standard housing providers" who charge below-market rents and maintain their units well.

Landlords and Advocates Remain at Odds

Public comment reflected the deep divide that has characterized Santa Barbara's housing debates for years.

Cameron Porter, who owns a single duplex as part of his retirement plan, told the council he's now likely to sell the property because of the rent caps and eviction limits.

"I really feel as though my hands are tied," Porter said. "I'm actually going to be looking to sell that property to probably somebody that's going to move in as an owner occupy, which will eliminate one of those two rentals. I'm really disappointed."

Tenant advocates countered that the amendments are about basic fairness — giving renters a stated reason for eviction and a plan when they're displaced.

"These just cause amendments are simply about human decency," Stanley Tzankov told the council, arguing that notifying tenants of renovation plans or not uprooting children mid-school-year are things "a good neighbor" would do.

What Comes Next

The ordinance won't return to the City Council until after the new year, City Administrator Kelly McAdoo said, citing heavy staff workloads.

That timeline means the fate of both the just cause amendments and the broader rent stabilization ordinance could be shaped by the ongoing referendum effort, and potentially by the outcomes of future council elections. For now, Santa Barbara's renters and landlords alike are left in a holding pattern — with tenants waiting to see whether stronger protections arrive, and small property owners weighing whether staying in the rental business still makes sense.

The stakes are real on both sides: for renters in one of California's most expensive housing markets, displacement can mean leaving the city entirely; for "mom and pop" landlords like Porter, each new restriction compounds the sense that their investments are being redefined by the council. Whether staff can craft a version of the ordinance that threads that needle — and avoids a second referendum — is the question heading into the new year.