Santa Barbara Moves to Strengthen Tenant Protections

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — Santa Barbara City Council members voted Tuesday to fast-track stronger tenant protections.

The council voted 4-3 to bring back amendments to the tenant protection ordinance, specifically targeting "renovictions," on April 8.

The amendments would require landlords to obtain verification, under penalty of perjury, from an independent third party confirming that the work cannot be safely completed with the tenant in place and that the renovations will take longer than 30 days.

If a tenant is evicted due to renovations, they must be offered a right of first refusal to return once the renovations are completed. If they return, the amendment includes a 10% rent cap.

If a landlord purchases a property, the amendment states they cannot evict tenants for substantial renovations for at least one year.

These amendments aim to close loopholes in the tenant protection ordinance the council approved in 2024, which allow landlords to displace tenants under the pretense of renovations.

"The efficacy of this ordinance is profoundly limited while this loophole remains open," said Councilmember Meagan Harmon, who voted to move forward with the amendments.

"Every time we talk about this and don’t take action, we are actually making the problem worse," said Councilmember Kristin Sneddon, who also supported the amendments.

Councilmembers Eric Friedman, Mike Jordan, and Mayor Randy Rowse voted against the proposed amendments.

"I have no doubt this ordinance will be wildly successful—it'll certainly benefit the existing tenants, and nobody in those buildings ever after that," Jordan said. "It’s going to burden the city with significant administrative costs and reduce the livability of existing rental stock."

Councilmember Wendy Santamaria, who spearheaded the effort along with Sneddon, requested that the ordinance return next week, but city staff said they needed more time to clarify language with the Legal Aid Foundation.

The ordinance does not need to be sent to the Ordinance Committee because it was already unanimously approved there in a previous session.

"This process has had so many steps… there’s just simply no reason to add yet another stop," Harmon said. "I do not support it going back to Ordinance; I support it coming straight to Council."