At last week’s Santa Barbara City Council Ordinance Committee meeting, something unexpected happened.
As one speaker was explaining concerns about the urgency of pushing forward a deeply flawed short-term rental (STR) ordinance, an individual collapsed in the room.
Emergency responders rushed in, the meeting was paused, and ultimately the committee ran out of time before all public comment could be heard.
In an unusual way, the ordinance itself was saved by the bell.
Because what became clear — even before the interruption — is that this proposal is not ready.
More concerning, it appears that the very body now responsible for refining it is not fully engaging with the magnitude of the issues raised.
Misleading Narrative
One of the few new data points introduced by city staff was the assertion that the proposed ordinance could allow for up to 4,000 potential short-term rental properties.
That number is striking, but also misleading.
It assumes that thousands of properties could meet the ordinance’s criteria, yet under the actual requirements, including strict on-site parking mandates, zoning limitations and layered restrictions, the reality is that only a handful — likely fewer than 30 — would actually qualify to operate.
That is not regulation.
It is a de facto ban presented as a framework — and one the California Coastal Commission will immediately recognize.
Which leads to an obvious question:
If the ordinance effectively eliminates nearly all STR activity anyway, why is there not a clear and immediate provision to grandfather the approximately 160 operators who are already registered, paying transient-occupancy tax, and operating in good faith?
That group represents less than 5% of the theoretical 4,000.
They are not the problem. They are the ones who followed the rules.
Missing Conversation
Throughout both the Planning Commission process and now the Ordinance Committee discussion, one of the most practical and equitable solutions has received little attention:
Grandfathering existing, licensed, TOT-paying operators.
These operators have:
- Registered with the city
- Paid taxes year after year
- Operated transparently and accountably
- Been known and trackable within the system
In other words, they represent exactly the kind of behavior any ordinance should encourage.
Yet under the current proposal, they are being eliminated alongside unregistered and noncompliant operators — with no meaningful distinction.
Even more notable, City Councilwoman Meagan Harmon has previously expressed support for grandfathering these operators.
So why has that not meaningfully appeared in the ordinance or in committee discussion?
It’s a question worth asking.
Revisiting ‘Lived Experience’
Recent commentary, including Brandy Zender’s March 22 op/ed, “The Reality of Living Next to Short-Term Rentals,” highlights the lived experience of neighbors.
Those concerns are valid and should be heard.
But they should also be grounded in accurate context.
In this case, available information suggests that the situation described is far more limited than portrayed.
There appears to be only one active short-term rental in close proximity, with another having converted to long-term use more than a year ago.
That remaining STR is professionally managed by Paradise Retreats, a well-known and highly reputable local management company with a strong track record of responsiveness and compliance.
That distinction matters.
Every neighborhood experiences issues — whether from homeowners, long-term tenants or visitors. That is precisely why nuisance laws already exist and are enforceable today.
Noise, trespass, parking violations and safety concerns are not unique to STRs, nor are they unregulated.
The idea that short-term rentals inherently operate outside these protections is simply not accurate.
Homestays Not a Substitute
Perhaps the most critical flaw in the ordinance is its reliance on homestays as a replacement for traditional short-term rentals.
They are not comparable.
A homestay — in which the host remains on-site — is a fundamentally different experience, appealing to a different type of visitor and not suitable for families or groups seeking privacy and flexibility.
To suggest that homestays can replace whole-home rentals is not just optimistic — it is detached from market reality.
If homestays become the primary model, the outcome is clear: Short-term rentals will effectively be eliminated.
Concerns and Implications
Perhaps most concerning is what has happened to the Planning Commission’s extensive list of concerns, including:
- Lack of reliable data on STR numbers and locations
- Uncertainty around enforcement mechanisms
- Failure to analyze visitor capacity impacts
- The absence of clear economic analysis, including more than $4 million in potential annual TOT revenue loss
- Questions about consistency with the California Coastal Act
These are not minor issues.
They go directly to the heart of what the Coastal Act requires: that coastal communities protect and provide lower-cost visitor accommodations and maintain public access.
An ordinance that eliminates the majority of visitor-serving capacity, relies on a substitute (homestays) that cannot replace that capacity and lacks supporting data is not just flawed — it is likely inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
In other words, the very issues identified by the Planning Commission are the same issues that could lead to denial by the Coastal Commission and significant legal challenge.
Process, Timing, Public Confidence
At some point, the conversation must turn to process.
Why the urgency? Why move forward with so many unanswered questions? And why does timing appear to take precedence over substance?
These questions become more relevant when considering that the coastal component of this ordinance will ultimately be reviewed by the Coastal Commission, which currently is chaired by Harmon.
Advancing a flawed ordinance under these circumstances raises legitimate concerns about whether the process is being driven by sound planning — or by political timing.
A Moment to Reset
The unexpected pause in last week’s meeting created something valuable: Time.
Time to reflect. Time to correct course. Time to do what should have been done before advancing the ordinance in the first place.
The path forward is straight:
- Grandfather the approximately 160 licensed, TOT-paying operators
- Address the Planning Commission’s unresolved concerns
- Re-evaluate unrealistic assumptions about homestays
- Ensure compliance with the Coastal Act
This is not about opposing regulation, but about getting it right.
Choice Ahead
The council’s Ordinance Committee now has a choice:
Move forward with an ordinance that is widely viewed as flawed — one that risks Coastal Commission rejection, more than $4 million in lost annual revenue, and significant legal exposure.
Or take this opportunity to slow down, listen and produce a policy that is fair, balanced and defensible.
Santa Barbara deserves better.
