The Santa Barbara Planning Commission voted 4–2 last week to advance a proposed short-term rental (STR) ordinance that would dramatically restrict vacation rentals across the city and rely primarily on “homestays” as the substitute form of visitor accommodation in the coastal zone.

But the most important takeaway from the meeting was not the vote.

It was the number of serious unanswered questions commissioners raised before the vote occurred — questions that remained unresolved even as the ordinance moved forward.

During the discussion, commissioners asked staff for basic information that should normally precede a policy decision of this magnitude.

Among the questions raised:

• How many short-term rentals actually operate in Santa Barbara?
• How many properties would realistically qualify under the proposed restrictions?
• What would the ordinance do to transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue?
• Would a cap or permit lottery system be more appropriate?
• Would the proposal withstand scrutiny under the California Coastal Act?

These are not minor details. They are the core data points required to evaluate whether the ordinance will achieve its stated goals.

Yet by the end of the hearing, many of those questions remained unanswered.

Despite that, the ordinance moved forward.

Abrupt Change of Direction

Perhaps the most revealing moment came nearly four hours into the meeting.

Several commissioners had indicated that the ordinance should return to the Planning Commission with additional data and analysis before moving forward.

The direction of the conversation suggested a pause: gather the missing information, refine the proposal and then reconsider it.

Then, at approximately 3 hours and 47 minutes into the meeting, City Attorney John Doimas intervened.

He warned the commissioners that sending the ordinance back for further review would “drastically push back the deadline.”

You can see that moment in the meeting recording here:

The obvious question is: What deadline?

The Planning Commission’s role is to independently review what the City Council and staff propose — not to rush ordinances forward simply to meet a political timetable.

Yet the warning about timing clearly changed the direction of the discussion. Instead of returning to the Planning Commission for deeper analysis, the ordinance moved forward despite the unresolved concerns.

Political Timing Problem

The coastal portion of this ordinance must ultimately be approved by the California Coastal Commission.

At the same time, City Councilwoman Meagan Harmon currently chairs the Coastal Commission.

If the Planning Commission had paused the process and requested the additional analysis commissioners were clearly asking for — data on visitor capacity, TOT impacts and housing outcomes — the timeline for the ordinance would almost certainly extend several months.

That would likely push Coastal Commission review into a period after Harmon’s term as Coastal Commission chair ends later this year.

Instead, the ordinance is now being pushed forward quickly through the remaining stages of the city’s process.

When a “deadline” is suddenly invoked at the exact moment commissioners were considering sending the ordinance back for further analysis, it is reasonable for the public to ask whether the process is being driven by planning considerations — or by political timing.

Even the appearance of such a conflict should concern anyone who cares about transparent government.

Policy Built on a Weak Substitute

The ordinance attempts to preserve coastal visitor access by allowing homestays, where the homeowner remains on the property during the stay.

But homestays are not a realistic substitute for traditional short-term rentals.

A homestay requires the owner or host to be present overnight and typically limits occupancy to a small number of guests. Families traveling together rarely seek out this type of arrangement.

Market data reflect this mismatch between policy assumptions and real demand.

Across the vacation rental market:

• Entire-home rentals dominate bookings
• Hosted stays represent a much smaller share of demand
• Private-room listings have declined significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic

In Santa Barbara’s coastal zone specifically, industry analyses submitted during the public comment process estimate that unhosted short-term rentals account for roughly 88% of the existing STR supply, while hosted rentals represent only about 12%.

Replacing the 88% with the 12% is not regulation. It is elimination — effectively a ban on vacation rentals.

The Coastal Act Problem

The ordinance also raises serious concerns under the California Coastal Act that governs coastal development and public access along the coastline.

The Coastal Act requires local governments to protect and encourage visitor-serving accommodations that allow the public to access the coast.

Specifically, it mandates that:

• Lower-cost visitor accommodations “shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible provided.”
• Coastal development must maintain and enhance public access to the shoreline.

Short-term rentals have historically helped fulfill these mandates because they provide:

• Flexible lodging capacity during peak tourism seasons
• Lower per-person costs for families and groups
• Accommodations with kitchens that reduce travel expenses

Market analysis submitted to the Planning Commission indicates that:

• Short-term rentals represent roughly 67% of total room inventory in the coastal zone
• They provide approximately 68% of total overnight visitor capacity

Hotels alone cannot absorb this demand.

Santa Barbara’s hotels already operate at high occupancy levels, averaging roughly 68% annually and approaching 77% during the summer season.

If the majority of short-term rentals disappear, the likely result is simple:

Visitors will not shift to hotels. Many simply will not come at all.

The entire purpose of any effective ordinance should be to maintain existing coastal access, yet this proposal risks undermining the Coastal Act’s requirement to preserve affordable coastal visitation.

Litigation Risk Is Real

Because of these conflicts with Coastal Act policy, the ordinance as currently written could face significant legal challenges.

Several stakeholders have warned that the proposal:

• Eliminates a substantial portion of visitor-serving accommodations in the coastal zone
• Relies on a homestay model that cannot realistically replace that capacity
• Lacks the quantitative analysis necessary to justify its restrictions

If adopted in its current form, the ordinance could face:

• Rejection or modification by the Coastal Commission
• Formal legal challenges
• Costly litigation that delays implementation for years

None of those outcomes benefit Santa Barbara.

More Reasonable Alternative

There is a far more practical path forward — one that protects neighborhoods while preserving coastal access and reducing legal risk.

The city could grandfather existing compliant operators who are already:

• Registered with the city
• Paying TOT taxes
• Operating under established rules

These operators represent only a small fraction of the city’s housing stock and vacation rentals, yet these are the folks who have been operating transparently and contributing tax revenue.

They could remain subject to strict enforcement standards, including:

• Occupancy limits
• Noise restrictions
• License revocation for verified violations

Most important, the authorization could run with the owner rather than with the property.

When the property is sold, the STR authorization would expire.

Because only a fraction of operators are registered and paying taxes today, this approach would:

• Protect legitimate operators acting in good faith
• Eliminate illegal operators
• Gradually reduce STR inventory through natural attrition
• Preserve visitor accommodations required under the Coastal Act

It would also avoid exposing the city to unnecessary legal risk.

Slow Down and Get It Right

Santa Barbara still has time to get this right.

It can slow down, answer the unanswered questions, test the revenue and capacity claims, and build a lawful, balanced framework that protects neighborhoods without pretending homestays are a real substitute for family-scale coastal lodging.

Instead, what appears to be happening is that this flawed ordinance is being rammed through the planning process so it can reach the Coastal Commission while Harmon is still chairing that body.

If that happens, Harmon will be in a position to influence her fellow Coastal Commissioners to approve an ordinance that many observers believe is legally deficient under the Coastal Act — potentially delivering a political victory before her term expires at the end of the year.

That may be good politics. But it is not good planning. Santa Barbara deserves better.