This round goes to the landlords.

The Santa Barbara City Council approved a tenant protections ordinance Tuesday night, but it was missing the primary piece preferred by tenants and advocates.

Tenants will be allowed the first right of refusal after a landlord renovation, but there is no dollar amount cap for how much landlords can raise the rent if the tenant returns.

The tenants and rent protection activists wanted a 10% cap.

The vote was 6-1, with Councilwoman Meagan Harmon voting in opposition, after a nearly four-hour meeting.

Harmon, the council’s most outspoken affordable-housing activist, said the ordinance was stripped of its most important element.

“I just cannot vote for this,” she said. “I cannot water down or compromise on what is right. We are not just talking about people’s livelihoods. We are talking about people’s lives.”

Four members of the council — Mayor Randy Rowse, Councilman Eric Friedman, Councilwoman Alejandra Gutierrez and Councilman Mike Jordan — said they could not support a cap on the amount landlords could charge after an eviction.

Although Councilwoman Kristen Sneddon spoke strongly in defense of tenants early in the meeting, in the end she decided to back “the bare minimum,” she said, because it was better than nothing.

The ordinance passed Tuesday night does include some aspects supported by tenants.

The ordinance outlines actions that qualify as “harassment,” including a property owner failing to provide regular upkeep and maintenance to effectively evict a tenant, and misrepresenting when a tenant must leave a residence.

Sneddon noted that one in three Hispanic residents had been pushed out of Santa Barbara in the past five years because of high rent costs.

“We have a problem with community stability when one in three Hispanic members of our community have been displaced,” Sneddon said.

She said the city needs to approve a form of rent control to really address the issue of tenant displacement.

“I believe we need a rent cap, and I would like the council to consider a rent cap of 2% plus CPI to stabilize this community,” Sneddon said.

The issue arose as a way to protect renters who have been displaced because of property owner renovations.

Known as “renovictions,” tenants and activists say that property owners evict tenants under the guise of a renovation of the building and then, after making some repairs, jack up the rent to a level that the original tenant cannot afford.

Landlords have said that they need to raise rents after they renovate a building. The housing stock is old, and landlords will have no incentive to fix up buildings if they can’t raise the rent to recover their costs.

Councilwoman Alejandra Gutierrez said her Eastside District 1 is the last working-class community in the city, making it affordable for renters and property owners to buy. She said the ordinance would hurt small mom-and-pop owners because the big corporate landlords who want to hold renovictions can fight the battle out in court for years, but the smaller property owners can’t.

“In my district, you have the last standing working class because you have small property owners that have been there for generations and it’s the generational wealth they pass on to their family members,” Gutierrez said.

She said property owners don’t raise rents in her district 10%.

“It’s not because they can’t,” Gutierrez said. “They understand the need and the hardship that is out there.”

Still, she also contended that the exodus of Latinos from Santa Barbara is not new.

“This housing element, about the Hispanic kids leaving the district, the city, it’s been happening for years,” Gutierrez said. “All of my family members don’t live in the city of Santa Barbara. That’s a reality we all know.”

Jordan also said he could not support a first right of refusal with any cap in rents when the tenants return. He wanted to see a study that showed the impact of such an ordinance.

“That particular provision is a stopping point for me,” Jordan said.

Harmon disagreed strongly with Jordan and said a cap is “essential” to the ordinance. She said without the cap, the other components are merely “window dressing.”

Harmon looked over at Jordan from across the dais and said: “Councilman Jordan, you know that I respect you immensely, but I don’t understand what data you are asking for. A study, or more data, can’t give you or anyone the answers you are looking for when what you really want is a way out of making a difficult decision.”

Stanley Tzankov, a renter and tenant rights activist, agreed.

“There are a lot of good provisions in this ordinance, especially with anti-harassment, but the rent cap upon return is essential, especially for the vast majority of people, especially those of us most vulnerable, who are just trying to plan where we can afford in this unforgiving rental market,” Tzankov said.