The four-person majority on the Santa Barbara City Council voted to limit increases and made other policy decisions in the city’s proposed rent stabilization ordinance on Tuesday, while the minority members mostly abstained from voting or voted against most policy decisions.
The council majority supported rent limits, forming a rental registry and considering exemptions for landlords. City staff will use this direction to draft an ordinance and bring that back for consideration in June.
Councilwoman Kristen Sneddon said after talking about the issue for nine years, it was time to settle on policy.
“Everytime we bring it up it creates turmoil, it creates stress, and that’s from all groups impacted,” Sneddon said. “It’s time for us to move forward.”
Councilmembers Meagan Harmon, Wendy Santamaria, Oscar Gutierrez, and Sneddon voted to limit rent increases to one time in a 12-month period at 60% of Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a maximum of 3%, whichever is lower.
Mayor Randy Rowse and Councilmen Eric Friedman and Mike Jordan voted against it.
Rowse said he voted against the limit because he worried landlords would feel the need to increase rent right up to the cap, leading to overall higher rents.
Santa Barbara has a temporary rent increase moratorium in effect, which limits rent increases for certain housing units, pending the development of a rent stabilization ordinance.
People packed the City Hall hearing room for public comment at the Tuesday meeting and the council discussion and votes went late Tuesday night. Members were making votes on policy options for the ordinance past 10 p.m.
The four-person majority voted not to allow rent banking, which is when property owners save an allowed rent increase they didn’t use from a previous year and apply it later.
Additionally the majority voted to establish a detailed rental registry with rent and unit information.
After the rent limit vote, Jordan said he felt the need to abstain on everything else that followed because the rest of the policy can’t exist as a separate issue.
“All these other things are pretty much meaningless votes to me,” Jordan said.
The council majority also supported multiple petition types for tenants and landlords, with a pathway for landlords to petition for a rent increase above the allowed cap, in order to get a fair return on habitability improvements.
For the petition process, the majority voted in favor to have an independent hearing officer, and appeal decisions to a board or commission, and offer mediation as an optional service.
The council also voted to expand tenant protections regarding standardizing disclosures, language access, and noticing requirements.
To fund the ordinance, the council voted to explore annual per-unit registration fees and a combination of registration and petition fees.
Rowse, Jordan, and Friedman abstained from the votes on rent banking, petitions, mediation, tenant protections, establishing a rental registry, and ordinance funding.
The council also voted to explore protections for housing provider status and long-term tenancy incentives as part of the ordinance, specifically to protect local mom and pop landlords. That decision passed 5-2, with Rowse and Friedman abstaining.
The council voted to not add additional exemptions, other than what is mandated under state law, but will later discuss exemptions for deed-restricted affordable housing, Section 8 or other government housing programs that lock in below-market rates.
Friedman raised the issue, citing a letter from the Housing Authority that said applying a local rent cap on top of federally controlled rates creates a conflict for the housing programs.
“Perhaps most importantly, failing to exempt these units will have real world consequences. Landlord participation in voucher programs is already fragile,” Friedman said, reading a letter from Rob Fredericks, director of the city’s Housing Authority.
“Adding another layer of regulation, particularly one that may restrict rent adjustments independent of HUD processes or create uncertainty about allowable rents, will discourage participation.”
Santamaria was the only councilmember that abstained from that vote, fearing that exempting the properties from the local ordinance would also exempt them from protections in the Housing Crisis Act.
Public Comment
During public comment, Don Katich said there was nothing stable about the policy and argued it would hurt landlords.
“This City Council has made it a criminal offence to make an administrative or technical error if you’re a landlord,” Katich said. “Rent stabilization may offer short term relief to some existing tenants but it does so at a cost for future tenants who will face artificially inflated and distorted rents.”
Stanley Tzankov, co-founder of the Santa Barbara Tenants Union, argued that tenants needed a strong rent cap, a rent board to enforce the ordinance, and a rental registry.
“At the end of the day many renters still feel like we’re being left behind in a horrendously unchecked commodification of our homes and the stakes couldn’t be higher now,” Tzankov said. “Even with the limited temporary rent freeze, rent spirals out of control.”
Rev. Nicole Iaquinto advocated for the stabilization ordinance, stating it was needed to add peace of mind for residents.
“It creates a measure of safety that allows people to breathe, to plan, to stay rooted in their neighborhoods, and to continue contributing to the life of this city without the constant fear of displacement,” Iaquinto said.
Speakers also spoke out against a last-minute idea to put the rent stabilization measure on the Nov. 3 general election ballot as opposed to the council adopting it outright.
While no official vote was taken, the majority of the council was not in favor of the ballot measure.
“For eight years I’ve been on council, I’ve been carrying this issue on my back so I’m going to continue carrying it because I gave the people my word,” Councilman Oscar Gutierrez said.
Rowse said he was surprised by how much resistance there was over putting the issue on the ballot.
“I don’t like taking stuff to the ballot because it’s risky, it’s risky on both sides and what you’re stuck with, you’re stuck with,” Rowse said. “However, in a situation like this where we’re getting ready to change the entire fiscal profile of the housing market in this town, in a very, very significant way, I think everybody has to have the chance to weigh in.”
Public comment was relatively civil during Tuesday’s meeting, right up until the end when Rowse admonished speaker Ana Garcia for her use of profanity.
“I decided to come in person because I wanted to look you straight in the eyes and let you know, we the tenants are 60% of the people who f—ing vote for you,” Garcia said.
Rowse asked her to keep the language civil, and interrupted her again when she cursed for a second time. When her time was up and she walked away from the podium, Garcia said: “We’ll take over city hall. Pass this shit today, or else.”
Temporary Freeze on Rent Increases in Effect
Tuesday’s discussion came after the city established a temporary rent freeze, which took effect in February.
Last week, the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the city’s rent freeze and eviction restrictions.
The complaint asks for a preliminary injunction. Four rental property owners are listed as plaintiffs, and the city of Santa Barbara and City Council are listed as defendants.
The temporary freeze will last through the end of 2026 or whenever a permanent rent stabilization ordinance is finalized.
The rent stabilization policies apply only to tenants and landlords of properties located within city of Santa Barbara boundaries.
After receiving the council’s feedback, city staff will bring a draft stabilization ordinance to the council in June.
