New renter eviction rules need more work and conversation before approval, the Santa Barbara City Council decided on Tuesday.

Proposed amendments to the city’s just cause eviction ordinance tackle owners evicting tenants to move into the units, protections for children and payments for displacements.

While some of the councilmembers liked some of the new amendments, they agreed that the ordinance wasn’t ready to move forward and informally directed staff to keep working on it and have more conversations with housing providers.

While Councilmember Meagan Harmon supported preventing displacing tenants, she struggled with some of the amendments and looked for aspects that could be changed to try to meet landlords in the middle.

“I would like to avoid another referendum here,” Harmon said. “I’m sorry, I don’t want to miss the forest for the trees here and to say I’m unwilling to compromise on anything and then for this to be a referendum just like the other ordinance and then we lose it altogether.”

A referendum petition is underway in an attempt to throw out the rent stabilization ordinance that the City Council passed a few weeks ago. That ordinance included a cap on annual rent increases and created a rental unit registry.

On Tuesday, councilmembers Mike Jordan, Eric Friedman and Mayor Randy Rowse said they felt that the just cause eviction ordinance was one-sided and wanted city staff to have more conversations with property owners and landlords.

Proposed Eviction Rules

The City Council first considered the amendments earlier this year, but on Tuesday city staff unveiled new policy changes proposed by tenant advocates.

Under the proposed amendments, if an owner or a family member of the owner moves into a unit after it’s taken off the rental market, they have to stay for 36 months.

If they do not stay for 36 months, the owner must offer the unit back to the displaced tenant at the prior price and reimburse “reasonable” move-in expenses. 

Additionally, property owners would only be allowed to move themselves or a family member into one unit on a property. 

Eviction notices also have to be provided in the tenant’s primary language.

During the school year, landlords can’t evict tenants to move themselves or a family member in if a child would be displaced, or if the tenant is an employee for a school, college or university.

Harmon and Councilmember Kristen Sneddon suggested that the school year protections don’t need to apply to administrators. 

Sneddon, who is also a Santa Barbara City College professor, wanted to see college students included in this protection.

“Their college records really matter, and so many students are housing insecure, displaced. It’s very disruptive,” Sneddon said. 

Sneddon also said she wanted to see incentives for “gold standard housing providers” who offer below-market-rate rents and have well-maintained units.

Other amendments state that landlords can’t evict a tenant if rent is withheld for habitability issues, and can’t evict for non-payment unless the amount owed is a full month’s worth of rent. 

There are also proposed rules relating to what is considered a nuisance. Calling 9-1-1 or the police, being a victim of a crime, a past conviction, or an arrest at the property is not, by itself, enough to be considered a nuisance.

For tenants displaced for fewer than 30 days for improvements, landlords have to pay households $150 a day for lodging and $30 a day for meals, if the tenant is still paying rent during this time. 

Alternatively, if the tenant doesn’t continue paying rent during displacement, the landlord doesn’t have to provide any payments.

Three exemptions for owner-occupied duplexes, housing built in the last 15 years, and homes and condos owned by individuals have also been removed from the ordinance.

Landlords, Tenant Advocates at Odds

The proposed amendments continue to put landlords and tenant advocates at odds.

Many landlords argued that the policy amendments, along with the rent stabilization ordinance, make it harder for small property owners to run their business. 

Cameron Porter said he’s likely to sell his duplex property, which was part of his retirement plan, because of the ordinances.

“I really feel as though my hands are tied,” Porter said. “I’m actually going to be looking to sell that property to probably somebody that’s going to move in as an owner occupy, which will eliminate one of those two rentals. I’m really disappointed.”

Tenant advocates argued that the ordinance gives tenants a reason for why they are being evicted.

“These just cause amendments are simply about human decency,” Stanley Tzankov said.

He went on to say that letting tenants know what the plan is if they are displaced during renovations or not evicting children during the school year are just “decent” things one would do as a “good neighbor.”

He added: “Please support and keep improving this ordinance about basic human decency.”

Due to heavy staff workload, the ordinance won’t return to the City Council for consideration again until after the new year, according to City Administrator Kelly McAdoo.