Santa Barbara Passes Tenant Protections Addressing ‘Renovictions’

Provisions Include Rent Cap on Renovated Units, Stricter Contractor Requirements, ‘Cooling-Off Period’

Councilmember Wendy Santamaria has been pushing for stronger protections against evictions. “These three amendments here have been through due process, have been talked about for years,” she said. "There are people’s lives — not just money — at risk here.” | Credit: Ingrid Bostrom

The Santa Barbara City Council voted 4-2 Tuesday to tighten the city’s eviction ordinance, adding a 10 percent cap on rent increases for tenants displaced for renovations, along with two more provisions intended to protect tenants from a process that’s come to be known as “renoviction.”

For more than two years, renters have shared firsthand experiences of “renovictions,” in which property owners evict tenants for a substantial remodel and rents are raised beyond what the original tenants could afford. In 2023, the city began pursuing changes to the city code to address the problem, with several amendments gaining unanimous approval from the Ordinance Committee in December 2023. But when the proposal came across the City Council in January 2024, it was tweaked at the last minute, granting tenants the right to return if they were kicked out for renovations, but putting no limit on what property owners could charge for rent.

Even back then, Councilmember Meagan Harmon warned that the ordinance left the door wide open for legal renovictions using what she called a “loophole” in the law that left residents vulnerable for displacement. The loophole, though seemingly small and highly specific, “punches way above its weight” in terms of its impact on the community, Harmon said on Tuesday.

In February this year, councilmembers Wendy Santamaria and Kristen Sneddon brought back the three previously considered provisions by way of a two-person memo, asking that the City Council reconsider the amendments and close the loophole by placing a cap on rent increases post-renovation, requiring a third-party contractor to prove tenants must be displaced for renovations, and instituting a “cooling-off period” that would prevent remodeling or demolishing properties with more than five units for at least a year after purchase.

It took several extra steps, with the council first voting to officially consider the item, then another hearing to decide when to put the matter to a council vote. It was then scheduled for a big hearing on April 8, which was canceled due to Councilmember Eric Friedman suffering a heart attack just a few days before. And as each week passed, more residents came to the city to report more evictions, with Councilmember Sneddon estimating “upwards of 100 people” affected.

“Every time we hear this, we see new faces,” Sneddon said at Tuesday’s hearing. “Because there are new units that are being impacted; there are new people affected. Every time we talk about this and don’t act, we are exacerbating the problem.”

As usual, the hearing drew a crowd of public commenters, with more than 30 people supporting the tenant protections and about a dozen property owners and real estate experts speaking out against the restrictions.

According to data from the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County, which provides legal representation to tenants fighting eviction, there have been 161 households evicted for renovations since 2023. Of those, only 43 remain.

One of those displaced residents is Christian Nuñez, who was born and raised in Santa Barbara, where he lived with his family before they were evicted for a renovation. They couldn’t afford to stay in town and moved to Ventura County, with his parents still commuting to work in Santa Barbara daily. “We didn’t just lose our housing, but we lost the connection to the place we called home,” Nuñez said. “Our story is not unique.”

Others reported being evicted for minor repairs such as bathtub replacements and forced to decide whether they should uproot their families or try their luck in Santa Barbara’s notoriously competitive rental market.

On the other hand, property owners worried that the amendments were politically motivated, and that the new cap on rent increases would make it virtually impossible to undertake any renovations. Betty Jeppesen, President of the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association, said that the city requiring a third-party contractor was putting another undue burden on landlords.

“It is difficult enough to get one contractor to work,” she said. “Getting two contractors and asking that one sign a document under penalty of perjury is impossible.”

Some property owners warned that adding more restrictions would cause landlords to defer maintenance and allow properties to deteriorate, ultimately hurting tenants more in the end. Developers argued that any influence on the open market could have a chilling effect on new construction.

Councilmember Santamaria, who has been a vocal supporter of tenants even prior to her election to council, fought back against the idea that tightening the ordinance would lead to unintended consequences. She said the city included exemptions on any units built in the past 15 years, owner-occupied single-family residences, single-family homes and condos not owned by corporations, duplex units where owners live in a unit, and institutional rentals like hotels, dorms, and deed-restricted low-income housing.

“These three amendments here have been through due process, have been talked about for years,” Councilmember Santamaria said. “There’s literally no reason to delay. There are people’s lives — not just money — at risk here.”

Councilmember Mike Jordan, who originally suggested the “cooling-off period” before having a change of heart and voting against it, said that he agreed that the problem was real, though he “disagreed with the pathway to solve the problem.” Mayor Randy Rowse, who also voted against the provisions, said he felt as though the city was pitting one side against the other and perpetuating the narrative of landlords against tenants.

“Both sides need each other,” Mayor Rowse said.

The council approved the three amendments in a 4-2 vote, directing city staff to return with an ordinance to be officially adopted during next week’s consent agenda. Council also asked that the city consider an appeals process for landlords to pursue exemptions that aren’t covered by the ordinance.