Santa Barbara City Council Shapes Permanent Rent Stabilization Ordinance

After another marathon hearing — with hours of passionate public comment, council deliberation, and more than a dozen separate votes — the Santa Barbara City Council gave specific policy direction outlining the basic elements of its upcoming rent stabilization ordinance.

These policy directives will be used to draft the permanent citywide rent cap program, with the goal of having a draft of the ordinance ready for the City Council to consider by this summer in order to meet the timeline of adoption and implementation in early 2027.

Tuesday’s council hearing was just the latest in a long line of public meetings regarding rent stabilization, which is supported by a four-vote majority on the council despite pushback from property owners who consider any form of rent stabilization as an overreach of government power on the rental market. Property owners have also filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s temporary rent freeze, implemented to keep prices stable during the planning process for the permanent program.

Representatives from the city’s newly hired consultant RSG, Inc. joined staff from the city administrator’s office to help facilitate the discussion and to get council input on more than a dozen points, from the proposed level of the cap to the exemptions allowed and whether the city would implement a rental registry to keep track of necessary data to run the program.

The consultant team and city staff had spent the past several weeks running focus groups and meeting with community members, renters, housing advocates, property owners, real estate professionals, and property management groups to get input on the top priorities for a Santa Barbara–based rent stabilization program. They also looked at a selection of California cities to compare how other jurisdictions have tailored their respective programs.

According to research provided by RSG Senior Associate Sara Court and Vice President Tara Broughton, there are more than 23,000 rental units within the City of Santa Barbara, half of which are multifamily properties with five or more units. The consultants could not estimate exactly how many units would be covered by a potential rent stabilization program, though the number could fall anywhere between 12,000 to 17,000 units, depending on the number of exemptions allowed.

Some of the policy recommendations came from the stakeholder meetings, including a suggestion made by property owner groups asking that the City Council consider placing the item on the ballot for a citywide vote. Councilmembers shot down the proposal, preferring to continue through the regular planning process and sharing concerns about the timeline of a ballot measure. Only Mayor Randy Rowse voiced support for a ballot measure.

Opinions varied widely during public comment, with tenants and housing advocates urging the City Council against further delays, while property owners and real estate groups demanded the city reconsider moving forward with the permanent rent cap.

Brian Johnson, CEO of the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors, said that the policy decided by council could “shape Santa Barbara’s housing market” for the next few decades. “A decision this significant shouldn’t rest on a divided council vote, it should reflect the democratic legitimacy that comes from the will of the full community,” he said.

Renters and housing advocates asked council to protect the renters of the city, which make up about 60 percent of the total population. 

“We’re arguing right now about whether we’re going to represent the majority of disadvantaged people or a super-minority of already advantaged people,” said Santa Barbara resident Bryndan Callaway. “Why is this even a point of discussion? What the tenants have asked for is a fair and reasonable compromise with landlords, and the landlords are pushing back on that.”

Councilmember Kristen Sneddon said she was eager to work out the details for a permanent rent cap, which has been in the works in some form for more than eight years. 

“Every time we bring it up, it creates turmoil, it creates stress, and that’s from all groups impacted,” Sneddon said. “It’s time to move forward. I think it’s time for us to settle on policy.”

Council took more than a dozen separate votes on each section of the policy, with almost every item moving forward in a 4-3 vote, with Councilmembers Eric Friedman and Mike Jordan and Mayor Randy Rowse abstaining from most votes.

Midway through the long series of votes, Councilmember Jordan voiced his frustration with the process, saying that he found “no better way” but to abstain from votes based on a disagreement with the base cap level of 60 percent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Council voted 4-3 (with three abstentions) to move forward with a cap set at 60 percent of CPI or 3 percent, whichever is lower.

Council voted 4-3 against allowing landlords to bank unused rent increases for future years and in favor of a robust petition process allowing landlords to petition for a fair return but limiting petitions on nonessential improvements. Similar 4-3 votes decided on how petition and appeals would be handled, increasing transparency, exploring funding methods, and instituting a rental registry.

Councilmembers debated on which exemptions to allow, specifically on whether Housing Authority and Section 8 units would be exempted in the city’s ordinance. The council originally considered allowing no exemptions beyond state law, but on the suggestion of Councilmember Eric Friedman the motion was amended to bring back discussion on the Housing Authority exemption. The vote passed 6-1 with Councilmember Wendy Santamaria abstaining.

City staff will now work to draft an ordinance to be presented to council this summer.