Changes to Santa Barbara’s Just Cause Ordinance Need Ironing Out

---

This article was underwritten in part by the Mickey Flacks Journalism Fund for Social Justice, a proud, innovative supporter of local news. To make a contribution go to sbcan.org/journalism_fund.

---

By the end of Tuesday night, Santa Barbara’s City Council came to an informal agreement that amending the city’s just cause eviction ordinance, the law governing how and when landlords can evict tenants, will take more time. That consensus came after more than three hours of discussion from councilmembers, city staff, and members of the public. 

There was a lot to talk about. City staff presented 14 proposed changes to the ordinance in Tuesday night’s draft. Four of these changes came from a June draft of the amended law, released for public review alongside a public draft of the city’s controversial rent stabilization ordinance. Those carried-over amendments include specifying and changing where property owners file required paperwork when it comes to evictions, noticing tenants of their rights, and specify protections for elderly and disabled people in rent-controlled apartments.

Ten changes, however, were new. City staff said they included them after receiving 52 public comments. Staff said a little less than one-third came from property owners. 

One proposed amendment would remove three exemptions for small landlords from the city’s current ordinance, while another extends the requirement for how long a property owner needs to live in a unit if they evict tenants to occupy it from one to three years. One amendment spells out expanded requirements for how long a property owner has to wait before re-renting a property taken from the rental market, and what they need to do if they re-list the property. 

The changes would tighten requirements for evicting tenants for renovation and add limits to no-fault evictions, including adding a “school year defense” that would require landlords to wait until the school year ends before evicting students, teachers or school administrators. One amendment would specify one owner move-in per property if the property was not being completely removed from the market. For temporary relocations, the changes spell out how much a landlord would need to compensate a tenant per day. It also revises language to make clear that landlords do not pay overlapping benefits for relocation assistance. 

The propoped ordinance would also make changes to at-fault evictions, saying landlords could not evict tenants for not paying rent until tenants had failed to pay a total of one month’s rent. It would clarify that people cannot be evicted for being the victims of domestic violence, stalking, human trafficking, elder abuse or another crime, and mandate that if a tenant has damaged the property, landlords provide a reasonable opportunity for the tenant to fix the damages. 

Finally, the amendments propose noticing tenants of eviction in English, Spanish, or another language the landlord knows the tenant speaks.

About forty people gave public comments on these presented changes; the majority were property owners or involved in tenants’ rights advocacy. Tenants’ rights advocates, including members of the Santa Barbara Tenant’s Union and CAUSE, largely supported the changes to the law, saying they helped codify basic human decency and protect the community’s vulnerable, including low-income seniors and children. 

Most landlords vocally opposed the changes. Many identified themselves as small landlords, owning a few units, and said the amended ordinance would push them out of the business. Multiple landlords said the ordinance changes would penalize those who had kept their rents low. 

While councilmembers largely agreed the ordinance wasn’t ready for a vote, their concerns differed. 

Councilmember Wendy Santamaria largely supported staff efforts, but said the amendments needed some cleaning up and clarifying. Councilmember Harmon said that while she shared the fundamental goal of keeping people from losing their homes, several of the proposed changes did not, on their face, appear to get to the heart of this goal. She, like Councilmember Jordan, said they supported further conversations with landlords and compromises, especially to avoid a referendum. The city currently faces a possible referendum on its recently passed rent stabilization ordinance. 

Councilmember Sneddon said that she was concerned how the rent stabilization law’s uncertain future would affect the just cause ordinance, which includes language that assumes rent stabilization is in place. Councilmember Friedman talked about how not exempting new housing may discourage its development. Councilmember Gutierrez did not comment. 

Mayor Rowse said the city’s drafting of the proposed changes wasn’t inclusive of landlords, resulting in a “one-sided” draft. 

Santa Barbara’s just cause eviction ordinance is only seven years old. When it first passed in 2019, the Independent reported that “tenants’ rights advocates packed the chambers in what was a momentous debate.” 

The ordinance has changed since then. In 2023, the council amended it so that landlords planning a demolition or major renovation needed to obtain the required permits before evicting their tenants and in 2025 the council voted to further strengthen tenants rights when it came to possible displacement from renovations. 

Further changes to this ordinance will wait until 2027. City Administrator Kelly McAdoo said staff’s workload is full, adding that staff has to prepare to implement the rent stabilization ordinance by January 1 in case the referendum doesn’t qualify for the ballot.