The Santa Barbara Planning Commission voted 4–2 to advance a proposed short-term rental (STR) ordinance on March 5 that would dramatically restrict vacation rentals across the city and rely primarily on “homestays” as the substitute form of visitor accommodation in the coastal zone.
But the most important takeaway from the meeting was not the vote.
It was the number of serious unanswered questions commissioners raised before the vote occurred — questions that remained unresolved even as the ordinance moved forward.
Hotels alone cannot absorb this demand.
Santa Barbara’s hotels already operate at high occupancy levels, averaging roughly 68 percent annually and approaching 77 percent during the summer season.
If the majority of short-term rentals disappear, the likely result is simple:
Visitors will not shift to hotels.
Many simply will not come at all.
The entire purpose of any effective ordinance should be to maintain existing coastal access, yet this proposal risks undermining the Coastal Act’s requirement to preserve affordable coastal visitation.
Litigation Risk Is Real
Because of these conflicts with Coastal Act policy, the ordinance as currently written could face significant legal challenges.
Several stakeholders have warned that the proposal:
• eliminates a substantial portion of visitor-serving accommodations in the coastal zone
• relies on a homestay model that cannot realistically replace that capacity
• lacks the quantitative analysis necessary to justify its restrictions
If adopted in its current form, the ordinance could face:
• rejection or modification by the California Coastal Commission
• normal legal challenges
• costly litigation that delays implementation for years
None of those outcomes benefit Santa Barbara.
A More Reasonable Alternative
There is a far more practical path forward — one that protects neighborhoods while preserving coastal access and reducing legal risk.
The city could grandfather existing compliant operators who are already:
• registered with the city
• paying TOT taxes
• operating under established rules
These operators represent only a small fraction of the city’s housing stock and vacation rentals, yet these are the folks that have been operating transparently and contributing tax revenue.
They could remain subject to strict enforcement standards, including:
• occupancy limits
• noise restrictions
• license revocation for verified violations
Most importantly, the authorization could run with the owner rather than with the property.
When the property is sold, the STR authorization would expire.
Because only a fraction of operators are registered and paying taxes today, this approach would:
• protect legitimate operators acting in good faith
• eliminate illegal operators
• gradually reduce STR inventory through natural attrition
• preserve visitor accommodations required under the Coastal Act
It would also avoid exposing the city to unnecessary legal risk.
Slow Down and Get It Right
Santa Barbara still has time to get this right.
It can slow down, answer the unanswered questions, test the revenue and capacity claims, and build a lawful, balanced framework that protects neighborhoods without pretending homestays are a real substitute for family-scale coastal lodging.
Instead, what appears to be happening is that this flawed ordinance is being rammed through the planning process so it can reach the California Coastal Commission while Santa Barbara City Councilmember Meagan Harmon is still serving as Chair of that body.
If that happens, Harmon will be in a position to influence her fellow Coastal Commissioners to approve an ordinance that many observers believe is legally deficient under the Coastal Act — potentially delivering a political victory before her term expires at the end of the year.
That may be good politics. But it is not good planning.
And Santa Barbara deserves better.
