The Santa Barbara City Council voted 4–3 on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, to direct staff to return in January 2026 with options for a temporary rent increase moratorium and related tenant protections.
The City Attorney advised that such a moratorium could include a roll-back date to when the matter was first formally considered, a common practice intended to prevent inconsistent or speculative rent increases before a moratorium takes effect.
If the moratorium is adopted as an urgent measure, requiring five votes, it would go into effect immediately. Otherwise, it would take 45 days to become effective.
Councilmember Wendy Santamaria suggested setting the roll-back date to October 14, when the topic was formally revisited and concerns about speculative rent increases began to emerge.
Tenant Protection Act
When it hears the matter again in January, the Council will also consider amendments to the city’s Tenant Protection Act related to eviction protections, specifically addressing Ellis Act issues and similar concerns.
Instead of a moratorium on the Ellis Act, the City Attorney suggested that the staff should use other tools. These include implementing local restrictions as amendments to the existing Just Cause provisions.
Council member Meagan Harmon said this could involve adopting state law provisions that the City is yet to add into its tenant protection ordinance. These include preventing the withdrawal of less than all accommodations or ensuring tenants are offered the right of return if units re-enter the market.
The public comment period included several speakers arguing for a pressing need for a strong ordinance and interim protections.
Fundamental Policy Questions
Staff requested feedback on several policy areas that will shape the ordinance.
Council members discussed whether to exempt or include owner-occupied duplexes, older accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and units owned by nonprofits or those that are government-subsidized or regulated.
Staff noted that state law already requires exemptions for certain unit types, including most single-family homes, newer construction, and deed-restricted affordable housing.
Council members opposed broad exemptions for unit types beyond those required by state law, favoring an appeals-based approach to address individual hardship cases.
Councilmember Harmon requested that staff explore an “affordability exemption” tied to Area Median Income (AMI).
Staff discussed whether the program should have caps in income or if there should be exemptions for circumstances, such as owner financial distress, or to maintain property solvency.
Many council members expressed concern that income-based restrictions could incentivize property owners to avoid renting to lower-income tenants and would add significant administrative complexity.
Council members also discussed the potential creation of a rental registry database. Staff proposed using the existing business tax certificate process to collect rental data, rather than developing a new and costly standalone database.
Also Read
- CHP Investigates Fatal Solo Crash on Figueroa Mountain Road
- Validation Ale Opens Seasonal Pop-Up at The Shop, Targets Santa Barbara Bowl Crowds
- SpaceX Prepares Falcon 9 Starlink Launch as Vandenberg’s Sonic Boom Discussions Continue
- Rare Tornado Whirls Through Northern California Near Vina, Lasts Just a Minute
- Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo Rank Among America’s Top ‘Pure Luxury’ Housing Markets, Study Finds
BASIC – Not sure who you’re calling a rat here or why, but once again, the biggest hypocrite in the land. Coming from a guy who literally runs to the admin to tattle when others say mean things…… What a joke.
look…i live in the lower westside. not a popular spot, and not very “santa barbara”. its just the ‘hood. rental prices are breaching $5200 for a small 2 bedroom…seriously. this is enough! the wages paid in town do not support this. we are having to find employees for city jobs, that live in other cities. We can’t hire police as the pay won’t cover their rent. Most of our PD come from Santa Maria, Lompoc, Buellton, Ventura, Oxnard, LA. I only know of 1 officer that lives in the area. Students can’t afford the rent near SBCC, I have spoken to many that have given up and are heading back home. I’ve watched vacancies pile up as landlords raise rent so high that it pushes families out. The places stay vacant and is used as a tax right off. Meanwhile, we have students and families that are going homeless and leaving SB. I also see more and more people leaving and homes selling incredibly fast. Three on our street sold in the past 6 months. All 3 are now Air BnBs. If SB city doesn’t do something about this and quickly, they are going to have a lot less people around working the jobs that run our city, businesses, diners, and trolleys/busses. So in the past 25 years, our local economy and housing market have become so unbalanced that is just screws people right out of a home/condo, apartment rental and then their career or jobs forcing them to move away. That is the reality of the situation unless you’re making over 100k a year.
KNEIN – you’re 100% correct. Well, except for the lower westside not being “very ‘santa barbara.'” I love it down there and those homes are some of the oldest in town. VERY SB if you ask me!
But yeah, when a city’s workforce and essential workers like cops, nurses, public defenders, teachers, etc can’t afford to live here and face a 30+ minute (if there’s miraculously no traffic) every day just to come all the way to SB to be paid a pittance AND lose valuable time with family, the town will continue its path towards a business wasteland.
The whole “not everyone is entitled to live here” BS is no longer applicable at this point. We are isolated geographically and no one should be expected to commute and lose even more hours with their families just to work here.
If they are all AirBnBs then they are likely illegal–unless the owner lives on site, or they are in the hotel zone on either side of star street. You should drop a dime to the city and ask to confirm if they have permits.
Misleading headline. Should read “Property Owners Rights Reduction”. I used to only raise rents every few years as needed. Now its Max every year to cover future tenant protections.
Greed like this is the root of the problems we have with housing.
100% Not greed. That money has to come from somewhere when I am required to pay a minimum of $8000 to have someone move out. Please tell me anonymous, What is a fair return on a $1.5 million investment with a $4500 a month operating cost?
Tell yourself it’s not greed. It’s greed.
Like always, you didn’t give a fair market return on investment that you do not consider greed
Sometimes a fair market return is negative.
Further confirmation that you’re a bad person. Your claim that the headline is misleading is stupid, dishonest, and self-serving.
Yeah, this stuff is part of why I stopped renting long term a while back–only sort term now. And yeah, my rental is 100% legal and permitted so no need for some folks to get their panties twisted up.
Be prepared to have your “permitted” status changed if the City Council keeps at it. Santa Maria and the other liberals will want to tell you how little you need to rent your place for if you keep supporting them. Enjoy.
Thanks for your concern.
Wow – what is next?
Perhaps they should limit the sq feet a person is allowed to reside in? Shanghai allows 642 sq feet per person, more than that your taxes go up.
Maybe limit the size of unit you can rent by the number of people in the household. Singles can only rent studios up to 500 sq feet, a couple a 1 bedroom up to 650 sq feet etc. That should free up rentals.
Where does this end?
It is getting too big government for me — bureaucracy and overreach.
The usual whine of clueless cons.
“It is getting too big government for me”
“It” being the things you just made up.
Hey, I’m good at <300 sf per person I guess. 642 would be palatial.
A city telling a property owner how much rent they can charge and/or that they can’t market their property as a short-term rental is just wrong.
BASIC – explain how it’s different from demanding that Newsom tell the UC Regents to lower tuition costs? That was your big plan, so how is it different?
And no, it’s not because UCs are non-profit, as we all know how that works.
Being a jackass and a troll is just wrong.
Entitled people who think they can do whatever they want is just wrong.
No one has to rent a landlords property if it’s too expensive. This isn’t rocket science, or socialism.
Once again proving you have no idea what socialism means…..
Oops, I meant Communism. Gotcha.
It’s not communism either, BASIC. Go learn something, for Pete’s sake. 🙄
A short term rental is a hotel.
For those here who constantly complain about all the foreign students at SBCC and UCSB, how about only capping rent for local students? Allow landlords to raise rent on foreign students to prevent them from taking spots at our colleges, right? If you want to keep them from coming to our schools, this would be a great plan to keep them from finding housing here. Right?
Don’t give the racists and xenophobes any ideas.
Absurd idea.
You’re just mad you didn’t think of it first. Oh and by the way, it was so clearly and obviously a joke. WAY over your head, Einstein.
I can’t believe someone who wants to boot out our local students in favor of the highest bidder internationals would come up with that in jest, that’s all. You need to get your story straight! Sacabsurd.
BASIC – You gotta stop making things up about me. It’s old. You really have no capacity for satire or sarcasm. What a painfully dull life with that mindset.
BI Guy – I see you’ve just decided to summarize the usual content of your comments, and simplify it down to only two words.
Good idea, for a change!
Tough to be a property owner here in SB. Good luck going forward with this socialist trend. Renters will wind up living in garbage conditions or moving away if this continues. I don’t have dog in this game, but it’s just common sense – which is lost on the majority of the Council. Renters will ALWAYS want something cheaper. Duh.
No, renters will want fair value and decent living conditions for their money.
It’s landlords who will always be striving to maximize their profits.
They’re both “maximizing their profits”. That’s how capitalism works. Whatever money you make you want to invest wisely. Renters and landlords both want the same thing. Your comment makes zero sense.
Pure capitalism doesn’t work, and never has. Unfettered, it always results in a runaway feedback loop in which the rich get richer by exploiting the poor, who get poorer, until the whole system collapses.
Things often make zero sense to you, because you have no idea what actually makes sense.
And “pure capitalism” depends on everything being fungible, so renters wanting decent living conditions is viewed as “profits” by ignorant idiots who have never read Adam Smith or any other economic analysis.
Having decent living conditions, or health, are not “profits”, stupid.
“common sense” to you is stupidity to smart people.
The person that says “I live in fear” should probably find a different place and a different way to live.
BASIC – that person is YOU. You’re entire worldview is based on fear and ignorance. You should find a different way to live – educate yourself.
Nah, I can afford to live here and not live in an anxious state like some who don’t have the means. If I couldn’t do so, I would move to one of the 98% of places in our country that aren’t as expensive as this. I’d rather enjoy life instead of worrying constantly about how I can afford things.
Merry Christmas!
Please move somewhere that will cause you even less anxiety, or at least less need to post garbage on Edhat.
“not live in an anxious state like some who don’t have the means”
Like all those landlords who you say are having a tough time?
Your every post expresses anxiety–about “socialism” or your precious tax dollars being spent to rescue hikers or spleenless Jerry Roberts wearing a mask.
Living in a constant state of fear and anxiety is a defining characteristic of conservatives.
Here’s a source respected by cons:
==================================================================================
https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservatives-and-liberals-2018-2
==================================================================================
And another:
==================================================================================
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201812/why-we-divide-liberals-and-conservatives
==================================================================================
And yet another:
==================================================================================
https://www.sciencealert.com/11-psychological-differences-between-liberals-and-conservatives-2
Always the victim.
“Tough to be a property owner here in SB. Good luck going forward with this socialist trend. Renters will wind up living in garbage conditions or moving away if this continues.”
Sounds like living in fear to me.
No sir, I’m not living in fear about this issue whatsoever. I don’t rent. I’m thinking about this logically in the context of our community.
Thinking must be the term you use for making up stuff.
I realize this is beyond your cognitive ability to comprehend, but it doesn’t matter whether you’re a renter or whether you’re living in fear about this issue (a qualification that gives up the game)–you’re expressing a paranoid view for *both* renters and landlords.
You tremble in fear about “this socialist trend”. There’s nothing logical about it–it’s pure emo.