Council hears supplemental research and robust public comment on a proposed rent-stabilization ordinance

The City Council heard an extended presentation and public comment on May 19 about a proposed rent-stabilization ordinance (RSO) after staff and RSG completed supplemental research requested by council on April 7. The research estimated program costs, coverage, and policy trade-offs and identified several choices that would shape a future ordinance.

RSG’s preliminary estimate used a planning assumption of roughly 13,000–15,000 potentially covered units and an illustrative cost of about $154 per covered unit, producing a planning-level annual program cost near $2 million; staff noted first-year costs for registry setup and outreach can be higher. RSG reviewed common policy choices among peer jurisdictions and provided options on each topic council asked to revisit: whether to offer landlord incentives or tiered caps for small landlords, whether to adopt ownership- or portfolio-based exemptions, how to treat Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher units and deed-restricted affordable housing, whether to permit rent banking, and design for petitions (fair return vs. capital-improvement petitions), fees funding petition administration, and rental-registry scope and privacy safeguards.

Public comment spanned several hours. Tenant advocates, community organizations and many renters urged broad coverage (no carve-outs for Section 8 or deed-restricted housing), a comprehensive unit-level rental registry, strong limits on capital improvement pass-throughs, robust tenant habitability protections and accessible grievance pathways. Several speakers noted that mixed-status households and subsidized tenants still face affordability pressures and asked explicitly that Section 8 households not be excluded from the RSO. Housing Authority staff requested an exemption for federally subsidized units, stating overlapping regulatory frameworks and concerns about landlord participation in voucher programs if covered.

Landlord representatives and some property owners urged narrow scope, warned of administrative and enforcement costs, and cited other jurisdictions (e.g., D.C.) as structural examples that rely on legal frameworks and enforcement systems not present in Santa Barbara. Several council members asked detailed legal and technical questions: whether prior policy direction could be reopened (city attorney clarified council can revisit prior direction during the legislative drafting process), how voucher payment standards interact with RSO coverage (housing authority explained tenant contributions remain roughly 30% of income and voucher payment standards matter for coverage decisions), and how mobile-home protections differ from the proposed RSO (staff and city attorney noted mobile-home rules limit vacancy decontrol and therefore are not directly comparable).

Staff said they will prepare a draft ordinance consistent with council direction, bring it back to council on June 9, initiate a 30-day public comment period and seek formal introduction and second reading in July/August. Council members signaled a range of preliminary positions in the meeting; staff seeks additional direction on exemptions and petition design to inform the draft.

The RSO discussion will continue through the ordinance drafting and public comment phase. Council asked staff for additional information on petition-fee funding, a more detailed cost and staffing plan for the registry, and suggested stronger tenant protections tied to any capital improvement petition process that might permit passthroughs.