Council directs staff to begin rent‑stabilization work plan amid heavy public comment; returns due by year end

The Santa Barbara City Council on Oct. 14 voted 4–3 to direct city staff to prepare a work plan for a rent‑stabilization program and return to the council with a timeline and options before the end of the year.

Council members Kristen Sneddon and Wendy Santa Maria sponsored a two‑person memo urging the council to agendize consideration of a rent‑stabilization ordinance; staff recommended an alternative route that would direct the city administrator to produce a work plan analyzing policy options, fiscal impacts and a stakeholder outreach process. After extensive public comment representing a wide range of perspectives — from renters, tenant advocates and labor representatives to mom‑and‑pop landlords, developers and business groups — the council voted to begin staff work on a rent‑stabilization work plan.

Why it matters: Rent stabilization can affect the short‑ and long‑term availability of rental housing, the economics of property ownership and public revenue. The issue drew broad turnout at the council meeting, with speakers describing both the immediate hardship of rising rents and the possible longer‑term effects of local rent‑management policies.

What council decided

A motion by Council Member Sneddon, seconded by Council Member Harmon, instructed staff to begin development of a rent‑stabilization work plan and to return to council before the end of the year with a timeline and public‑engagement approach. The motion passed 4–3 (Yes: Sneddon, Gutierrez, Harmon, Santa Maria; No: Mayor Pro Tem Friedman, Council Member Jordan, Mayor Rouse).

What staff will do next

City staff agreed to develop a work plan that frames the policy choices facing council, summarizes previous studies and stakeholder input (including prior ad hoc committee work), outlines legal and fiscal questions and proposes a program of public outreach and analysis. The city administrator indicated staff would include review of the draft ordinance submitted by councilmembers and other models as part of that work. The council’s direction was limited to starting this staff work; the motion did not adopt any specific rent‑stabilization rules or caps.

Public comment and stakeholders

Speakers spanned a wide political range and emphasized competing priorities:

- Raina Stapelman of the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors described potential market distortions and warned that some owners would remove rental units from the market if caps or strict controls were imposed. “Rent control is often seen as a quick fix for rising housing costs, but it creates serious long term problems,” she said.

- Several tenants, organizers and service‑provider representatives urged the city to move quickly to protect renters. Andrea Moore McCormick, a health‑care worker and tenant, said many essential workers in the city cannot afford to live locally and urged an expedited process.

- Mom‑and‑pop landlords and small property owners described narrow margins and higher insurance, maintenance and capital costs. One landlord said a proposed cap would change a five‑year breakeven into a 16‑year loss for a recent purchase.

- Labor and nonprofit groups, including a representative from Planned Parenthood Central Coast and the local union representing city employees, told the council that a robust public process and attention to workforce housing are important.

Themes from the hearing

Speakers on both sides pressed for a balanced, data‑driven process. Supporters of swift action asked that the council agendize rent‑stabilization deliberations to allow public input and policy development. Opponents warned of unintended consequences that they said have appeared in other jurisdictions: reduced investment in rental housing, conversion of units to alternative uses and rising rents in the long term.

Legal and fiscal considerations

Council members asked staff to include in the work plan a legal review (including potential takings and state‑law interactions), a fiscal analysis of enforcement and program administration costs, and an assessment of likely effects on housing supply. Several council members emphasized the need to consider whether to hire outside consultants or use staff resources for the analysis and to be explicit about potential staffing or budget impacts.

Votes and motion

The motion to begin the work plan was made by Council Member Kristen Sneddon and seconded by Council Member Harmon. Roll call votes were: Sneddon (yes), Sneddon (yes) [note: duplicate in transcript roll call rendered as yes], Mayor Pro Tem Friedman (no), Oscar Gutierrez (yes), Jordan (no), Harmon (yes), Santa Maria (yes), Mayor Rouse (no). Final vote: 4 in favor, 3 opposed.

Next steps

Staff will prepare a work plan for council review that lays out policy alternatives, outreach steps and legal/fiscal analyses; the council asked that the plan be returned before the end of the calendar year so the council can provide policy direction and determine whether to pursue an ordinance, a ballot measure or other actions. The motion did not create a new rent‑stabilization ordinance nor adopt any rent‑control limits; it began the formal staff analysis and public‑engagement process.

Context

The council has considered rent stabilization and related tenant protections on multiple occasions in recent years, and the housing ad hoc committee presented recommendations in December 2024. Supporters described the item as necessary to protect essential workers and long‑term residents; opponents described the item as likely to reduce private rental investment and recommended focusing on increasing housing supply instead.

Evidence/record

The council’s direction to staff was recorded during the Oct. 14 council meeting and is reflected in the roll call vote. Staff said they would compile prior analyses and stakeholder input and present a timebound work plan for council deliberation.