Anonymous
By the County of Santa Barbara
The Board of Supervisors has been listening to tenants facing evictions and wants the public to be aware of new protections adopted by the Board and expanded protections expected to be adopted in July.
At a special Board of Supervisors meeting on Thursday, April 6, 2023, the Board of Supervisors passed an urgency ordinance amending Chapter 44, Residential Property-Landlords and Tenants Rights and Duties to add Article IV, “Just Cause for Residential Evictions” to the County Code.
The goal of the ordinance amendment was to adopt provisions more protective than State Law to tighten the County’s Code regulating tenant evictions in an effort to make it more difficult to displace renters in the unincorporated regions of the County. This is particularly urgent now given the severity of the tight rental market in Santa Barbara County. The current rental vacancy rate is currently at 2% on the South Coast.
“Retaining and getting people in housing remains a top challenge in our County. We have been hearing heart-wrenching public comment from tenants facing evictions and the amendments made to this housing ordinance is to tighten our existing laws and help close loopholes used in mass eviction events,” said Supervisor Laura Capps.
The April 2023, changes in County Code require that for notices terminating a tenancy, owners, and landlords must obtain all permits necessary to carry out the substantial remodel, serve tenants with a copy of the permits for remodeling, along with a written notice stating the reason for the lease termination, the type and scope of work to be performed, and why the work requires the tenant to vacate the residential property for at least 30 days. Only then may the landlord pursue termination of the tenancy.
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on June 27, 2023 considered a first reading of additional amendments to clarify the language of the ordinance and provide further protections to tenants. The additional amendments require landlords offer residential tenants a one-year lease, clarify the definition of “substantial remodel”, and require landlords offer tenants evicted for a “no-fault” reason be offered first right of refusal to re-lease the former unit if it is brought back onto the market within two years, of which rent amount is set at the landlord’s discretion. The Second Reading and adoption of this ordinance is set for July 11, 2023 and it would be effective 30 days later.
“The Board’s actions this week come as a result of the immediate need to protect local tenants from worsening rental conditions,” shared Chair of the Board of Supervisors Das Williams. “Ensuring tenants have the offer of a one-year lease can ensure residential stability and certainty for community members.”
The ordinance requires that landlords offer tenants a residential lease, and that said lease be offered for a term of one year or greater. This would not compel a tenant to accept an offer of a one year lease, and it allows the lease documents to serve as evidence that the lease offer was made. While it is common for tenants and landlords to make lease agreements, it is not currently required in the County that landlords offer a year lease. For currently rented units without an existing lease, within 90 days after the effective date of the ordinance, the owner shall offer a written lease to the tenant in accordance with the Civil Code. If more residential tenancies are occupied for 12 months, more tenancies become protected by the Tenant Protection Act.
The changes will supplement the action the Board of Supervisors took on April 6 to enact “just cause” eviction protections. One of the reasons a landlord can rely on to terminate a tenancy is to perform a “substantial remodel.” The amended ordinance will require that a substantial remodel must be for the primary purpose of bringing a rental unit into compliance with applicable Health and Safety Codes.
The purpose of the right of first refusal is to require that former tenants be provided the opportunity to return to a rental unit after they have vacated as the result of a notice for a no-fault termination of tenancy. The amended ordinance applies to instances in which a landlord takes a unit off-market, such as for “substantial remodel”, for owner/family move-in, or to withdraw the unit from the market. The offer of a right of first refusal to re-occupy shall be when the unit is ready to be reoccupied or two years – whichever occurs earlier.
Under the proposed ordinance, these requirements would not apply to:
- Exceptions already set forth in Section 44-22;
- Currently leased units, until they come up for renewal;
- A rental unit occupied by a tenant who subleases to another tenant for less than a year;
- A rental unit where tenancy is an express condition of or consideration for employment under a written rental agreement or contract; or
- Lawfully operated vacation rentals.
A copy of the redlined ordinance set for a second reading and adoption on July 11, 2023, can be found here.
This was apparently motivated by a large corporate landlord ‘s “renoviction” in IV:
https://www.noozhawk.com/santa-barbara-county-supervisors-further-amend-just-cause-evictions-ordinance/
https://www.noozhawk.com/core-spaces-ceo-defends-evictions-at-isla-vista-apartment-buildings-for-needed-renovations/
While I think there was some good that came out of this, my guess is there will be continuing pressure for small mom & pop owners to leave this market. There are things on the horizon and being discussed like payment of 3 months of rent for just -cause evictions, rent caps of 0% + CPI, 12-month minimum tenancy requirement for moving in a sick/elderly parent so they can be near family (they might not live that long). Legislation often isn’t nuanced enough for all the scenarios that can come up for family owners. It might be better to sell to a corporate landlord and put your nest egg into something else.
A good rule of thumb is that any rule implemented by the government achieves the opposite of its stated purpose. This set of new restrictions would be more accurately called the “discourage people from maintaining and upgrading their properties and reduce the availability of rental housing act.” The stronger these types of rules get, the tighter the rental market will get.
A good rule of thumb is that anything Chip says is the opposite of the truth (except when he sarcastically mocks the truth–not here, but that’s often his mode).
The stated purpose here is *not* to ease the tight rental market–that’s a given (literally: “given the severity of the tight rental market in Santa Barbara County”). The stated purpose is to protect tenants. Sure, if landlords could evict tenants at will–Chip’s wet dream–that would loosen the rental market, but that’s not a desirable way to do it if one isn’t a sociopath.
Chip, either or statements are the hallmark of lazy thinking.
Is a single family house exempt? Maybe I missed it in this article.
HEH – The Noozhawk link I posted previously says:
“Those requirements apply to multifamily units and do not apply to single-family homes with fewer than two units.”
I think this puts an end to renting a room to a student or a less-than-a-year traveling nurse or anyone else not planning to be working in town for a year.
It will certainly make it a lot harder. People who rented extra rooms in the past or who were interested in doing so will have to think twice about the increasing risks and complexities. Renting that spare room to a traveling nurse might really cost you. Also, people who have an extra house they rent out may find the new rules to be too much hassle and decide they don’t want to assume the increasing liability of paying someone months of rent and/or suffering for several months of not being able to collect rent. Might as well put the money in stocks, less risk and less hassle. Once those people sell, there will be that much less housing available to rent. I have noticed a rapidly growing number mover of people living out of cars on the outskirts of town and I believe this is the future of housing in our community. As these new “tenant protection” regulations reduce the availability of housing we are going to see a trend towards people living in cars/ campers.
No, owner-occupied residences are already exempt in 44-22. Those types of rentals are generally exempt from a ton of regulations, this one included.
The good news is that renters are now better protected from greedy landlords. The bad news, unfortunately, is that there will be fewer rental units available, which translates into….drummmmm rolllllll puh-lease: fewer rental units and that only translates to higher and higher and higher rents. Imagine how much better things would be for more people if the pols/gov would just stay out of it and let it flow. I don’t understand why anyone thinks how this helps with local housing. Look what is happening at the property adjacent to the old St. Francis hospital….what a hoot!