ORDINANCE REVIEW STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING
City Hall – Council Chambers
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California
Thursday, May 1, 2025
11:00 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tempore, District 4 Stuart Kasdin
Councilmember, District 3 Jennifer Smith
Robert Nisbet, City Manager
Winnie Cai, Assistant City Attorney
Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk
OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL BE IN PERSON OR ONLINE VIA ZOOM
If you wish to make a general public comment or to comment on a specific agenda item, the following methods are available:
Distribution to the Ordinance Review Standing Committee - Submit your comment via email prior to the Ordinance Review Standing Committee meeting. Please submit your comment to: [email protected]. Your comment will be placed into the record and distributed appropriately.
Please register for Ordinance Review Standing Committee Meeting on May 1, 2025, at 11:00 AM PDT at:
For Electronic Participation:
Zoom Registration Link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Nc565tlaQmC4r71a3i1LQA Zoom Webinar ID:
831 1013 3880
Join via audio
US: +14086380968,,83110133880# or +16694449171,,83110133880# Or, dial: US: +1 408 638 0968 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 876 9923 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 301 715 8592 or 1 +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. You will be connected to audio using your computer's microphone and speakers (VoIP). A headset is recommended.
AGENDA
I. Public Comment
II. Discussion of Tenant Protections Ordinance Topics
III. Upcoming Issues
Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if assistance is needed to participate in a City Council meeting (including assisted listening devices), please contact the City Clerk's office at (805) 961-7505. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting helps to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
2 MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 2025
TO: Ordinance Review Standing Committee
FROM: Peter Imhof, Planning and Environmental Review Director SUBJECT: Discussion of Tenant Protections Ordinance Topics
BACKGROUND
The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Assembly Bill [“AB”] 1482; Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12) established statewide just-cause eviction protections and rent stabilization for residential tenants. It also authorized cities to enact more protective local regulations that supersede state law. In October 2023, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 567 (“SB 567”) to add new eviction notice requirements and enforcement mechanisms to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, but the provisions of SB 567 did not take effect until April 1, 2024.
In December 2023, Council adopted a Tenant Protections Urgency Ordinance more protective than state law, which went into effect immediately to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The ordinance created just cause requirements for termination of residential tenancy, payment of relocation assistance equal to two months’ rent in cases of no-fault just cause terminations of tenancy, a mandatory offer of a oneyear lease, and a mandatory right of first refusal for tenants in certain circumstances to re-rent the rental unit they previously vacated. In addition to adoption of the Urgency Ordinance, Council directed staff to return at a later date with an amendment to the ordinance based on additional research and information. Staff presented possible ordinance revisions to Council at its March 5, 2024 meeting. Following considerable public comment and discussion, Council requested that, given the level of community interest, the Ordinance Committee discuss the topic before it returned to Council for further consideration.
DISCUSSION
Current Regulations Enacted December 2023
The current tenant protection regulations in the Goleta Municipal Code (“GMC”) require a landlord1 to cite a just cause for terminating a tenancy and to specify whether it is an 1 Landlord is defined in the ordinance to include an owner, lessor, or sublessor, or the agent or representative of the landlord.
3 2
at-fault or no-fault reason. The written Notice of Termination of Residential Tenancy must state the full facts and circumstances that establish a basis to terminate the tenancy. To qualify as a no-fault just cause, the landlord must be seeking, in good faith, to (1) recover possession to permanently withdraw the units from the rental market, (2) demolish or substantially remodel the unit, (3) recover possession for occupancy by landlord or landlord's family, or (4) comply with a government order to vacate the dwelling unit. State law and the Ordinance impose further conditions on terminating a tenancy for no-fault just cause for the foregoing reasons. When a landlord issues a notice of Termination of Residential Tenancy for no-fault just cause, the ordinance requires the payment of relocation assistance equal to an amount set by the City Council or two (2) months’ rent, whichever is greater. Landlords are also required to offer a one-year lease for new and renewed residential tenancies, other than short-term rentals of 30 days or less. When a lease expires, the landlord must offer a new one-year lease, in compliance with the ordinance.
If, prior to the end of the initial term, the landlord does not wish to continue the rental relationship, the tenant must be offered a one-session conciliation meeting using a publicly funded housing mediation service, if available, or a qualified mediator of mutual choice and provided at mutual expense. In cases where a landlord issues a no-fault just cause Notice of Termination of Residential Tenancy to demolish (and rebuild) or substantially remodel the unit, the landlord must provide the tenant with copies of issued permits and a notice of their Right of First Refusal, which gives the tenant the right to rerent the unit once the remodel work is completed, at a rental rate equal to the rent on the date the tenant vacated the unit plus 5% plus the change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is less. The tenant must submit an acceptance of the offer to re-occupy, in writing and within 30 days of receipt of the offer.
Since adoption of the ordinance in December 2023, there have been no Notices of Termination of Residential Tenancy filed with the City’s Planning and Environmental Review Department, as required by GMC 8.19.040(C)(4)(c). In that time, the Senior Housing Analyst received various calls and emails regarding application of the Ordinance, including at least three tenants in the City who were exempt from the protections and two property owners asking for clarification on when the Ordinance applies.
Potential Tenant Protections Ordinance Revisions
Per Council direction in March 2024, staff has compiled a selection of topics for discussion by the Ordinance Committee regarding possible revisions to the Tenant Protections Ordinance, as listed in Table 1 and discussed further below.
Table 1
Topics for Discussion
Early Tenant Alert Notice Requirement
Tenant Anti-Harassment Provisions
Remedies Specific to Tenant Harassment
Relocation Assistance
Minimum Time Period For Withdrawal From The Housing Market Exemption For Properties With Four Units Or Fewer
Required Information on Housing Programs Upon Notice of Termination of Tenancy Prohibition On Naming Children in Eviction Notices
4 3
Early Tenant Alert Notice Requirement
Some jurisdictions have enacted an “Early Tenant Alert Notice” requirement as part of the notice requirements for a no-fault just cause Termination of Residential Tenancy. The Early Tenant Alert Notice is an additional 60 days’ notice, provided in writing, to a qualified tenant that the landlord intends to issue a notice of termination.
Analysis: The additional notice provides the tenant with additional time to prepare for the unexpected loss of their rental unit. This additional notice is particularly important when multiple tenants receive notices of termination at the same time and must seek new housing in a tight rental market.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting an Early Tenant Alert Notice requirement.
Tenant Anti-Harassment Provisions
Current regulations, in GMC Section 8.19.070(B), make it illegal for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for exercising their legal rights, or to increase any rent, reduce any service, cause the tenant to involuntarily quit the premises, or discriminate against the tenant for use of any remedy provided by the ordinance. However, to prevent and address harassment experienced by tenants exercising their rights, more specific language could prohibit tenant harassment activities that serve no lawful purpose but affect a tenant’s use or enjoyment of their rental unit. Specific examples of prohibited harassment could include reducing or removing housing services that are in the lease, failing to make timely needed repairs, threatening physical harm, invading the tenant’s privacy, offering unwanted payments or inducements to get the tenant to move, retaliation for exercising rights or participating in tenants’ unions, and intentional misrepresentation of facts or rights.
Analysis: As adopted, the current ordinance prohibits retaliation, as follows:
[GMC 8.19.070(B)] It is illegal for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for lawfully and peaceably exercising their legal rights, including, but not limited to, the right to file a complaint with code compliance staff at the City or other responsible agency.
No landlord may take any action increasing any rent, reducing any service, causing the tenant to involuntarily quit the premises, or discriminating against the tenant because of the tenant’s use of any remedy provided by this chapter.
However, more clear and specific language in the regulations as to what constitutes harassment could be helpful for tenants, landlords, and the entities enforcing the ordinance.
Recommendation: Staff recommends including more specific anti-tenant harassment language in the ordinance.
Remedies Specific to Tenant Harassment
Under the current regulations prohibiting tenant harassment or if additional antiharassment provisions were to be adopted, GMC Section 8.19.080, Remedies, could be amended to include specific remedies related to tenant harassment. These could include the right to institute civil proceedings; actual damages or a per-violation amount; civil penalties per violation; or injunctive relief, in addition to any other remedies allowed by law, whether or not the unit has already been vacated. These remedies would create a private right of enforcement by the tenant. The City Attorney would also have the discretion to act if called for in the public interest. 5 4
Analysis: As adopted, the current ordinance provides for penalties for violations of the code (and increased penalties for willful violations of the code), as follows:
[GMC Section 8.19.080(E)] Any violation of this chapter shall entitle the aggrieved tenant to:
1. Actual damages according to proof.
2. Attorneys’ fees and costs.
3. Upon a showing that the landlord has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, up to three times the actual damages. An award may also be entered for punitive damages for the benefit of the tenant against the landlord.
4. A tenant may seek injunctive relief on behalf of tenant or on behalf of other affected tenants to enjoin a landlord’s violation of this chapter.
Again, clear and specific regulatory language makes it easier to implement regulations.
Some jurisdictions have experienced numerous en masse terminations of tenancy with alleged retaliation against tenants and have enacted regulations in response. For example, the City of Santa Barbara adopted amendments to its ordinance, which allow a court to award actual damages or a minimum of $1,000 per violation, civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation or other appropriate relief, or injunctive relief. To date, Goleta has not experienced no-fault just cause evictions to the same degree as the County or City of Santa Barbara. However, staff has received at least one report from a tenant whose housing services were reduced in connection with a tenant-landlord dispute. As a result, staff is seeking policy direction on this issue.
Recommendation: Staff recommends incorporating additional anti-tenant harassment provisions and legal remedies.
Relocation Assistance
In cases of no-fault eviction, the ordinance requires a landlord to provide tenant(s) with relocation assistance equal to “an amount established by resolution of the City Council” or two times the tenant rent in effect at the time of the notice of termination. The City Council could establish a payment amount by resolution (but has not yet done so) or could amend the ordinance to require a relocation assistance payment based on a time period (e.g., a number of months’ rent), a different payment standard (e.g., three months of fair market rent2 for the unit type), or a dollar amount.
Analysis: This provision is more protective than state law but may be less protective than the relocation assistance required by other jurisdictions in the region. Evicted tenants, particularly those who have lived in their units for multiple years, may find themselves seeking housing in a market with few available units and fewer still at the rental rate they had been paying. Therefore, some jurisdictions have set relocation-assistance amounts according to a payment standard or dollar amount. For example, the County of Santa Barbara requires “a sum equal to three months of the fair market rent for the area as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 1437f(c)(1) of Title 42 of the United States Code or seven thousand dollars, whichever is greater.” In addition, several ordinances in Los Angeles County require a larger relocation assistance payment for certain qualified households, such as those with seniors, persons 2 As published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 6 5
with disabilities, minor children, low-income status, or an extended tenancy (e.g., five years or more).
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee provide direction to staff regarding requiring a relocation assistance payment equal to a specific number of months times the tenant’s monthly rent.
Minimum Time Period For Withdrawal From The Housing Market Per the City’s ordinance, in order to cite withdrawal from the rental market as just cause, a landlord must be seeking “in good faith to recover possession to permanently withdraw the housing unit from the rental market in accordance with applicable State law.” The City could add requirements to the ordinance related to withdrawal from the market, such as setting a minimum number of years or percentage of units (e.g., 100%) to qualify as a “withdrawal,” requiring landlords to file or record a formal "notice of intent to withdraw," or requiring a longer notice period for certain types of tenants.
Analysis: As currently adopted, the ordinance allows a landlord to permanently withdraw the unit from the market, but exercising that option does not alter the allowable uses on the property or create long-term barriers to re-entry of the unit to the rental market, should circumstances change at a future date. Conversely, since the withdrawal must be “permanent,” setting a minimum number of years may signal that a temporary withdrawal in fact qualifies. If the committee wishes, a sufficiently long minimum period of time could be set to ensure that the withdrawal was properly cited and in good faith.
Under the Ellis Act, in California Government Code (“G.C.”) 7060-7060.7, all landlords have the right to permanently withdraw units from the rental market. In jurisdictions with local rent-control ordinances, the Ellis Act allows jurisdictions to require that, if the withdrawn units are re-rented within ten (10) years after the “accommodations” are withdrawn, the units must be offered to the previous tenant. 3 If the withdrawn units are
re-rented within five (5) years, the units must “be offered to the previous tenant at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice of intent to withdraw the accommodations is filed with the public entity, plus annual adjustments available under the system of control.”4 The City does not have a local system of rent control, but the Tenant Protections Ordinance could be revised to mirror the Ellis Act with respect to minimum requirements for withdrawal of units from the market.
Recommendation: Staff recommends requiring a minimum of 100% of all units on site and ten (10) years for withdrawal of units from the market.
Exemption For Properties With Four Units Or Fewer
The City’s ordinance could exempt all properties with four units or fewer. In 2024, staff obtained County Assessor data and determined that, of all the Assessor parcels in the City of Goleta, 199 parcels were listed as “Apartments, 5 or more units,” and 173 parcels were listed as “Residential Income, 2-4 units.”
Analysis: Based on the data reviewed, there are more properties and more units in apartment complexes with five or more units. However, a not insignificant number of 3 G.C. Section 7060.2(c)
4 G.C. Section 7060.2(a)(2)
7 6
renter households in the City reside in multifamily structures with four units or fewer, and this number is in addition to the number of City residents who rent any of the single-family homes (5,317), condominiums (2,739), and mobile homes (648), which do not qualify as exempt from the tenant protections ordinance. Exempting properties with one to four units could leave a substantial percentage of renter households without these enhanced tenant protections merely based on project size. (Even if these properties were to be exempted from a local ordinance, they may still be subject to protections under State law.) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee provide direction to staff on exempting properties with four units or fewer.
Required Housing Program Information Upon Notice of Termination of Tenancy Staff received a suggestion from a Councilmember that the City’s homelessness prevention goals might be served by requiring landlords to provide information regarding current homelessness prevention programs to tenants when a Notice of Termination of Residential Tenancy is issued. Currently, there are several local programs, both supported by City funding and without City involvement, to assist residents on the verge of eviction and temporary or permanent homelessness. A provision could be added to the City ordinance requiring landlords to include notification of such programs with the Notice of Termination. Per the Remedies section of the ordinance [Section 8.19.080(B)], failure to include all required information in the notices provides a legal defense to any unlawful detainer action.
Analysis: In order to be effective, any such notice requirement would need to be clear and easily implementable by landlords, and the information provided would need to be current, since outdated information would be counterproductive and frustrating for tenants.
Recommendation: Staff recommends implementing this requirement only if it is paired with a dedicated landing page on the City’s website.
Prohibition On Naming Children in Eviction Notices
At a Council meeting, a member of the public commented that the City should prohibit including the names of children in eviction notices. Staff research found some newspaper articles indicating that there have been cases in the US where minor children were named in eviction filings, which could lead to negative credit history for the minors.
Analysis: While minor children generally do not enter into or sign lease agreements, they are often listed as residents on the lease. However, the mechanics of eviction proceedings (and “unlawful detainers” as opposed to terminations of tenancy) are necessarily legal and prescribed by state law. A city ordinance may not have the ability to override state law in this matter. In addition, AB 2819 was passed in 2016, restricting public access to eviction records in California for 60 days from the date of filing, unless the landlord prevails within that timeframe. This law applies to limited civil cases under $25,000 involving unlawful detainer actions statewide and likely mitigates the negative impacts to creditworthiness, etc., for at least some of the defendants named in eviction filings, including minor children.
Recommendation: Staff does not recommend incorporating this provision.
Recommended Action
8 7
Staff recommends that the Committee members discuss the topic areas presented and provide preliminary direction to staff regarding possible revisions to the Tenant Protections Ordinance for consideration by the full City Council. 9