Latest insights

Landlord-Tenant Update: Intersection of City of Santa Barbara’s Mandatory 12-Month Lease Term Law and California’s New Just Cause Eviction Law

March 18, 2020

Kevin Nimmons

Article by: Kevin R. Nimmons, Attorney and Partner at Reicker Pfau

On April 16, 2019, the Santa Barbara City Council approved an ordinance requiring landlords to offer a minimum 12-month lease term in certain residential leases of “rental units.” Subsequently, California enacted Civil Code section 1946.2, which took effect on January 1, 2020, and prohibits termination of certain residential leases for statutorily defined “just cause.” The application and intersection of these two new laws is confusing for landlords, tenants, and even attorneys hired to enforce them.

 

1. Santa Barbara’s New Minimum 12-Month Term Requirement.

The City of Santa Barbara’s new 12-month minimum term lease ordinance is codified in Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.40.010, which became effective June 7, 2019. Even for a lawyer, this law is not a model of legislative clarity. Under the new law—with some exceptions for single family dwellings, condominiums, and other exceptions—landlords must annually offer (in writing to tenants) leases with a minimum term of 12-months. The tenant may either accept, or reject the 12-month lease offer in writing. The landlord has the obligation to prove the tenant’s rejection using a form rejection to communicate the rejection. If the tenant accepts the offer, then under the City’s new law, at the end of the fixed term, the landlord is not obligated to continue leasing to the tenant. 

If landlords fail to comply with the new law, they may be prevented from evicting a tenant even if the tenant breaches the lease, if the tenant’s month-to-month lease expires, or if the tenant fails to pay the amount for rent increases. The effect of the new law on month-to-month is unclear. Yet. nowhere does the new law mention month-to-month tenancies, even though there are thousands of month-to-month tenancies in Santa Barbara.  This author believes that the new law requires all landlords to have previously offered 12-month minimum term leases to tenants with written leases no later than June 30, 2019, and for month-to-month leases not in writing , no later than September 5, 2019, and then annually thereafter. If a landlord did not comply by these deadlines, then the landlord should thereafter offer 12-month minimum term leases to tenants. See Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 26.40.010-26.40.030 for additional information and requirements. 

 

 

2. California’s New “Just Cause Eviction” Laws.

California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 requires that a residential real property owner  must not terminate the tenancy of a tenant who has  continuously and lawfully  occupied a residential real property for  12 months  without “just cause,” as stated in the written notice to terminate. (Civ. Code § 1946.2(a).) Condominiums, non-corporate owned single family residences, and other residential properties are exempt from the “just cause” termination law. For “at fault just cause,” such as the tenant’s non-payment of rent, material breach of the lease, waste, nuisance, and a host of other bases for at fault just cause, the landlord may terminate the tenancy without having to pay re-location payments to the tenant. However, for a “no-fault just cause” basis to terminate the tenancy, the landlord must make re-location payments to the tenant or offer a rent waiver. The law contains many other requirements and limitations not discussed here. 

Under both Santa Barbara’s 12-month minimum term lease law and California’s just cause eviction statute, can a landlord in the City of Santa Barbara evict a tenant at the end of the 12-month minimum term? Strictly viewing the question under the City’s 12-month minimum lease law, the answer is yes, with the requirement of potential mediation. But, under California’s just cause eviction law, because of the language adopted by the California Legislature, the answer is unclear. The “just cause” eviction law provides that “ the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate the tenancy without just cause…” (Civ. Code § 1946.2(a).) The statute uses the term “terminate” not “evict” or “eviction” or “recover possession,” or similar terms concerning recovering possession of a unit. Rather, under the statute, an owner cannot “terminate the tenancy.” Termination of a tenancy is not the same as actually evicting a tenant or recovering possession from a tenant. This distinction has legal significance. At the end of a fixed term lease when the term expires, the tenancy automatically terminates. No more notice is required by the landlord and the landlord need not do anything to terminate the tenancy. When a fixed term lease automatically expires at the end of the term, then the owner is not terminating the tenancy; rather, it automatically terminates because the term ended (see, Civ. Code § 1933) so long as the lease has not been converted to a month to month tenancy by the landlord’s acceptance of rent, or a term in the lease converting it to month to month, or an automatic renewal of the tenancy. There are other bases for termination of a tenancy other than termination by the owner such as the tenant’s death, destruction of the leasehold, mutual consent to terminate the lease, or if the tenant acquires title superior to the landlord. Therefore, according to Santa Barbara’s new law, if a fixed term lease that includes a 12-month term expires on its own terms, then the tenancy terminates automatically, as a matter of law. In this scenario, the owner has not done anything to terminate the tenancy. Thus, because the fixed term lease automatically terminated, the owner has not actually terminated the tenancy (as Civil Code section 1946.2 contemplates), which means that the owner has not violated Civil Code section 1946.2.

Did the California Legislature intend to permit tenant evictions without just cause when fixed term leases expire? The answer is unclear. However, the language the Legislature adopted does not seem to prevent a landlord from evicting a tenant when a fixed term expires, so long as the landlord does not convert the lease to a month-to-month lease by accepting rent for a period after the expiration of the fixed term or cause a renewal of the lease. Compare California’s just cause eviction statute to San Francisco’s equivalent. San Francisco’s law, Municipal Code section 37.9, provides that “A landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit unless” there is just cause. The language “shall not endeavor to recover possession” is broader than California’s “shall not terminate the tenancy.” Under San Francisco’s law, a landlord cannot evict a tenant (i.e. recover possession) unless there is just cause. California adopted more limited language: “shall not terminate the tenancy.” As a result, it seems that a tenant may be evicted if the tenancy automatically terminates when the fixed term expires, even without just cause. However, it is not clear if a landlord would be successful in court defending an eviction of a fixed term tenancy, without just cause, due to the apparent intent by California’s legislature to bar such evictions. But, the language of the statute does not expressly bar such evictions. 

Also, as part of California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019, California adopted Civil Code Section 1947.12 to limit rent increases annually to five percent plus the applicable Consumer Price Index amount. There are also exemptions to this new law, similar to California’s just cause eviction law. Like California’s just cause eviction law, Civil Code section 1947.12 contains many other requirements and limitations not discussed in a separate Reicker Pfau article.

Clearly, due to a low supply of affordable housing and rising rents, Santa Barbara and California desire to do away with (i) month to month leases, and a landlord’s ability to evict a tenant on thirty or sixty days’ notice and (ii) a landlord’s ability to increase rents. As a result of Santa Barbara’s 12-month minimum term lease law and California’s just cause eviction law, landlords must now prove the tenant’s breach of the lease or just cause for eviction in court, which requires hiring an attorney and possibly preparing for trial—costs that have been typically avoided with evictions based on the traditional thirty and sixty-day notices. All other non-just cause evictions will either be prohibited or will require landlords to offer relocation assistance payments to tenants.

These are sweeping and serious changes to Santa Barbara’s and California’s landlord tenant laws. Both landlords and tenants will need to understand how these laws apply, and not only learn how to draft leases in order to comply with the laws, but also to create a lease that is favorable. 

Other insights


September 8, 2026
For decades, commercial leasing in California has been governed by the assumption that commercial tenants generally possess sufficient sophistication to negotiate and protect their own interests. Senate Bill 1103, known as the Commercial Tenant Protection Act (“CTPA”), alters that framework for certain smaller commercial tenants. Effective January 1, 2025, the law extends several protections traditionally associated with residential tenancies to qualifying commercial tenants. The statute imposes new requirements relating to rent increase notices, lease translations, common area maintenance (“CAM”) charges, and termination notices. Landlords leasing space to small businesses, restaurants, and nonprofit organizations should understand when these requirements apply and consider whether updates to existing leasing practices are warranted. Who Is a “Qualified Commercial Tenant”? The CTPA applies only to a “qualified commercial tenant” (“QCT”), not to all commercial tenants. A tenant qualifies if it is: 1. A microenterprise, generally defined as a business with five or fewer employees and limited access to capital; 2. A restaurant with fewer than 10 employees; or 3. A nonprofit organization with fewer than 20 employees. Publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries are excluded from the statute’s protections. However, franchisees may still qualify if they independently satisfy the applicable employee and eligibility requirements. Importantly, a landlord’s obligations under SB 1103 are triggered only after the tenant provides written notice affirming its status as a qualified commercial tenant. That notice must have been provided within the preceding 12 months. Until the landlord receives the required attestation, the statute’s protections generally do not apply. The law applies to commercial leases executed, renewed, or amended on or after January 1, 2025. CAM Charges: New Transparency and Substantiation Requirements One of the most significant operational changes under the CTPA involves CAM charges and other operating expense pass-throughs. Before charging a QCT for CAM expenses or similar costs, landlords must ensure that: 1. The costs are allocated proportionately among tenants through square footage or another reasonable and documented methodology; 2. Supporting documentation regarding the allocation method is provided before lease execution and, upon written request, within 30 days; and 3. The charges either were incurred during the prior 18 months or are reasonably expected to be incurred during the next 12 months, with documentation supporting the amounts charged. These requirements may create practical challenges for landlords, particularly in shopping centers or mixed-use properties where CAM allocations involve anchor tenants, negotiated exclusions, or other unique arrangements. The substantiation requirement may also limit the flexibility landlords have historically exercised in estimating or “grossing up” operating expenses. As a result, some landlords are reevaluating the use of gross or modified gross lease structures, including forms commonly used in AIR leases, to minimize the administrative burden associated with CAM compliance. Longer Notice for Rent Increases and Terminations SB 1103 also expands notice requirements for certain qualified commercial tenants. For month-to-month tenancies and other periodic tenancies, Civil Code section 827(a) requires: 1. At least 30 days’ written notice for a rent increase of 10 percent or less; and 2. At least 90 days’ written notice for a rent increase exceeding 10 percent. The statute also incorporates Civil Code section 1946.1(a) for qualified commercial tenants. If a tenant has occupied the premises for more than 12 months, a landlord generally must provide at least 60 days’ written notice before terminating the tenancy. Landlords who routinely rely on standard commercial notice provisions should review their forms and procedures to confirm they remain compliant when dealing with QCTs. Enforcement: Why Compliance Matters Compliance with the CTPA is important because many of its protections cannot be waived by agreement. A landlord that violates the statute may face liability for damages and attorneys’ fees. In cases involving willful or oppressive conduct, punitive damages may also be available. In addition, a tenant may raise a statutory violation as a defense in an unlawful detainer action, potentially complicating or delaying efforts to recover possession of the property. Given these risks, landlords should review both their lease documentation and day-to-day leasing procedures. What Landlords Should Do Now Landlords should consider taking the following steps before entering into new leases or renewals with smaller commercial tenants: 1. Review existing tenant rosters to identify tenants who may qualify for CTPA protections. 2. Evaluate current lease forms and update provisions relating to CAM charges, notices, and lease translations where necessary. 3. Establish procedures for receiving and tracking tenant qualification notices. 4. Consider whether gross or modified gross lease structures may be appropriate for certain tenants in order to reduce CAM-related compliance issues while maintaining the intended economic terms of the lease. The Commercial Tenant Protection Act represents a notable shift in California commercial leasing law. Although the statute applies only to a limited category of tenants, its requirements can affect lease administration, expense recoveries, and enforcement rights. Landlords should take a proactive approach to identifying qualified commercial tenants and updating leasing practices to address the law’s requirements.  At Reicker Pfau, we assist commercial landlords with lease reviews, compliance strategies, property operations, and dispute resolution matters. If you have questions regarding SB 1103 or its application to your properties, please contact our office.
July 31, 2026
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy, LLP proudly represented COR, an AI-powered project profitability platform for agencies and professional services firms, in connection with a $30 million investment from FTV Capital, a sector-focused growth equity firm. COR combines project management, automated time tracking, resource planning, and real-time profitability analytics in a single platform. The company serves thousands of teams across more than 38 countries. The investment will support the continued development of COR’s AI capabilities, expansion into adjacent industries, and international growth. As part of the investment, FTV Capital Partner Alex Malvone and Principal Tommy Tighe joined COR’s board of directors. The Reicker Pfau team was led by Partner Nicholas Behrman, with Associates Jake Glicker and Samara Harris. A full announcement regarding the investment can be found here .
July 22, 2026
Complying with applicable employment laws is a never-ending battle for California employers. While certain changes and updates can easily become part of a compliant employer’s annual routine, such as increasing employees’ wages to align with effective minimum wage updates, refreshing the applicable posters required to be displayed in the workplace, and reviewing employee salaries to determine which exempt employees need raises to continue to qualify as exempt, new laws mean new required updates to an employer’s policies and procedures. For any employer that has not yet reviewed their employment practices through the 2026 lens, here is a short guide for some essential updates to implement immediately. Minimum Wage Effective as of January 1, 2026, the statewide minimum wage has increased to $16.90 per hour. Additionally, the minimum annual salary for “exempt” employees has increased to $70,304. Please note that these minimums are set at the statewide level, but an employer may be subject to higher minimums depending on the applicable local jurisdiction and employer’s industry. For example, effective January 1, 2026, the minimum wage in West Hollywood is $20.25 per hour. Pay Scale Information In addition to the updated minimums regarding what employees must be paid, employers are also now restricted in what they must communicate to potential employees regarding the expected salary or hourly wage range for the applicable job posting. As part of SB 642 , signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, employers with 15 or more employees are required to provide clearer details in any job posting regarding the pay scale for the applicable position. The applicable “pay scale” cannot be a general range for what an employee in that position may make in the future. Instead, SB 642 redefines “pay scale” to mean “a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire.” Updates to Mandatory Cal/WARN Notice Requirements Certain California employers are also subject to additional information and notice requirements. Pursuant to SB 617 , employers subject to the California Worker Adjustment and Retaining Notification (“ Cal/WARN “) Act who are required to provide written notices before ordering a mass layoff, relocation or termination at a covered establishment must now include in such notices whether or not the employer plans to coordinate services for the affected employees, such as a rapid response orientation, and through which entity such services will be coordinated, if at all. The notices must also include a functioning email address and telephone number for the local workforce development board and particular language pointing employees to local workforce development boards and America’s Job Center of California. Such employers will also need to include in the applicable notices a description of CalFresh (the statewide food assistance program) and CalFresh contact information in the form of the phone number for the CalFresh benefits helpline and a link to the CalFresh website. Workplace Know Your Rights Act  California employers, as of February 1, 2026, are also subject to the Workplace Know Your Rights Act, established by SB 294 . Among other things, the Workplace Know Your Rights Act requires such employers to provide a stand-alone written notice to each of its current employees on February 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, containing a description of workers’ rights in areas such as (i) the right to workers’ compensation benefits, (ii) the right to notice of inspection by immigration agencies, (iii) protection under unfair immigration-related practices, (iv) labor organizing rights, (v) constitutional rights when interacting with law enforcement at the workplace, (vi) a description of certain new legal developments as determined by the California Labor Commissioner, and (vii) a list of the enforcement agencies that must enforce the underlying rights set forth in the notice. Template notices have been posted by the California Labor Commissioner and can be used by employers to comply with the notice requirements of the Workplace Know Your Rights Act. To ensure compliance with current California employment laws, employers should closely review their company policies and procedures regularly and check in with their employment counsel for relevant updates and reminders about best practices.