Board votes to pursue county ordinance limiting rental "junk fees"; two supervisors dissent
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After extended public comment and debate about impacts on small landlords, the board directed staff to draft an ordinance for unincorporated areas to improve fee transparency and cap certain tenant charges. The motion passed with two no votes (Supervisors Anderson and Desmond).
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to move forward with drafting an ordinance for the county’s unincorporated areas that would require clearer fee disclosure and limit certain “junk fees” landlords charge renters. The vote passed with Supervisor Joel Anderson and Supervisor Desmond recorded as voting no.
What the board asked staff to draft: The board letter directs the County Administrative Office to work with County Counsel to draft an ordinance that would, among other provisions described in the motion: require landlords to disclose the total cost of monthly rent and all recurring fees in advertisements and application materials; require educational materials about tenant screening and applicant protections (the motion cited AB 2493 as a reference in meeting remarks); accept tenant‑provided tenant‑screening reports when offered; cap holding deposits at 5% of monthly rent; cap aggregate recurring fees such that no fee exceeds 5% of monthly rent; cap late fees at 2% of monthly rent only after rent is seven days overdue; and prohibit fees for basic livability services (for example, pest control and trash) and monthly “pet rent” while permitting refundable pet security deposits.
Public comment and concerns: The item drew 29 speakers and 14 written comments. Tenant advocates, Legal Aid and labor representatives urged adoption as a tool to protect low‑income families and reduce surprise costs that can precipitate eviction. The California Apartment Association, San Diego Building Industry Association and other landlord groups urged more time for stakeholder engagement and warned of unintended consequences, especially for small “mom‑and‑pop” landlords. Multiple supervisors expressed the same concern and asked staff to conduct stakeholder outreach and to coordinate with the City of San Diego’s parallel work before returning an ordinance for formal consideration.
Board debate and procedural notes: Several supervisors said the policy goal—greater transparency and fewer surprise fees—is sound, but they also asked for clarity on specific numeric caps and on enforcement pathways. The motion as drafted will return as an ordinance for two readings; supervisors discussed using the ordinance process to gather technical feedback and possible differentiations for smaller property owners to reduce compliance burdens. The clerk recorded the motion as passing with two no votes (Anderson and Desmond).
Next steps: The CAO and County Counsel were directed to draft the ordinance and return to the board with draft ordinance language; the board discussion indicated staff should perform stakeholder outreach and consider alignment with city efforts and potential small‑landlord supports before final adoption.