Supervisors advance sweeping rental fee limits in San Diego County

By CAA, Nov. 10, 2025

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors last week voted 3-2 to move forward with a proposal that would impose sweeping limits on what rental housing providers can charge for common services such as parking, pets, and trash collection.

The action parallels a similar measure advancing at the San Diego City Council, and the California Apartment Association opposes both proposals.

The association warns that the measures would penalize responsible housing providers, restrict legitimate cost recovery, and make it riskier to operate rental housing in the region.

Called the Residential Rental Price Gouging, Fee Exploitation and Cost Transparency Ordinance, the county proposal is being advanced by Supervisors Monica Montgomery Steppe and Paloma Aguirre.

On Tuesday, Nov. 4, board Chairwoman Terra Lawson-Remer joined them in directing county staff to draft a formal ordinance, though she expressed reservations. Supervisors Jim Desmond and Joel Anderson voted no. Like the city’s proposal from Council member Sean Elo-Rivera, the county measure would cap most add-on fees at 5% of monthly rent, limit late fees to 2% with a seven-day grace period, prohibit monthly pet fees while allowing refundable pet deposits, and ban charges for services necessary to maintain habitability, such as pest control and valet trash.

During the hearing, Montgomery Steppe said she wanted the ordinance development to remain focused on board deliberations rather than forming a formal stakeholder committee, though she supported engagement through supervisors’ offices and county staff. She said the intent was to prevent “loopholes” that could weaken the ordinance, noting that “more vague language often gets exploited in the process.”

Lawson-Remer, who cast the deciding vote, voiced support for exploring the issue but questioned whether the proposal’s “prescriptive” framework and specific caps were appropriate. She urged county staff to engage small landlords and ensure the process accounts for unintended consequences. “Without a process addressing my concerns,” she warned, “we’re going to end up with an ordinance that I can’t support, even though we need to do something.”

CAA’s vice president of local public affairs, Melanie Woods, testified that the proposal combines unrelated policy areas — including screening fees, holding deposits and service-fee regulations — into one overreaching ordinance. “The ordinance before you today is, in reality, four separate and complex policy issues, each with their own operational, legal and economic implications,” Woods said. “Combining them oversimplifies the critical distinctions and risks unintended consequences.” She added that overregulation of fees “will actually result in less transparency.”

Source Article