Despite strong objections from landlords and even some tenant advocates, Imperial Beach leaders on Wednesday approved new renter protections regarding no-fault evictions.
The City Council voted 3-2 to approve an amended ordinance that would become effective in March following a second vote scheduled for Feb. 19. Councilmembers Carol Seabury and Mitch McKay opposed.
Unlike “at-fault” reasons, like not paying rent or breaking one’s rental lease agreement, “no-fault” lease terminations include when a renter is ordered to leave because the owner will demolish or substantially remodel the unit, the owner plans to move in or remove the unit from the rental market, or to comply with a court order that the tenant must leave.
A major component of the new law is that it disqualifies certain renovation projects as “substantial remodels.” The ordinance prohibits landlords from evicting renters over “cosmetic improvements alone,” including painting, removing an interior wall for insulation, or replacing floors, cabinets, and windows.
The city law would also require landlords to pay tenants two months’ relocation expenses (one month of current rent and the other at market rate) if they evict them for “no-fault” reasons. Elderly and disabled tenants would receive up to three months’ payment at the market rate. State law, under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, or Assembly Bill 1482, requires landlords to give their renters one month’s rent or waive the same amount to help them move out.
Dozens of renters, landlords and advocates on both sides spoke mostly against the policy, saying it was too imposing on property owners or too weak to protect renters and too late to help those already evicted.
But city officials said the ordinance is as balanced as it could be and is aimed at bad actors.
“I think it’s clear that we got as far as we could for this particular ordinance,” said Mayor Paloma Aguirre. “It’s not what many of you for months have asked or needed, but in my opinion, it’s something. … It may not protect the current residents that are experiencing, already, notices of eviction, but it could potentially help residents in the future.”
Tenants and their advocates, including the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) San Diego, pushed for a ban on no-fault evictions.
Sandra del Rio, a single mom and Imperial Beach renter, said she was served a no-fault eviction for a nine-month substantial remodel to her unit, including upgrades to flooring, countertops and appliances.
“I’ve got denied three different applications for apartments; I’m looking at a third job now,” she told council members. “These no-fault evictions need more restrictions. This is cosmetic. It’s not necessary, and it’s really putting a strain on my family.”
ACCE argued that relocation pay would not prevent evictions and that prohibiting cosmetic work as a reason for evicting is unlikely to make an impact on eviction cases.
“Placing limits only on cosmetic work means that a landlord can still choose to evict a tenant to change the layout of their kitchen by moving their sink – an entirely unnecessary remodel intended only to create a reason for eviction,” the group wrote in a Tuesday letter to the City Council.
Local landlords and landlord advocates argued that the city’s ordinance fails to account for broader, potential consequences on the rental market and discourages property owners from upgrading aging infrastructure.
Molly Kirkland, public affairs director with the Southern California Rental Housing Association, said several components of the ordinance are unnecessary and could hike rents.
“The additional relocation (payments) always gives us heartburn,” she said. “The small market rent: that disincentivizes an owner for keeping their rents below market. They’re going to take the max rent increase every time if they’re going to have to pay more than … they’re collecting.”
She added that “sticking with a statewide standard is the best approach” because it avoids “a patchwork of laws” and confusion that leads to making simple, but costly mistakes by landlords.
McKay agreed that “a clear and balanced legislative pathway already exists” via state legislation.
“I feel this is a complex legal issue with many perceived inequities on both sides,” he added before voting against the local law.
Sheila Martinez, a local property owner, said the city should offer incentives to owners who have substantially remodeled residential units.
“I think that is kind of the meeting-in-the-middle,” she said, adding that the city could say, “Hey, do these things piecemeal. Don’t ask everybody to leave at once.”
City staff is expected to research possible incentives for the City Council to consider in the future. Imperial Beach’s ordinance applies to renters who have lived in the unit for at least 12 months.
Imperial Beach would become the next city in San Diego County to implement a local tenant protection law related to just-cause evictions. The city of San Diego and Chula Vista have similar policies.
However, it wouldn’t be the first time Imperial Beach has taken on renter protection laws. The city implemented eviction moratoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic and in 2022 for people renting spaces at RV parks.
If the City Council formally passes the law next month, the ordinance would sunset on Jan. 1, 2030.
