California has more local rent-control ordinances than any other state, but not all of them were created the same way. Most were enacted by city councils through the ordinary legislative process — adopted by a council vote, and amendable by a later council vote. Six were different: voters went to the polls, put the ordinance or Charter amendment on the ballot, and passed it directly. Those six are Santa Monica (Charter Article XVIII, April 1979), Berkeley (BMC Chapter 13.76, June 1980), East Palo Alto (EPAMC Chapter 14, Measure J, November 2010), Mountain View (Charter Article XVII, Measure V, November 2016), Richmond (RMC Chapter 11.100, Measure L, November 2016), and Pasadena (Charter Article XVIII, Measure H, November 2022).
The voter-passed origin matters because it affects political durability — Charter amendments in particular cannot be undone by a city council acting alone; a counter-initiative or another ballot measure is required. But it also matters because ordinances drafted for the ballot tend to be more comprehensive than council-enacted ones: landlord groups and tenant groups both lobby hard during the drafting process, which means more explicitly enumerated just-cause grounds, more precisely defined banking rules, and more elaborate penalty cascades than many council-enacted alternatives.
The six regimes are also structurally diverse. Their 2026 caps span a three-to-one range — 0.8% to approximately 2.25% — depending on which CPI series anchors the formula, what multiplier the ordinance applies, and whether an absolute ceiling overrides the CPI result. Two use the LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA CPI; four use the SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA CPI. Three are California City Charter amendments; three are initiative ordinances codified in the city’s Municipal Code. Two of the six share their first-certificate-of-occupancy cutoff date with a statute most California landlords have never read: Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(1). And none of them is directly comparable to the four regimes in the original RentCeiling catalogue without understanding the layering — because the six voter-passed regimes operate as local overlays on top of the statewide AB 1482 floor, not as replacements for it.
This post walks all six in the order they were enacted, then draws the cross-cutting comparison on four structural dimensions (formula, banking, just-cause scope, first-CoC cutoff) and closes with the political-durability analysis that explains why these six ordinances tend to outlast California rent-control reform attempts at the state level.
The six voter-passed regimes at a glance
Every voter-passed California rent-control regime ties its annual allowable increase to a CPI series, but the choice of series, multiplier, and ceiling produces a wide range of outcomes. The table below shows the 2026 allowable increase for each of the six, the formula that produced it, the Costa-Hawkins first-CoC cutoff that bounds its coverage, and the banking model that governs unused increases.
| Regime | Enacted | 2026 cap | Formula | First-CoC cutoff | Banking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santa Monica (Charter Art. XVIII) | April 1979 | 0.8% | 75% × LA CPI, ceiling 6% | Apr 10, 1979 | None (forfeit) |
| Berkeley (BMC §13.76) | June 1980 | 1.0% | 65% × SF CPI, ceiling 7% | Feb 1, 1995 | Ceiling-accumulation (no cap) |
| East Palo Alto (Measure J) | Nov 2010 | ~1.4% | 80% × SF CPI, ceiling 10% | Jan 1, 1988 | Limited, per-notice ceiling |
| Mountain View (Measure V) | Nov 2016 | ~1.7% | 100% × SF CPI, ceiling 5% | Feb 1, 1995 | 10% per-notice ceiling |
| Richmond (Measure L) | Nov 2016 | ~1.7% | 100% × SF CPI, no ceiling | Feb 1, 1995 | Per-notice ceiling (Rent Program rule) |
| Pasadena (Measure H) | Nov 2022 | ~2.25% | 75% × LA CPI, ceiling 5% | Feb 1, 1995 | Per-notice ceiling (RHB rule) |
A few structural observations before going deeper. First, the two LA-anchored regimes (Santa Monica and Pasadena) use the same MSA series but different ceilings: Santa Monica caps at 6% and Pasadena at 5%. In 2026, LA CPI ran relatively high compared to SF CPI, which is why Pasadena’s ~2.25% looks dramatically higher than SF-anchored Berkeley at 1.0%. Second, the four SF-anchored regimes converge in low-CPI years: in 2026, Berkeley (1.0%), East Palo Alto (~1.4%), Mountain View (~1.7%), and Richmond (~1.7%) all derive from the same SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA series, but their different multipliers (65%, 80%, 100%, 100%) and reference windows (July-to-June for Berkeley vs March-to-March for the other three) spread the results across a 70-basis-point range. Third, Richmond is the only one of the six with no absolute ceiling on the CPI result; the other five all cap the formula output at between 5% and 10%. In a year when SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI surged to, say, 8%, Richmond’s full-CPI-pass-through would allow an 8% increase while Mountain View’s 5% ceiling would bind — the structural risk that will matter most to landlords in a future inflation cycle.
What “voter-passed” means in California rent-control politics
California’s initiative process allows voters to enact both statutes (initiative statutes, codified in the city’s Municipal Code) and Charter amendments (codified in the city’s governing Charter, which sits above ordinary ordinances). The distinction between the two matters for durability.
A Charter amendment can generally be altered only by the same process that created it: a voter ballot measure. The city council has no unilateral authority to amend a Charter provision, because the Charter is the city’s organic law and takes precedence over every ordinance the council enacts. Santa Monica’s Charter Article XVIII, Mountain View’s Charter Article XVII (CSFRA), and Pasadena’s Charter Article XVIII (Measure H) are all Charter amendments. A city council member who wanted to soften the cap formula, raise the per-notice banking ceiling, or reduce the penalty cascade in any of these three jurisdictions would have to put a ballot measure before the voters — and win.
An initiative ordinance occupies a different legal position. Once enacted by voter initiative, an ordinance is on equal footing with ordinances the council itself passes — except that the initiative power “vests in the people,” and whether the council can subsequently amend the initiative without a return to the voters depends on whether the initiative contains an amendment-lock clause and what the California Elections Code says about the specific city’s initiative rules. Berkeley’s BMC Chapter 13.76, East Palo Alto’s EPAMC Chapter 14 (Measure J), and Richmond’s RMC Chapter 11.100 (Measure L) are all initiative ordinances. In practice, however, all three have proven highly resistant to council-driven rollbacks: the political coalition that passed each ordinance typically remains active and would mobilize against any council attempt at unilateral amendment.
What all six share — regardless of Charter vs ordinance classification — is that they were enacted with an explicit popular mandate. This matters in California’s rent-control debate because state-level attempts to preempt or relax local rent control (such as the failed 2018 Prop 10 repeal effort and the Costa-Hawkins ballot measures that have circulated in several election cycles) encounter a harder political obstacle when the local ordinance being preempted was itself put on the ballot by the affected community and won. The six voter-passed regimes are therefore not only the most entrenched California rent-control laws from a legal-amendment standpoint but also the ones most likely to survive a state-level repeal or narrowing effort.
One more historical note: two of the six were passed on the same day. Mountain View Measure V and Richmond Measure L both passed at the November 8, 2016 general election, making them the only California rent-control regimes enacted on a single election day. The campaigns ran independently — Mountain View was a Charter amendment to the City Charter, Richmond was an initiative ordinance amending the Municipal Code — but the simultaneous passage in two Bay Area cities reflected the same 2014–2016 rent surge that produced double-digit nominal rent increases across the Bay Area and created the political conditions in which both campaigns could succeed.
Santa Monica City Charter Article XVIII (1979) — 0.8% for 2026
Santa Monica’s Charter Article XVIII is the oldest of the six voter-passed regimes. It was approved by Santa Monica voters on April 10, 1979 — less than a year after California voters rejected Proposition 13’s residential-rent-control companion and as Los Angeles and Santa Monica were both experiencing post-1978 rent surges. The Charter amendment established a rent control board, defined the maximum allowable rent (MAR) framework, and set the formula that would govern increases for the following five decades.
The 2026 General Adjustment is 0.8%, applicable to rent increases effective September 1, 2026 through August 31, 2027. The formula is 75% × CPI-U LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA (March-to-March), capped at 6.0% under Charter §1805(b) as amended by Measure RC (2002). The Rent Control Board sets the GA annually; for 2026, the underlying LA-Long Beach-Anaheim CPI came in below the SF-Oakland-Hayward series, producing a lower result than the four SF-anchored regimes despite Santa Monica’s higher 75% multiplier vs Berkeley’s 65%.
The first-CoC cutoff at Charter §1801(c) is April 10, 1979 — the date the ordinance became effective. This is the earliest permanent calendar anchor in the entire California overlay catalogue, predating the Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(1) February 1, 1995 cutoff by sixteen years and predating even Oakland’s December 31, 1982 cutoff. A building issued its first certificate of occupancy in May 1979 falls inside Santa Monica’s cutoff. The same building sits outside the four Costa-Hawkins-anchored regimes (Berkeley, Mountain View, Pasadena, Richmond) whose February 1, 1995 boundary would not reach it.
Registration under Charter §1803 costs approximately $234 per unit per year — the highest per-unit registration fee in the California overlay catalogue. The fee is split 50/50 between landlord and tenant under §1803(g), meaning the landlord pays ~$117 and may pass ~$117 to the tenant as a monthly rental adjustment. Registration is a prerequisite for serving any rent increase notice; a registration lapse during the notice period voids the increase.
Banking is prohibited. Charter §1805(d) states explicitly that any General Adjustment not applied during the applicable September–August year is permanently forfeited. A landlord who skipped the 2023, 2024, and 2025 General Adjustments for a long-tenured tenant cannot serve a notice in 2026 that attempts to capture 3+ years of unused increases: the bank balance is zero, and the only allowable increase is the current year’s 0.8%. This no-banking rule makes Santa Monica’s permitted annual increase the most time-sensitive of the six voter-passed regimes — each year’s increase is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition.
Just-cause eviction under Charter §1806 enumerates 8 causes, covering both fault grounds (non-payment, nuisance, illegal subletting, material lease breach, refusal to execute new lease on same terms) and no-fault grounds (owner move-in, Ellis Act withdrawal, capital improvement requiring temporary vacancy). The owner-move-in cause requires a relocation payment of $25,000 to $35,000 under §1806(c)(1), scaled by unit size — one of the highest relocation obligations in California.
Penalties under Charter §1809 include rent rollback, disgorgement with interest, civil penalties per violation, and attorney fees. The statute of limitations is four years — the longest of the six voter-passed regimes and longer than the three-year limitation under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338 that governs most California overlay regimes. Charter §1809(f) includes a criminal misdemeanor referral pathway, making Santa Monica one of only two California overlay regimes (along with West Hollywood) that provides a criminal enforcement path for willful overchargers.
Berkeley BMC Chapter 13.76 (1980) — 1.0% for 2026
Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance was enacted by voters at the June 1980 Berkeley municipal election, in the same wave of local rent-control activity that produced Oakland’s and Hayward’s ordinances in the same calendar year. Unlike Santa Monica’s Charter amendment, Berkeley’s regime is codified in the Berkeley Municipal Code at Chapter 13.76 — a voter-enacted initiative ordinance rather than a Charter provision. It has been amended multiple times since 1980, including significant restructuring of the AGA formula and the penalty cascade.
The 2026 Annual General Adjustment is 1.0%, the lowest cap in the entire RentCeiling catalogue and the lowest of the six voter-passed regimes. The formula is 65% × CPI-U SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA (July-to-June reference year), capped at 7% under Rent Board Regulation 1271. For CY 2026, the Rent Board measured the July 2024 – June 2025 CPI change, applied the 65% multiplier, and arrived at 1.0%. The 7% ceiling is essentially a structural backstop that does not bind in the current low-CPI environment; it last mattered in the double-digit CPI years of the early 1980s.
The first-CoC cutoff under BMC §13.76.030 is February 1, 1995. This is the same date the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act uses at Cal. Civ. Code §1954.52(a)(1) for its permanent exemption of post-1995 new construction from local rent control. Berkeley’s 1995 cutoff was the template the California legislature mirrored when it drafted Costa-Hawkins: the state-law preemption was designed to match the existing Berkeley and San Francisco local cutoffs so that the state law did not immediately destabilize the largest Bay Area rent-control programs. As a result, Berkeley’s coverage boundary aligns exactly with what Costa-Hawkins preempts — the regime cannot reach any unit that Costa-Hawkins would exempt, because its own cutoff prevents it.
The AGA-denial gate at BMC §13.76.110(B)(2) is one of Berkeley’s most distinctive features. Even in years when the formula produces a positive AGA, a landlord may be denied the increase if the unit fails any of four conditions: (1) registration not current; (2) outstanding uncorrected code-enforcement orders; (3) deposit interest not paid to the tenant; or (4) capital improvement work done without required permits. A landlord serving a Berkeley increase notice should verify all four conditions before sending. An AGA denial reduces the landlord’s allowable increase to zero for the year.
Banking under Berkeley’s rent-ceiling-accumulation model at §13.76.110(C) is the most permissive of the six voter-passed regimes. Berkeley does not track a landlord’s unused-increase ledger; instead, the tenant’s rent ceiling rises by the AGA each year regardless of whether the landlord applied it. After five years of the landlord not raising rent, the rent ceiling has accumulated five years of AGA; the landlord can serve a single notice for the entire accumulated difference, subject to no per-year or per-notice ceiling. This differs from Mountain View’s model (banking permitted but capped at 10% per notice) and is completely unlike Santa Monica’s model (banking prohibited). For a deeper walk of Berkeley’s AGA-denial gate and banking mechanics, see the dedicated post.
Just-cause under BMC §13.76.130 enumerates 12 or more causes, one of the most comprehensive just-cause regimes in California. Fault causes include non-payment, nuisance, illegal use, and refusal to execute a new lease on identical terms. No-fault causes include owner move-in (subject to relocation payment requirements), Ellis Act withdrawal (City’s Ellis relocation requirements are among the most generous in California, including relocation assistance and right-of-first-refusal on re-rental), temporary vacancy for substantial rehabilitation, and condominium conversion. The §13.76.110(B)(1) eligibility deferral rule is also notable: a tenant whose tenancy began during the calendar AGA reference year (July to June) may have their increase eligibility deferred to the following AGA cycle, giving new tenants up to a year of additional protection before the landlord may apply the AGA.
Individual Rent Adjustment (IRA) petitions under §13.76.110(A) allow landlords to seek increases above the AGA for capital improvements, fair return on investment, or operating-and-maintenance cost increases. IRA decisions are made by the Berkeley Rent Board and are separate from the annual AGA; an approved IRA does not count against any ceiling (because Berkeley has no per-notice ceiling) but does require a formal hearing and a finding by the Rent Board.
East Palo Alto EPAMC Chapter 14, Measure J (2010) — ~1.4% for 2026
East Palo Alto’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance was enacted as EPAMC Chapter 14 and substantially amended by voters at the November 2, 2010 general election when Measure J passed. East Palo Alto sits in San Mateo County, making it the only rent-control overlay in San Mateo County: Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, Belmont, San Mateo, and Foster City all default to AB 1482’s statewide cap (approximately 8.6% for the Bay Area in 2026) rather than any local overlay. The absence of a Palo Alto overlay across San Francisquito Creek is frequently cited as a driver of displacement between the two cities.
The 2026 Annual General Adjustment is approximately 1.4%, effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. The formula is 80% × CPI-U SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA (March-to-March), capped at 10.0%. With the SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI running approximately 1.7% for the relevant March-to-March measurement window, the formula produces 80% × 1.7% ≈ 1.4%. East Palo Alto’s July 1 annual cycle is distinct from Santa Monica, Mountain View, and West Hollywood’s September 1 cycles and from Berkeley’s calendar-year basis. Landlords with East Palo Alto units should verify the Rent Stabilization Board’s published AGA for the applicable July 1 – June 30 year before serving any notice.
The first-CoC cutoff under EPAMC Chapter 14 is January 1, 1988. This cutoff sits between Santa Monica’s very early 1979 anchor and the cluster of four Costa-Hawkins-aligned regimes at February 1, 1995. A building issued its first certificate of occupancy in 1990 falls inside East Palo Alto’s coverage (issued after January 1, 1988 is not covered) but outside Santa Monica’s 1979 anchor. Wait — to clarify the direction: the cutoff means units whose first CoC predates the cutoff date are covered. East Palo Alto covers units with first CoC before January 1, 1988 under its ordinance (and units between January 1, 1988 and February 1, 1995 may be subject to Costa-Hawkins preemption analysis). The January 1, 1988 anchor broadens East Palo Alto’s coverage beyond the four Costa-Hawkins- aligned regimes’ February 1, 1995 cutoff, reaching a cohort of late-1980s buildings that Berkeley, Mountain View, Pasadena, and Richmond’s ordinances cannot touch.
Banking under Chapter 14 is permitted in limited form with a per-notice ceiling. Unlike Berkeley’s automatic-accumulation model, East Palo Alto’s banking requires an affirmative decision to carry unused increases forward and caps the banked amount at a per-notice limit set by the Rent Stabilization Board. Landlords planning multi-year catch-up increases should confirm the current per-notice ceiling with the Board before serving a notice.
Individual Rent Adjustment (IRA) petitions use a minimum net operating income (MNOI) methodology: landlords who can show that the AGA formula produces a below-MNOI return may petition the Rent Stabilization Board for an upward adjustment above the formula cap. The MNOI approach is one of several fair-return methodologies used across California overlay regimes; it differs from Berkeley’s IRA approach (which looks at capital improvements and operating-cost increases separately) and from Oakland’s petition-gated banking model (which ties banking access to a Board finding on the specific increase).
Just-cause under Chapter 14 enumerates 12 causes reaching every East Palo Alto rental, regardless of whether the unit falls within the rent-cap formula’s coverage scope. This universal just-cause pattern — where just-cause protections cover more units than the rent cap does — is shared by Mountain View (§1709), Pasadena, and Hayward but is distinct from Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, where just-cause applies only to units within the rent-cap framework.
Mountain View CSFRA Charter Article XVII, Measure V (2016) — ~1.7% for 2026
Mountain View’s Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) was approved by voters at the November 8, 2016 general election as Measure V, with 53.6% in favor. It amended the Mountain View City Charter by adding Article XVII, making it a Charter amendment rather than an initiative ordinance — the same structural choice Santa Monica made in 1979 and that Pasadena would later make in 2022. Mountain View and Richmond both passed on the same November 8, 2016 general election; the two measures ran on different CPI anchors and different legislative vehicles (Charter amendment vs initiative ordinance) but share the same February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff and the same 100%-of-CPI formula structure.
The 2026 Annual General Adjustment is approximately 1.7%, effective September 1, 2026 through August 31, 2027. The formula under Charter §1707(b) is 100% × CPI-U SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA (March-to-March), capped at 5.0%. Using the same SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI series that anchors Oakland’s RAP and Richmond’s AGA for the March-to-March window, the result is approximately 1.7% for 2026 — well below the 5.0% absolute ceiling. In an inflationary environment where the SF-Oakland-Hayward March-to-March CPI pushed above 5%, the ceiling would bind and Mountain View would diverge from Richmond (which has no ceiling); the divergence was visible during 2022–2024 when post-pandemic CPI surges pushed both regimes to their respective ceilings (5.0% for Mountain View, with Richmond similarly elevated but unconstrained by a ceiling).
The first-CoC cutoff under Charter §1703 is February 1, 1995, exactly matching the Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(1) state-preemption anchor. Mountain View’s drafters chose this date deliberately to ensure the CSFRA could never be challenged as attempting to reach Costa-Hawkins-exempt units, making the ordinance legally defensible from the outset. The 3+ unit threshold in §1703 further narrows coverage: single-family rentals and 1–2 unit properties are outside the rent-cap formula (though still within the §1709 just-cause framework).
Banking under Charter §1707(c) is permitted with a 10% per-notice ceiling. This is the most permissive banking ceiling among the five regimes that allow banking (East Palo Alto and Richmond both cap at lower per-notice ceilings under their respective Board rules). A Mountain View landlord who skipped increases for five years accumulating five × ~1.7% ≈ 8.5% of unused capacity could serve a single notice for the full 8.5% (below the 10% per-notice ceiling). A landlord with 10%+ accumulated capacity could serve a 10% notice in year one and serve another notice the following year for the remainder.
Upward Adjustment Petitions (UAPs) under Charter §1710 allow increases above the AGA for capital improvements, fair return, or financial hardship. UAP increases are separate from the §1707 AGA and do not count against the §1707(c) 10% per-notice banking ceiling — a UAP-approved increase can be stacked on top of a banked AGA increase in the same notice. The §1714 Rental Housing Fee (approximately $169 per unit per year, with a 50% pass-through to tenants under §1714(c)) is a prerequisite for the AGA; a registration arrearage under §1714(d) blocks the AGA increase.
Just-cause under Charter §1709 enumerates 12 causes reaching every Mountain View rental regardless of whether the unit is within the CSFRA rent-cap formula’s coverage. A 1997 Mountain View apartment — exempt from the rent cap under the February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff — is still protected by §1709’s just-cause regime. This universal-just-cause architecture is one of Measure V’s most consequential features for landlords who believe their units are “outside rent control” because of the first-CoC cutoff.
Richmond RMC Chapter 11.100, Measure L (2016) — ~1.7% for 2026
Richmond’s Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction, and Homeowner Protection Ordinance was approved by voters at the same November 8, 2016 general election as Mountain View Measure V, with approximately 64% in favor — a significantly stronger majority than Mountain View’s 53.6%. Unlike Measure V, Richmond’s Measure L amended the Richmond Municipal Code at Chapter 11.100 rather than the City Charter, making it an initiative ordinance rather than a Charter amendment. The 64% majority and the ordinance’s structural comprehensiveness (the “Homeowner Protection” prong that no other California voter-passed ordinance includes) reflected the specific political dynamics of Richmond’s 2016 campaign.
The 2026 Annual General Adjustment is approximately 1.7%, matching Oakland’s 2026 RAP figure exactly because both ordinances anchor to the SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA CPI-U at the same March-to-March observation window. Richmond’s formula under RMC Chapter 11.100 is 100% × CPI-U SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA (March-to-March) with no absolute ceiling at the ordinance level. This makes Richmond structurally distinct from every other voter-passed regime and from every other California overlay regime listed in the RentCeiling catalogue: it is the only one that passes the full CPI percentage through to landlords without any numerical cap. In a low-CPI year like 2026, this distinction is invisible — 1.7% uncapped is the same outcome as 1.7% capped at 5%. In a high-inflation year when SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI runs at 8%, the distinction would produce an 8% allowable increase in Richmond while Mountain View’s 5% ceiling would bind at 5%.
The first-CoC cutoff under Chapter 11.100 is February 1, 1995, completing the four-jurisdiction Costa-Hawkins-anchored cluster alongside Berkeley, Mountain View, and Pasadena. All four regimes chose the same February 1, 1995 date for the same legal reason: it aligns precisely with the Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(1) state preemption boundary, ensuring the ordinance cannot be challenged as attempting to regulate units the state has already exempted from local rent control.
The “Homeowner Protection” prong of Chapter 11.100 is the most structurally distinctive feature of Richmond’s ordinance within the California voter-passed catalogue. Most California rent-control ordinances protect only residential tenants. Richmond’s Measure L also includes provisions protecting homeowners — specifically lower-income and senior homeowners — from displacement pressure attributable to rising housing costs. No other California voter-passed rent-control ordinance (Santa Monica, Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, or Pasadena) includes a comparable homeowner-protection prong. This made Richmond Measure L the most structurally comprehensive California voter-passed housing-stability ordinance, covering tenants, homeowners, and rent-cap math in a single integrated framework.
Banking under Chapter 11.100 is permitted with a per-notice ceiling enforced by the Richmond Rent Program rule. The per-notice ceiling under the Rent Program rule places Richmond in the same per-notice-ceiling banking band as Mountain View (10% ceiling), San Jose (8% ceiling), and West Hollywood (8% ceiling) — all above the no-banking floor of Santa Monica and below Berkeley’s unlimited-accumulation ceiling. Landlords should confirm the current Rent Program per-notice ceiling before serving a banked increase.
Just-cause under Chapter 11.100 enumerates 12 causes substantially mirroring AB 1482 §1946.2’s list, including non-payment, nuisance, illegal use, material lease breach, owner move-in, Ellis Act withdrawal, substantial rehabilitation, and condominium conversion. The Richmond Rent Program enforces the just-cause regime; a notice served in violation of just-cause is void and exposes the landlord to the five-prong penalty cascade under Chapter 11.100 with a three-year limitation under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338. Individual Rent Adjustment (IRA) petitions for capital improvements, fair return, and operating-and-maintenance cost increases are available under the Chapter, implementing the constitutional minimum return floor established in Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1 and Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129.
Pasadena City Charter Article XVIII, Measure H (2022) — ~2.25% for 2026
Pasadena’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance, codified as Charter Article XVIII, was approved by voters at the November 8, 2022 general election as Measure H, with approximately 53% in favor. It became effective March 14, 2023, following canvass certification and the Charter amendment ratification process. Pasadena is the newest of the six voter-passed regimes and also produces the highest 2026 cap among the six — a combination that reflects both the more recent enactment (the LA CPI ran higher than the SF CPI in 2026) and the 75% multiplier applied to a higher-CPI series.
The 2026 Annual General Adjustment is approximately 2.25%, reflecting the formula of 75% × CPI-U LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA (March-to-March), capped at 5.0%. The underlying LA-Long Beach-Anaheim CPI for the applicable March-to-March measurement window ran approximately 3.0% in 2026, producing 75% × 3.0% ≈ 2.25%. The 5.0% absolute ceiling is the second-tightest in the California overlay catalogue, behind only West Hollywood’s 4.0% ceiling. Pasadena’s ceiling would have bound in 2022–2024 when LA CPI was running at 6–8% — at 75% × 7% = 5.25%, the 5.0% ceiling would trim the result.
The first-CoC cutoff under Charter Article XVIII is February 1, 1995, completing the four-jurisdiction Costa-Hawkins-anchored cluster. The Pasadena Rental Housing Board, created by Measure H, has rule-making authority to establish administrative procedures including the per-notice banking ceiling — unlike Berkeley’s directly-ordinance-codified banking model or Mountain View’s Charter-codified §1707(c) ceiling, Pasadena’s banking rules are set by Board rule and can be adjusted without a Charter amendment.
Just-cause under Charter Article XVIII enumerates 12 causes reaching every Pasadena rental regardless of rent-cap coverage — the same universal-just-cause architecture as Mountain View and East Palo Alto. A 2005-built Pasadena apartment (outside the rent cap by virtue of the February 1, 1995 cutoff) is still within the just-cause framework. This is particularly significant for Pasadena, where a large share of the rental stock post-dates 1995 and would otherwise fall entirely to AB 1482’s §1946.2 just-cause regime if Measure H had not extended local just-cause beyond the rent-cap boundary.
Individual Rent Adjustment (IRA) petitions under Charter Article XVIII allow landlords to seek increases above the AGA for capital improvements, fair return, and operating-and-maintenance cost increases, implementing the constitutional floor under Pennell (1988) and Birkenfeld (1976). The Rental Housing Board adjudicates IRA petitions. A five-prong penalty cascade with a three-year limitation under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338 governs overcharges.
Pasadena’s Measure H completes a chronological cluster of four California voter-passed regimes with February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoffs (Berkeley 1980, Mountain View 2016, Richmond 2016, Pasadena 2022). The 42-year span between Berkeley’s 1980 enactment and Pasadena’s 2022 Charter amendment illustrates how the voter-initiative path for California rent control has been a recurring political option across four decades — not a one-time historical artifact of the 1970s–80s rent surge.
Cross-cutting comparison: four structural dimensions
Reading each of the six regimes individually is necessary but not sufficient for a landlord who holds units in multiple California cities, or for a tenant advocate trying to understand why two voter-passed ordinances from the same election cycle produce different outcomes. The four structural dimensions — formula structure, banking model, just-cause scope, and first-CoC cutoff — cut across all six regimes and explain most of the variation.
1. Formula structure: CPI series × multiplier × ceiling
The six regimes cluster into two groups by CPI series. The LA group (Santa Monica and Pasadena) anchors to the LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA CPI, producing a result that tracked roughly 3% for 2026 underlying CPI; the 75% multiplier brings both results below 2.5%. The SF group (Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Richmond) anchors to the SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA CPI, which ran approximately 1.5–1.7% for the relevant 2026 windows.
Within the SF group, the multiplier spreads the outcomes: Berkeley’s 65% multiplier on a July-to-June window produces 1.0%; East Palo Alto’s 80% on March-to-March produces ~1.4%; Mountain View and Richmond both use 100% on March-to-March to produce ~1.7%. The absolute ceiling then acts as a second trim: Santa Monica’s 6%, Berkeley’s 7%, Pasadena’s 5%, East Palo Alto’s 10%, Mountain View’s 5%, and Richmond’s absence of any ceiling. In 2026’s low-CPI environment, no ceiling is binding for any of the six regimes. In a 5%+ CPI environment, Pasadena’s 5% ceiling, Mountain View’s 5% ceiling, and Santa Monica’s 6% ceiling would all bind.
| Regime | CPI series | Multiplier | Reference window | Absolute ceiling |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santa Monica | LA-Long Beach-Anaheim | 75% | March-to-March | 6% |
| Berkeley | SF-Oakland-Hayward | 65% | July-to-June | 7% |
| East Palo Alto | SF-Oakland-Hayward | 80% | March-to-March | 10% |
| Mountain View | SF-Oakland-Hayward | 100% | March-to-March | 5% |
| Richmond | SF-Oakland-Hayward | 100% | March-to-March | None |
| Pasadena | LA-Long Beach-Anaheim | 75% | March-to-March | 5% |
2. Banking model: forfeit, accumulation, or per-notice ceiling
The six regimes span the entire range of California banking models:
- No banking (permanent forfeit): Santa Monica Charter §1805(d). Each year’s unused General Adjustment is permanently lost. This is the most tenant-protective banking rule (it prevents multi-year catch-up increases) and also the most landlord-punishing for those who voluntarily held rents below the legal maximum.
- Unlimited accumulation (no per-notice ceiling): Berkeley BMC §13.76.110(C). The tenant’s rent ceiling accumulates automatically each year; the landlord may apply the full accumulated ceiling difference in a single notice. This is the most permissive banking model in the California overlay catalogue — a Berkeley landlord who has not raised rent for ten years can, subject to the AGA-denial gate, serve a single notice for a decade of accumulated increases.
- Per-notice ceiling banking: Mountain View (10% per notice, Charter §1707(c)), East Palo Alto (Board-set ceiling, limited), Richmond (Rent Program rule ceiling), and Pasadena (Rental Housing Board rule ceiling). All four allow carry-forward of unused increases but cap how much may be applied in any single notice. The per-notice ceiling is the most common banking model in the California overlay catalogue, also used by San Jose (8%), West Hollywood (8%), and San Francisco (§4.12’s 7%/year and 10%/notice structure, which has both a per-year and a per-notice dimension).
For a landlord managing a multi-city California portfolio, the banking model is one of the most practically significant structural dimensions: it determines whether a decision to hold rent below the legal maximum this year has any value in future years. In Santa Monica, that decision has zero future value. In Berkeley, it has unlimited future value. In the four per-notice-ceiling regimes, it has bounded future value capped at the applicable per-notice ceiling.
3. Just-cause scope: covered-units only vs universal
The six regimes split on whether just-cause protections track the rent-cap formula coverage or extend universally to all rentals in the city. The universal-just-cause regimes (Mountain View §1709, Pasadena Charter Art. XVIII, East Palo Alto Chapter 14) apply their just-cause lists to every rental regardless of first-CoC date or unit type — a post-1995 apartment that is exempt from the rent cap under the Costa-Hawkins-aligned February 1, 1995 cutoff is still protected by just-cause. The covered-units-only regimes (Santa Monica §1806, Berkeley §13.76.130, and, in practice, Richmond’s Chapter 11.100 which ties just-cause to the covered-unit framework) apply just-cause protections to units within the rent-cap coverage scope.
This distinction is not academic. A Mountain View landlord who believes their 2002-built fourplex is “outside rent control” because it post-dates the February 1, 1995 cutoff is correct that the rent cap does not apply — but incorrect that they can serve a no-cause termination notice. The §1709 just-cause framework reaches the unit; a termination notice requires one of the 12 enumerated causes. The same analysis applies in Pasadena and East Palo Alto.
4. First-CoC cutoff: who is covered?
The first-CoC cutoff is the most important coverage-determination variable across the six regimes. It is also the dimension on which the six regimes are most clustered: four of the six use February 1, 1995, while the other two (Santa Monica and East Palo Alto) use earlier dates that extend coverage further into the existing housing stock.
The four-jurisdiction Costa-Hawkins-anchored cluster (Berkeley, Mountain View, Pasadena, Richmond) deserves particular attention. All four chose February 1, 1995 as their first-CoC cutoff to align with the Costa-Hawkins state preemption boundary. This was a deliberate legal-defensibility choice: by adopting the same cutoff the state law uses to exempt units from local rent control, the four ordinances ensure they cannot be challenged as attempting to regulate units the state has already placed outside local rent-control authority. The practical consequence is that the four regimes’ own coverage scope never reaches a Costa-Hawkins-exempt unit, avoiding a preemption conflict entirely.
Santa Monica’s April 10, 1979 cutoff reaches the widest cohort of any of the six — including buildings built between April 1979 and January 31, 1995 that the four-jurisdiction cluster cannot reach. Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(1) still preempts any application of the Santa Monica Charter to post-February-1-1995 units; but buildings from the 1980s and early 1990s that are exempt under the four Costa-Hawkins-anchored regimes are within Santa Monica’s coverage. East Palo Alto’s January 1, 1988 cutoff similarly reaches a cohort of late-1980s buildings that the four Costa-Hawkins-anchored regimes cannot, though it covers fewer pre-1995 buildings than Santa Monica’s 1979 anchor.
Political durability: what it takes to change a voter-passed ordinance
The six voter-passed regimes are, as a group, the California rent-control laws most resistant to amendment or repeal. Understanding why requires understanding three layers of legal entrenchment: the voter-approval threshold, the Charter vs ordinance distinction, and the state preemption ceiling.
The voter-approval threshold is the most fundamental layer. Any city council that tried to repeal one of these six ordinances outright would face a voter referendum or citizen initiative reinstating it within one election cycle. The campaigns that passed Santa Monica’s Charter amendment in 1979, Berkeley’s initiative in 1980, Mountain View Measure V and Richmond Measure L in 2016, and Pasadena Measure H in 2022 all built durable coalitions of tenant advocates, neighborhood associations, and progressive political networks that remain organized and ready to defend the ordinance at the ballot box.
The Charter vs ordinance distinction adds a second layer for three of the six. Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII, Mountain View Charter Article XVII (CSFRA), and Pasadena Charter Article XVIII are all City Charter provisions. Under California law, the city council cannot amend a Charter provision by ordinance; a Charter amendment requires either a council-placed ballot measure (approved by voters) or a citizen initiative (also approved by voters). This means that any attempt to soften a Charter provision’s rent cap — say, to raise the annual ceiling from 6% to 10%, or to eliminate the banking prohibition — must survive a city-wide vote. The political threshold is high precisely because the original vote that enacted the provision was itself high (64% for Richmond, though that is an initiative ordinance; 53% for Mountain View Measure V and Pasadena Measure H; strong majorities for Santa Monica in 1979 and Berkeley in 1980).
The state preemption ceiling is the layer that constrains all six from above. Costa-Hawkins §1954.52 and AB 1482’s statewide floor at Cal. Civ. Code §1947.12 both define what California local rent control can and cannot do. Any voter-passed ordinance that attempts to go beyond the Costa-Hawkins boundaries — by extending rent control to post-1995 buildings, single-family rentals, or owner-occupied condominiums — would be preempted by state law regardless of how many local voters approved the ordinance. The four Costa-Hawkins-anchored regimes (Berkeley, Mountain View, Pasadena, Richmond) are structured to stay inside those boundaries. Santa Monica and East Palo Alto, with their earlier cutoffs, are more exposed to preemption on specific unit types and will need to track any future Costa-Hawkins amendments carefully.
Two periodic threats to all six deserve monitoring. The Costa-Hawkins repeal campaign — most recently organized as a 2018 ballot initiative (Prop 10, which failed 40%–60%) and discussed again in 2024 — would expand what local governments could regulate if passed. A Costa-Hawkins repeal would not directly change any of the six voter-passed ordinances, but it would remove the preemption ceiling that constrains their scope, opening the door for future local ballot measures to extend rent control to post-1995 units in Berkeley, Mountain View, Pasadena, and Richmond. Conversely, a successful state-level rent-control preemption expansion — a hypothetical future bill barring cities from enacting local rent-cap formulas stricter than AB 1482 — could conflict with all six voter-passed regimes simultaneously. The California Supreme Court would need to resolve the preemption question, and voter-passed Charter amendments (Santa Monica, Mountain View, Pasadena) would have the strongest legal argument that state statutory law cannot override a locally-enacted Charter provision.
For landlords, the practical implication is simple: the six voter-passed regimes are the most stable California rent-control laws to plan around. They are unlikely to loosen in the near term and have shown they can survive state-level rent-control reform attempts. The annual cap percentages will continue to fluctuate with their CPI anchors, but the structural rules — no-banking in Santa Monica, unlimited accumulation in Berkeley, 5% ceiling in Mountain View and Pasadena, no ceiling in Richmond — are unlikely to change without a ballot measure. That stability cuts both ways: landlords in these jurisdictions can model long-run compliance costs with high confidence, and they should expect the just-cause and penalty regimes to remain in force through any normal planning horizon.
Frequently asked questions
- Which of the six voter-passed California rent-control regimes has the lowest 2026 cap?
- Santa Monica City Charter Article XVIII has the lowest 2026 cap among the six at 0.8%, applicable to rent increases effective September 1, 2026 through August 31, 2027. The formula is 75% × CPI-U LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA (March-to-March) capped at 6.0% under Charter §1805(b) as amended by Measure RC (2002). Berkeley at 1.0% (65% × SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI, July-to-June) is the second-lowest. Pasadena at approximately 2.25% (75% × LA CPI, March-to-March) is the highest of the six because the LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA CPI ran higher than the SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA CPI for the relevant 2026 measurement window.
- What is the difference between a voter-passed Charter amendment and a voter-passed initiative ordinance in California rent control?
- Three of the six regimes are Charter amendments (Santa Monica, Mountain View, Pasadena) and three are initiative ordinances (Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Richmond). A Charter amendment can generally only be changed by another ballot measure, because the City Charter takes precedence over ordinary ordinances and a council cannot unilaterally alter a Charter provision. An initiative ordinance may, depending on the city’s rules and whether the initiative contains a lock clause, be amendable by the council without a return to voters. In practice, all six have proven highly resistant to weakening, but the Charter-amendment regimes have the strongest formal legal protection against council-driven amendment.
- Which of the six voter-passed regimes allows landlords to bank unused rent increases?
- Four of the six allow banking; one prohibits it. Santa Monica §1805(d) prohibits banking: unused General Adjustments are permanently forfeited. Berkeley §13.76.110(C) allows unlimited accumulation with no per-notice ceiling — the most permissive banking model in the California overlay catalogue. Mountain View (§1707(c), 10% per-notice ceiling), East Palo Alto, Pasadena, and Richmond each allow banking subject to a per-notice cap. Mountain View’s 10% per-notice ceiling is the most permissive of the four per-notice-ceiling regimes.
- What are the first-certificate-of-occupancy cutoff dates for the six voter-passed regimes?
- Santa Monica §1801(c): April 10, 1979 (earliest in the California overlay catalogue). East Palo Alto EPAMC Chapter 14: January 1, 1988. Berkeley BMC Chapter 13.76, Mountain View CSFRA §1703, Pasadena Charter Article XVIII, and Richmond RMC Chapter 11.100: all use February 1, 1995, forming the four-jurisdiction Costa-Hawkins-anchored cluster whose coverage aligns exactly with the state-law preemption boundary at Cal. Civ. Code §1954.52(a)(1).
- Do all six voter-passed regimes include just-cause eviction protections?
- Yes. All six include just-cause frameworks. Santa Monica §1806 enumerates 8 causes with a $25,000–$35,000 owner-move-in relocation payment. Berkeley §13.76.130, East Palo Alto Chapter 14, Mountain View §1709, Pasadena Charter Article XVIII, and Richmond RMC Chapter 11.100 each enumerate 12 causes. Mountain View, Pasadena, and East Palo Alto apply their just-cause lists universally to every rental in the city, regardless of whether the unit falls within the rent-cap formula’s coverage scope. Berkeley and Santa Monica tie just-cause to covered tenancies.
- How does the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act limit these six regimes?
- Costa-Hawkins Cal. Civ. Code §1954.52(a)(1) permanently exempts any unit whose first certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995. For the four Costa-Hawkins-anchored regimes (Berkeley, Mountain View, Pasadena, Richmond), the ordinance’s own first-CoC cutoff is February 1, 1995, so the regime’s coverage never attempts to reach a Costa-Hawkins-exempt unit. Santa Monica’s April 10, 1979 cutoff and East Palo Alto’s January 1, 1988 cutoff predate Costa-Hawkins; those regimes cover additional pre-1995 buildings that the four-jurisdiction cluster cannot, but Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(1) still preempts any attempt to extend coverage to post-February-1-1995 units in those cities. Cal. Civ. Code §1954.52(a)(3)’s single-family-rental and condominium exemption further limits all six regimes.
- What is the overcharge penalty in each of the six voter-passed jurisdictions?
- All six include multi-prong penalty cascades: rent rollback, disgorgement of overcharges, interest, civil penalties per violation, and attorney fees. Santa Monica’s §1809 stands out with a four-year statute of limitations (vs three years under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338 for the other five) and a criminal misdemeanor referral pathway under §1809(f) — one of only two California overlay regimes (along with West Hollywood) that includes a criminal enforcement option. Mountain View’s §1715 and Berkeley’s §13.76 both include attorney-fee-shifting that requires landlords who lose overcharge challenges to pay the tenant’s legal fees. A defective or over-cap notice also generally breaks the landlord’s just-cause eviction posture across all six regimes.
Disclaimer: The 2026 cap percentages for East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Pasadena, and Richmond are estimates based on available CPI data and the applicable formula; landlords should verify the current year’s published figure from the applicable rent board before serving any notice. Santa Monica’s 0.8% and Berkeley’s 1.0% are the published 2026 figures from those rent boards. This post is a calculation reference, not legal advice; edge cases warrant review by a landlord-tenant attorney in the applicable jurisdiction.
For per-jurisdiction calculators and statute-compliant notice PDF generation for the jurisdictions in the RentCeiling catalogue, see the homepage calculator. For the four-regime California comparison including AB 1482, LA RSO, SF, and Berkeley, see Four California rent caps in 2026. For the banking-model comparison across the full California catalogue including SF’s stacked-banking model, see the AB 1482 banking provision deep-dive.