Pasadena rent control 2026 2026 Annual General Adjustment under the Charter = 75% × CPI-U Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA capped at 5% under Pasadena Charter Article XVIII.

The 2026 cap, in one paragraph

Pasadena's General Adjustment under Charter Article XVIII (added by voter-passed Measure H 2022) is set as 75% of the percentage change in the BLS CPI-U for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA metropolitan statistical area, all items, not seasonally adjusted, measured from March of the prior year to March of the publication year, capped at 5.0%. The Pasadena Rental Housing Board publishes the General Adjustment each spring for the cycle beginning September 1 of that year (matching the cycle structures used by Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood — and distinct from the July 1 cycles used by East Palo Alto and Oakland). The 75% × CPI multiplier sits in the middle of the California catalogue: Berkeley 65% × CPI; San Francisco 60% × CPI; Santa Monica 75% × CPI; West Hollywood 75% × CPI; Pasadena 75% × CPI; East Palo Alto 80% × CPI; Oakland 100% × CPI (3% cap); Mountain View 100% × CPI (5% cap); San Jose lower of 5% or 100% × CPI. The 5.0% ceiling is the second-tightest in the California catalogue — only West Hollywood's 4.0% ceiling is lower. Recent Pasadena General Adjustment history (illustrative; consult the Rental Housing Board for official figures): 2024 General Adjustment approximately 2.4% (75% × 3.2% LA MSA CPI); 2023 General Adjustment approximately 4.5% (75% × 6.0% LA MSA CPI). The 5.0% ceiling has not bound in Pasadena's brief operating history; the 75% multiplier has kept General Adjustments below the absolute ceiling in every cycle since the Charter amendment took effect in March 2023.

Who is covered?

Pasadena's Charter Article XVIII rent-cap framework covers a unit when both prongs are satisfied:

1. Building first CoC ON OR BEFORE February 1, 1995. The February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff was deliberately chosen to match exactly the Costa-Hawkins state-preemption anchor at Cal. Civ. Code §1954.52(a)(1) — meaning every Pasadena unit Costa-Hawkins permits a city to regulate, Article XVIII reaches; every Pasadena unit Costa-Hawkins exempts, Article XVIII does not reach. Berkeley (Charter Article XVII) and Mountain View (Charter Article XVII as added by Measure V 2016) use the identical February 1, 1995 anchor for the same Costa-Hawkins-alignment reason. The cutoff date is determined from the building department's first certificate of occupancy on file with the City of Pasadena.
2. Multi-unit rental property. Single-family homes leased separately and duplexes where the owner shares living space with the tenant are excluded. The Charter's reach is multi-unit rental properties — apartment buildings, multi-family residences, and bona fide multi-unit investment rentals.

Costa-Hawkins (Cal. Civ. Code §§1954.50-1954.535) operates as an independent exemption framework on top of Article XVIII:

• §1954.52(a)(1) post-Feb-1-1995 CoC carve-out — buildings issued first CoC after February 1, 1995 are exempt from the rent-cap framework. Because Article XVIII's cutoff is exactly February 1, 1995, this Costa-Hawkins carve-out is structurally redundant with Article XVIII's coverage line.
• §1954.52(a)(2) condominium carve-out — individual condominium units lawfully separable when sold to a bona fide purchaser are exempt from the rent-cap framework.
• §1954.52(a)(3) SFR-with-post-1996-tenancy carve-out — detached single-family homes leased to a tenancy commenced on or after January 1, 1996 are exempt from the rent-cap framework. SFRs tenanted before January 1, 1996 with continuous tenancy retain Article XVIII coverage.

Where Costa-Hawkins WOULD exempt a unit, AB 1482's 8.8% LA MSA cap applies in series rather than Article XVIII's 75% × CPI cap. Government-subsidized units (HUD Section 8 Project-Based, LIHTC, RAD, BMR), units in hospitals/dorms/extended-care facilities, motels and short-term-stay accommodations under 30 days, hotels, and substantially-rehabilitated units approved by the Rental Housing Board are excluded entirely from Article XVIII's rent-cap framework. Units that fall outside the rent-cap framework are still subject to Article XVIII's just-cause eviction requirements — coverage of just-cause is broader than coverage of rent-cap, mirroring the AB 1482 §1947.12 / §1946.2 split at the state level.

Banking under Charter Article XVIII

Pasadena permits LIMITED BANKING under Charter Article XVIII with caps set by Rental Housing Board rule. Unused General Adjustments may be carried forward up to a per-notice ceiling commonly set at twice the published General Adjustment or 10.0% of prior rent (whichever is lower) — landlords should consult the current Rental Housing Board rules for the operative ceiling. A landlord who skipped the 2024 General Adjustment (~2.4%) and the 2025 General Adjustment can stack with 2026's General Adjustment into a single notice up to the per-notice ceiling. Banking accumulates with no statutory expiration but the per-notice ceiling caps release pace.

This places Pasadena's banking model in the middle band of the California overlay-banking spectrum:

• Berkeley §13.76.110(B) — ceiling-rise accumulation; no balance cap, no expiration, no per-notice ceiling. The most permissive model.
• San Francisco Rent Board Rules §4.12 — full automatic banking with 7%/calendar-year ceiling + 10%/single-notice ceiling.
• Mountain View Charter §1707(c) — banking permitted with 10.0% per-notice ceiling.
• East Palo Alto Chapter 14 — limited banking with 10.0% per-notice ceiling.
• Pasadena Charter Article XVIII — limited banking with per-notice ceiling set by Rental Housing Board rule. This page.
• San Jose §17.23.190(B) — banking permitted with 8.0% per-notice ceiling.
• West Hollywood §17.36.030(c) — banking permitted with 8.0% per-notice ceiling.
• Oakland §8.22.070(B) — petition-gated banking. A notice that exceeds the current year's CPI Rent Adjustment requires a Rent Adjustment Petition before service.
• Santa Monica Charter §1805(d) — NO banking. Skipped General Adjustments forfeited permanently.
• LA RSO §151.06.A — NO banking. Explicit forfeiture matching Santa Monica.
• Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4 — generally NO banking under either the Chapter 5 legacy framework or the post-2017 Chapter 4 framework.
• AB 1482 statewide — no statutory banking provision.

Banking does NOT survive an unlawful eviction, harassment determination, or substantial-habitability-violation finding under Charter Article XVIII — the Hearing Officer can extinguish banked capacity as part of a tenant-petition remedy. Banked capacity is also tenancy-tied: vacancy resets banking to zero on a fresh-start basis under Costa-Hawkins §1954.53(a). When a unit turns over, the new tenancy begins at market rate (post-vacancy), and the new lease's General Adjustment clock starts from the first 12-month-frequency anniversary — there is no carry-forward of the prior tenant's banked capacity.

Individual Rent Adjustment petitions

Beyond the General Adjustment + banking framework, Pasadena landlords may petition the Pasadena Rental Housing Board for an INDIVIDUAL RENT ADJUSTMENT on grounds including:

• Capital improvements — amortization of qualified capital expenditures over a Board-determined useful life. Capital-improvement pass-throughs are calculated as the qualified expenditure divided by the useful-life period divided by the number of affected units, served as a separate line-item rent component rather than as part of the General Adjustment.
• Fair return / fair rate of return — a Board determination that the existing rent does not provide the landlord with a constitutionally adequate return on investment. The fair-return standard implements the constitutional floor under Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1 and Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129.
• Operating-and-maintenance cost increases — documented year-over-year increases in qualified operating costs above the General Adjustment-implied rate. The MNOI (Maintenance of Net Operating Income) standard is the common methodology.

Granted Individual Rent Adjustments are SEPARATE from the General Adjustment and DO NOT count against the per-notice banking ceiling. The Individual Rent Adjustment petition is the Pasadena analog of Mountain View's §1710 framework, East Palo Alto's IRA framework, Berkeley's §13.76.110 framework, Oakland's §8.22.080 capital-improvements and §8.22.090 fair-return petitions, and SF Rent Board's §6.10 and §6.11 capital-improvements and operating-and-maintenance petitions.

Notice requirements

California Civil Code §827(b) governs the FORM and TIMING of every Pasadena rent-increase notice; Charter Article XVIII layers CONTENT requirements on top:

• 30-day rule under §827(b)(2)(A) — increases of less than 10% take effect 30 calendar days after service. The 75% × CPI cap means most Pasadena notices fall well under 10% and qualify for the 30-day rule.
• 90-day rule under §827(b)(3) — increases of 10% or more require 90 calendar days. Reached only at the per-notice banking ceiling or via approved Individual Rent Adjustment petition stacked with the General Adjustment.
• §1013 mailing-add presumption — when served by U.S. Mail, the notice period is extended by 5 days under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1013. Effective notice period for a mailed notice is 35 days (under 10%) or 95 days (10%+).
• Rental Housing Board citation requirement — the notice must cite the General Adjustment authority and the calculation, including any banked capacity itemization. A notice that omits the citation or that overstates the General Adjustment against the published rate is unenforceable for the over-cap portion regardless of statutory compliance with §827(b).
• Registration-good-standing prerequisite — a landlord whose unit is not currently registered with the Pasadena Rental Housing Board cannot lawfully serve a rent increase under Article XVIII. The registration-good-standing rule mirrors Berkeley's §13.76.110(B)(2)(a) AGA-denial condition for non-current registration.
• 12-month frequency rule — a second rent increase within 12 months of the prior increase is barred regardless of magnitude.
• Banking line-item disclosure — where the landlord is invoking banked capacity, the notice must itemize each prior General Adjustment being banked and the cumulative stacked rate against the per-notice ceiling.
• Tenant-rights advisory — the notice must inform the tenant of the right to file a Petition with the Rental Housing Board challenging the General Adjustment computation.

Just-cause eviction under Charter Article XVIII

Pasadena's just-cause-eviction provisions under Charter Article XVIII reach EVERY Pasadena rental REGARDLESS of whether the unit is subject to the General Adjustment. The just-cause framework is broader than the rent-cap framework — meaning post-February-1-1995-CoC apartments, single-family homes leased separately, condos owned individually, and SFRs with post-1996 tenancies (units that fall outside the rent-cap framework) are still subject to Article XVIII's just-cause requirements.

The just causes for eviction substantially mirror AB 1482's §1946.2 eight just causes plus Pasadena-specific provisions:

1. Non-payment of rent
2. Substantial breach of a material lease term not cured after written notice
3. Substantial damage to the unit
4. Creation of a substantial nuisance
5. Refusal to permit lawful access
6. Refusal to renew a written lease at expiration on similar terms
7. Owner move-in for the owner or specified family members with a 24-month minimum residency requirement
8. Withdrawal of all rental units under the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§7060-7060.7)
9. Substantial rehabilitation under permit
10. Condominium conversion with relocation
11. Compliance with a governmental order to vacate
12. Demolition with permit

A landlord who serves a defective rent-increase notice (over-cap, missing Rental Housing Board citation, or out of compliance with the 12-month frequency rule) loses the just-cause-eviction posture for that lease term: a subsequent unlawful detainer for non-payment of the over-cap portion fails because the over-cap demand is unlawful. The defective-rent-notice / just-cause-loss linkage is the most consequential procedural trap for Pasadena landlords self-managing without an attorney.

Owner-move-in evictions require: good-faith intent to occupy as primary residence for a 24-month minimum period; relocation assistance set by Board rule (commonly $10,000-$25,000 per displaced household depending on tenancy duration and tenant qualifications); written notice with statutory disclosures; and Rental Housing Board filing within a Board-specified period of the notice. Senior tenants (62+), disabled tenants, and tenants of 5+ years receive heightened protections. Ellis Act withdrawals require notice to the Rental Housing Board, notice to all tenants, 120-day minimum notice period (extended to one year for senior and disabled tenants under §7060.4), and trigger §1954.535 re-rental restrictions: if the landlord returns any unit in the building to the rental market within 5 years, the prior tenants have a right of first refusal at the prior rent.

Penalty cascade under Charter Article XVIII

A rent collected above the lawful Pasadena General Adjustment is unlawful. The tenant may file a Petition with the Pasadena Rental Housing Board under Charter Article XVIII within three years of the over-cap collection (matching California's general three-year limitation period under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338). The Hearing Officer can order a five-prong remedy:

1. Reduction of rent to lawful rate going forward. The over-cap collection stops with the next rent period; the tenant's lawful obligation is recalculated to the published General Adjustment.
2. Refund of unlawfully-collected portion with statutory interest at 10% under Cal. Civ. Code §3289(b). The Hearing Officer typically orders a credit against future rent until the unlawful portion is recouped.
3. Civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation per tenant under Article XVIII enforcement provisions. Multiple violations across multiple notice cycles each trigger their own penalty.
4. Treble damages where willful or in bad faith — three times the unlawfully-collected portion. The willfulness standard mirrors AB 1482 §1947.12(h)(3), Oakland §8.22.150(B), and SF Admin. Code §37.10B(c).
5. Attorney fees to prevailing tenants. Charter Article XVIII authorizes attorney fees, distinguishing Pasadena from SF (which has no attorney-fee-shifting under §37.8 petitions) and aligning Pasadena with Oakland (§8.22.150(C)), Berkeley (§13.76.150), Santa Monica (§1809), West Hollywood (§17.36.110(c)), San Jose (§17.23.230(C)), Mountain View (§1715(c)), and East Palo Alto.

Tenants may also raise the overcharge as an affirmative defense to an unlawful-detainer (eviction) action for non-payment under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1161, voiding the eviction predicate. Appeals from Hearing Officer decisions go to the Rental Housing Board and ultimately to Superior Court.

How RentCeiling enforces Pasadena's Charter rent control for you

The free California calculator takes (current rent, building first-CoC era, last-increase date, ordinance overlay) and routes Pasadena Charter units to 75% × CPI capped at 5% with the Charter Article XVIII citation, the categorical and Costa-Hawkins exemption checks, the per-notice banking ceiling computation, the registration-good-standing and just-cause checks, and the 12-month frequency verification. The California notice generator consumes the same inputs and emits a printable §827(b)-compliant notice with the General Adjustment citation, the §1013 mailing-add applied, the Rental Housing Board citation included, the banking line-item disclosure, and the tenant-rights advisory included. The California rent increase 2026 page places Pasadena's 75% × CPI capped at 5% in the eleven-jurisdiction California catalogue (AB 1482 8.8%, LA RSO 3.0%/2.8%, SF 1.6%, Berkeley 1.0%, Oakland 1.7%, Santa Monica 0.8%, West Hollywood 0.75%, San Jose 5%/CPI, Mountain View 5%/CPI, East Palo Alto 80% × CPI, Pasadena 75% × CPI capped at 5%). The Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII page walks Pasadena's voter-amended sister regime down the LA County coast. The West Hollywood §17.36 page walks the LA County rent-control overlay with the lowest cap. The Costa-Hawkins explainer walks the §1954.52(a) exemption framework that decides whether each Pasadena unit falls under Charter Article XVIII or AB 1482. Open rule-set at /rules/index.json.

Run the California 2026 cap calculator (free)

Common questions