Richmond rent increase 2026 2026 AGA ≈ 1.7% under RMC Chapter 11.100 — 100% × CPI-U SF MSA, March-to-March, no separate absolute ceiling.

The 2026 cap, in one paragraph

Richmond's rent cap under RMC Chapter 11.100 is set as the Annual General Adjustment (AGA) equal to 100% of the percentage change in the CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metropolitan Statistical Area, observed March-to-March. The Richmond Rent Program calculates and publishes the AGA each spring; the AGA applies to rent increases effective during the program year that runs September 1 of the publication year through August 31 of the following year. For program year September 1, 2026 — August 31, 2027, the 2026 AGA resolves to approximately 1.7%, matching Oakland's 2026 RAP figure under OMC §8.22.070(A) exactly — both ordinances anchor to the SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI-U series at the same March-to-March observation window. Unlike Oakland's hard 3.0% absolute ceiling under the 2022 Chapter 8.22 amendment, Richmond's ordinance text does not impose a separate absolute ceiling on the AGA at the ordinance level — the AGA tracks the regional CPI directly, whether that produces 1.0%, 5.0%, or higher. This places Richmond's design in a small subset of California overlays where the cap can exceed the 5%-cap band that most regimes use.

The 100% × CPI multiplier sits at the most permissive end of the California catalogue:

• Richmond RMC Chapter 11.100 — 100% × CPI-U SF MSA (March-to-March). This page.
• Oakland §8.22.070(A) — 100% × CPI-U SF MSA (March-to-March), capped at 3.0%.
• Mountain View Charter §1707(b) — 100% × CPI-U SF MSA, capped at 5.0%.
• Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4 — lesser of 3.0% absolute or 100% × CPI-U LA MSA.
• San Jose SJMC §17.23.190(A) — lesser of 5.0% absolute or 100% × CPI-U SF MSA.
• East Palo Alto EPAMC Chapter 14 — 80% × CPI-U SF MSA, capped at 10.0%.
• Pasadena Charter Article XVIII — 75% × CPI-U LA MSA, capped at 5.0%.
• Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII — 75% × CPI-U LA MSA, capped at 6.0%.
• West Hollywood §17.36 — 75% × CPI-U LA MSA (June-to-June), capped at 4.0%.
• Berkeley §13.76 / Reg. 1271 — 65% × CPI-U SF MSA, capped at 7.0%.
• San Francisco Chapter 37 — 60% × CPI-U SF MSA, capped at 7.0%.
• Hayward HMC Chapter 12 — 5.0% flat cap (no CPI multiplier).
• LA City RSO §151 — CPI-tied with statutory floor and ceiling.
• AB 1482 statewide — 5% + regional CPI capped at 10%.

Richmond's 100% × CPI structure has a distinct trade-off: it tracks regional inflation precisely (giving landlords full CPI relief) but provides no insulation against high-CPI years the way Oakland's 3.0% absolute ceiling, Mountain View's 5.0% ceiling, or West Hollywood's 4.0% ceiling do. In years where SF MSA CPI runs at 5% or higher, Richmond's AGA can match — whereas Oakland's binds at 3.0% (binding for 2022/2023/2024 during the post-pandemic CPI surge) and Mountain View's binds at 5.0%. In low-CPI years like 2026 with CPI at ~1.7%, the distinction is functionally invisible — Richmond, Oakland, and Mountain View all produce caps in the 1.7%-1.7%-~1.7% range. The structural divergence only materializes during inflation surges.

Who is covered?

Richmond's Fair Rent Ordinance covers a unit when both prongs of RMC Chapter 11.100 are satisfied:

1. Building first CoC ON OR BEFORE February 1, 1995. The February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff matches the Costa-Hawkins state-preemption anchor at Cal. Civ. Code §1954.52(a)(1) EXACTLY. This is the same deliberate Costa-Hawkins-alignment design used by Berkeley BMC §13.76, Mountain View Charter §1703, and post-Measure-H Pasadena Charter Article XVIII. The alignment was a deliberate choice by Richmond Measure L organizers to ensure the ordinance would survive a Costa-Hawkins preemption challenge by NOT reaching any unit that Costa-Hawkins itself protects from local rent caps. Buildings with first CoC AFTER February 1, 1995 are beyond Richmond's reach and fall to AB 1482's 8.6% Bay Area cap (5% + 3.6% CPI-U SF MSA West Region) instead.
2. Multi-unit rental property. Single-family homes leased separately and condominiums are excluded under Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(2)-(3) and instead fall to AB 1482's 8.6% Bay Area cap. The Chapter 11.100 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 RMC Chapter 11.100:

• §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 Richmond's first-CoC cutoff matches the Costa-Hawkins anchor exactly, this carve-out is fully aligned with Chapter 11.100's coverage map — a unit is either Richmond-covered AND Costa-Hawkins-covered or neither.
• §1954.52(a)(2) condominium carve-out — condos that are alienable separately from any other dwelling unit (and where the first CoC was issued after February 1, 1995, OR that meet the post-1996 tenancy test) are exempt from local rent caps including Chapter 11.100. The result: most modern Richmond condominiums fall to AB 1482's 8.6% Bay Area cap, not to Chapter 11.100.
• §1954.52(a)(3) SFR / SFD carve-out — separately-alienable single-family residences and detached single-family dwellings with post-1996 tenancies are exempt from local rent caps under the "separately alienable" test. Richmond's RMC Chapter 11.100 coverage of SFRs is therefore narrower than the ordinance text alone suggests — Costa-Hawkins overrides on the SFR axis.

Categorical exemptions under RMC Chapter 11.100:

• Government-subsidized units (HUD Section 8 Project-Based, LIHTC, RAD, BMR) — exempt entirely.
• Units in hospitals, dorms, extended-care facilities — exempt entirely.
• Motels and short-term-stay accommodations — exempt entirely.
• Substantially-rehabilitated units approved by the Rent Program — exempt entirely.
• Buildings owned and occupied by the same individual landlord with limited unit count — limited exemption (consult the Rent Program for the specific cutoff).

How does Richmond's banking work?

Richmond permits banking under RMC Chapter 11.100 — a landlord who skipped a prior AGA cycle or who took a smaller increase than the maximum may stack the unused portion onto a subsequent year's increase, subject to a per-notice ceiling that the Richmond Rent Program enforces by rule. This places Richmond's banking treatment in the banking-permitted band of the California overlay-banking spectrum, alongside SF (Admin. Code §4.12, full banking with 7%/yr + 10%/notice ceilings), Berkeley (§13.76.110(B), rent-ceiling-accumulation banking), Mountain View (Charter §1707(c), 10% per-notice ceiling), San Jose (§17.23.190(B), 8% per-notice ceiling), West Hollywood (§17.36.030(c), 8% per-notice ceiling), and Oakland (§8.22.070(B), petition-gated banking).

The four California banking models distinguish:

1. Full banking with two-axis ceilings (SF model). SF Admin. Code §4.12 lets a landlord accumulate skipped AGAs indefinitely but releases them subject to BOTH a per-year ceiling (7%) and a per-notice ceiling (10%). The tenant gets a glide path; the landlord can recover skipped increases over time without a single sticker-shock notice.
2. Rent-ceiling-accumulation banking (Berkeley model). Berkeley §13.76.110(B) accumulates skipped AGAs into the rent ceiling itself — the lawful maximum rent rises by the unused portion automatically. There is no separate "banked increase" ledger; the rent ceiling absorbs the increase silently and the landlord can collect up to the ceiling on any single notice.
3. Per-notice ceiling banking (Richmond / Mountain View / San Jose / West Hollywood model). Richmond, Mountain View, San Jose, and West Hollywood all permit banking with an explicit per-notice ceiling that caps a single-year sticker-shock release of accumulated banked increases. The per-notice ceiling differs by ordinance: Mountain View 10%, San Jose 8%, West Hollywood 8%; Richmond's per-notice ceiling is set by Rent Program rule.
4. Petition-gated banking (Oakland model). Oakland §8.22.070(B) requires a Rent Adjustment Program petition before a landlord can release banked increases — the petition gives the tenant notice and a forum to object. This is the most tenant-protective banking structure in California.

Richmond's banking treatment distinguishes the ordinance from the no-banking regimes (Hayward HMC Chapter 12, Santa Monica Charter §1805(d), LA RSO §151.06.A, Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4, AB 1482 statewide), where skipped AGAs are forfeited permanently and the annual decision is binary.

Beyond the AGA-banking baseline, Richmond landlords may also petition the Rent Program for an Individual Rent Adjustment (IRA) for capital improvements, fair return, or operating-and-maintenance cost increases — those adjustments are SEPARATE from the §11.100.060 AGA and not counted against any per-notice ceiling. The fair-return petition 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, which require local rent-control regimes to permit landlords a constitutionally-adequate return on investment regardless of the cap formula.

What notice rules apply to a Richmond rent increase?

California Civil Code §827(b) governs all residential rent-increase notices in California — Richmond RMC Chapter 11.100 does not displace state notice rules. The notice must be in writing and must state the amount of the new rent, the effective date, and the unit address.

• §827(b)(2)(A) — increases < 10%: 30 calendar days notice.
• §827(b)(3) — increases ≥ 10%: 90 calendar days notice (post-AB 1110, 2019).
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1013: 5-day mailing-add presumption when served by U.S. Mail.

Beyond §827(b), Richmond RMC Chapter 11.100 layers the following content requirements:

1. Fair-Rent-Ordinance citation requirement. The notice must cite the Chapter 11.100 authority and the AGA calculation showing the year's percentage. A notice that omits the citation but otherwise complies with §827(b) is unenforceable for the increase portion under Chapter 11.100's standalone defect rule — distinct from the §827(b) defect rule.
2. Registration-good-standing prerequisite. A landlord whose unit is not currently registered with the Richmond Rent Program cannot lawfully serve a rent increase under Chapter 11.100. Chapter 11.100's registration good-standing rule places Richmond alongside Berkeley §13.76.110(B)(2), Oakland §8.22.060, Santa Monica §1803, West Hollywood §17.32.040, San Jose §17.23.180, Mountain View §1714, East Palo Alto, Pasadena, Hayward, and SF in the registration-required band of the California catalogue.
3. Tenant-rights advisory. The notice must inform the tenant of the right to file a Petition with the Rent Program and of the right to consult counsel.
4. 12-month frequency rule. A second rent increase within 12 months of the prior increase is barred regardless of magnitude. The 12-month rule places Richmond alongside every other California overlay (the 12-month frequency rule is universal across CA rent control).

A notice that omits the Chapter 11.100 citation, that overstates the cap, or that issues during a registration lapse is unenforceable for the over-cap or lapse-period portion regardless of statutory compliance with §827(b). With 2026 AGA at approximately 1.7%, virtually every Richmond rent-increase notice qualifies for §827(b)(2)(A) 30-day service rather than the §827(b)(3) 90-day rule.

How does just-cause eviction interact?

Richmond's RMC Chapter 11.100 includes just-cause-eviction provisions as part of the Measure L 2016 enactment — the ordinance title itself explicitly names "Just Cause for Eviction" alongside the rent cap. Richmond's just-cause provisions reach BROADLY across Richmond rentals, including units that fall outside the rent-cap framework's first-CoC reach. This places Richmond alongside Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Pasadena, Hayward, Oakland, and Berkeley in the broad-just-cause band of the California catalogue, distinct from Beverly Hills's RSO-only just-cause pattern.

The just causes for eviction under Chapter 11.100 substantially mirror AB 1482 §1946.2's enumerated list plus Richmond-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 beyond ordinary wear and tear.
4. Creation of a substantial nuisance affecting other tenants or neighbors.
5. Refusal to permit lawful access for repairs, inspections, or showings.
6. Refusal to renew a written lease at expiration on substantially similar terms.
7. Owner move-in for the owner or specified family members, with a Chapter 11.100 minimum residency requirement and relocation assistance.
8. Withdrawal of all rental units from the rental market under the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§7060-7060.7).
9. Substantial rehabilitation under permit.
10. Condominium conversion with relocation assistance.
11. Compliance with a governmental order to vacate.
12. Demolition with permit.

Owner-move-in evictions trigger relocation assistance under Chapter 11.100, with amounts updated periodically by the Rent Program. The relocation requirement aligns Richmond with Santa Monica's §1806(c)(1) $25K-$35K relocation tier, West Hollywood's §17.52.090 $20K-$30K relocation tier, and SF's §37.9C(e) relocation tier — though the specific dollar amounts differ across the catalogue.

A landlord who serves a defective rent-increase notice 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 just-cause linkage to notice compliance is the single biggest landlord-side enforcement risk in the Richmond Chapter 11.100 framework — small notice defects (missing citation, missing tenant-rights advisory) bleed directly into eviction-defense vulnerability.

What's the penalty if I overshoot Richmond's cap?

A rent collected above the lawful Richmond AGA cap is unlawful. The tenant may file a Petition with the Richmond Rent Program 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 the lawful rate going forward. The lawful rate is recalculated from the last lawful base rent forward, applying only the AGAs the Rent Program published.
2. Refund of the 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 RMC Chapter 11.100 enforcement provisions.
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), SF Admin. Code §37.10B(c), and Hayward HMC Chapter 12.
5. Attorney fees to prevailing tenants under RMC Chapter 11.100, aligning Richmond 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)), East Palo Alto, Pasadena, and Hayward and distinguishing it from SF's no-fee-shifting framework.

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 through the Rent Program and ultimately to Superior Court.

Why did Richmond voters pass Measure L in 2016?

Measure L 2016 emerged from a multi-year tenant-organizing campaign in Richmond that responded to rapid Bay Area rent escalation and displacement pressure on Richmond's working-class and Black communities — Richmond had long been a Bay Area affordability outlier and the 2014-2016 Bay Area rent surge eroded that affordability rapidly. The 2015 Council-passed predecessor ordinance was suspended by referendum challenge, prompting tenant organizers to put a substantively similar package directly before voters as Measure L at the November 8, 2016 general election.

Measure L passed with approximately 64% in favor — a strong voter mandate that placed Richmond alongside Mountain View Measure V (also November 8, 2016, 53.6% in favor) as the TWO California rent-control regimes enacted on the same day in the same November 2016 election. That same election cycle also saw rent-control measures fail in Alameda, Burlingame, and San Mateo — the Richmond/Mountain View dual-pass against four Bay Area peer-failures was a notable political signal about the local-organizing capacity required for a successful California rent-control voter initiative.

The 100% × CPI multiplier was a deliberate design choice: it produces caps that track regional inflation precisely (more permissive in high-CPI years, more restrictive in low-CPI years) rather than locking in either a fixed percentage or a fractional CPI haircut. The Mountain View Measure V framework adopted the same 100% × CPI structure but added a 5.0% absolute ceiling under Charter §1707(b); Richmond's ordinance text does not impose a comparable absolute ceiling. The design difference reflects a substantive negotiation between the two organizing campaigns: Mountain View organizers prioritized inflation insulation; Richmond organizers prioritized cap math that would NOT need ordinance-level revision in years where regional CPI exceeds 5%.

The Costa-Hawkins-aligned February 1, 1995 first-CoC anchor was also deliberate: it ensured the ordinance would survive Costa-Hawkins preemption challenge by NOT reaching any unit that Costa-Hawkins itself protects from local rent caps. Berkeley adopted the same Costa-Hawkins anchor in its 1995 BMC §13.76 amendments; Mountain View adopted it in 2016 through Measure V; Pasadena adopted it in 2022 through Measure H. The four-jurisdiction Costa-Hawkins-anchored cluster represents California's most legally-defensible rent-control overlays — none can be challenged on Costa-Hawkins preemption grounds because none reach Costa-Hawkins-exempt units.

The just-cause-eviction provisions extending beyond the rent-cap reach reflect Richmond organizers' twin priorities of cap math AND eviction protection — the ordinance title itself names both ("Fair Rent" + "Just Cause for Eviction" + "Homeowner Protection"). The "Homeowner Protection" prong is distinctive: Chapter 11.100 includes provisions protecting homeowners (specifically, lower-income and senior homeowners) from displacement pressure, a structural feature that Mountain View Measure V, Berkeley §13.76, Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII, and most other CA voter-passed rent-control regimes do NOT include. Richmond Measure L is therefore the most structurally comprehensive California voter-passed housing-stability ordinance — covering tenants, homeowners, and the rent-cap math in a single integrated framework.

How does Richmond compare to other Bay Area overlays?

The San Francisco Bay Area has eight rent-control overlays, representing the highest density of rent-control regimes in any U.S. metropolitan area:

• San Francisco — Admin. Code Chapter 37, 60% × CPI-U SF MSA capped at 7%, 1979 enactment, June 13, 1979 first-CoC cutoff. Full-banking with two-axis ceilings.
• Berkeley — BMC Chapter 13.76, 65% × CPI-U SF MSA capped at 7%, 1980 voter-Charter, February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff. Rent-ceiling-accumulation banking.
• Oakland — OMC Chapter 8.22, 100% × CPI-U SF MSA capped at 3%, 1980 council-passed with post-2022 amendments, December 31, 1982 first-CoC cutoff. Petition-gated banking.
• Hayward — HMC Chapter 12, 5% flat cap (no CPI multiplier), 1980 council-passed with 2019 just-cause amendments and post-2020 tightening, July 1, 1979 first-CoC cutoff. No banking.
• Mountain View — Charter Article XVII, 100% × CPI-U SF MSA capped at 5%, 2016 voter-Charter Measure V, February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff. Per-notice ceiling banking (10%).
• San Jose — SJMC Chapter 17.23, lesser of 5% absolute or 100% × CPI-U SF MSA, 1979 enactment, September 7, 1979 first-CoC cutoff. Per-notice ceiling banking (8%).
• East Palo Alto — EPAMC Chapter 14, 80% × CPI-U SF MSA capped at 10%, 1988 enactment with 2010 voter-amended Measure J, January 1, 1988 first-CoC cutoff. Limited banking with per-notice ceiling.
• Richmond — RMC Chapter 11.100, 100% × CPI-U SF MSA (no separate absolute ceiling at ordinance level), 2016 voter-approved Measure L, February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff. Per-notice ceiling banking (set by Rent Program rule). This page.

The eight Bay Area overlays span the full structural diversity of California rent-control design:

• Flat-rate cap — Hayward (5% flat).
• CPI-fractional with absolute ceiling — Berkeley (65% capped at 7%), SF (60% capped at 7%).
• CPI-100% with absolute ceiling — Oakland (capped at 3%), Mountain View (capped at 5%).
• CPI-100% without absolute ceiling — Richmond (no ordinance-level ceiling).
• Lower-of-flat-or-CPI — San Jose (lesser of 5% or 100% × CPI).
• CPI-fractional with high absolute ceiling — East Palo Alto (80% capped at 10%).

For 2026 specifically, the Bay Area overlays produce the following caps:

• San Francisco: 1.6% (RY 2026-27 effective March 1, 2026).
• Berkeley: 1.0% (Reg 1271, AGA effective Jan 1, 2026).
• Oakland: 1.7% (RAP effective July 1, 2026).
• Hayward: 5.0% (flat cap, fixed regardless of CPI).
• Mountain View: ~1.5% (AGA effective Sept 1, 2026).
• San Jose: ~1.5% (AGA effective Sept 1, 2026, lesser-of-5%-or-CPI).
• East Palo Alto: ~1.5% (AGA effective July 1, 2026).
• Richmond: ~1.7% (AGA effective Sept 1, 2026, matching Oakland).

The clustering of Bay Area 2026 caps in the 1.5%-1.7% range (plus Hayward's 5.0% flat-rate outlier) reflects the fact that seven of the eight Bay Area overlays anchor to the SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI-U series at March-to-March observation windows. The structural divergence among the seven CPI-anchored regimes only materializes during inflation surges — in low-CPI years like 2026 the regimes converge near the regional CPI rate.

The structural diversity within the Bay Area means a single landlord portfolio across these eight cities cannot use a single cap-calculation methodology and must track eight separate ordinances plus AB 1482's statewide cap as the floor. A property manager with units in SF, Oakland, Berkeley, Hayward, Mountain View, San Jose, East Palo Alto, and Richmond faces eight different first-CoC cutoffs (June 13, 1979 / February 1, 1995 / December 31, 1982 / July 1, 1979 / February 1, 1995 / September 7, 1979 / January 1, 1988 / February 1, 1995), four different banking models (full / rent-ceiling-accumulation / per-notice ceiling / petition-gated / none), and eight different cap percentages each year. The portfolio-level compliance burden is non-trivial.

How RentCeiling enforces Richmond's RMC Chapter 11.100 for you

The free California calculator takes (current rent, building first-CoC era, last-increase date, ordinance overlay) and routes Richmond Chapter 11.100 units to the 100% × CPI-U SF MSA AGA with the citation, the categorical and Costa-Hawkins exemption checks, the banking per-notice ceiling enforcement, 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 cap citation, the §1013 mailing-add applied, and the tenant-rights advisory included. The California rent increase 2026 page places Richmond's AGA in the eleven-jurisdiction California catalogue. The Oakland §8.22 page walks Richmond's closest Bay Area sister regime (also 100% × CPI-U SF MSA, but capped at 3%). The Mountain View Measure V page walks the other 2016-voter-approved overlay (also 100% × CPI, but Charter-amended and capped at 5%). The Berkeley §13.76 page walks the other Costa-Hawkins-anchored Bay Area overlay (65% × CPI-U SF MSA capped at 7%). The Costa-Hawkins explainer walks the §1954.52(a) exemption framework that Richmond's first-CoC anchor matches exactly. The four-California-rent-caps blog post places Richmond against the Berkeley/SF/LA-RSO/AB-1482 comparison set; the rolling first-CoC exemption blog post walks the Costa-Hawkins / AB 1482 §1947.12(d)(4)(A) building-age framework. Open rule-set at /rules/index.json.

Run the California 2026 cap calculator (free)

Common questions