The Pasadena Rental Housing Board spent Thursday in an information-only study session, grappling with whether and how to hit landlords with administrative fines for improper eviction notices, illegal rent hikes, harassment and habitability lapses. Members stopped short of setting dollar amounts or voting on any framework, instead directing staff to come back with clearer standards and a working definition of “substantial compliance.” A big sticking point: how far state law actually lets the board go when a property owner claims they tried to follow the rules in good faith.
Board Seeks Blueprint for Fines and ‘Substantial Compliance’
According to Pasadena Now, Executive Director Helen Morales told the board that any new penalties would sit on top of the voter-approved Measure H, not replace it, and would focus on improper notices, illegal rent increases, harassment and failures to maintain habitable units. Staff floated a structure built around levels of severity, escalating fines for repeat violations and an appeals process, while board members traded views on whether cases should move through tenant petitions, hearing officers or direct citations. Board member Ryan Bell cautioned, “You can’t even have the other conversation until we grasp this,” highlighting the legal thicket the board has to navigate.
State Law Puts Guardrails on Local Penalties
Under California Civil Code Section 1947.7, better known as the Petris Act, rent-control jurisdictions are barred from slapping penalties on owners who are in “substantial compliance” and who have made a good-faith effort to obey local rules. In those cases, restitution or fee recovery are the main tools available. Staff told the board that turning that “substantial compliance” language into an actual, working test will be crucial, especially since it can require allowing a landlord to fix problems after the agency gives notice, before any fines can stick.
Other Cities Offer a Menu of Fine Structures
Staff also walked the board through how other rent-control cities handle penalties, aiming to give Pasadena some models that could be adapted to fit local and state constraints. Around the state, approaches range from Alameda’s $250/$500/$1,000 tiers to Culver City’s $100/$200/$300 sequence, with some cities, including Sacramento, using higher ranges tied to the severity of the violation, according to Pasadena Now. Several property owners who spoke at the session urged the board to draw rules as narrowly and clearly as possible, warning that fuzzy standards could trigger uneven enforcement and expensive court fights.
Next Steps for Landlords and Tenants
The board directed staff to return at a July meeting with proposed criteria, a draft fine schedule and a concrete definition of “substantial compliance.” The Rent Stabilization Department’s calendar already lists regular Pasadena Rental Housing Board meetings at Pasadena City Hall, giving members another round to weigh legal limits, community concerns and the nitty-gritty of enforcement. Until then, both landlords and tenants said they want clearer forms and procedures so that compliance, or a good-faith defense, can be identified without a legal microscope.
Legal Implications
Article XVIII on its own already provides civil and criminal remedies for violations, and lets tenants recover actual damages and, when misconduct is willful, treble damages plus attorney’s fees. As the city summarized it, “Tenants, the Pasadena Rental Housing Board, or the City Attorney/City Prosecutor's office may, and will enforce Article XVIII,” meaning any administrative fines would simply join that existing toolbox rather than replace it. Because the Petris Act limits when fines are allowed, staff emphasized that any system the board adopts will need built-in notice requirements and appeal rights for landlords, while still giving tenants protection from bad actors. The board is expected to revisit the refined penalty proposals at a July meeting.
