Rent Board Weighs Fines on Landlords for Improper Eviction Notices, Harassment and Illegal Rent Hikes

The Pasadena Rental Housing Board began weighing new fines on landlords who violate the city’s voter-approved rent law on Thursday, June 18, even as staff cautioned that state law may limit penalties against owners who act in good faith.

At the information-only study session, the board set no fine amounts and took no action; members asked the Rent Stabilization Department to return with more information, including fine schedules from additional cities. The penalties under discussion would cover conduct the city’s rent law already prohibits — improper eviction notices, illegal rent increases, harassment or retaliation, and failure to maintain habitable housing — separate from the late fees the board already charges landlords who register late.

The session was the board’s first look at administrative penalties under Charter Article XVIII, the Pasadena Fair and Equitable Housing Charter Amendment approved by voters in November 2022 and known as Measure H. Section 1817(g) lets the board set and periodically modify a schedule of fines for violations “as they see fit, provided these amounts are reasonable,” and consistent with applicable law, according to a report from Executive Director Helen Morales.

Morales’ report identified four categories the board might target — improper eviction notices, illegal rent increases, harassment or retaliation, and failure to maintain habitability — along with a catch-all for “any additional violations” the board considers appropriate.

City staff recommended the board set criteria for each category, including severity levels, escalating penalties for repeat offenses and mitigating factors, and decide whether violations would be handled through a petition process, before a hearing officer, or on appeal to the board.

Much of the discussion turned on a state law that could limit the board’s reach. Morales introduced the Petris Act, California Civil Code Section 1947.7, adopted in 1986 in response to complicated registration requirements and harsh penalties. The law bars rent-control jurisdictions from penalizing an owner who is in substantial compliance and made a good-faith effort to follow the rules; for those owners, it makes restitution to the tenant or recovery of the registration or filing fee the only available remedy. Morales said staff flagged the law to show the board “may be constrained in some respects.”

Asked by board member Emily Wernberg whether local penalties would override the Petris Act, the board was told that it would be bound by the state law.

Board member Ryan Bell described the law as the threshold question.

“You can’t even have the other conversation until we grasp this,” he said, noting that substantial compliance under Petris requires that an owner first receive a notice of deficiency from the city. Bell said the department often would not learn of a violation such as an improperly served eviction notice unless a landlord or tenant reported it, and that staff do not make legal findings on claims such as harassment. He said he opposed “going around slapping fines on people who are trying their best.”

The board has asked staff to return with a definition of substantial compliance drawn from recent appeals, which Morales said would come back in July 2026.

Morales also reviewed how other cities penalize violations of local rent laws.

Los Angeles mirrors its citation process for any ordinance violation; Alameda imposes administrative citations of $250, $500 and $1,000 for a first, second and third offense within a year; Beverly Hills issues citations starting at $100 and $200 for violations including illegal rent increases and improper no-fault evictions; and Culver City sets first, second and third citations at $100, $200 and $300. Sacramento varies penalties by severity, with a range staff put at $1 to $2,499, and San Francisco’s fees run from $250 to $1,000 for an owner who fails to file an owner-occupancy form for an owner move-in.

Alternate at Large board member Peter Dreier asked staff to add Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Berkeley to the comparison, and board member Casey Jagusch said it would help to know whether the cited cities’ penalties apply to any housing violation or only to specific offenses.

Dreier argued that the Petris Act’s premise — that registration is too complex and burdensome — carries less weight now than in 1986, before owners could register online. He said any penalty should be a flat amount per violation rather than scaled to severity, which he called hard to judge objectively.

Board member Paul Goyne said the board should define compliance clearly and publicize it, both for fairness and as a defense against challenges under Petris.

Wernberg questioned the board’s enforcement power, noting a landlord who does not pay a fine cannot register until it is paid. Chair Allison Henry suggested the board could use the city’s existing collection tools and rank the violation categories at a future priority-setting session.

The charter already provides other remedies the new fines would supplement. Under Section 1817, a tenant may sue for actual damages and, on a showing that a landlord acted willfully or with fraud, oppression or malice, for treble damages, with attorney’s fees and costs awarded to a prevailing tenant. Violations may also be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or an infraction.

Property owners who spoke urged caution.

Simon Gibbons, a Pasadena property owner, said the proposal read like “a grab bag of possible errors” and warned against creating “a regime of punitive sanctions for subjectively determined crimes,” calling the “any additional violations” provision too broad and urging rules that would hold up in court.

Alan Bair, also a property owner, raised habitability scenarios — tenants who do not report problems or deny entry for repairs, and after-hours charges when work must be done at night — and said harassment can run from tenants to landlords as well.

Dennis Jebbia questioned a charter provision that protects domestic-violence victims from eviction based on noise or police calls, asking about the rights of other tenants in the same building.

Speaking on Zoom, property owner Deborah Lutz said the department gives tenants a form to request a rent rollback but offers none for an owner to issue one — a gap she said could itself put a landlord out of compliance.

The board’s July 2, 2026, meeting is canceled for the Independence Day holiday, leaving one meeting in July 2026, when the substantial-compliance discussion tied to the proposed penalties is expected to return.