Pasadena Rent Control Backers Seek Rehearing After Court Ruling Invalidates Part of Measure H

Supporters of Pasadena’s voter-approved rent control law have asked a state appellate court to reconsider part of its recent ruling that invalidated a key tenant protection provision of Measure H.

In a petition for rehearing filed Jan. 2, interveners and city respondents urged the Court of Appeal’s Second District to revisit its decision concluding that Measure H’s tenant relocation assistance requirement is preempted by the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

The court’s December opinion largely upheld Measure H, rejecting claims that the charter amendment was an unlawful revision and affirming the legality of the city’s rental housing board.

However, the court struck down a provision requiring landlords to pay relocation assistance when tenants are displaced by large rent increases, finding it conflicted with the purpose of Costa-Hawkins.

In their rehearing petition, attorneys for Affordable Pasadena and individual tenant interveners argue the court relied on a theory of “purpose preemption” that was never raised or briefed by the parties, in violation of a government code which requires appellate courts to allow supplemental briefing before deciding an issue not previously argued.

The filing contends that the court incorrectly expanded the purpose of the Costa-Hawkins Act beyond what prior case law supports, characterizing it as a guarantee that landlords may raise rents on exempt units to “fair market value” without any financial consequence.

The petition argues that no published decision has held that Costa-Hawkins protects landlords from regulations that reduce rental income, so long as those rules do not restrict the ability to set rent.

The interveners also argue the court improperly relied on a 2021 appellate decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. County of Monterey that was later reviewed and narrowed by the California Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling, they say, emphasized direct conflicts between state and local law rather than interference with a statute’s broader purpose, undermining the basis of the Pasadena ruling.

According to the petition, Measure H’s relocation assistance provision does not directly conflict with Costa-Hawkins because landlords remain free to set rents at any level on exempt units. The requirement to provide relocation payments to tenants displaced by steep rent hikes, the filing argues, operates like other tenant protections that courts have previously upheld as consistent with state law.

The petition asks the court to grant rehearing so the parties may fully brief the scope and purpose of Costa-Hawkins, and to revise the opinion to remove what it calls a legally erroneous interpretation that could be used to invalidate tenant protections beyond Pasadena.

The case stems from a lawsuit brought by landlord groups challenging Measure H, which voters approved in 2022 to impose rent control and expand tenant protections in Pasadena. The city and tenant advocates have said the law is essential to preventing displacement amid rising housing costs.

The court has not yet ruled on the rehearing request.