Pasadena’s Rental Housing Board moved Aug. 6 toward regulating repairs that displace tenants for fewer than 30 days, a gap in city law, after an apartment industry group warned the move would draw litigation.
The board took no vote after discussion on the item, which ran more than an hour and a half. Members questioned staff and heard public comment before Rent Stabilization Department staff said they would return at a future meeting with proposed regulatory language.
Earlier in the evening, the board voted unanimously to adopt three resolutions amending its regulations on prehearing settlement conferences, hearing procedures and upward rent adjustments.
The gap exists because Article XVIII of the City Charter, adopted by Pasadena voters as Measure H in November 2022, sets protections only at the 30-day mark. Under Section 1806(a)(8), a landlord who has obtained all necessary city permits, given the tenant written notice and had the city independently confirm that necessary and substantial repairs will render the unit uninhabitable for at least 30 days may pursue a no-fault eviction, but must offer the tenant a comparable or superior vacant unit at the same or lower rent or pay full relocation assistance, plus the right to return at the same rent once work is finished. Below 30 days, no comparable requirement applies.
A separate charter provision, Section 1806(a)(6)(A), directs that the board “shall promulgate regulations for the repair and improvement of Rental Units to ensure the least amount of disruption for the Tenant.”
Only one such notice in the department’s history
The board is drafting rules for a category of displacement it has almost no data on.
Relocation requests are so rare that the department reports it has received one request ever from a landlord reporting a repair expected to require more than 30 days, Stanko Zovko, program coordinator III for the Rent Stabilization Department, told the board. That request is still being processed and appears not to involve an actual substantial and necessary repair, he said.
Alternate Board Member Peter Dreier asked whether the Planning Department tracks permits for work running past 30 days, suggesting the count might be a better indicator than a single case. Zovko said Planning had provided rough figures: for multifamily properties, excluding remodels, 203 permits were issued in 2024, 563 in 2025 and 228 so far in 2026. Determining which of those represent disruptive repairs would require working with Planning to review its work-class categories, he said.
Board Member Emanuel Najera asked staff to return with examples of the kinds of repairs landlords seek 30 days for, and how often relocation is actually needed in Pasadena.
Board Member Elisia Farmer asked where a displaced Pasadena tenant would go, and within what radius, when wildfire victims already occupy area accommodations. She also asked who pays for storage, for a large dog, and for the added commute from wherever a tenant lands.
Industry group warns of litigation
Jesus Rojas, representing the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, told the board his organization strongly opposes establishing a per diem, pet fees or a notice requirement for repairs lasting under 30 days, saying the proposal goes beyond the voter-approved charter and could subject the board and the city to substantial litigation. The charter permits fees only for substantial remodels of 30 days or more treated as no-fault evictions under Section 1806(a)(8), Rojas said, and contains no language granting the board authority over shorter repairs.
A repair running a few days past the anticipated 30-day period would force an owner to evict the tenant and pay a full relocation payment on top of per diem already paid for the first 30 days, Rojas said, calling that an unlawful double payment that harms renters and owners alike. He urged the board to take no further action until it obtains a formal legal opinion from the Pasadena city attorney on whether the proposal violates the charter.
The board’s legal counsel, responding later to a question from Dreier, said the charter’s directive that the board “shall” adopt regulations minimizing disruption is direct authority, and that tenants displaced by unplanned repairs currently have no protection at all.
“So he’s wrong,” Dreier said. “Okay.”
Dreier had earlier questioned the fairness of the 30-day line to owners, saying it seemed like overreach to require a full relocation payment from a landlord who needs another two weeks to finish a plumbing repair. Executive Director Helen Morales said the parties can be left to work out an agreement covering the additional days, with the arrangement documented and submitted to the department.
Per diem figures on the table
Staff presented three options: a standardized notice requirement; that notice plus a per diem for temporarily displaced tenants; or an alternative course set by the board.
Of four jurisdictions staff reviewed, West Hollywood and Santa Monica have adopted per diem structures. West Hollywood pays $191 a day for lodging, $68 for meals, $2 for laundry and separate rates for pets, and provides one hotel room for each occupied bedroom in the displaced household’s unit. Santa Monica’s lodging rate is $405. Beverly Hills and Los Angeles have no established per diem.
Staff’s search of federal General Services Administration rates for Pasadena produced a daily lodging rate of $191 and a meals and incidental expenses rate of $86.
Pasadena set a per diem once before, under a tenant protection ordinance since supplanted by the charter. Zovko said he recalled the rate as roughly twice the daily rent, but cautioned that he was working from memory.
Asked by Najera whether a minimum displacement would trigger the payment, staff said the threshold would be one day, or 24 hours, rather than a few hours, and that Beverly Hills specifies one day in its ordinance.
Morales told the board that landlords have been very judicious in this area in her experience, describing owners who relocated tenants immediately after ceilings fell in during heavy rains because they did not want tenants harmed. She also noted that tenants in rent-stabilized units can already file a petition seeking a rent reduction for a reduction in services.
Board members split on the approach. Vice Chair Christine Rodriguez said a per diem seemed appropriate because construction is unpredictable and displaced tenants continue paying rent. Board Member Emily Wernberg said federal per diem rates are unsuitable because they are available only to government employees and contractors, generally fall below actual cost and are updated infrequently, and argued the administrative burden would fall hardest on owners of the duplexes, triplexes and single-family homes that make up much of Pasadena’s rental stock. Board Member Varouge Mesrobian suggested a flat rate modeled on federal housing standards instead of itemizing hotel, meals and other costs.
Board Member Casey Jagusch said the 10-day notice period used in some neighboring cities is not workable for tenants who need accessible housing, noting Los Angeles allows 60 days, and urged at least 30. Chair Allison Henry said colleagues visiting her in Pasadena could never stay in the city because hotel rates exceeded the per diem limits set by her private employer at the time.
Wernberg asked how widespread the problem is before the department commits staff time to it.
Board Member Deborah Dunlop asked whether the regulations would reach tenants whose own units are not being worked on but whose habitability is affected by construction nearby. Counsel said they would not: the provision is a carve-out to the failure-to-give-access eviction ground and is specific to the unit a landlord needs to enter. Noise and similar impacts are handled through separate ordinances.
Board Member Paul Goyne, describing a re-roofing at the complex where he lives, said tenants were properly notified but that structural problems discovered under the shingles added days no one could have anticipated. The roofers’ ladders had to stay attached to the buildings until a city inspector came out, he said, which took several more days. He asked whether the regulations should include provisions for natural disasters, recalling repairs after the Northridge earthquake.
No fiscal impact was attached to the item, which came to the board as information only.
Public comment split along familiar lines. Simon Gibbons, Deborah Lutz, Dennis Jebbia and Alan Baer told the board that construction schedules slip for reasons outside an owner’s control and that added process would delay repairs. A co-founder of a Pasadena tenant association attempted to comment by Zoom. Henry stopped her twice, said the audio was unintelligible to the room, and asked her to submit a written summary of her remarks to the board.
The board meets next Aug. 20 for priority setting and a presentation from rental registry vendor 3DI.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
