Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,544 chars

60
purporting to limit the amount of rent a landlord may charge for
a replacement unit following an owner move-in eviction, directly
contradicts” and was thus preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Act’s
vacancy decontrol provision allowing landlords to establish the
initial rental rate for a rental unit. (Id. at pp. 492-493, citing Civ.
Code, § 1954.53, subd. (a).)
       But Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los
Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (Palmer/Sixth) dealt with a
local ordinance that had indirect effects similar to those
engendered by Measure H. That ordinance required developers
of residential units to build a certain number of “affordable
dwelling units” to be rented at specified below-market rates.
(Id. at pp. 1400-1401.) The ordinance further provided that a
developer could avoid compliance with this affordable housing
requirement by paying an “in lieu” fee that the city would use to
build affordable housing units elsewhere. (Ibid.) The appellate
court held the Costa-Hawkins Act preempted the affordable
housing requirement because it was “hostile or inimical to Civil
Code section 1954.53 by denying [the developer] the right to
establish the initial rental rates for the affordable housing units
that are required to be built under [the ordinance].” 18
(Palmer/Sixth, at p. 1410.) The court rejected the city’s
argument that the alternative in lieu fee did not conflict with the
Costa-Hawkins Act. (Id. at p. 1411.) The court explained the in
lieu fee was “inextricably intertwined” with the affordable

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text