LA council expands eviction protections to rental units being remodeled

The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion Tuesday aimed at preventing evictions as a result of a substantial remodeling effort to the housing unit.

The council voted 11-0 to instruct the Housing Department and City Attorney’s Office to update the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance with respect to evictions caused by a “substantial remodel,” which is defined as major structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical system work lasting more than 30 days and requiring permits.

Council members Paul Krekorian and Curren Price recused themselves as they are landlords, while Heather Hutt and Kevin de León were absent during the vote.

The motion, introduced Oct. 8, was authored by Councilman Bob Blumenfield, for tenants not covered by the rent stabilization ordinance for this particular issue. Currently, the city terms a substantial remodel as a “no-fault” eviction, where tenants in good standing can be evicted if their unit requires work and the property owner self-certifies that it will take 30 days or more to complete.

Property owners of rent-stabilized units, however, must provide a plan to temporarily relocate tenants if the unit requires a substantial remodel. The plan must be submitted to the Housing Department, and the tenant has to agree before it can be executed.

Blumenfield introduced an amendment to his motion, calling for temporary removal of the substantial remodel clause from the city’s Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance until June 1, 2025, or until a permanent amendment is in place, whichever comes first.

“My substantial remodel ordinance will close a loophole that allowed for an eviction process, even if the tenant was in good standing,” Blumenfield said in a statement. “Hundreds of families are caught in this type of eviction process, with no ability to keep their units. My policy will ensure that a tenant has the ability to maintain tenancy, keep paying rent, and stay in their apartments.”

Council members worry that some units taken off the market for remodeling are later made available at a higher rental price.

The motion also calls for the Housing Department to provide data on how many property owners are applying for substantial remodels, how many projects have been completed, and how many evictions are caused by efforts to remodel units.

Councilwoman Nithya Raman, chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, said renters should be afforded protection no matter the type of building someone lives in.

“Although substantial remodels are sometimes necessary, it should not be a reason to evict a tenant from their home, and tenants should have the right to return and maintain their tenancy,” Raman said in a statement.

Daniel Yukelson, executive director and CEO of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, called the proposal another “unfortunate example of government expropriation of private property.”

He said the city’s rental housing stock is aging, with some units between 80 and 100 years old, and said that by adding more requirements for property owners, some necessary upgrades may not come.

“Renters will be forced to live in housing that lacks many of the modern amenities that are available today, including newer and more efficient appliances, soundproof windows, central air conditioning, new flooring and upgraded electrical service,” Yukelson said in a email to CNS.

“Our elected officials seemingly just cannot help themselves in trying to solve problems that just don’t exist based on unproven facts and conjectures that always result in unintended consequences, which in this case will be outdated housing and forcing owners out of the rental housing business,” he added.

Chelsea Kirk, director of policy and advocacy for Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, called the motion “a shield for renters” who face the constant “threat of unjust evictions disguised as renovations.”

Earlier this month, the council’s Housing and Homeless Committee voted 3-0 in favor of the motion.