LA City Council Codifies Housing Protection Against `Renovictions’

Four months after temporarily barring landlords from evicting tenants as a result of a substantial remodeling to their units, the City Council Tuesday approved recommendations that will enshrine protections for rents from so-called “renovictions.”

In a unanimous vote, the City Council advanced changes to its Just Cause Ordinance, which provides eviction protections for tenants and requires landlords to have a legal reason to terminate a tenancy. These amendments are intended to regulate evictions related to remodeling a housing unit.

“To make it clear, what we’re doing today is we’re denying renovictions, but we’re also creating a clear pathway to renovations that works for both the tenants and the landlords,” said Councilman Bob Blumenfield, who advocated for the policy.

The city terms a substantial remodel as a “no-fault” eviction, in which tenants in good standing can be evicted if their unit requires major structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical system work. Property owners must self-certify that it will take 30 days or more to complete such projects.

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

Under the updated ordinance, landlords will no longer be able to use substantial remodels as a legal reason for eviction, except as required in order to comply with a specific order.

Violations of the policy could result in requiring three times compensatory damages, including mental or emotional distress, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 but not less than $2,000 per violation. Additional penalties could be added per violation if a tenant is older than 65 years or disabled.

These remedies are similar to what has been established for the city’s Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.

City Council members also instructed the Housing Department to update informational bulletins on evictions and tenants’ rights to inform stakeholders about the update.

Meanwhile, housing personnel are expected to create a process where the landlord pays their tenant an agreed upon amount to relocate if the housing unit does require a substantial remodeling.

This agreement would require the landlord to provide comparable or better housing while the renovation takes place, and pay all relocation expenses and pay the rent directly for this new temporary housing for as long as the renter is dislocated from their original unit.

A tenant would be required to pay their landlord the monthly rent due prior to the required relocation.

Once a renovation is complete, a tenant can be returned to their original unit with any new rent increase, but it cannot exceed the 10% allowable under state law.

This proposal is expected to return to council for consideration within 90 days for consideration, according to Blumenfield.

“We want to have a clear pathway for legitimate renovations, not renovictions,” Blumenfield said.

The councilman noted that the California Apartment Association and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles worked with his office on the policy, as well as tenant rights groups.

In a statement emailed to City News Service, AAGLA CEO Daniel Yukelson said his organization is “completely opposed” to any proposal that restricts a property owner’s ability to make necessary upgrades at their property for safety and esthetic reason.

“This ban on substantial remodeling will further result in the disrepair to the city’s already aging housing stock by placing an unnecessary and costly burden on housing providers to relocate tenants no matter the extent nor time frame of necessary repairs and upgrades,” Yukelson said in his statement.

“The city’s renters will be forced to live in squalor while owners will no longer be capable of making major upgrades at their properties.”

Fred Sutton, CAA’s senior vice president of public affairs, told CNS in an email that “we were surprised” by Blumenfield’s remark, “particularly given that we have consistently communicated throughout the process that the city should not move forward with removing this critical tool.”

“While we provided feedback, it was not reflected in the final policy,” Sutton added. “They are eliminating a process that works and replacing it with a one that doesn’t. This will lead to deferred maintenance, worn down systems and more expensive housing.”