City Council adopts interim ordinance to block ‘renoviction’ evictions; applies protections to pending cases

The Los Angeles City Council voted 12-0 on March 7 to adopt an interim control ordinance (ICO) intended to halt evictions tied to so-called substantial remodels, a practice tenant advocates call "renovictions." The council approved the ordinance as amended and voted to send the item urgent forthwith.

Tenant advocates and residents filled the public-comment line and council chambers during a special meeting devoted to the matter, telling the council that the city’s delay in enacting protections had left families facing eviction and homelessness. “Tenant protections are essential for people to build stable lives and communities,” said Angela Bai, research and policy analyst at the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, who urged support for the interim ordinance and its amendments.

The measure commanded broad public support from tenants and legal advocates who described multiple pending cases in Boyle Heights and Echo Park. “These evictions are not hypothetical situations. These are real cases happening in court right now,” said Laura Matter, an attorney at the Inner City Law Center. Several residents described receiving repeated eviction notices after long tenancy and said one-month relocation offers were inadequate for families and elderly tenants.

Speakers for housing providers and landlord groups urged caution. A representative of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles said the city’s data did not show a widespread problem of substantial-remodel evictions and warned the ordinance would hinder property repairs. “This ordinance is a result of a witch hunt by extremists that want to force mom and pop owners out of business,” the apartment association speaker said during public comment.

Eviction-defense attorneys and tenant organizers pushed back on a city-attorney draft they characterized as creating a carve-out for landlords with pending cases. “That would be a gross departure from how tenant protections have been legislated in the past,” said Stefano Medina, an eviction-defense attorney who urged the council to adopt language applying protections to cases not yet final. Council amendments introduced by Councilmembers Blumenfield, Jurado and Soto-Martínez and adopted by the body removed that carve-out and extended the ICO’s protections to tenants with pending eviction cases.

Council action came after the city clerk reported a revised draft ordinance and the city-attorney’s communications. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield moved to adopt the recommended environmental determination, the amending motion, and the city-attorney ordinance; the motion was seconded and carried. The council also voted 12-0 to suspend council rule 51 and send the item urgent forthwith so the protections take effect immediately while a permanent ordinance is completed.

The meeting record shows lively and extended public comment: tenants described court dates and financial strain, tenant organizers pressed for the ICO to apply retroactively to pending cases, landlord representatives questioned the scale of the problem, and attorneys flagged legal drafting issues. Following the vote, councilmembers on the dais praised tenant organizers and the offices that advanced the amended motion.

What the ordinance does and next steps

The adopted interim control ordinance temporarily bars evictions based on substantial remodeling while the City finalizes a permanent ordinance. The council adopted the ordinance as amended to include tenants with pending eviction cases; the measure was sent urgent forthwith. The city attorney’s revised draft ordinance and the council file (24-1225) were part of the staff materials placed on the bulletin board and posted online as the council considered the item.

Advocates who spoke at the hearing asked the council to extend the ICO’s timeframe and to ensure that pending cases are covered; the council explicitly approved the amendment addressing pending cases. Several speakers also urged a longer interim period while staff prepare a permanent ordinance; the adopted motion indicated the matter will proceed with urgency so that protections are in effect while the permanent legislation is drafted.

Votes at a glance

- Item 19 (Interim control ordinance addressing evictions for substantial remodels): Adopted as amended; vote 12-0. Motion moved by Councilmember Blumenfield; second received. Outcome: approved; sent urgent forthwith.

- Suspension to send item 19 urgent forthwith (suspend Council Rule 51): Adopted; vote 12-0.

- Item 7 (confirm lien for specified property; waive late fees and interest): Motion to waive late fees and interest and confirm remaining lien balance adopted; vote 10-0. Moved by Councilmember Lee; seconded by Councilmember McOsker.

- Item 17 (receive and file application for public convenience/necessity as applicant withdrew): Received and filed; vote 10-0. Moved by Councilmember Lee; seconded by Councilmember McOsker.

Context and reaction

Tenant advocates, legal aid attorneys and organizers described multiple families facing repeated eviction filings that they linked to owners seeking to flip units to higher-paying tenants. Landlord representatives disputed the scale and the data, urging caution about curbing property owners’ ability to remodel and repair. City attorneys and several council offices worked over weeks to reconcile the council’s October directive to remove this eviction ground with legal concerns about retroactivity and pending court actions; the amendments adopted at the March 7 meeting were intended to close the loophole while minimizing legal risk.

The interim ordinance is intended as a stopgap: councilmembers directed staff and the city attorney to proceed promptly toward a permanent ordinance that codifies the protections and addresses implementation details raised during public comment.

Ending note

Council members and tenant organizers left the chamber describing this vote as a victory for tenants who said they faced imminent displacement; landlords and industry representatives said they would review the ordinance’s final language and consider next steps.