City Council adopts interim control ordinance on 'substantial remodel' evictions after hours of public comment

The Los Angeles City Council voted to adopt an interim control ordinance addressing evictions for substantial remodeling on March 7, 2025, approving the item as amended and sending it "urgent forthwith." The council recorded 12 ayes on the principal motion and 12 ayes to send the item urgent forthwith.

Supporters and tenants packed the chamber and urged the council to close what they described as a loophole allowing "renovictions" — eviction filings tied to claims of substantial remodeling. Angela Bai, a resident of Council District 14 and a research and policy analyst at the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, told the council: "Tenant protections are essential for people to build stable lives and communities." Several other speakers described pending court cases and said landlords had filed successive eviction actions to push long-term tenants out.

The ICO was introduced with an accompanying city attorney report and a revised draft ordinance. The council adopted the environmental determination and a set of amendments introduced in a motion noted on the record as amending motion 20A (sponsors listed in the record as Jurado, Blumenfield and Sotomayor Martinez). The motion before the council was moved and seconded on the floor and then approved by recorded ayes.

Tenants and tenant advocates emphasized two changes they sought in the final ordinance: immediate application to pending eviction cases and an extension of the interim protections. Lourdes (last name on file) described facing a third eviction and urged the council to "immediately vote yes to put a stop to evictions due to substantial remodeling," and to "extend these protections to pending cases." Several speakers said the delay in finalizing the ordinance had allowed new eviction filings while the city prepared the measure.

Landlord representatives urged the council to reject a moratorium. David Geishan of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles argued the measure would "tie the hands of responsible owners prohibiting them from making needed major system repairs and removing hazardous materials," and said city staff data showed relatively few substantial remodels in recent years.

Legal advocates and tenant attorneys described the change as necessary and consistent with prior council direction. Laura Matter, an attorney at Inner City Law Center, said: "Tenants should not risk eviction on a basis that the city council voted unanimously to eliminate back in October." Stefano Medina, an eviction defense attorney, disputed the city attorney's narrow carve-out in an earlier draft and described case law practice: "That is settled law, ladies and gentlemen. I win that argument several times a year." Several speakers asked the council to make clear that the ICO would cover cases already filed but not reduced to final judgment.

After public comment and council discussion, the council voted to adopt the ordinance as amended; the clerk recorded the item as "adopted as amended." The council also voted to suspend Rule 51 and send the item "urgent forthwith," a procedural step the clerk recorded as passing by 12 ayes.

Councilmembers who sponsored or were noted for the motion on the record included Blumenfield (motion) and Sotomayor Martinez (second), and the amendments were identified on the record as coming from Jurado, Blumenfield and Sotomayor Martinez. Councilmember Soto-Martinez later addressed the chamber to thank organizers and tenants for their advocacy and said the action addressed the loophole the council had previously sought to close.

What the ordinance does in practice, including any specific language about pending cases or the ICO's effective dates, is contained in the city attorney's revised draft ordinance and in the council file posted with the item. The council file number associated with the item was announced on the record during the special meeting.

The vote concludes the special meeting portion of March 7 related to item 19; the council reconvened the regular meeting afterward. The council directed that the measure be sent as "urgent forthwith," making it eligible for immediate implementation steps identified in the ordinance and associated reports.

Notes: The council adopted the item as amended and sent it urgent forthwith. The city attorney produced a revised draft ordinance dated in the record; readers seeking the ordinance text should consult the official council file posted online.