South Pasadena renters could soon count on expanded protections and rights against potential “unscrupulous” landlords and property owners.
The City Council unanimously voted to move forward with an amendment to the “Just Cause for Eviction” ordinance following its introduction and first reading at the Nov. 1 City Council meeting. Met with a round of applause in the chambers after the vote, the changes to the just cause provision targets potential loopholes, issues and concerns related to substantial remodel evictions.
“I want to emphasize this: We were really, mostly focused on substantial remodeling,” said South Pasadena Mayor Jon Primuth, who, along with Councilman Jack Donovan, was part of the ad hoc committee that prepared the proposed amendment.
“We weren’t really looking at everything else, so if you think it’s incomplete, I guess we agree, but, for now, I think it’s a great start.”
Leah Demarest, senior planner of the Community Development Department, presented the proposal to the Council.
The existing ordinance was adopted in 2021 and mirrored state Assembly Bill 1482, or the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The city’s measure established additional requirements for a property owner to terminate a tenancy due to the no-fault just cause of the owner’s intent to substantially remodel, a term which has been coined as “renovictions.”
Under the amendments, “intent to substantially remodel” and “necessary and substantial repairs” would no longer be a no-fault just cause for terminating tenancy.
A new section in the ordinance defines “necessary and substantial repairs” as ones that bring the property and/or unit into compliance with certain applicable laws and/or codes and laws affecting the health and safety of tenants in the building; the replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency; and the abatement of hazardous materials in accordance with federal, state and local laws.
“Necessary and substantial repairs” does not include cosmetic improvements, as stated in the existing ordinance and AB1482.
The term “untenantable conditions” is also defined and included in the proposed ordinance, which, in accordance with state law, requires owners to keep units in a habitable condition.
Now, since a property owner may not terminate a tenancy for “necessary and substantial repairs,” the owner must instead provide the tenant with temporary relocation assistance if the construction requires a tenant to temporarily vacate the unit if untenantable conditions arise.
The proposed temporary relocation assistance amount is a per diem payment of two times the daily rent, in addition to the federal General Services Administration’s per day rate for meals and incidentals per tenant or occupant who is 12 years of age or older listed in the lease agreement. South Pasadena’s current meals and incidentals per day rate is $74.
A tenant buyout agreement is the final portion of the proposed ordinance. If an owner provides a tenant with a notice of necessary and substantial repairs, the new measure requires the owner to also provide notice of the option of voluntary tenancy termination pursuant to a buyout agreement, when the landlord offers a monetary payment in exchange for a tenant voluntarily agreeing to vacate the home. The owner must also give a disclosure notice to the tenant of their rights.
The section also gives the tenant the right to rescind the buyout agreement up to five days after the fully executed buyout agreement and proof of service provided by the owner.
“The agreement ensures the protection of tenants in the negotiation and execution of a proposed buyout agreement,” Demarest said.
City staff also recommended the Council develop a regular review process to monitor and evaluate the impact of the ordinance and develop suggestions for any adjustments as a response to emerging data and changing needs. Staff recommended a periodic review schedule with an initial review of the proposed ordinance three or six months after it goes into effect.
Councilwoman Janet Braun supported the proposal overall, but said the amendment could be tweaked a bit, especially with the review process.
“There are some things I would definitely change in this, but I think, again, knowing what this really is, which is a roadblock to some unscrupulous renovictions, I think we probably need to move forward,” Braun said. “I think every three months for the life of this thing is too much. Maybe it’s six months. I assume we’re going to start considering other tenant protections sometime soon and maybe this comes with that package.”
Primuth said the initial review period would be three months. After that, the Council would decide the length of the review period afterward.
Added Braun: “The problem that we have right now is that the market dynamics — the supply and demand — are just out of whack, so when a tenant gets evicted, they just don’t have the ability to find comparable housing. What I think this is doing, and what the regulation needed, is while the supply and demand is out of whack, we need to put in these protections.”
The unanimous vote came with a round of applause in the chambers following an hourlong public comment portion in which 20 speakers shared their thoughts in-person and 10 others called in over Zoom. A number of speakers represented tenant support groups and residents that have been affected by “renovictions.”
Representatives of groups such as San Gabriel Tenants Alliance, Claremont Tenants United, and the Pasadena Rental Housing Board supported the passage of the proposed measure. On the other end, representatives backing property owners called on the Council to ease regulations on mom-and-pop owners.
David Kaishcyan of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles urged the Council to exempt small, independent property owners, who oversee 20 units or less, from the ordinance in its entirety.
“The City Council must recognize and address the significant difference in financial resources between small, mom-and-pop rental housing providers and corporations,” Kiashcyan said. “To do otherwise will merely greatly accelerate the number of mom-and-pop’s going out of business and the city losing more naturally occurring affordable housing. Helping mom-and-pops stay in business helps keep working-class renters in their homes.”
Erick Oritz, a member of the Healing and Justice Center and former South Pasadena resident, noted that the proposed ordinance already has several exemptions for owners that may be considered mom-and-pop, generally understood to mean owners of units four or less.
“Landlords should already be budgeting for necessary construction and repairs since it’s their legal responsibility to maintain the habitability of rental units,” said Ortiz during public comment. “And the relocation assistance being requested is simply to ensure that tenants are not being unfairly burdened. The bottom line of rental owners should not be prioritized over the wellbeing and housing security of 53% of the residents who rent in the city.”
Councilman Michael Cacciotti commended the all-around effort to develop the ordinance and called the measure a “balanced approach.”
“We’re building a more just and environmentally, financially stable future and that’s what we’re about,” Cacciotti said.
First published in the November 10 print issue of the South Pasadena Review.
