Long Beach landlords can no longer use planned renovations to kick out tenants — at least, not until they’ve pulled a permit for the work.
The City Council voted unanimously at its Tuesday, Feb. 11, meeting to implement a ban on those notices to vacate, dating back to Jan. 1, with the exception of notices that have already been acted upon, meaning impacted renters have already accepted tenant relocation assistance or moved out.
The prohibition came before the council six weeks after the statewide Tenant Protection Act went into effect, which was intended to protect renters in good standing from being forced to move except under special circumstances. Among those exceptions was if the property owner planned to do substantial renovations in the renter’s unit.
The law said the work must be significant enough to require government permits, but it did not require landlords to pull those permits or describe the work in order to issue notices to vacate.
It appears, as renters throughout Long Beach have discovered, that some landlords have used that loophole to flout the law.
Along with requiring landlords to pull permits before emptying out a unit because of a substantial remodel, they must also describe the planned work to tenants when they issue notices to vacate.
The council’s vote came after dozens of people spoke in public comment in favor of the law, which intends to close the loophole.
“Legal Aid has been flooded with tenants receiving ‘substantial remodel’ notices,” attorney Jonathan Gibson said. “They ask management for more information, and they get stonewalled.”
Gibson said the law would not impose any more fees or burdens on property owners; it “simply asks landlords to be upfront and put their cards on the table,” he said.
Mike Murchison, a consultant on behalf of local property owners, said landlords should not be forced to pay hefty permit fees before forcing tenants to move ahead of renovation or rehabilitation work. He said property owners should be given the opportunity to assess a unit after a tenant leaves to see how much work needs to be done before pulling a permit.
“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he said. “We’re just trying to say, ‘Give us a moment to digest this.’”
But the City Council, along with Mayor Robert Garcia, ultimately appeared unmoved by that argument.
The state law is clear, Garcia said, that permits must be pulled unless the necessary work involves the abatement of hazardous materials, such as mold or asbestos. (City staff said it would be hard to imagine a situation in which hazardous material abatement would not require a permit.)
“I don’t find this to be an overly burdensome proposal,” Garcia said. “I think, to me, it’s very common sense to me. It aligns with the spirit of what the state is trying to do.”
For Councilwoman Mary Zendejas, who brought the item to the council, it wasn’t hard to imagine herself in the shoes of some of the tenants who have been impacted by the loophole.
“I’m a renter myself, and I don’t have the first or second month’s rent and a deposit to be able to move in 60 days from where I am,” she said, “so if I’m not able to do that, I can understand how it would be a burden for these folks, as well.”
The item was passed as an emergency ban until Feb. 18, when the city attorney will come back to the City Council with a full ordinance to add the new requirements into local law.
Recent Comments