LA Board of Supervisors to vote on cooling ordinance for rental units

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote next week on an ordinance that will require rental housing units in the unincorporated areas of the county to establish a maximum indoor temperature threshold of 82 degrees to prevent heat-related health impacts. 

Several residents and organizers from Los Angeles County shared their experiences during the public comments at Tuesday’s board meeting, most of them agreeing that during the summer months their rental units get extremely hot, making it difficult to cook or even stay inside. 

Carlos Gonzalez, a member of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE), and resident of unincorporated Los Angeles County, said he lives with his grandmother and they don’t have AC at home. They rely on the curtains to block out the sun but that comes with other negative impacts.

“That makes my home like a cave and really dark and that often leads to depression for myself and my grandma,” he said. A solution could be to go to a park, the mall or a public library, but that uncovers other issues. 

“I have to spend on transportation, on food and other needs that might arise,” he said. “Even if we try to escape the heat, we are still cost-burdened to live a comfortable life in our homes.” 

Janet Torres, another SAJE member, said she has a chronic health condition that causes her to feel lightheaded and exhausted when her home hits 90 degrees inside. She has tried to install a portable AC unit, but her landlord does not allow it. 

She said it is extremely expensive for her and her family to try to escape the heat, including getting gas, paying for parking and food and spending unnecessary time outside of their home. 

“Something else that has affected my family a lot are the current ICE raids. We no longer have the privilege of being able to go outside just to seek that shelter, whether it's to a park or a mall or a library, because we don't feel safe anymore,” she said. “Families like mine desperately need this type of protection.”

A recent report by SAJE indicated that renters are especially vulnerable to heat-related illness and death, especially those with low incomes or leasing agreements that limit them from implementing cooling solutions such as air conditioning (A/C).

How it would be enforced

The ordinance, which has been in the works for over a year, proposes to amend the Los Angeles County Code Title 11 Health and Safety Code and gives Public Health the ability to enforce in the event that there are violations. 

If approved, the ordinance would require landlords to provide a safe and code-compliant method to maintain the maximum indoor temperature either by outfitting the unit or allowing tenants to install portable cooling devices or other non-mechanical cooling methods that comply with the ordinance’s requirements.

The tenant protection provisions connected with the installation of portable cooling devices or other non-mechanical cooling methods will go into effect 30 days from the date of final passage by the Board of Supervisors. 

Enforcement is expected to take effect starting on January 1, 2027, or upon approval of the Rental Housing Habitability Program (RHHP), to account for cost recovery associated with this new requirement, whichever is later. 

The motion was originally presented in 2024, authored by Supervisor Lindsey Horvarth and co-authored by Supervisor Hilda Solis. 

The motion indicates that extreme heat is the deadliest climate risk facing Los Angeles County and exposure to high temperatures for long periods can cause heat-related illnesses that may require hospitalization and, in severe cases, prove fatal. 

From 2010 to 2019, California reported 599 deaths due to extreme heat. That number has increased exponentially in recent years. With the severity of heat worsening, the California Department of Public Health projects extreme heat could kill up to 4,300 people annually in 2025 and increase to 11,300 individuals annually by 2050.

LA County needs a “workable” solution

Fred Sutton, senior vice president with the California Apartment Association, said they are disappointed that the county has not worked with them to make sure it’s a workable solution. 

“There hasn't been an analysis of whether this will cause brownouts, whether the loads of the property will be able to handle this, or how much this may ultimately cost the tenant through retrofits and through increased electricity costs,” he said. “So we have understood the intention of the supervisors, but they are not working with us to make pragmatic changes that can make this a success for everybody.”

The alternative would be to change it from all rooms to one room, which would be more feasible for property owners and then tenants and landlords can see what the implications are with one room and expand it later, if needed. 

Sutton also spoke about the dangers of having portable AC units hanging from second or third-floor windows without making sure that it's safe as implemented. Additionally, he emphasized that everyone must be aware of the cost-related outcomes. 

“With new electricity coming in, tenants are going to have to pay that. Are they even looking at what the cost implications are to upgrading? So I think those are the types of common sense amendments they can put in there to be workable and feasible,” he said. 

The vote is expected to happen during their next meeting on August 5.