The Los Angeles City Council spent more than two hours debating an emergency tenant-protection ordinance tied to the January wildfires and related displacement, hearing dozens of public commenters and multiple council amendments before leaving the larger measure unresolved.

Supporters of immediate protections argued that affected renters already face eviction risks and financial hardship. Agustín Cabrera of SCOP urged the council to act, saying, “Los Ángeles ha sido devastado y ya ahora las personas están aún más riesgo de perder sus hogares.” Cristina Boyer, attorney with Public Counsel, told the council: “Les imploro que voten que sí en la trece. Ya pasó un mes después de los incendios y los inquilinos necesitan protecciones.”

Councilmembers debated both the legal scope of an emergency ordinance and how to verify claims of fire-related income loss. Councilmember Hernández pressed colleagues to vote the measure immediately: “Por favor, colegos, no lo pospongamos, hagámoslo el día de hoy.” Councilmember Soto Martínez stressed the urgency with city data: “la data de esta semana está a dos mil cuatrocientos, saltó significativamente, los efectos ya están pasando.”

Several amendments were introduced and voted on during the session. Amendment 13C was distributed and voted on; the council recorded the final tally as a failure. Amendment 13B was also presented and failed on the council floor. Amendment 13A passed on the council floor with an 8–3 vote. The measures differed in scope and verification requirements; council members repeatedly noted that the final package before them had been significantly revised from earlier drafts.

Department of Housing staff, represented by Ana Ortega, told the council that proposed verification would rely on a written declaration under penalty of perjury and additional documentation as specified by the ordinance text, and that the precise parameters would be set in the final ordinance prepared by the City Attorney.

Public testimony showed a strong split. Small landlords and several individual property owners warned of financial harm and possible loss of small rental units; one long-term owner urged the council to avoid rules that would “crear vacantes” and harm affordable supply. Tenant advocates, union representatives and community groups said the proposed protections were essential to prevent immediate homelessness while federal and local recovery funds are distributed.

On procedure, Councilmember Park introduced multiple distributed modifications (13C, 13B, 13A) during the meeting. The council voted on those amendments on the floor: 13C failed; 13B failed (vote recorded 7–4); 13A passed (8–3). After multiple procedural votes and a motion to receive-and-file a modified version of Item 13 (moved by Councilmember Lee and seconded by Councilmember Rodríguez), the council recorded a vote to receive and file that version. Because of subsequent motions and a request for reconsideration, the larger ordinance did not reach final adoption and will return to a future meeting for additional consideration.

Council members highlighted available funding under Measure ULA and other city programs but noted those programs require time to stand up and distribute money; staff said substantial ULA production and prevention funds remain programmed but that immediate disbursement would be limited in the near term. Several council members urged combining near-term administrative relief with a parallel ramp-up of direct-assistance programs.

The council’s votes left a partial outcome: one amendment (13A) passed and several elements were approved or received for further drafting, but the full emergency ordinance — including the verification process, the period covered and funding commitments — remained pending and is expected back before the council at a future meeting for final action.

What comes next: City attorneys and housing staff will prepare the ordinance text implementing the provisions the council amended and accepted for drafting; staff also was asked to return with clearer documentation procedures and a timeline for using ULA and other available funds to provide near-term assistance. The council indicated it will revisit the ordinance at a subsequent session if additional votes are required.

Votes at a glance
- Amendment 13C — failed (final tally recorded as failing on the floor).
- Amendment 13B — failed (vote recorded 7–4 on the floor).
- Amendment 13A — approved 8–3 on the council floor.
- Motion to receive-and-file a modified Item 13 (moved by Councilmember Lee; seconded by Councilmember Rodríguez) — vote recorded in favor on the floor; matter remains pending for final ordinance adoption.

Public comment and staff: Dozens of public speakers addressed Item 13 during the publicly noticed comment period. Housing Department staff explained verification options and the limits of immediate ULA fund deployment; advocates and landlords supplied competing accounts of risk and consequence.

The council left the central question — whether to adopt a citywide, emergency tenant-protection ordinance triggered by the fires with specific verification rules and funding commitments — unresolved, and scheduled follow-up drafting and return to the dais for a future vote.