A package of tenant protections tied to recent wildfire impacts drew sustained debate at the Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 14, with councilmembers weighing emergency tenant defenses against concerns from small rental-property owners and questions about program verification and funding.

The council considered three drafted amendments (labeled 13A, 13B and 13C during the meeting), heard roughly two dozen public speakers for and against the proposals, and took multiple roll-call votes on individual amendments and procedural motions. After debate the council approved amendment 13A and later voted to “receive and file” the matter as amended, but did not adopt a citywide emergency ordinance at the meeting.

Why it matters: Councilmembers said they were responding to residents and workers who lost income or housing because of recent fires, and to an immediate risk of displacement. Opponents — including several small rental-property owners who spoke during public comment — argued that broad emergency protections would cause financial harm to small landlords and could accelerate loss of affordable units if owners leave the market.

Most important facts

- The debate focused on an item introduced as “item 13” on the council agenda, which the council amended multiple times and debated over several hours.

- Councilmembers considered three amendment packages during the meeting. The council recorded a vote on amendment 13C that was tallied during the hearing; later votes in the meeting show 13A approved by a recorded roll call of 8–3. The council then voted to receive and file the item as amended; the clerk announced that vote as eight in favor, which the clerk recorded as the action before the body.

- City housing staff told the council tenants who claim fire-related income loss would be asked to submit documentation “under penalty of perjury,” and that the city’s Measure ULA funds had been appropriated in recent budgets but that several of the ULA programs would take months to implement. During the hearing staff said some categories of ULA spending already had no remaining allocation and that production-oriented uses account for much of the planned expenditure.

What councilmembers and staff said

- Councilmember (first reference) Hernández introduced and circulated amendments to item 13 and urged the council to adopt protections without delay, saying the revised text narrows earlier language and requires tenants to submit proof of lost income. Hernández told colleagues the measure had been changed “so that in the process they have to present proof of lost income” and urged a vote that day.

- Councilmember Lee urged urgency on a separate Rule 23 matter earlier in the meeting (about debris acceptance at a landfill), and later participated in the procedural motion to receive and file item 13 after amendment. Councilmember Roman and others emphasized the emergency faced by renters.

- Ana Ortega, a housing department official, told the council the verification process in the draft would permit tenants who claim fire-related financial impact to sign a declaration that they were affected and that the department would establish further verification criteria; Ortega said the department needed the final ordinance language to define the operational parameters.

- Housing staff and budget staff briefed the council on Measure ULA funding. The clerks and staff said the council previously approved a ULA spending plan of roughly $167 million for FY 2024–25; staff later said a remaining cash balance was in the hundreds of millions but that much of the money had been designated for production and that programmatic spending would take time to stand up. Staff told the council the city could not immediately distribute many of those dollars and that some programs could take six to eight months to be operational.

Public comment and parties of record

- Dozens of members of the public addressed the council during the item’s public-comment period. Speakers included tenant advocates and union organizers urging passage and additional protections, and several small rental-property owners who said broad emergency relief would punish small owners and risk removing units from the rental market. Specific public commenters identified in the transcript include Elila Anderson (described herself as a small housing provider), Agustín Cabrera (representing SCOP), Cristina Boyer (Public Counsel), and several other residents and owners who spoke about personal impacts.

- Public commenters repeatedly raised two opposing concerns: (1) immediate protections were needed to prevent displacements of households that lost income or housing because of the fires; and (2) the city must include verification, anti‑fraud penalties and financial assistance so that small landlords are not driven out of business by unpaid back rent.

Votes and amendments (recorded in the hearing)

- Amendment 13C: The council took a roll-call on a circulated 13C text; during the hearing the clerk announced a vote of 7 yes and 5 no (the tally and whether individual members changed their recorded vote was discussed on the dais). The transcript records that the amendment did not ultimately carry in its original form.

- Amendment 13A: Later in the meeting the council recorded a roll-call approving amendment 13A by 8–3.

- Final procedural action reported in the hearing: The council voted to receive and file (present) item 13 as amended (the clerk announced “eight in favor” when that action passed). That vote was accompanied by additional motion practice and two requests for reconsideration later in the meeting; the item was not enacted as an immediate emergency ordinance at that time.

Limitations and next steps

- Housing staff repeatedly told the council they would need the final ordinance text to set up verification procedures and to implement any assistance payment programs, and that Measure ULA funds targeted for production take time to deploy. Staff repeatedly noted they had limited immediate spending authority in certain ULA categories and that outreach and staffing must be stood up before dollars could be distributed.

- Several councilmembers called for a short delay to permit additional review and printed copies of amendments; others argued the urgency of the post-fire crisis required immediate action. The council split on that procedural question but did approve a revised text (13A) and a procedural “receive and file” motion to advance the item in the council record.

Ending

The council’s action left the revised item on the record after intense debate and multiple amendments. Because the body did not adopt a final emergency ordinance at the Feb. 14 meeting, further votes or staff implementation steps remain necessary for any citywide tenant protections tied to the fires to take legal effect.