The Los Angeles City Council debated a package of emergency tenant protections tied to the 2025 wildfires on Feb. 14, 2025, but failed to adopt the full ordinance after several amendments and votes. Councilmembers approved two narrow recommendations addressing small landlords while a broader set of protections — including a temporary affirmative defense for tenants who lost income because of the fires and caps on recoverable arrears — did not receive enough votes and the file remained on the council desk.

Councilmember Eunice Hernandez, who led the primary motion, told colleagues the item was intended to expand protections for survivors of the wildfires and prevent displacement, including “an ordinance with an urgency clause ... to avoid forfeiture, limit displacement, and homelessness” for tenants who can document loss of income due to the 2025 fires. Hernandez said the draft would temporarily bar evictions for tenants who provide a declaration and documentation of loss of income covering Feb. 1, 2025 through Jan. 31, 2026 and that protections were limited in time and scope in later amendments.

The debate centered on two competing concerns: advocates and members who said immediate protections were needed for households who lost work or housing because of fires, and housing providers and council members who warned a broad, citywide emergency restriction would be subject to abuse, harm small “mom-and-pop” landlords, and deter future housing investment. Housing Department staff told the council the department lacked data isolating evictions tied specifically to fire-related income loss, and that ULA (the citys housing revenue measure) funds and programs that could provide direct rental assistance would take months to deploy.

Several amendments were offered. Amendment 13C was voted down (final vote recorded as 5 yes, 7 no). Amendment 13B, which would have narrowed aspects of the proposal and included a repayment schedule for arrears, also failed. A third amendment, 13A, introduced by Councilmember Bob Hutt, passed (recorded vote 8 yes, 3 no). The council separately bifurcated and approved two recommendations (labeled recommendations 6 and 7 in the agenda packet) while a councilmember recused from those recommendations; the clerk recorded those two recommendations as passed on a 10-yes vote.

After amendments, the council voted on the remaining elements of the ordinance (the underlying item as amended but without recommendations 6 and 7). That motion did not pass — the final tally on the core item was recorded as 6 yes, 5 no — and subsequent motions to receive and file also failed. Council members left the final, amended proposal on the desk, meaning it will appear again on a future meeting agenda for further consideration.

Public comment was heavily focused on the fires impact. Tenant advocates, tenant attorneys and tenant-organizing groups urged the council to act immediately to prevent an eviction wave. Keep LA Housed counsel and other housing advocates told the council the motion was narrowly tailored and that tenants could lose homes before rental assistance programs were operational. Small housing providers and representatives of the California Apartment Association warned that past self-attestation policies had been abused and asked for verification and anti-fraud penalties; several housing providers described dire financial strains and urged targeted rental assistance rather than a blanket ordinance.

Housing Department officials told the council that ULA funds (the voter-approved housing revenue stream) had a multi-million dollar allocation but much of that money was committed to production programs that take months to execute. Staff said some ULA categories remained to support emergency rental assistance and eviction defense, but that additional short-term emergency assistance would require time to stand up and could not be spent immediately in the quantities advocates requested.

In the floor debate, Councilmembers expressed divergent priorities. Supporters of the motion stressed urgency, telling colleagues that they had heard constituent reports of job loss, missed rent payments, and beginning eviction notices. Opponents asked for more specificity: how the ordinance would define “loss of income,” how verification would work, limits on duration, and protections for small landlords who rely on rent as sole income. Several members said they wanted the city to use ULA and state funds for rapid rental assistance instead of relying on a local eviction defense ordinance.

Next steps: the council left the matter on the desk for further consideration. Recommendations 6 and 7, a narrower pair of measures, passed and will be implemented; the larger package will return to a future agenda where the council may consider additional amendments, supplemental funding approaches, or direct rental assistance options.