The Los Angeles City Council housing committee approved an amended motion instructing the city attorney and Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) to draft an ordinance that would create an affirmative eviction defense for renters who attest they experienced economic hardship because of the January 2025 wildfires, and to implement a temporary pause on rent increases through Jan. 31, 2026. The committee also directed LAHD to stand up rental-assistance and legal‑help capacity, including a sole‑source contract for temporary paralegals.

The measure matters because tenants and tenant advocates said quick protections are needed to prevent eviction and displacement after the fires, while housing providers and landlord groups warned a broad moratorium would harm building upkeep and discourage investment. “This is an eviction defense for impacted residents, not an excuse for new tenants to not pay their rent,” Councilmember Hernandez said in presenting the motion.

Committee members voted through a set of amendments before approving the ordinance package. The final vote on the motion as amended was 3 in favor, 1 opposed, with one member absent. Councilmember Blumenfield opposed the final package; other yes votes came from committee members recorded as Raman, Gerardo and Nazarian; Councilmember Price was absent. Earlier procedural amendments passed or failed in separate roll calls: an amendment removing a rent‑increase provision (15d) passed 4–0; an amendment adding documentation/reporting requirements (15e) passed 4–0; several components of a larger amendment offered by Councilmember Blumenfield (including a proposed alternative 3‑month threshold and a broad ban on “no‑fault” evictions) failed on 2–2 votes; a request to set up problem‑solving funds and related reporting passed 4–0; and a proposal to disencumber up to $15 million from the ULA administrative fund failed 2–2.

Public comment filled much of the meeting. Tenant advocates urged restoring a temporary rent‑increase pause and removing upfront documentation requirements so the defense would be accessible; A City Struggle and Inner City Struggle asked the committee to “put people over profit” and pressed for rapid protections and easier access to rental assistance. Victor Reyes of EICA and other housing‑industry speakers urged caution, saying a broad or indefinite moratorium would discourage investment, reduce housing maintenance and shift costs to landlords. “We are opposed to the proposed ordinance as it currently stands as the broad eviction moratorium,” Victor Reyes said. Housing‑industry speakers suggested shorter timelines, proof standards and repayment periods if a pause were enacted. Legal aid and tenant‑defense advocates, including Shane Henson of Inner City Law Center, urged limiting evidentiary barriers for low‑income and undocumented tenants and told the committee that the proposal is not a moratorium in the legal sense but “an affirmative defense to eviction.”

On funding and implementation, committee members and LAHD officials said the city has several existing pots of money that can be used for rental support. Committee staff cited roughly $3 million in tenant‑outreach funds from the ULA transfer tax, about $14 million identified for income support for at‑risk seniors and people with disabilities, and other potential CDBG and SB‑2 funds — a combined existing estimate “a little over $20,000,000” that LAHD officers flagged could be targeted to help renters and landlords in the interim. LAHD reported it can accept either documentation or a signed attestation under penalty of perjury for applicants who lack conventional paperwork; LAHD assistant general manager Anna Ortega said the department “would recommend that we accept both, depending on what is available to the renter” and that LAHD will publish a template attestation and notification process.

The ordinance packet as amended directs LAHD to draft the ordinance, pause rent increases, suspend specified Los Angeles Municipal Code provisions through Jan. 31, 2026, and to report back with recommended documentation templates, implementation timelines, and options for problem‑solving funds and rental assistance distribution. The motion also authorized LAHD to execute a sole‑source contract with Partners in Diversity to hire temporary paralegals to support eviction defense work and increased intake.

Committee members asked the city attorney and LAHD to return with more precise findings and implementation details — including thresholds for measurable income loss, timelines for assistance deployment, and staffing needs — before the ordinance is finalized at full council. LAHD told the committee the city’s existing rental‑assistance infrastructure (built during earlier emergencies) will shorten set‑up time but that contracting steps and staff capacity remain limiting factors. LAHD also said some rental assistance programs could take months to disburse; several speakers noted LAHD had estimated up to eight months for certain rental‑assistance payments to reach tenants.

What’s next: LAHD and the city attorney will draft the ordinance language and return with a report and templates for documentation/attestation and implementation recommendations; the council will consider final adoption at full council. The committee also asked for analyses comparing the adopted approach to alternatives that had been proposed during the meeting, including shorter repayment windows and thresholds for back rent.

Votes at a glance

- Final motion (ordinance drafting + eviction defense + rent increase pause + suspension of LAMC §151.6 provisions through 01/31/2026 + LAHD authority to sole‑source paralegals): Approved 3–1; Blumenfield opposed, Price absent.
- Amendment 15d (remove rent‑increase provision as drafted): Approved 4–0.
- Amendment 15e (add documentation/reporting requirement and LAHD reporting on mom‑and‑pop formula / rental assistance): Approved 4–0.
- Blumenfield package: proposed 3‑month threshold and broad no‑fault ban — failed 2–2; problem‑solving funds/reporting — passed 4–0; proposal to disencumber up to $15M from ULA admin — failed 2–2.

The committee hearing included more than an hour of public comment and a wide range of views. The ordinance as approved will next go to full council, where members may revise the draft language and vote on final adoption.