Committee approves Version A of tenant right-to-counsel ordinance after extensive public comment

The committee voted by consensus to approve Version A of an ordinance codifying a right to counsel for tenants and forwarded the item for the next council step. The committee recorded a 2-0 vote in favor with Councilmember Raman present and Councilmember Jurado absent; Councilmember José Bloomenfield voted yes.

Supporters and tenant organizers told the committee the choice of definition matters. Dozens of public commenters urged the committee to adopt Version A because, they said, it uses the same definition of "tenant" found in the city's just‑cause and rent‑stabilization ordinances. Tommy, who identified himself as a member of ICAR, told the committee in Spanish, "apoyo el número 7 para establecer programa de derecho" and later argued "la opción A tiene la correcta definición de inquilino." JC Daive, identifying himself as a tenant, said the measure "has the correct decision of tenant" and noted the ordinance had been delayed more than a year.

Why it matters: Tenants' advocates said a uniform definition will avoid gaps that could make some eviction cases ineligible for counsel services. Several speakers pointed to research and experience in other cities: Kim Dávila and other organizers noted, in Spanish, that "el derecho a representación legal está en 25 ciudades en la nación" and said the policy reduces evictions and homelessness while saving money.

What the committee heard: Multiple public commenters pressed the committee to reject a version prepared by the City Attorney that, according to commenters, would create "a giant gap" in eligibility. One commenter said the City Attorney "does not have the power to legislate" and asked the council to follow its prior direction. Members of the public focused their remarks on the tenant definition and the ordinance’s coherence with earlier tenant‑protection laws.

Committee action and next steps: The committee chair recommended, and members agreed by consensus, to move forward with Version A and to place the ordinance on the council docket for formal consideration. Committee minutes record the decision as approving Version A; a quorum count on the record showed two votes in favor and one absence. The item will advance to the full City Council for the next formal vote.