Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Measure ULA topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and advocates urge Los Angeles City Council to protect Measure ULA as members consider amendments
Summary
Dozens of speakers urged the Los Angeles City Council to preserve Measure ULA’s funding for permanent affordable housing, opposing amendments and proposed ballot routing that they said would divert money to temporary shelters. Councilmembers read and voted on multiple amendments and substitute motions during the meeting.
The Los Angeles City Council heard extended public testimony urging the body to preserve Measure ULA and oppose amendments that would divert its funds, with dozens of callers and in-person speakers saying the ballot measure has kept people housed and that changes would worsen homelessness.
Advocates, tenants and union representatives repeatedly told the council that ULA is producing permanent affordable housing and preventing evictions. “ULA está funcionando… si funciona, ¿por qué lo quiebran?” said one caller supporting the measure. Organizers from LA CAN and local tenant groups cited figures in testimony (thousands kept housed, hundreds of millions raised) and warned that proposals to redirect money toward interim shelters or require a public vote would undermine the measure’s purpose.
Speakers described specific concerns about proposed amendments. Clara Solís, who addressed the council during public comment, urged postponement of Resolution 116 (as amended) and said outreach for a San Pascual project had been insufficient in Spanish and to tribal stakeholders; Solís said one tribe provided supporting documentation and asked for a full environmental-impact review and additional outreach.
Several callers named items on the agenda they wanted the council to reject, including item 118 and proposed changes described in public testimony as requiring a future public vote. “Desviar los fondos… simplemente va a ocasionar más falta de vivienda,” said a representative of a tenant organization.
Council staff read summaries of amendments before public comment so remote callers could hear them. Examples included a summary from Concejal Hernández reducing a proposed amount from $30,000 to $10,000 on item 105, and various substitute motions for items numbered 81, 82, 84 and 93. The clerk repeatedly explained that reading summaries aloud was advised by the city attorney to ensure remote callers had notice of amendments presented on the floor.
After the public comment period, the council took roll-call votes on a sequence of amended items and substitutes. The clerk reported multiple tallies on the record, including several unanimous or near-unanimous outcomes and a mix of separate roll-call votes when councilmembers requested them. For example, the council recorded the following votes during the session: amendment 81 A (13 yes, 1 no), amendment 82 (13 yes, 1 no), a substitute for item 93 (14 yes), and item 103 (12 yes, 2 no).
Why it matters: Measure ULA funds are devoted to housing production and services that advocates say reduce homelessness; changes that reroute funds or subject technical fixes to a ballot process would alter implementation and could affect program outcomes in the years the ordinance is intended to operate.
What’s next: Multiple motions and substitute motions were carried or referred during the meeting; several speakers urged the council to continue technical committee work rather than put substantive changes on the ballot. The council also announced follow-up briefings and committee referrals to advance implementation and oversight work related to ULA and related housing items.
(Reporting based only on council meeting record and public comment as read into the record.)
