What Happened
All fifteen councilmembers were present for the May 13, 2026 meeting. Council Member Curren D. Price Jr. recused himself from Item 4 (CF 26-0292), citing a conflict of interest related to his wife's employer's past work with an organization involved in the item. Item 8 (CF 26-0005-S73, a REAP removal in CD1) was continued one month to June 12, 2026, on motion by Council Member Hernandez.
Items 1 through 3, 6, 7, and 9 through 18 were voted on together and passed 15-0. These included three right-of-way easement dedications (Items 1–3); the biweekly wildfire emergency declaration renewal (CF 25-0030); a CalRecycle grant acceptance for the Department of Building and Safety (CF 23-0459-S3); six Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) removals for properties that have come into compliance; a motion by Council Member Rodriguez to reprogram funds for the Van Nuys Boulevard Corridor JEDI Zone Façade Improvement Program (CF 14-1174-S97); district-level funding motions for a veterans memorial plaque in CD1, supplemental tree care in CD1, and beautification services in CD15; and a motion by Council Member Hernandez to fund multidisciplinary services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking (CF 26-0687).
Item 5 (CF 25-0006-S35), the Ad Hoc Committee for LA Recovery report on red flag warning protocols, passed 15-0 with an amendment introduced by Council Member Rodriguez. Rodriguez argued that Recommendation 4 of the report — which would have addressed residential barbecuing during red flag days — was "tone-deaf" and would disproportionately fall on certain communities. She moved to strike that recommendation and to remove LAPD from any enforcement role. Council President Harris-Dawson seconded her concerns, noting that police showing up in residents' backyards over barbecuing was inappropriate. Several public commenters, including representatives of the California State Horseman's Association and restaurant owners, had spoken against the barbecue restriction during public comment.
Item 19 — CF 26-1100-S7: Business Gross Receipts Tax Repeal Initiative
The Council voted 15-0 to place a certified initiative petition on the November 3, 2026 general municipal election ballot. The petition, if approved by voters, would permanently eliminate the city's business gross receipts tax on virtually all businesses except cannabis, effective January 1, 2028. The City Administrative Officer (CAO), Mateo Zabo, presented a detailed fiscal impact analysis. He described the tax as the city's second-largest general fund revenue source, generating approximately $832 million annually in non-cannabis receipts. Repeal would result in a $740 million loss in the first year and an estimated average annual loss of $860 million over the first five years, growing thereafter. Zabo stated this would require an immediate declaration of fiscal emergency, a hard hiring freeze including LAPD, layoffs of thousands of city employees, cancellation of police hiring with a potential reduction of up to 2,000 officers, renegotiation of labor agreements, reductions to the city's $323 million homelessness response, deferral of capital projects, and re-evaluation of Olympics preparedness. He noted that $860 million represents virtually 100% of the city's firefighter salary and benefits budget and nearly half the police force. The ballot measure language will include the estimated $860 million annual revenue loss figure.
Council President Harris-Dawson explained that the Council's options were legally constrained: adopt the ordinance directly, hold a special election (estimated at $30 million), place it on the November ballot at no additional cost, or do nothing and face litigation that would likely result in a court-ordered special election at city expense with legal fees. He moved to place it on the November ballot, which was seconded by Council Member McOsker. Council Member Padilla confirmed that the ballot language would explicitly state the revenue impact. Council Member Rodriguez used the item to caution colleagues that the threat to city revenue was not limited to this one measure, and that policies affecting businesses' ability to operate in Los Angeles also had implications for tax revenue collection.
Item 20 — CF 25-1466: Olympic Wage Ordinance Amendments
This was the most contested item of the meeting. The Council ultimately adopted substitute motion 20A (Harris-Dawson–Lee), 10-5, which instructs the City Attorney to draft amendments to the existing Olympic Wage Ordinance — the living wage law covering airport and hotel workers — adjusting the wage schedule and health benefit provisions downward from current law. Council President Harris-Dawson framed the vote explicitly as a placeholder, stating that negotiations between labor and business were ongoing and that he expected the item returning on Tuesday would differ from what was voted on. A failed amendment (20B) by Council Member Rodriguez would have carved out hotel restaurant workers from the ordinance's coverage.
The Olympic Wage Ordinance, passed in December 2024, sets minimum wages and health benefit requirements for airport and hotel workers in Los Angeles, with rates scheduled to reach $30 per hour. The substitute motion before the Council would adjust the wage schedule and modify health insurance provisions, with both changes representing reductions from current law. Council Member Soto-Martinez successfully moved to strike Section F of the substitute motion, which would have modified the process by which employees with existing health coverage could receive cash in lieu of employer-provided health benefits; that provision was removed as a friendly amendment by Harris-Dawson after both Soto-Martinez and labor representatives argued it had not been part of the 72-hour negotiation process and could create opportunities for employer abuse.
Voting yes on the substitute motion (10): Nazarian, Blumenfield, Hutt, Padilla, Lee, Yaroslavsky, Harris-Dawson, Rodriguez, McOsker, and Park. Voting no (5): Hernandez, Soto-Martinez, Price, Raman, and Jurado. Council Member Price subsequently asked to be recorded as a no, which the clerk confirmed did not change the outcome. Council Member Blumenfield, voting yes, stated explicitly that his vote should not be read as moral endorsement of the specific terms, describing it as creating "a placeholder" and reserving the right to vote differently when the item returns. Council Member Hernandez, voting no, argued that workers had organized for years, survived a multi-million dollar industry referendum campaign, and won — and that the Council should not "water it down" on behalf of corporate lobbyists. Council Member Soto-Martinez called the overall motion a corporate "shakedown" and said workers fought for wages and healthcare for years.
The failed amendment 20B (Rodriguez–Park), which would have directed the City Legislative Analyst and City Attorney to define "restaurant" within hotels as a separate category exempt from the hotel minimum wage, failed 5-10. Voting yes: Nazarian, Padilla, Lee, Rodriguez, and Park. Voting no: Blumenfield, Price, Hernandez, Hutt, Soto-Martinez, Yaroslavsky, Harris-Dawson, Raman, McOsker, and Jurado. Soto-Martinez called the amendment "despicable" and accused Rodriguez of trying to "sneak something in" that had been rejected during the original ordinance debate. Rodriguez argued that hotel restaurants operating as independent lessees face different competitive conditions than core hotel operations and cannot sustain the same labor cost structure. McOsker, while affirming Rodriguez's right to introduce the motion, urged a no vote to keep negotiations focused. The City Attorney clarified that under current law, all workers physically located within a hotel property — including restaurant workers employed by separate lessees — are covered by the hotel minimum wage ordinance regardless of ownership structure.
Public comment was dominated by opponents of Item 20, with dozens of workers identifying themselves as members of Unite Here Local 11, USWW (United Service Workers West), and ACE. Workers from Flying Food Group, HMS Host, Sky Chefs, the Waldorf Historia, the Westin Bonaventure, SLS Hotel, and Delta/LAX testified about wage increases that had already changed their lives — enabling rent payments, healthcare access, and basic family stability — and urged the Council to vote no. Rob Notto of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, representing over 800,000 workers, argued that voters had already rejected a multi-million dollar industry referendum campaign and that the Council should honor that result. A researcher from the economic policy organization LAANE presented historical data showing that prior industry warnings about job losses following hotel wage increases in 2009 and 2014 proved false, and that the American Hotel and Lodging Association's current projections contained factual errors. A representative of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) and a representative of the Central City Association spoke in support of Item 20, arguing that businesses needed time to absorb cost increases and that the tourism industry was facing genuine economic headwinds. A representative of Hotel Irwin in Venice Beach spoke in support of the hotel restaurant carveout. A speaker from the Democratic Socialists of America–Los Angeles urged the Council to reject what he called a "billionaire shakedown." Multiple speakers referenced Council President Harris-Dawson's reported statement that he felt he had "a gun to his head," and several characterized the linkage between the gross receipts tax repeal petition and the wage amendment as corporate extortion.