Land Use and Transportation Committee advances renter eviction limits and data center moratorium

The Land Use and Transportation Committee voted 3-0 to send the full Board of Supervisors an ordinance that would stop San Francisco landlords from evicting tenants over small unpaid rent balances, and it forwarded a temporary citywide moratorium on new data centers on the same vote.

The eviction measure, sponsored by a district supervisor, would set a minimum unpaid-rent threshold below which a landlord could not evict a residential tenant for nonpayment. The sponsor said other cities already use that standard, and argued the ordinance would not excuse rent debt, leaving landlords' remedies intact when a tenant falls behind on a larger amount.

Public comment ran heavily in favor. Speakers described tenants who fell behind after medical bills, reduced hours or delayed pay, and argued that eviction over small balances causes lasting harm to families and to their ability to stay housed. Landlord representatives opposed the ordinance and asked the committee to wait for a pending state court ruling on a similar local law. A housing coalition representative also raised state preemption concerns and asked for an amendment delaying the ordinance until that ruling comes down, warning the industry would otherwise likely challenge it.

The committee did not adopt a delay. When the ordinance was first presented it drew no action; later the committee voted 3-0 to recommend it to the full board.

A second renter ordinance the committee advanced would require online listings and leases to disclose a total estimated monthly rental cost, and would bar eviction over fees that were never disclosed. The sponsor offered clarifying amendments the committee treated as non-substantive, and the committee added a requirement to disclose mandatory fees before recommending the measure to the full board. Public comment supported the idea, and some speakers raised questions about how it would be enforced.

The committee also heard a request to broaden an existing landmark designation so it covers a whole building rather than a limited exterior area, and to extend the period of significance attached to the site. The building is tied to a 1960s uprising of trans and marginalized residents.

Supporters argued the interior still conveys that history and that the owner's refusal to open the building should not decide what gets preserved. Planning staff told the committee the preservation commission recommended protection for exterior features only, because the commission could not verify the condition of the interior, while the commission did back the expanded boundary and the longer period of significance.

Public comment was overwhelmingly in favor of extending landmark protection over the whole exterior, and several speakers pressed for the interior to be included as well. One speaker objected to a supervisor having given a platform to a figure hostile to trans people. The owner's representative told the committee the exterior expansion and the pending ordinances were acceptable, and raised no objection to a set of clerical edits.

The committee adopted those clerical edits, duplicated the file, amended the duplicate to add a findings clause and continued it to the call of the chair. It sent the original amended file to the full board with a positive recommendation.

The data center item was an urgency ordinance that would pause approvals of new data centers across the city while the planning department studies their energy use, water use, air quality, land-use effects and the impact on surrounding communities. The supervisor who presented it cast the pause as a response to environmental burdens and to a lack of community input, pointing to proposed and existing facilities.

Another supervisor supported the intent and sought amendments so that accessory server rooms and routine repair or maintenance permits would not be swept into the moratorium. Public comment was largely supportive. Residents cited electricity and water consumption, backup generator pollution and noise, and described the city's zoning as outdated; several urged the committee to go further and ban the facilities permanently. An industry representative acknowledged poor communication and weak regulation by the companies but pointed to projects that use renewable power, no water and no diesel generators.

The committee adopted amendments excluding accessory computing facilities such as server rooms and network closets, and allowing repair or maintenance of existing data centers as long as the work does not increase their size or capacity. It then voted 3-0 to forward the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Two smaller housing measures also moved. The committee advanced an ordinance that would align definitions between local codes on mezzanine story thresholds, a change no one contested. And it heard testimony on a proposal to lower the minimum ceiling heights for habitable rooms in existing buildings, which supporters said would spare owners the cost of excavation and could legalize units that already exist. The committee amended that proposal and moved to recommend it.