Supervisors approve five ordinances on elevators, entertainment zones, gas hookups, rent control and victim services

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Oct. 15 passed five ordinances addressing building safety, entertainment districts, energy infrastructure, rent control eligibility and victim-services confidentiality.

The ordinances were adopted by unanimous roll call during a special meeting at City Hall. Public comment preceded votes on each item; speakers included tenants, tenant advocates, labor representatives and community organizations who offered both support and criticism depending on the measure.

The most immediate actions included an amendment to the housing code requiring that R‑1 and R‑2 occupancy group buildings maintain at least one existing elevator for residents, and an ordinance creating two entertainment zones — a Mid‑Market entertainment zone on Market Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets and an Arena entertainment zone bounded by Warriors Way, Terry A. Francois Boulevard, Sixteenth Street and Third Street. Both measures were affirmed with the California Environmental Quality Act determination and were approved by roll call.

Speakers on the elevator measure urged protections for older and mobility‑impaired tenants. ‘‘This really affects our elderly population who are trapped inside their buildings,’’ said Amina Rubio, who identified herself as a District 3 resident and a financial researcher who has reviewed notice‑of‑violation records. Rubio told supervisors she supports the elevator requirement but asked that tenants not be required to bear the cost of electrical or retrofit work.

On the entertainment zones, Leah McGeever, a District 6 resident, opposed the measure as a misallocation of city resources, saying the city should prioritize housing and social services before creating entertainment districts. ‘‘Why are we getting entertainment zones instead of food and water and housing and health care?’’ McGeever said. Andrew Bennett, president of IATC Local 16, spoke in favor, saying the zones could help restore cultural and performance work lost after the pandemic and that his union should be included in workforce discussions.

Council action also amended the building code to allow new construction that meets ‘‘electricity‑ready’’ design guidelines to install gas infrastructure to serve appliances covered by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Public comment included concerns about old wiring and the potential for tenants to be charged for upgrades; Rubio reiterated her request that tenants not be financially responsible for required electrical work.

The board approved an amendment to the administrative code to generally make dwelling units that first received a certificate of occupancy between June 14, 1979, and June 13, 1994, subject to rent control to the extent allowed by future modification or repeal of the Costa‑Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Tenant advocates described the change as a protection for thousands of households. Mitchell Omerberg of the Affordable Housing Alliance and the San Francisco Anti‑Displacement Coalition said the change would extend protections to about 40,000 people living in affected units. Property‑owner concerns were also voiced: Richard S.D. Peterson said extending rent control could have ‘‘draconian results’’ for landlords dealing with nonpayment.

Finally, supervisors passed an ordinance amending the administrative code to clarify confidentiality and duties for the Office of Victim and Witness Rights (OVWR), to move the Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention program (referred to in public comment as SHARP) from the Human Rights Commission to OVWR, and to require trauma‑informed assistance to victims navigating city processes. Joyzanne, commission staff for the San Francisco Youth Commission, urged support, citing longstanding youth advocacy on assault and harassment issues. One public commenter, Leanna Geever (District 6), said she did not believe the board was qualified to legislate on harassment or assault matters.

Votes at a glance

- Item 1 — Housing code: require R‑1 and R‑2 buildings to maintain at least one existing elevator; CEQA affirmed. Vote: 10‑0, approved. - Item 2 — Administrative code: establish Mid‑Market and Arena entertainment zones; CEQA affirmed. Vote: 10‑0, approved. - Item 3 — Building code: allow gas infrastructure in certain electricity‑ready new construction; findings adopted. Vote: 10‑0, approved. - Item 4 — Administrative code: extend general rent‑control coverage to units with certificates of occupancy issued 6/14/1979–6/13/1994 to the extent allowed by state law; clarifications to Costa‑Hawkins exemptions. Vote: 10‑0, approved. - Item 5 — Administrative code: clarify OVWR confidentiality and responsibilities, transfer SHARP to OVWR, require trauma‑informed assistance. Vote: 10‑0, approved.

What the public said

Tenant advocates and housing groups — including speakers who identified themselves with the Housing Rights Committee, Jobs with Justice San Francisco, Saddle Market Community Action Network and the Affordable Housing Alliance — generally supported the rent‑control expansion and elevator protections as tools to prevent displacement and protect seniors and people with disabilities. Labor and performance‑arts representatives supported the entertainment zones as a path to restore working opportunities. Opposing comments came from residents who said entertainment zones prioritized nightlife over basic needs and at least one property owner who expressed concerns about rent‑control expansion.

Process and next steps

All five ordinances as presented at the special meeting were adopted on final passage during the Oct. 15 session. Implementation details and any necessary follow‑up (including administrative rules, enforcement guidance, or subsequent hearings) were not specified in the public record during this meeting.

—

Speakers quoted in this article appeared during the Board of Supervisors special meeting on Oct. 15, 2024, at the Legislative Chamber, City Hall.