Board approves first reading of ordinance to protect tenants' right to choose internet providers after heated legal debate

The Board of Supervisors on Dec. 6 advanced on first reading an ordinance that would prohibit owners and managers of multi‑unit residential buildings from interfering with tenants' choice of qualified Internet service provider and would establish procedures for providers to gain access to buildings.

Supervisor M. Farrell (identified in the record as the bill's author and co‑sponsor Supervisor Marr) described the measure as "a first in the country local ordinance" to secure tenant choice and said local providers estimate “hundreds of multi‑unit buildings representing more than 50,000 units face impediments that effectively block providers from accessing buildings.” Farrell summarized amendments negotiated with stakeholders that, he said, require providers to present visual plans for installations, use licensed contractors, carry insurance and indemnify owners, and give owners reasonable time to respond to access requests.

Supervisor Peskin raised a confidential attorney‑client memorandum warning of legal exposure and moved to continue the item into closed session for further discussion. That motion failed on a roll call vote (3 yes, 7 no). The transcript records the yes votes on the failed continuance as Supervisor Peskin, Supervisor Kim and Supervisor Campos; the no votes were Supervisors Tang, Yi, Avalos, Breed, Cohen, Farrell and Mar. After further public discussion and a separate verbal motion, the board scheduled a closed session on the ordinance for its Dec. 13 meeting to receive legal advice about exclusivity and liability concerns.

Deputy City Attorney William Sanders and other city attorneys participated in the public exchange to clarify whether the legal questions could be answered in open session; city counsel said the appropriate attorney familiar with the privilege would need to appear. Supervisor Farrell and other supporters said they preferred to vote on first reading at this meeting to avoid delay, while opponents sought an in‑camera review to probe possible litigation risks.

The board voted on first reading later in the meeting. The ordinance passed first reading by roll call, 9–1, with Supervisor Peskin recorded in the negative. Supervisors and staff stressed that a closed session would be held Dec. 13 for the city attorney to provide further legal advice, and that members could revise their votes on second reading if the closed‑session advice altered their legal assessment.

What the ordinance would do: As described on the floor, the ordinance would (1) prohibit building owners and managers from interfering with tenants' selection of a qualified ISP; (2) require that only ISPs certified by the California Public Utilities Commission serve tenants when requested by a tenant; (3) set parameters and timelines for building access requests; (4) allow owners constrained by lead, asbestos or historic‑preservation issues to limit access; and (5) require certain procedural protections to reduce frivolous litigation between owners and providers.

Legal and procedural context: Supervisor Peskin and others said a confidential city attorney memo suggests ways to limit litigation risk by amendment; Farrell acknowledged he had been informed of a proposed amendment but said he had not adopted it. The board did not change the text before first reading but unanimously agreed to a closed‑session meeting to receive legal advice before second reading.

Ending — next steps: The ordinance moves to closed session on Dec. 13 for legal review and is scheduled for second reading thereafter. Supervisors emphasized that the first reading vote does not eliminate the need for in‑camera legal advice and that votes could change on second reading after counsel's advice.