San Francisco committee pauses local eviction ordinance after state’s SB 91 limits local action

San Francisco supervisors on Monday paused consideration of an emergency ordinance intended to extend local protections against COVID-19–related tenant evictions, saying a new state law signed last week, SB 91, narrows local authority and leaves many tenants liable for large shares of unpaid rent.

Vice Chair Supervisor Dean Preston, who introduced the local emergency ordinance, told the Land Use and Transportation Committee that the ordinance would have extended San Francisco’s eviction protections by 60 days beginning Feb. 1. Preston said the state’s AB 3088 protections had been scheduled to expire Jan. 31 and that his office brought the local measure at the request of tenant advocates worried about an immediate lapse.

"There is now a 5 month window before eviction proceedings for COVID-related nonpayments should be allowed to move forward," Preston said, adding that the recently enacted SB 91 provides only limited relief and, in his view, was negotiated without adequate input from tenant advocates. "It appears that our hands have to some extent been tied by the state," he said, criticizing the bill’s preemption provisions and saying, "shame on you for including any preemption provisions in a bill of this kind."

Preston also warned that the state program’s rent-relief component is voluntary and may leave many tenants responsible for a large share of unpaid rent. "For most vulnerable tenants, the bill will leave them on the hook for 75% of their rent," he said.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin said he "wholeheartedly" associated himself with Preston’s assessment and said he was reluctant to rely solely on the state’s approach. Given the passage of SB 91, however, Peskin said he would support a continuance of the local ordinance so the committee could consider next steps.

Justin Goodman, an associate attorney representing the San Francisco Apartment Association and small property owners, urged the committee to recognize SB 91’s immediate effect and said the state measure preempts local authority on the issue. Goodman said the state law struck a balance that would also provide relief to landlords — including small owners who have faced mortgage and carrying-cost pressures — and cited concerns about local code language such as "section 37.9 sub b" as applied to small landlords.

Peskin disputed aspects of Goodman’s account of the pandemic’s effects on tenant payment rates, saying his own experience as a small landlord and reports from the city suggested many tenants continued to pay rent early in the pandemic.

After discussion, Preston moved to continue the emergency ordinance "to the call of the chair." The committee voted Peskin — aye; Preston — aye; Melgar — aye. The motion carried 3-0 and the committee closed public comment and adjourned. The clerk had earlier noted that items acted on during the committee are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda on Feb. 9 unless otherwise stated.

The continuance means the committee took no further action on the local emergency ordinance on Monday. Preston said his office will pursue a regular ordinance and other legislative vehicles to explore stronger tenant protections when and if state preemption provisions expire in June.