San Francisco supervisors set to vote on barring evictions over small rent debts

A measure backed by Mayor Daniel Lurie and eight of 11 supervisors would require tenants to owe more than a month of federal “fair market rent” before a landlord could evict for nonpayment, even as the California Supreme Court weighs whether such limits are lawful.

By Staff Reporter

San Francisco tenants who fall a few hundred dollars behind on rent could no longer be evicted for it under an ordinance the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take up on Tuesday, a measure that would make the city the latest in California to set a minimum debt threshold for nonpayment evictions.

The proposal, by Supervisor Jackie Fielder, appears on the board’s Oct. 20 agenda for a first-reading vote after the Land Use and Transportation Committee recommended it on Oct. 5. The city’s legislative record now lists eight sponsors: Ms. Fielder and Supervisors Myrna Melgar, Shamann Walton, Connie Chan, Chyanne Chen, Bilal Mahmood, Danny Sauter and Matt Dorsey. Eight votes is a two-thirds majority of the board, enough to override a mayoral veto, though none is expected: Mayor Daniel Lurie has endorsed the bill.

What the ordinance would change

Under the city’s Rent Ordinance, landlords may now evict for nonpayment “without regard to the amount of rent that is outstanding,” according to the City Attorney’s legislative digest. The amendment would allow a nonpayment eviction only when the amount owed exceeds one month of the fair market rent that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development sets each year for a unit of the same size in the San Francisco area. Eviction notices would have to state the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s unit.

Those federal figures are currently $2,485 for a studio, $2,977 for a one-bedroom and $3,604 for a two-bedroom apartment, Mission Local reported when Ms. Fielder introduced the measure on Sept. 1.

The ordinance does not forgive any debt. Its text states that nothing in it “shall relieve a tenant of the obligation to pay rent, nor restrict a landlord’s ability to recover rent due,” and landlords could still sue to collect smaller amounts. It would also delete Covid-era eviction provisions that the digest describes as “obsolete and no longer legally operative.” If the board approves it on first reading, it would return for a final vote, and it would take effect 31 days after the mayor signs it.

In findings attached to the bill, its sponsors wrote that “San Francisco is seeing an increase in evictions, in many cases due to relatively small amounts of unpaid rent,” and that evicted tenants “are often at risk of being permanently displaced from the City.”

Ms. Fielder has framed the measure narrowly. The legislation is “not going to erase a tenant’s debt to a landlord or enable tenants to permanently live rent-free,” she told Mission Local. “Once that one month fair market rent threshold has been met, landlords can pursue eviction.”

Part of a broader renter package

The bill is one piece of a rent package Mr. Lurie announced on Sept. 10, which his office said includes six proposed ordinances and more than $30 million in spending, among them an expansion of the city’s tenant right-to-counsel program and larger relocation payments for tenants displaced under the Ellis Act. “This legislation will give much-needed stability to renters across our city, but it must be a first step,” the mayor said in a statement quoted by Mission Local.

The timing reflects a rental market that has turned sharply against tenants. Mission Local reported a 26 percent year-over-year rise in rents, and Mr. Lurie told NBC Bay Area that evictions were up “close to 10% over the past year.” Tuesday Rose Thornton, an attorney at the Eviction Defense Collaborative, told Mission Local that about a quarter of the evictions in a sample of the group’s cases last year involved nonpayment below the fair market rent threshold.

A second tenant measure is on the same agenda. An ordinance by Mr. Mahmood would require listings and leases to disclose a unit’s total monthly cost, including fees, and would restrict evictions over fees that were not properly disclosed. Ms. Fielder’s bill directs the City Attorney to harmonize the two if both pass.

A question before the state Supreme Court

The most consequential objection is legal rather than political. In a letter included in the committee packet, the San Francisco Apartment Association, which represents rental property owners, urged supervisors to wait, arguing that “the Board should not move forward with this Ordinance while the California Supreme Court is actively considering the very legal question it presents.”

That case concerns a similar Los Angeles law. On Aug. 26, the state Supreme Court granted review in Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles, limiting its inquiry to a single question: whether the state’s Unlawful Detainer Act “preempt[s] a local ordinance setting a monetary threshold requirement for unpaid rent before a landlord may commence unlawful detainer proceedings.” A state Court of Appeal had upheld the Los Angeles threshold, which, like San Francisco’s proposal, is pegged to one month of fair market rent.

The apartment association’s letter argues that the justices will rule against Los Angeles, and that San Francisco’s measure would also amount to rent control on units exempt under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The Supreme Court did not take up the Costa-Hawkins question. Oakland and Berkeley have adopted similar one-month thresholds, according to Mission Local and NBC Bay Area.

The practical stakes for the city are therefore twofold. If the Supreme Court sides with Los Angeles, San Francisco would join a growing set of California cities using a tool the state’s highest court has blessed. If it rules for the landlords, a San Francisco ordinance built on the same benchmark would likely be vulnerable to the same challenge, and the board would have to decide whether to seek a fix in Sacramento instead.

For now, the votes appear to be in place. With eight sponsors and the mayor’s support, the measure is positioned to pass; whether it endures may be decided by the state’s highest court.