In 1979, San Francisco enacted an emergency ordinance to address “a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing in the City and County of San Francisco resulting in a critically low vacancy factor”. It extended rent control and eviction protections to all units constructed before its effective date, June 13, 1979.
For over a decade, San Francisco retained the ability to amend the ordinance via the same police power it used to enact the law in the first place. However, in 1995, California enacted the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which permanently decontrolled units that had “already been exempt from the residential rent control ordinance of a public entity on or before February 1, 1995, pursuant to a local exemption for newly constructed units”.
In other words, prior to Costa-Hawkins residential rental units built after June 13, 1979 were already exempt under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which defined “rental unit” to exclude “rental units located in a structure for which a certificate of occupancy was first issued after the effective date of this ordinance”. Following Costa-Hawkins, San Francisco could no longer change this.
Until 2020, there was no statewide eviction control, and San Francisco had always been free to limit (or eliminate) the new construction date for its eviction controls. Effective January 1, 2020, AB 1482 created an additional requirement that a city must make a “binding finding within their local ordinance that the ordinance is more protective than the provisions of this section”.
Effective January 19, 2020, San Francisco Ordinance 296-19 makes such a finding in deleting the local exemption for new construction. San Francisco will no longer exclude from the definition of “rental unit” units built after June 13, 1979. While these units will remain exempt from its price controls, the Rent Ordinance’s eviction controls will now require “just cause” to terminate the tenancy of any San Francisco residential rental unit.
The text of Ordinance 296-19 is available here.
In 2008, San Francisco voters passed Proposition M – amending the San Francisco Rent Ordinance to include “tenant harassment” regulations (implemented as Section 37.10B). A group of petitioners (including landlords, landlord attorneys, the San Francisco Apartment Association and the SF Association of Realtors) filed a facial challenge against its provisions.
That case, Larson v. CCSF, overturned several of its provisions. The court found that the prohibition on continued buyout offers (after a tenant notified the landlord that they weren’t interested) violated free speech rights. Another provision allowing the Rent Board to award damages violated the judicial powers doctrine (by vesting judicial authority in an agency). Other provisions survived: San Francisco could prohibit offers to vacate accompanied by threats or intimidation (as a reasonable time, place and manner restriction on speech). And the Rent Board was permitted to award a reduction of rent based on a quantifiable reduction in housing services.
The full text of Proposition M is available here
Justin A. Goodman of Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC will join a panel of attorneys (who represent both tenants and landlords), as well as the Senior Advisor at the Office of the Mayor, to teach a continuing legal education course on the Ellis Act. The course will include preparing for withdrawal of residential property from the housing market, the transactional process leading to termination of tenancy, common defenses, and the lasting effect on the property after ‘going out of business’.
The MCLE course is presented by the Bar Association of San Francisco, and will take place on December 10, 2018 at 12:00pm in the BASF Conference Center, located at 301 Battery Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, California.
Tiffany R. Norman, trn Law Associates
Andrew Wiegel, Wiegel Law Group, PLC
Thomas E. Drohan, Staff Attorney Legal Assistance to the Elderly
Justin A. Goodman, Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC
Jeff Buckley, Senior Advisor for the Office of the Mayor
The Bar Association of San Francisco has been providing San Francisco legal professionals with networking and pro bono opportunities in order to better serve the community since 1872.
Its mission is to champion equal access to justice and to promote humanity, excellence, and diversity in the legal profession. It provides legal services to disadvantaged and underserved individuals in San Francisco and creates opportunities for legal service in the community, encouraging participation by its members.
It advances professional growth and education, and elevates the standards of integrity, honor, and respect in the practice of law. It also cultivates diversity and equality in the legal profession, provides a collective voice for public advocacy, and pioneers constructive change in society.
Justin Goodman was featured in the Legal Q&A for the November 2018 issue of SF Apartment Magazine – the official publication of the San Francisco Apartment Association.
Justin discussed potential liability for a landlord “waiting too long” to rent an available apartment when he is only receiving applicants enrolled in the Section 8 program, as well as how the recent opinion CCSF v. Post (2018) changed the rules on “source of income discrimination” in San Francisco.
SFAA is dedicated to educating, advocating for, and supporting the rental housing community so that its members operate ethically, fairly, and profitably. SFAA’s is a trade association whose main focus is to support rental owners by offering a wide variety of benefits that address all aspects of rental housing industry.
Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC attended the Filipino Bar Association of Northern California celebration of retired Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay, hosted by the Dolan Law Firm.
(Featured: Staff Attorney Olga Grecova, Justin A. Goodman of Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC and Hon. Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay)
Judge Quidachay was one of the founding members of FBANC and the first Filipino-American to be appointed as a judge in Northern California (in 1983).
Also in attendance were the members of FBANC, past and present court staff, friends, family and the landlord and tenant attorneys who have had the great pleasure of arguing before him in Housing Court (some for their entire careers).
Thus, under Birkenfeld, municipalities may by ordinance limit the substantive grounds for eviction by specifying that a landlord may gain possession of a rental unit only on certain limited grounds. But they may not procedurally impair the summary eviction scheme set forth in the unlawful detainer statutes. The Property Owners argue the Ordinance is procedural because it governs the timing of notices of eviction: ‘The Ordinance does not limit the allowable justifications for evicting tenants; it only delays certain evictions.’ Such questions of timing, they contend, are purely procedural. The City argues the Ordinance is substantive because timing is merely a component of the substantive defense to eviction: ‘When the household to be evicted includes a child under the age of 18 or an ‘educator’ within the terms of the Ordinance, ‘good cause’ for a landlord to undertake any of the specified types of no-fault evictions does not exist unless the eviction is to take effect during the summer months.’ As this case illustrates, the distinction between procedure and substantive law can be shadowy and difficult to draw in practice.
In SFAA v. CCSF, Division Five of the First District Court of Appeal overturned the SF Housing Court’s order mandating that the City not enforce a 2016 amendment to the Rent Ordinance (Ordinance 55-16) that created a substantive defense to certain non-fault evictions for “educators”.
Continue reading SFAA v. CCSF (2018): City’s “Educator” Eviction Defense Upheld as “Substantive” Rather Than “Procedural”
September 15th is the first deadline for “Tier One” property owners to submit permit applications for work under the City’s mandatory seismic retrofit program – a 2013 ordinance that requires owners of certain multiunit wood-frame buildings with “soft stories” (i.e., open space first floors that are weaker and more flexible than the stories above) to reinforce the structure to increase resiliency in the event of an earthquake.
The SF Examiner reports that, “Failure to comply with the Sept. 15 deadline will come with penalties. For instance, The City would post an ‘Earthquake Warning’ placard on the property and issue a notice of violations. After the 30-day notice, The City can assess monetary penalties along with putting a lien on the property”.
Property owners can search the Department of Building Inspection website to determine the compliance tier and associated deadline for their buildings.