- Proposition H Increases Relocation Payments For No-Fault Evictions
- New Bond Passthrough Ordinance Amendments
- 60 Day Notices for No Fault Evictions Returns.
- New Amendment Requires Just Cause to Remove Specified Housing Services
- Voters Approve Proposition B Re Seller Disclosure of Certain Eviction Information
- New Legislation Requiring Mailboxes In Residential Hotels
- Rent Board Hearings On Elderly Or Disabled Status Of Tenants In Owner Move-In Evictions
- Slight Increase in Ellis Relocation Payments Beginning March 1, 2006
- Court of Appeal Upholds Ellis Relocation Payments to All Tenants
- Court Strikes Relocation 'Belief Requirement' in Ellis Evictions
- Return
Sections
- Proposition H Increases Relocation Payments For No-Fault Evictions
- New Bond Passthrough Ordinance Amendments
- 60 Day Notices for No Fault Evictions Returns.
- New Amendment Requires Just Cause to Remove Specified Housing Services
- Voters Approve Proposition B Re Seller Disclosure of Certain Eviction Information
- New Legislation Requiring Mailboxes In Residential Hotels
- Rent Board Hearings On Elderly Or Disabled Status Of Tenants In Owner Move-In Evictions
- Slight Increase in Ellis Relocation Payments Beginning March 1, 2006
- Court of Appeal Upholds Ellis Relocation Payments to All Tenants
- Court Strikes Relocation 'Belief Requirement' in Ellis Evictions
- Return
Proposition H Increases Relocation Payments For No-Fault Evictions
The voters approved Proposition H on November 7, 2006. The proposition requires landlords to pay relocation payments to tenants who are evicted for owner/relative move-in under Section 37.9(a)(8), demolition or permanent removal from housing use under Section 37.9(a)(10), temporary evictions to do capital improvement work under Section 37.9(a)(11), and substantial rehabilitation under Section 37.9(a)(12). (Note: Relocation payments for Ellis evictions under Section 37.9(a)(13) remain subject to Ordinance Section 37.9A(e)(3), and are similar but not identical to the provisions of Proposition H.) Proposition H goes into effect on December 22, 2006, and by its terms applies to notices to quit served on or after August 10, 2006.
Under the proposition, each authorized occupant, regardless of age, who has resided in the unit for at least one year, is entitled to a payment of $4,500.00, with a maximum payment of $13,500.00 per unit. In addition, each elderly (60 years or older) or disabled tenant, and each household with one or more minor children, is entitled to an additional payment of $3,000.00. The above amounts are also required to be adjusted for inflation annually beginning March 1, 2007. The landlord is required to give tenants written notice of relocation rights on or before service of the notice to quit, and within 30 days of receiving a tenant's claim for the additional $3,000.00 payment, the landlord must inform the Rent Board in writing of the tenant's claim and whether or not the landlord disputes the claim. Note the following significant changes from current law: (1) single family dwellings and condominiums are now subject to the requirement to pay relocation even for OMI/relative move-ins, and (2)relocation payments also apply to subtenants and minor children as long as they are authorized occupants in residence for a year.
Link to Prop. H (pdf) from the Department of Elections.
---
An updated list of relocation payments in available in the Forms Center, Document number 578.
Back to top
New Bond Passthrough Ordinance Amendments
Ordinance 252-06, effective November 10, 2006 amended the Elections Code to require bond proposals to include a provision authorizing a 50% passthrough to tenants of the change in a landlord's property tax attributable to the bond repayment as provided for in Rent Ordinance Section 37.3(a)(6). This will ensure voters are informed of the 50% passthrough before approving a bond measure. The Ordinance also amended Rent Ordinance Section 37.3(a)(6) to also include bonds issued by the San Francisco Unified School District or San Francisco Communitly College District and approved by the voters after November 1, 2006.
Back to top
60 Day Notices for No Fault Evictions Returns.
AB 1169 reinstated the prior provisions of Civil Code Section 1946.1 requiring a 60 day notice to terminate a tenancy without a tenant fault good cause with one change: the section now allows a 30 day notice if "any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year", while the previous section allowed a 30 day notice only if "the tenant has resided in the dwelling for less than one year". The law, which is effective January 1, 2007, will be in effect for three years and sunsets on December 31, 2009, unless extended by the Legislature by that date.
10/06
Back to top
New Amendment Requires Just Cause to Remove Specified Housing Services
Ordinance No. 178-06 was approved by the Board of Supervisors and will become law without the mayor's signature on August 8, 2006. The Ordinance amendment requires a landlord to have just cause to remove or sever certain housing services like parking or storage from a tenancy. In the event of a dispute, the court will determine whether just cause exists in any given case. However, following the removal or severance of a housing service, either the landlord or the tenant may file a petition at the Rent Board to determine the amount of the corresponding rent reduction.
(A four page printable version in English is also available)
| Language: | All documents in PDF format |
|---|---|
English | |
Spanish | |
Chinese | |
Tagalog | |
Vietnamese | |
Hindi | |
Gujarati |
Voters Approve Proposition B Re Seller Disclosure of Certain Eviction Information
On June 6, 2006 the voters approved Proposition B which added section 37.10A(i) to the Rent Ordinance. The section requires owners of properties with two or more residential units to disclose to any prospective purchaser the legal grounds for terminating the tenancy of each unit to be delivered vacant at the close of escrow and whether the unit was occupied by an elderly or disabled tenant at the time the tenancy was terminated. The section further provides that disclosure on a flier available to prospective purchasers at open houses and tours of the property is sufficient compliance.
New Legislation Requiring Mailboxes In Residential Hotels
On April 20, 2006, the mayor signed Ordinance 73-06, which added Chapter 41E to the Administrative Code to require residential hotel owners to provide Postal Service-approved mail receptacles for each residential unit within one year of the effective date of the ordinance. Since the ordinance was effective May 20, 2006, owners must comply by May 20, 2007. The Ordinance also amended Rent Ordinance Section 37.14 to allow a former or current permanent resident of a residential hotel to file a tenant petition at the Rent Board for violation of the mailbox ordinance and for a corresponding reduction in rent.
Back to top
Rent Board Hearings On Elderly Or Disabled Status Of Tenants In Owner Move-In Evictions
In DeLaura v. Beckett (2006) Cal. App. 4th (No. A109948, First District), the Court of Appeal held that a Rent Board petition was a more appropriate procedure than a declaratory relief action in court for a landlord to challenge a tenant's claim of protected status based on age or disability to an owner move-in eviction under Rent Ordinance Section 37.9(i). A landlord may request such a determination with the Rent Board by completing Form I of the landlord petition for Operating and Maintenance Expenses and checking the "other" box with a request to determine the tenant's claim of protected status. Alternatively, the landlord may ask the court to decide the tenant's claim in the unlawful detainer eviction proceeding.
Back to top
Slight Increase in Ellis Relocation Payments Beginning March 1, 2006
Pursuant to Rent Ordinance section 37.9A(e)(3)(D), the amount of Ellis relocation payments is increased due to inflation on March 1 of each year. The increase is calculated on the rate of increase in the "rent of primary residence" expenditure category of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Region for the preceding calendar year. Since the measure did not increase in 2004, in 2005 the relocation payments remained $4,500 per tenant with a cap of $13,500 per unit, with an additional $3,000 for elderly or disabled tenants. The measure showed a net increase of 0.00076 in 2005. For Ellis notices filed between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2007, the following relocation amounts are therefore due: $4,503.42 per tenant with a cap of $13,510.26, with an additional $3,002.28 for elderly or disabled tenants.
Back to top
Court of Appeal Upholds Ellis Relocation Payments to All Tenants
In a decision issued on February 21, 2006 in the case of Pieri v. CCSF (Court of Appeal No. A110571, Superior Court Case No. 505059), the Court of Appeal found that the recent amendment to the Rent Ordinance expanding relocation payments to all tenants evicted under the Ellis Act did not violate the Ellis Act. The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the trial court’s ruling that the expanded relocation ordinance was facially invalid. Rent Ordinance sections 37.9A(e)(3)(A) & (B) require landlords to pay each tenant $4,500.00, with a maximum payment of $13,500.00 per unit. Each elderly or disabled tenant is also entitled to an additional $3,000.00 payment pursuant to section 37.9A(e)(3)(C).
Back to top
Court Strikes Relocation 'Belief Requirement' in Ellis Evictions
Rent Ordinance section 37.9A(e)(4) requires landlords who seek to evict tenants under the Ellis Act to notify the tenants about their rights to receive relocation payments, and to state "the amount of payment which the landlord believes to be due" i.e. the belief requirement. In a decision issued on January 31, 2006 in the case of Johnson v. CCSF (Court of Appeal No. A111355, Superior Court Case No. 505273), the Court of Appeal found that the belief requirement impermissibly shifted the burden of proving eligibility for relocation payment from the tenant to the landlord and was therefore not authorized and preempted by the Ellis Act. Accordingly, landlords are no longer required to state the amount of relocation payment the landlord believes to be due to the tenant. The Court did not address the separate challenge to the amount of relocation assistance required to be paid to tenants, which will be decided in the pending Pierri v.CCSF appeal.
Return
Return to the San Francisco Rent Board News Archive.