eviction control v. rent control - is it possible to evict from a single family house in san...

8/9/2019 Eviction Control v. Rent Control - Is It Possible to Evict From a Single Family House in San Francisco?

1/4

1/23/15, 9:ost & Found: Eviction Control v. Rent Control - Is It Possible To Evict From a Single Family House In San Francisco?

Page ttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/2015/01/eviction-control-v-rent-control-is-it.html

A collection of law-related finds and thoughts, from the past and present.

Post & Found

Home Books To Read Language Tools DISCLAIMER

T u e s d a y, J a n u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 1 5

Eviction Control v. Rent Control - Is ItPossible To EvictFrom a Single Family House In San Francisco?

A common wisdom holds that, while certain housing units are exempt from the Rent Control

in San Francisco, they are still subject to the EvictionControl. That is, even if you can raise

rentin those units above the limitsdictated by the Rent Board, you still can't evict a person

but for the defined "just cause" reasons. Such is the statement in Topic No. 19, issued by the

San Francisco Rent Board.

Yet a close analysis of applicable sections of the SF Administrative Code indicates that an

exception to the rule doesexist, albeit a very narrow one. Despite what is said in the Topic

No. 19, the prohibition is not absolute.

True, limitations on the rent increase are curtailed by the Costa-Hawkings Act, exempting

certain units from the Rent Control coverage. For instance, single family residences are

exempt. CC 1954.52(a)(3). Yet in the same statute we find that "[n]othing in this section

shall be construed to affect the authority of a public entity that may otherwise exist to

regulate or monitor the basis for eviction." CC 1954.52(c).

This compels us to look, how local authorities regulate the basis for eviction. Should we be

in Los Angeles, the answer is clear and easily found: single-family residencies are exempt.

But in San Francisco, the answer is scattered among several sections, and a lot of stars have

to line up to have a unit exempt, even if it is a single-family residence.

We should start from the Section 37.9, which defines "just causes" of eviction. It begins with

a preamble: "Notwithstanding Section 37.3, this Section shall apply as of August 24, 1980, to

all landlords and tenants of rental units as defined in Section 37.2(r)." Remember to check

about the 37.3, but let's start from the definition of the "rental unit" in Section 37.2(r). I

have put here the important parts for our analysis:

(r) Rental Units. Allresidential dwelling units in the City and County of San

Francisco together with the land and appurtenant buildings thereto, and all

housing services, privileges, furnishings and facilities supplied in connection

with the use or occupancy thereof, including garage and parking facilities.

...

The term "rental units" shall not include:

...

(5) Rental units located in a structure for which a certificate of occupancy was

first issued after the effective date of this ordinance; (A) except as provided

! 2015(2)

! January(2)

Eviction Control v. Rent Control - Is ItPossible ...

Interest on security deposits in SF - paidannuall...

" 2014(22)

" 2013(33)

Blog Archive

The Time HasCome to Abolishthe Slave Law

e-Filing comes toSan Francisco,hopefullywithout Jim Crowlaws

Not So Hard aDeadline OnPosting Jury Fees

Most Viewed:

!"##"$ !"

View my complete

profile

About Me

Follow by Email

Email Submit

# More Next Blog [email protected] New Post Design Sig
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1954.50-1954.535http://ponfo.blogspot.com/2015/01/interest-on-security-deposits-in-sf.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/2015/01/eviction-control-v-rent-control-is-it.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/http://ponfo.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/p/language-tools.htmlhttp://www.volf.com/index.php/disclaimerhttp://www.volf.com/index.php/disclaimerhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/http://ponfo.blogspot.com/https://www.blogger.com/next-blog?navBar=true&blogID=4345633939836449546https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4345633939836449546#editorhttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4345633939836449546#templatehttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/logout?d=http://www.blogger.com/logout-redirect.g?blogID%3D4345633939836449546%26postID%3D7452178245758645295http://www.blogger.com/http://ponfo.blogspot.com/logout?d=http://www.blogger.com/logout-redirect.g?blogID%3D4345633939836449546%26postID%3D7452178245758645295https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4345633939836449546#templatehttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4345633939836449546#editorhttps://www.blogger.com/next-blog?navBar=true&blogID=4345633939836449546https://plus.google.com/109507913547659809799https://plus.google.com/109507913547659809799http://ponfo.blogspot.com/2013/06/not-so-hard-deadline-on-posting-jury.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/2013/10/e-filing-comes-to-san-francisco.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-time-has-come-to-abolish-slave-law.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=33http://void%280%29/http://ponfo.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=22http://void%280%29/http://ponfo.blogspot.com/2015/01/interest-on-security-deposits-in-sf.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/2015/01/eviction-control-v-rent-control-is-it.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/2015_01_01_archive.htmlhttp://void%280%29/http://ponfo.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=2http://void%280%29/http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1251http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1261http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/RSO/tabid/263/language/en-US/Default.aspxhttp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/5/2.7/s1954.52http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1954.50-1954.535http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1038http://www.sfrb.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1939http://www.volf.com/index.php/disclaimerhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/p/language-tools.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.htmlhttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/http://ponfo.blogspot.com/


2/4

1/23/15, 9:ost & Found: Eviction Control v. Rent Control - Is It Possible To Evict From a Single Family House In San Francisco?

Page ttp://ponfo.blogspot.com/2015/01/eviction-control-v-rent-control-is-it.html

for certain categories of units and dwellings by Section 37.3(d)and Section

37.9A(b) of this Chapter;

...

(7) Dwellings or units otherwise subject to this Chapter 37, to the extent such

dwelling or units are partially or wholly exempted from rent increase

limitationsby the Costa-Hawkins Residential Housing Act (California Civil Code

Sections 1954.50, et seq.) and/or San Francisco Administrative Code Section

37.3(d).

In my opinion, it meant to say that, depending on how your unit fits the definition of

37.3(d), it either is exempt from the "rental unit" definition under 37.2(r)(7), or not exempt(literally, excepted from the exemption) under 37.2(r)(5). I say "in my opinion," because this

is not crystal-clear: remember that the 37.9 preamble starts with a qualifier

"notwithstanding Section 37.3 ..." If I am wrong, we can stop right here, but if I am right,

let's look at 37.3(d).

Section 37.3(d)provides:

(d) Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code Sections 1954.50, et seq.).

Consistent with the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code Sections

1954.50, et seq.) and regardlessof whether otherwise provided under Chapter

37:

(1) Property Owner Rights to Establish Initial and All Subsequent Rental Rates

for Separately Alienable Parcels.

(A) An owner of residential real property may establish the initial and all

subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or a unit which is alienable separate from

the title to any other dwelling unitor is a subdivided interestin a subdivision

as specified in subdivision (b), (d), or (f) of Section 11004.5 of the California

Business and Professions Code. The owner's right to establish subsequent

rental rates under this paragraph shall not applyto a dwelling or unit where the

preceding tenancy has been terminated by the owner by notice pursuant to

California Civil Code Section 1946 or has been terminated upon a change in the

terms of the tenancy noticed pursuant to California Civil Code Section 827: in

such instances, the rent increase limitation provisions of Chapter 37 shall

continue to apply for the duration of the new tenancy in that dwelling or unit.

(B) Where the initial or subsequent rental rates of a Subsection 37.3(d)(1)(A)

dwelling or unit were controlled by the provisions of Chapter 37 on January 1,

1995, the following shall apply:

(i) A tenancy that was in effect on December 31, 1995 remains subject to

the rent control provisions of this Chapter 37, and the owner may not

otherwise establish the subsequent rental rates for that tenancy.

(ii) On or after January 1, 1999 an owner may establish the initial and all

subsequent rental rates for any tenancy created on or after January 1,

1996.

In a short and over-simplified summary, it reads like this: (i) find out if it is a single-family

residence, then (ii) see if CC 1946 or 827 was invoked, and if "yes" on the first and "no" on

the second step, then it won't be a "rental unit" (Sec. 37.2(r)(7)), otherwise it will be (Sec.

37.2(r)(5)).

Note, that our local ordinance mentions CC 1946. Costa-Hawkings in a similar limitation

refers to CC 1946.1[CC 1954.52(a)(3)(B)(i)]. All these statutes (CC 1946, 1946.1, and 827)deal with a month-to-month tenancy or a tenancy for an unspecified period of time. The

common part is that a termination or a change of terms in such tenancies requires a notice.

See also, CC 791.

On the other hand, a tenancy for afixed period of time, say a year, requires no noticeand

terminates by itself. See, CC 1933(1); CC 793; CEB Landlord-Tenant Litigation, Sec. 4.11.

Putting it together, if the physical unit itself complies with the requirement for exemption,

the test is then to check if the landlord also complied with the procedural part, i.e. did not

treat the unit under any of the statutes requiring notice for termination. The only scenario
http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/793.htmlhttp://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1933.htmlhttp://law.onecle.com/california/civil/791.htmlhttp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=818-827http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/5/2/s1946.1http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/5/2/s1946http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/5/2.7/s1954.52http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1252


3/4


4/4

eviction control v. rent control - is it possible to evict from a single family house in san...

Documents