Baba

Baba v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF SAN FRANCISCO

Good Law
124 Cal. App. 4th 504·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1998·2004 Daily Journal DAR 14200·21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10432
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 29, 2004A103446California8,592 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haerle, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

The superior court issued a writ of mandamus barring enforcement of two provisions of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. (S. F. Admin. Code, ch. 37 (hereafter, the Rent Ordinance).) The superior court found that section 37.10A(c) and section 37.10A(g) of the Rent Ordinance are unconstitutional on their face. We affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Rent Ordinance and the Daly Amendments

The Rent Ordinance was adopted in June 1979 in order to address problems created by a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing in the City and County of San Francisco. (§ 37.1.) The Ordinance addresses these problems by, among other things, imposing rent increase limitations for tenants in occupancy (§ 37.3) and limiting the grounds pursuant to which a landlord may lawfully recover or endeavor to recover possession of a residential rental unit from a tenant. (§ 37.9.)

One basis for a tenant’s lawful eviction is so that the landlord or landlord’s close relative may use the unit as his or her principal residence. (§ 37.9(a)(8).) This “owner move-in” provision of the Rent Ordinance is consistent with the state…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.