S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10114513/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-county-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

1,932 chars

23
implied preemption’ ” without clear legislative intent. (T-Mobile West LLC v.
City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334, 350.) But we
disagree with defendant’s argument that there is a presumption against
preemption. “[W]hen local government regulates in an area over which it
traditionally has exercised control . . . California courts will presume, absent
a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, that such
regulation is not preempted by state statute.” (Big Creek Lumber Co. v.
County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149.) Defendant’s argument
assumes that Ordinance No. 18-22 is not procedural but instead regulates the
substantive grounds for eviction, an area over which local government has
traditionally exercised control under its police power. We have already
rejected this assumption.
      As for the Legislature’s implied intent to fully occupy the field, we find
Tri County and Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th
88 (Channing) instructive. In Tri County, landlords challenged a Santa Clara
ordinance requiring 60-day notice of any rental increase for a monthly tenant
versus the 30-day notice required by state law under section 827. (Tri
County, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 1290.) The appellate court explained
that its inquiry “must therefore determine whether the Legislature has
preempted the field of notification in landlord-tenant relationship.” (Id. at
p. 1293.)
      In addition to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, the appellate court
identified at least nine other state statutes that provide timelines for
landlord-tenant notice. (Tri County, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 1297, citing
Civ. Code, § 789 [30 days’ notice to terminate tenancy at will]; id. § 791 [three
days’ notice for re-entry]; id. § 827, subd. (a) [30 days’ notice to change terms
of lease]; id. § 1942, subd. (b) [30 days’ notice regarding tenant repairs and

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text