San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2018)

5
174 Cal.App.4th 213, 221.)2 The Ordinance has a substantive component, effectively
creating a new group protected from certain no-fault evictions: children who are or could
be attending school or day care (excluding summer school or summer day care)3 and
educators employed while children are attending school. The Ordinance also has an
impact on procedure, restricting the timing of evictions of children and educators.
       Rental Housing, supra, also involved an ordinance not easily defined as
substantive or procedural. The ordinance in that case “require[d] that tenants be provided
notice and an opportunity to cure any offending conduct before a landlord may resort to
eviction. Where an eviction is brought due to a tenant’s substantial violation of a
material term of the tenancy, disorderly conduct, or refusal to allow the landlord access to
the unit, the landlord must have provided the tenant prior written notice to cease the
offending behavior. [Citation.] Similarly, a tenant may be evicted for willfully causing
substantial damage to the premises only if, after written notice from the landlord, the
tenant ‘has refused to cease damaging the premises, or has refused to either make
satisfactory correction or to pay the reasonable costs of repairing such damage over a
reasonable period of time.’ [Citation.] The warning notices are to ‘be served by the
landlord prior to a notice to terminate tenancy,’ and they must ‘include a provision
informing tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction
proceedings.’ [Citation.] [Provisions in the ordinance] impose certain content