Committee advances owner move-in reporting requirements, extends limitations period and seeks consolidation of parallel proposals

Supervisor Farrell introduced an ordinance aimed at deterring fraudulent owner move-in (OMI) evictions by imposing new reporting, documentation and transparency requirements on owners who file OMI notices. Farrell told the committee that recent reporting, including NBC Bay Area coverage, suggested that a substantial fraction of OMIs appeared fraudulent and that the city needed stronger tools to enforce good-faith occupancy requirements.

Under the proposed ordinance, owners seeking to recover possession for owner or relative move-in must sign a declaration under penalty of perjury confirming intent to occupy; file that declaration publicly with the Rent Board; and provide two forms of documentation proving occupancy (examples listed in the ordinance include recent utility bills, vehicle registration/insurance, government correspondence, or voter registration). The ordinance would require the first occupancy statement to be filed within three months of the eviction and then annually for the period the owner is required to occupy the unit. The measure also creates a rebuttable presumption that the landlord did not act in good faith if they fail to meet the reporting and documentation requirements and would extend the statute of limitations for wrongful-eviction actions from one year to three years.

Public testimony included tenant advocates and representatives from the Apartment Association, who expressed support for measures that deter abuse but asked for clarity on certain provisions (for example, opposition to a third-party private right of action). Supervisors discussed two parallel legislative versions introduced by different offices and agreed to work over the intervening week to conform the proposals and reconcile enforcement provisions. The committee accepted an amendment read into the record by the deputy city attorney to specify timing for the extended limitations period and then voted to accept amendments and continue the item to the next Land Use Committee meeting so sponsors could consolidate the language.

The committee’s action strengthens reporting and enforcement tools but does not itself create immediate criminal penalties; sponsors signaled they will attempt to reconcile differences between related proposals before returning consolidated legislation to the committee and Board.