S.F. Admin. Code ch. 37 § 37.14A
Hearings and Remedies for Violation of Residential Hotel Visitor Policies (San Francisco Rent Ordinance)
Operative Text
(a) Upon receipt of a petition from a current or former occupant of a residential hotel alleging violation of the provisions of Administrative Code Chapter 41D , including allegation of violation of the Uniform Visitor Policy or any Supplemental Visitor Policy, the Board through its Administrative Law Judges shall conduct a hearing in order to decide the petition. This decision may require a determination as to whether a residential hotel's policies and procedures are consistent with the Uniform Visitor Policy and any approved Supplemental Policies, and in compliance with Administrative Code Chapter 41D . (b) Upon an Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact and decision that the operator, employee or agent of a residential hotel has violated the Uniform Visitor Policy or any approved Supplemental Visitor Policy or any other provision of Chapter 41D , the Administrative Law Judge may conclude that the occupant has suffered a diminution in housing services and order a corresponding reduction in rent. (c) The decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall be final unless the Board vacates the decision on appeal. (d) Either party may file an appeal of the Administrative Law Judge's decision with the Board. Such appeals are governed by Section 37.8 (f).
Section 37.14A of the San Francisco Administrative Code establishes a formal hearing process through the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board for complaints involving residential hotel visitor policies governed by Chapter 41D. When an Administrative Law Judge finds that a hotel operator, employee, or agent has violated the Uniform Visitor Policy, an approved Supplemental Visitor Policy, or another provision of Chapter 41D, the judge may determine that the occupant experienced a reduction in housing services and order a corresponding rent reduction. The Administrative Law Judge's decision is considered final unless the Board overturns it on appeal, and either party may appeal under the procedures set out in Section 37.8(f).
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under § 37.14A, residential hotel operators whose visitor policies are found to be out of compliance with the Uniform Visitor Policy or any approved Supplemental Visitor Policy under Chapter 41D may face a rent reduction order issued by an Administrative Law Judge. Compliant operators generally maintain written visitor policies that align with Chapter 41D requirements, train staff and agents accordingly, and keep documentation of policy implementation. If a petition is filed, operators have the opportunity to participate in the hearing process and, if dissatisfied with the outcome, to file an appeal with the Board pursuant to Section 37.8(f).
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Section 37.14A gives current and former occupants of residential hotels the right to petition the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board if they believe a hotel operator, employee, or agent has violated the Uniform Visitor Policy, a Supplemental Visitor Policy, or another provision of Chapter 41D. If an Administrative Law Judge finds a violation, the judge may conclude that the occupant suffered a diminution in housing services and order a rent reduction as a remedy. Occupants who receive an unfavorable decision also have the right to appeal to the full Board under Section 37.8(f), and tenant-rights organizations familiar with San Francisco residential hotel regulations can help explain the petition and appeals process.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 15, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
Rules and statutes cited by this regulation
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.