Board hears staff options to define "substantial compliance" and notice-of-noncompliance process

Staff presented background and options to the board for defining "substantial compliance" under Charter Article 18 and for creating a formal notice-of-noncompliance process.

Legal staff traced the history of the AGA rollout and noted that some landlords implemented increases before the board was fully operational; the Petrus Act (state law) minimizes penalties where owners made good-faith attempts to comply and cured defects after notice. Staff said the board could consider factors such as: whether an owner provided tenants with the required charter notice at lease inception; whether the landlord attempted to roll back rent or issue credits; and whether an owner promptly cured defects following a notice from the department.

Board members and staff discussed whether code-enforcement orders and compliance notices from other departments could be used as evidence of noncompliance or cure. Staff indicated they would draft proposed Chapter 8 language describing the notice-of-noncompliance process (with tenant cc'ed) and criteria for substantial compliance and bring the language back to the board.

Members stressed the need for clear, multilingual notice to tenants and asked staff to ensure any notice-and-cure process is consistent with state law and the Petrus Act. Board direction: staff will draft proposed regulation language that (a) explains how substantial compliance will be evaluated, (b) creates a formal notice-of-noncompliance (cc'ed to tenants), and (c) identifies how cures and credits will be counted toward substantial compliance.