Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 16-016 <br />as it would have the potential to negatively affect tenants who must pay the rent <br />increase when it’s effective, according to their lease agreements and State law, prior to <br />their case being heard by the Rent Review Board. <br />·Require landlords to submit their response forms within 10 calendar days from <br />their receipt of their tenants’ rent review hearing request forms; otherwise, their <br />rent increase is null and void. The Ordinance currently only encourages landlords to <br />submit their response forms. This change clarifies that landlords must submit their <br />response forms in a timely manner similarly to the tenants in order for the Board to <br />hear the case. <br />·Increase the number of days to schedule a Rent Review Board hearing. Currently, <br />a Board hearing must be scheduled within 50 days of an application. However, 60 days <br />is a more feasible timeframe particularly for 60-day rent increase notices. <br />·Formalize that a rent increase must be paid on its effective date. The existing <br />Ordinance is silent on the situation when, for example, the Board votes to continue a <br />case to a second and final meeting that goes beyond the noticed rent increase <br />effective date. Tenants will be required to pay the rent increase on the effective date of <br />the rent increase as the Ordinance cannot legally postpone the effective date of a rent <br />increase, but could be given rental credit or other consideration by the landlord should <br />a mutually satisfactory resolution result in a reduced rent increase amount. This <br />requirement also reduces the risk of tenants being unable to pay their landlords <br />multiple months of rent increases thus risking their tenancy. <br />·Incorporate the Retaliatory Eviction provision in its own section. The Retaliatory <br />Eviction provision of the Ordinance should be set apart and emphasized in its own <br />separate section. <br />·Require tenants and landlords to return for a second and final Continuance <br />hearing. The Board must hold a 1st hearing, then, if needed, a 2nd final Continuance <br />hearing prior to referring a rent review case to the City Manager (see below) to provide <br />more time for the tenant and landlord to negotiate a mutually satisfactory resolution to <br />their rent dispute. <br />·Refer unresolved cases to the City Manager instead of the City Council. The <br />intent of the Ordinance has always been for a mutual resolution of a proposed rent <br />increase between tenant and landlord. The Ordinance clearly states that the City is not <br />“a party to such an agreement nor shall the City or the Board assume any responsibility <br />for enforcement” of any agreement because the Board is a negotiation assistance body <br />that makes non-binding recommendations on cases. The City Manager is a more <br />appropriate authority for additional review of cases because he or she has more <br />flexibility to assist in the negotiation of unresolved cases. <br />·Require landlords to provide tenants notice of availability of rent review in the <br />predominant three languages (English, Spanish and Chinese) spoken within the <br />City. <br />Page 5 City of San Leandro Printed on 1/26/2016