10e Consent - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Housing Division Evaluation Reports July 2018 to June 2022 Part II: Rent Review Ordinance Page 2 of 13 II. Rent Review Ordinance During the FY 2018-2019 reporting period there were 16 tenant households that requested a Rent Review Board (RRB) hearing. Comparing this number to the 29 RRB requests in FY 17-18 there was a significant reduction in hearing applications. In FY 2018-2019, 5 applications for a RRB hearing were not subject to the Ordinance: 3 were applications for rent increases that were not >7%, 1 was an owner- occupied mobilehome, and 1 was a Single Family Residential unit, which are exempt. The monthly rent increases on all RRB hearing applications averaged 14%, the median was 13%, and the highest rent increase was 33%. Although there was an increase in the number of inquiries related to rent increases, City Housing Division staff mediated many instances of tenant and owner/property manager discord that resulted in fewer Rent Review Board Hearing Requests by the City’s tenants. The following is the breakdown of the outcome of those requests (see Appendix A for case details): • 5 (or 31%) cases were ineligible for a RRB hearing as they were not subject to the ordinance; • 5 (or 31%) cases did not have a hearing scheduled; Of those cases, following is why they were not heard: o 3 (or 19% of total cases) cases where the rent increase triggered the Tenant Relocation Ordinance that prompted the property manager to reduce the rent to below 7% therefore not triggering the Rent Review Ordinance nor the Tenant Relocation Ordinance; o 1 (or 6% of total cases) cases where the rent increase triggered the Tenant Relocation Ordinance that prompted the tenant to move out; o 1 (or 6% of total cases) cases where the eligibility of the case was disputed and ultimately decided that the housing unit was not subject to the ordinance; • 6 (or 38%) of FY 2018-2019 cases that were scheduled for a hearing; o 5 (or 33% of total cases) were resolved at the hearing; o 1 (or 7% of total cases) had a second hearing scheduled and there was no resolution at that hearing. During the FY 2019-2020 reporting period and as noted before, given the implementation of AB 1482, there were only 5 RRB hearing requests representing a one-third reduction in hearing applications received in FY 2018-2019. The following is the breakdown of the outcome of those requests (see Appendix B for case details): • 2 (or 40%) cases were ineligible for a RRB hearing as they were not subject to the ordinance; • 2 (or 40%) cases did not have a hearing scheduled; Of those cases, following is why they were not heard: o In both cases the rent increase triggered the Tenant Relocation Ordinance that prompted the property manager to reduce the rent to below 7% therefore not triggering the Rent Review Ordinance nor the Tenant Relocation Ordinance; o 1 (or 20%) case was scheduled for a hearing and was resolved at the hearing.