Item 26 - Long-Term Implementation Plan for the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinances

Home Browse Search

19 19 included. Notably, all Sample Jurisdictions report receiving very few fair return petitions annually with the largest amount being seven. For example, West Hollywood received only two (2) fair return petitions in the past ten (10) years. Jurisdictions stated that they believe there are two reasons for this: 1) landlords do not want to go through the administrative petition process that is required; and 2) landlords, even when adhering to rent stabilization ordinances, do receive a fair return from their rental property. The City should consider the following as part of their long-term implementation of the RSO and JCEO programs: 7. Create a Landlord Capital Improvement Petition and Tenant Petition - Some Sample Jurisdictions include capital improvements as part of a fair return petition while others have a separate petition. The benefit to having a separate landlord capital improvement petition is that it incentivizes landlords to improve their property knowing they can pass through some of these costs to their tenants. Alternatively, while tenants may benefit from the capital improvement in the long term, it results in an increase in rent for tenants above the annual allowable rent increase imposed by the RSO. All Sample Jurisdictions allow for tenant rent change petitions, allowing tenants to have an administrative tool to address excess rent based on conditions of the rental unit, reduction in services, issues of habitability, and landlord violations of the ordinance. These petitions are also beneficial in aiding in monitoring compliance with the ordinance and help maintain current rental data in the rental registry. 8. Establish Petition Fees and a Petition Review Process – Currently, the City’s ordinance requires applicants to pay for the cost of a consultant to review Fair Return petitions. The City should establish individual petition fees and appeal fees that are separate from the rental registry fee by including this component in the fee study. The fee study should consider the options of having the rental registry fee fully cover the expense of petitions or having additional petition fees to recover staff costs for the review of petitions. Two (2) of the seven (7) Sample Jurisdictions do not have individual petitions fees but are fully funded through their rental registry fees. Jurisdictions with petitions fees expressed that they chose to institute these fees due to a large amount of work that is required per petition, which many are eventually resolved through administrative means rather than going through the full petition review process. Currently, the City’s ordinances place the decision-making responsibility for fair return petitions on the City Manager or a designee. Understanding that petitions require lengthy administrative work, communication with landlords and tenants, as well as processing time, the City should determine the most efficient use of time and budget for petitions. Many of the Sample Jurisdictions have specific staff members coordinating petition reviews with the applicant to ensure proper document submission while smaller organizations contract these services out. After a review and approval, the application is forwarded to the decision-maker. The decision- makers for appeals in the Sample Jurisdictions range from internal hearing officers, to contracted hearing officers/examiners, or the Rental Housing Board. Tying into the overall organization of the program administration, the City will need to determine what the petition review process will be for each type of petition.