Committee debates changing rent-increase language, including whether utilities may be excluded
Loading...
Summary
A committee discussion and a motion sought to clarify how a draft ordinance treats rent increases and their effective dates, and whether utilities may be included in allowable increases; tenant advocates warned the current drafting could leave a legal loophole affecting tenants.
A city committee on housing and budget spent a large portion of its meeting examining draft ordinance language that members and public commenters said could allow rent increases that conflict with the ordinance’s intent.
An oral motion read by the committee (moved by Soto Martínez and seconded by Jurado) sought to change the ordinance text governing effective dates for rent increases. The motion as read referenced increases “starting June 2025 to July 30, 2026” and discussed an effective date of Feb. 2 for certain provisions; committee members asked staff to clarify which notices and effective dates would govern implemented increases.
Tenant advocates urged the committee to remove what they called legal loopholes. Cristina Burke, introduced herself as "abogada en Public Council," and said: “La forma en que se escribió se permite que se den los aumentos y no conforme a la ordenanza… Manteniendo ese resquicio legal, va a dañar a los inquilinos,” arguing the draft text could permit increases inconsistent with the ordinance and should be revised to protect tenants.
Staff and other committee members described the drafting as a transition between formulas and stressed technical details about when a notice is considered effective. Staff said the posted guidance and the drafted ordinance currently differ in wording and that the committee had not yet updated the website content; staff also indicated the city had been in an educational phase and had not identified intentional illegal increases.
The committee dialog focused on scenarios that could produce different outcomes — for example, a landlord who pays utilities and sends a notice prior to an effective-date change, or multi-year leases signed before the new ordinance terms. Members pressed staff on whether notices delivered before Feb. 2 would permit inclusion of utilities in later increases and whether long-term leases would be insulated from the change.
No final vote on the motion is recorded in the meeting transcript. At the close of the discussion several committee members indicated they believed they could proceed to vote, and members asked staff to clarify statutory wording and the intended dates before a final action.
The committee left the item pending further clarification of ordinance language and the relationship between posted guidance and the municipal code; staff were asked to return with precise drafting to remove the identified legal gaps and to confirm the practical effect on notices and lease scenarios.
