According to the staff report Staff Report# 16-191-CC, the city wants to add staff to provide these services.

Notice how they vote on this after the council election.

A one year lease is good to keep the rent from being raised during the 12 mo. period, but a month to month rental agreement is better in case the tenant must move before the lease is up. We need rent control to limit how much and how often a landlord can raise the rent.

It sounds like they're making this more complicated than necessary. Why not have rent control, across the board so everyone is equally covered. It's a moral matter, simple. Arbitration board I know little about, and assume it involves other aspects of renting, perhaps moreso, than rent increases or outright evictions (Sand Hill Apartments).

I'd like to see that the city government must follow set guidelines referring to firm obligations of developers when displacing groups of residents. Again, a moral guide to follow and would affect the developer's bottom line, but I think those folks would still make out will in this area.

We've seen how well rent control has worked for San Francisco--not! Why would someone invest in rental property if the regulations are so stringent that the landlord's return on the investment is reduced? Certainly, we desperately need more rental units at a rate that the average person can afford, but why is it a property owner's obligation to provide that charity?

It's not charity, it's humanity.

Certainly there's some happy medium version of rent control. Tie it to inflation plus 1-2% max annual increase.

Here's the SF policy. Edit away to something reasonable for both parties.
Web Link

Just as an FYI to city officials

A side effect of passing rent control is landlords will raise rents before it starts especially to the one's that are under market,