(21) “Lawful Rent Increase” shall mean the Annual Allowable Rent Increase together with any Fair Return Rent Increase permitted for the Covered Rental Unit as specified in this Chapter. Lawful Rent Increase expressly excludes any Unlawful Rent increase.
(22) “Lower-Income Tenant” shall mean a person and family whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, or as otherwise defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
(23) “Property” shall mean the property parcel in which the Dwelling Unit or Units are located.
(24) “Protected Tenant” shall mean any Lower-Income Tenant, Disabled Tenant, Senior Tenant, Terminally Ill Tenant, and any Tenant whose household contains School-Aged Children.
(25) "Rent" shall mean all periodic payments and all nonmonetary consideration including, but not limited to, the fair market value of goods, labor performed or services rendered to or for the benefit of the Landlord under a Rental Agreement concerning the use or occupancy of a Dwelling Unit and premises and attendant Housing Services, including all payment and consideration demanded or paid for parking, utility charges, pets, furniture, and other benefits, privilege or facility connected with the use or occupancy of the Dwelling Unit.
(26) "Rental Agreement" shall mean an oral or written lease, sublease, or similar agreement between a Landlord and a Tenant for the lawful occupancy of a Dwelling Unit.
(27) “School-Aged Child” or “School-Aged Children” shall mean any dependent child under the age of eighteen (18) living in the Tenant’s Covered Rental Unit and who attends a Mount Diablo Unified School District public school.
(28) “School Year” shall mean the first day of instruction for the fall semester through the last day of instruction for the Spring semester, as posted on the Mount Diablo Unified School District website.
(29) “Senior Tenant” shall mean a Tenant who is at least sixty- two (62) years of age or older as defined in Government Code Section 7060.4.
(30) "State" shall mean the State of California.
(31) “Substantial Remodel” or “Substantially Remodel” shall mean either of the following that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner that allows the Tenant to remain living in the Covered Rental Unit and that requires the Tenant to vacate the Covered Rental Unit for at least thirty (30) consecutive days: (i) the replacement or substantial Commented [6]: This is an unnecessary qualifier.
modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency; or (ii) the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws. Cosmetic improvements alone, including painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the Covered Rental Unit vacated, do not qualify as substantial remodel.
(32) "Tenancy" shall mean the lawful occupation of a Dwelling Unit and includes a lease or a sublease.
(33) "Tenant" shall mean a tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or any other person entitled under the terms of a Rental Agreement to the use or occupancy of any Dwelling Unit.
(34) “Terminally Ill Tenant” shall mean a Tenant who has a terminal disease as defined in California’s End of Life Option Act as any “incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months” pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 443.1 and which is verified in writing by the Tenant’s medical care provider.
(35) “Unlawful Rent” shall mean any Rent charged by a Landlord to and paid by a Tenant for a Covered Rental Unit which exceeds the Tenant’s Base Rent together plus any Lawful Rent Increase.
(d) Citation. This chapter may be referred to as the “Residential Tenant Protection Program” of the City of Concord. The words “this chapter” and “this Ordinance” are used interchangeably herein.
2. 19.40.020 GENERAL APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER; EXEMPTIONS.
This Chapter shall apply to all Landlords and Tenants in Dwelling Units within the jurisdictional limits of the City, unless otherwise exempted by State law or the provisions of this Chapter.
(a) Fully Exempt (Exempt from Both Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction). The following Dwelling Units are exempt from all provisions of this Chapter:
(1) Units in Hotels as defined in Code Section 3.15.220 which are rented primarily to Transients as defined in Code Section 3.15.220.
(2) Institutional Facilities. Housing accommodations in a hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures published by the State Department of Social Services.
(3) Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12 inclusive, school.
(3). Government Owned. Housing accommodations which are owned by a public agency or authority, or which are specifically exempted under State or federal law or administrative regulation.
(4) Dwelling Units in which the Tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the Owner who maintains their principal residence at the Property.
(5) Emergency shelters, and homeless shelters as defined in Code Section
18.200.070.
(6) Residential facility/ies, as defined in Code Section 18.20.020.
(7). Other than Dwelling Units that are restricted via a regulatory agreement from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (i.e. low income housing tax credit financed Dwelling Units), Dwelling Units restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(6) Permitted, Accessory Dwelling Units on the same lot as a Single Family Home that is Owner Occupied at the commencement of the tenancy.
(b) Partially Exempt (Exempt from Rent Stabilization but subject to Just Cause for Eviction). The following Dwelling Units are exempt from all Rent Stabilization provisions of this Chapter:
(1) Dwelling Units that are expressly exempt under State or federal law, including California Civil Code sections 1954.52 and 1954.53. This includes any Dwelling Unit that has a certificate of occupancy or equivalent permit for residential occupancy issued after February 1, 1995. For this purpose, a certificate of occupancy is the certificate issued before the Property is used for any residential purposes.
(2) Any Dwelling Unit that is alienable separate (i.e., separately transferrable) from the title to any other Dwelling Unit, or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in California Business and Professions Code Section 11004.5 (b), (d), or (f), including without limitation single family residences and condominiums, but excluding mobile homes offered for rent.
(2) Rental Units fully owned, operated, and managed by a Contra Costa-County government unit, agency or authority. This exemption applies only if applicable federal or state law or administrative regulation specifically exempt such units.
Commented [7]: This is not legally required.
Commented [8]: A core demand of tenant advocates is
that LIHTC properties are covered. This proposed
ordinance provides that LIHTC is covered. However, it
exempts other types of properties that may resemble
LIHTC.
Just because a property is “restricted” it does not mean the rent is controlled. There is no legal or policy
justification for this exemption. Especially when applied to housing for moderate-income families.
The language of this exemption is particularly broad. It is unclear if a government agency even needs to be
involved in order to qualify.
If one private party deeds to another with a “restriction” for moderate-income households, is the property now
exempt?
Exemptions such as these open the door for
exploitation. This exemption should be deleted in its
entirety.
Commented [9]: The Concord Municipal Code’s
definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit is so broad
that almost any housing unit can qualify as an ADU.
The suggested language encourages owners to build
and rent ADUs while providing clarity so this exemption is not used as a loophole.
Commented [10]: This exemption, as written, applies to
more housing units than required by state law. (Cal.
Civ. Code, § 1954.52 subds. (a)(3)(B), (d).) This text is eliminated and replaced with additional language in
subdivision (1) ensuring the ordinance does not conflict with the Costa-Hawkins Rental Act.
(3) Non- Profit residential facility/ies, except for supportive or group housing as defined in Code Section 18.20.020.
3. 19.40.030 RENT STABILIZATION.
(a) Subject to Section 19.20.020, and effective as of the effective date of this chapterJanuary 12, 2023, no Landlord shall charge Rent in an amount that exceeds the Base Rent plus any Lawful Rent Increases implemented by this Chapter.
(b) If a Landlord imposed a Rent increase on a Tenancy after January 12, 2023, the Landlord shall owe the Tenant a refund of such Rent increase paid by the Tenant, which refund shall be paid as follows:
(1) If the Landlord imposed a Rent increase on a Tenancy on or after September 1, 2023, the Landlord shall, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Ordinance, provide the Tenants entitled to a refund, written notice of the amount of the refund together with a full refund payment by cash or check.
(2) If the Landlord imposed a Rent increase on a Tenancy on or after January 12, 2023, but before September 1, 2023, the refund may, at Landlord’s election, be in the form of a rent credit or a cash payment. The Landlord shall, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Ordinance, provide the Tenants entitled to a refund written notice of the amount of the refund and the time period and method by which the refund shall be paid; provided, however, that in no event shall the time period over which the refund is paid exceed the total number of months during which the Rent increase was effective.
4. 19.40.040 PERMITTED RENT INCREASES FOR COVERED RENTAL UNITS.
(a) A Landlord may impose an annual Rent increase for any Covered Rental Unit, as allowed in this Section after providing prior written notice to the Tenant of the Rent increase pursuant to California Civil Code Section 827, as may be amended.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Landlord shall be prohibited from imposing an Allowable Annual Rent Increase, unless the Covered Rental Unit is registered with the City pursuant to Section 19.40.060, the Landlord is not delinquent in registry fees, accrued interest, fines, and penalties pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 (Rent Registry) and/or Section
19.40.060, as applicable, and has provided to the Tenant any refund owed pursuant to Section
19.40.030, if applicable.
(c) Allowable Annual Rent Increases. This Chapter shall limit annual Rent increases on Covered Rental Units to no more than sixty percent (60%) of the percentage increase in CPI published and reported in April of the current year, provided however in no event shall the Commented [MOU11]: The definition of residential
facilities includes “group housing” that would exempt a large number of units such as SROs, extended-stay
hotels, cooperative houses, co-living homes, etc.
Tenants who live in these types of housing
accommodations are often low-income and particularly
vulnerable. The group home definition is so broad that
this ordinance could be interpreted to not apply to any housing unit occupied by more than one person.
The supportive housing definition is also unreasonably
broad, and if implemented would allow an exemption
as soon as the landlord offers tenants “services”
whether requested or not
We suggest moving this exemption to the partially
exempted category and adding a non-profit
requirement. This will prohibit completely reasonless
evictions of senior citizens and disabled individuals
while allowing non-profit facilities additional flexability.
Allowable Annual Rent Increase exceed three percent (3%). In the event that the percentage change in the CPI is negative, the Allowable Annual Rent Increase shall be zero percent (0%) The Allowable Annual Rent Increase shall be rounded to the nearest one-quarter of a percent.
(d) Only one Allowable Annual Rent Increase and one Fair Return Rent Increase may be imposed on a Tenant household in any twelve (12) month period, unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter.
(e) Rent Increase Following Vacancy (Vacancy Decontrol). When a Tenant voluntarily moves out of a Covered Rental Unit, the Landlord may set the initial Rent for the next Tenant, without restriction, at the commencement of the new Tenancy.
(f) Rent Banking Prohibited. A Landlord who does not impose an Allowable Annual Rent Increase or any portion thereof in the applicable twelve month period automatically waives that Allowable Annual Rent Increase or the remaining portion of that Allowable Annual Rent Increase for the remainder of the Tenancy.
5. 19.40.050 RENT ADJUSTMENT PETITIONS.
(a) Fair Return Petitions. Landlords who believe they are not receiving a fair return on their Property may submit a Fair Return Petition to the City to request an increase in Rent beyond that which is permitted under Section 19.40.040.
(1) Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted to authorize any Lawful Rent Increase in any twelve month period for a Covered Rental Unit in excess of the amount authorized pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1947.12, as may be amended. If a Hearing Officer awards a Landlord a Fair Return Rent Increase in excess of the maximum allowable Rent increase pursuant to this Civil Code Section 1947.12.40.050, the Landlord may carry forward any portion of the Fair Return Rent Increase that could not be taken to a subsequent year until the full Fair Return Rent Increase is imposed.
(2) No Fair Return Petition shall be deemed submitted or accepted until all of the following have occurred:
a. Tthe Landlord has registered the Property and paid all current and past- due registration fees for the Property pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 (Rent Registry) and/or current Section 19.40.060, as applicable; and
b. The Landlord has paid refunds owed to Tenants, if any, pursuant to Section 19.40.030.
(3) No Fair Return Rent Increases shall become effective until all of the following have occurred:
Commented [12]: Fair return petitions should be
allowed when the landlord is not receiving a fair return.
Generally, fair return petitions are supposed to be rare.
Most landlords should not need to file one ever, and
certainly should not need to file more than one.
The petition process is meant as a constitutional safety valve for rare situations where a landlord is unable to make any profit.
a. The Landlord has provided written notice of the Fair Return Rent Increase for the Covered Rental Unit in accordance with California Civil Code Section 827, as may be amended;
b. After a hearing is held, the Hearing Officer, in a written decision, grants the Fair Return Rent Increase; and
c. All amounts due and payable to the City in connection with the Fair Return Petition and hearing have been paid in full.
(4) Standard for Approving a Fair Return Petition.
a. Fair Return. The Landlord has the right to a constitutional fair rate of return on their investment. obtain a net operating income equal to the Base Year net operating income adjusted by the percentage increase in the CPI since the Base Year. It shall be presumed that this standard provides a fair return. The current year CPI shall be the annual CPI for the calendar year preceding the calendar year the Fair Return Petition is filed. When considering if a landlord is obtaining a constitutional fair rate of return, the Hearing Officer shall specifically consider factors, including, but not limited to,
(i) Increases or decreases in property taxes;
(ii) Unavoidable increases or any decreases in maintenance and operating expenses;
(iii) The cost of planned or completed capital improvements to the rental unit (as distinguished from ordinary repair, replacement and maintenance) where such capital improvements are necessary to bring the property into compliance or maintain compliance with applicable local code requirements affecting health and safety, and where such capital improvement costs are properly amortized over the life of the improvement;
(iv) Increases or decreases in the number of tenants occupying the rental unit, living space, furniture, furnishings, equipment, or other housing services provided, or occupancy rules;
(v) Substantial deterioration of the controlled rental unit other than as a result of normal wear and tear;
(vi) Failure on the part of the landlord to provide adequate housing services, or to comply substantially with applicable state rental housing laws, local housing, health and safety codes, or the rental agreement;
(vii) The pattern of recent rent increases or decreases; Commented [13]: Absent significant clarification, this is an unreasonable standard that could make the entire
ordinance useless. Without clarification as to how “net operating income” is calculated, this standard is not a constitutional fair rate of return, but rather, a guarantee that landlords make increased cash profits each and
every year they operate.
The provision is especially troubling as, without
clarification, the landlord can invest in their property, creating an artificial “loss” which can be used as a
justification to evade the ordinance’s protections. For example, under this provision, a landlord could
renovate vacant units and then pass those costs on to
rent-controlled tenants.
This standard, as drafted, effectively creates a
corporate landlord exemption to rent control.
We recommend replacing this language with language
from the city of Richmond. (Richmond Mun. Code, §
11.100.070 subd. (g).) While Richmond utilizes a
similar initial standard, the standard is sufficiently
clarified as to avoid abuse. (Richmond Rent Board
Regulation, 905 available at
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4
7043/City-of-Richmond-Rent-Board-Regulations )
Without detailed rules such as those passed by
Richmond, landlords can “cook the books,” easily
getting around any rent increase.
The ordinance should be passed with the suggested
framework. Concord can then pass regulations similar
to Richmond. The community must be involved in the
passage of these regulations
(viii) The rental rates of all units on the Property.
(iv) The number of unoccupied units on the Property
(b) It is the intent of this chapter that individual upward adjustments in Rent only be made when the landlord demonstrates that such adjustments are necessary to provide the landlord with a fair return on investment necessary to ensure this chapter does not infringe on the right of a landlord to receive a reasonable rate of return on their investment.
(c) The Landlord shall have the burden to demonstrate that the rent increase prescribed by section 19.40.040(c) is not sufficient to provide a Fair Return. A decrease or loss of cash profits in one or more year, in and of itself, is not sufficient for a landlord to meet their burden.
(d) The hearing officer must consider the financial state of the Property as a whole when determining if an increase above the amount prescribed by section
19.40.040(c) is warranted for any particular Dwelling Unit.
b. Base Year Net Operating Income Adjustment. The Landlord may present evidence to rebut the presumption of a fair return based on the Base Year net operating income based on either:
(i) exceptional expenses in the Base Year, including but not limited to extraordinary amounts expended for necessary maintenance and repairs, or unreasonably high or low expenses; or
(ii) exceptional circumstances in the Base Year, including but not limited to gross income that is lower than it might have been.
(5) Notices Upon Submitting Petition.
a. Within five (5) calendar days after submission of a Landlord's Fair Return Petition to the City, the Landlord shall serve each affected Tenant with a notice of the Fair Return Petition via personal service or certified mail, return receipt requested.
b. Within ten (10) calendar days after service on each affected Tenant, the Landlord shall file with the City a proof of service, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that a copy of the petition was served upon each affected Tenant.
Commented [14]: Return receipts make it less likely that the tenant actually receives the notice without adding
much certainty as to delivery.
(6) No Pass Through. Fees and costs incurred by a Landlord for making a Fair Return Petition may not be passed on to a Tenant. but may be included as operating expenses for the calendar year in which they were incurred for purposes of determining net operating income. Such fees and costs include, but are not limited to, attorney fees, accountant fees, and other similar professional services costs.
(b) Tenant Petitions. If a Landlord demands or retains Unlawful Rent for a Covered Rental Unit, a Tenant may file a petition to adjust the Rent to its lawful level.
(1) Unlawful Rent. If a Tenant believes that the Landlord is demanding Unlawful Rent for a Covered Rental Unit, then the Tenant may submit a Tenant petition to the City.
(2) Decrease in Housing Services. A decrease in Housing Services of a Covered Rental Unit, without a corresponding reduction in Rent, is considered an increase in Rent.
Before filing a petition with the City, a Tenant shall provide the Landlord all of the following (copies of which must be submitted with the Tenant petition):
a. Prior written notice identifying the decrease in Housing Services of a Covered Rental Unit; and
b. A reasonable opportunity to correct the issue(s).
(3) Notices Upon Submitting Petition.
a. Within five (5) calendar days after submission of a Tenant petition for rent adjustment to the City, the Tenant shall serve the Landlord with said petition via personal service or certified mail, return receipt requested.
b. Within ten (10) calendar days after service on the Landlord, the Tenant shall file with the City a proof of service, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that a copy of the petition was served on the Landlord.
(c) Petition Forms. Fair Return and Tenant petitions must be filed on petition forms prescribed by the City and accompanied by such supporting material as the City may require.
Each petition shall be made under penalty of perjury.
(d) Petition Fees.
(1) Fair Return Petitions.
a. Landlords filing a Fair Return Petition shall be responsible for all City costs associated with such petition, including, but not limited to the cost of the Hearing Officers, any costs associated with experts, inspection fees, and any other costs. The City shall provide the Landlord with an estimate of the costs at Commented [15]: Written notice is a requirement that
the law generally does not impose on tenants facing
habitability issues or breaches of contract.
If the tenant cannot prove the landlord knew, that would be a defense to the landlord in a hearing. However,
categorically requiring written proof in order to file is an unfair requirement on tenants. Especially since some
landlords conceal their contact addresses.
least 45 calendar days prior to the first date set for the hearing. The Landlord shall deposit with the City the full estimated cost of the hearing at least 30 calendar days prior to the first date set for the hearing. If the deposit is not timely received by the City, the hearing will be postponed, and the hearing shall not be rescheduled until such time as the deposit is received. City shall have the right to deduct costs incurred from the deposit. Upon the completion of the hearing, the City shall prepare a final invoice of hearing costs.
b. To the extent that the final invoice amount exceeds the amount deposited by the Landlord, the Landlord shall pay the difference to the City within 10 days of receipt of the final invoice. To the extent the final invoice amount is less than the amount deposited by the Landlord, the City shall issue a refund to the Landlord for the difference. The City will not issue the Hearing Officer’s final decision until the City has received full payment of the final invoice, and no Fair Return Rent Increase, if approved, may be imposed until full payment is received by the City.
(2) Tenant Petitions. There shall not be any fee charged for Tenants filing a petition for a downward adjustment of Rent.
(e) Hearing Process.
(1) Upon receipt of a Fair Return or Tenant petition and the proof(s) of service that the petition has been served as provided above, the City shall appoint a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing on the petition and to render a final decision on the merits of the petition, subject to this Chapter and any procedures and guidelines promulgated by the City Manager.
(2) Each party to a petition shall receive sufficient advance notice of the time, date, and place of any hearing regarding the petition.
(3) The Hearing Officer may require either party to a petition to provide any books, records, and papers deemed pertinent.
(4) If the Hearing Officer finds good cause to believe that a building or other inspection would assist in resolving the issues raised in the petition, the Hearing Officer may conduct an inspection and/or request that the City conduct an inspection. Any party submitting a petition shall be required to cooperate with the City to grant and/or secure permission to conduct such inspection, within the constraints of applicable law; failure to do so shall be considered an automatic and voluntary withdrawal of that party’s petition upon written notice by the City thereof. The parties to the petition may be present during the inspection.
(5) All hearings conducted pursuant to this Chapter shall be open to the parties and their designated representatives, but shall not be open to the public.
Commented [16]: The decision is subject to a writ
petition even under the language of this ordinance.
Commented [17]: Most tenants work during regular
business hours. Absent clarification, this could lead to unjust results.
Commented [18]: Tenants should have the right to be
accompanied by anyone they please, for example,
members of their tenant union, friends, family, or
witnesses. The public has a right to attend these
hearings.
It is unclear what legal authority the City would rely on to shield documents from public disclosure and exclude
the public. Secret hearings are legally questionable and contrary to the First Amendment.
(f) Assistance or Representation Authorized. All parties to a petition may seek assistance from attorneys, recognized tenant organization representatives, or any other person designated by said parties.
(g) Consolidation. All Fair Return Petitions pertaining to Tenants in the same Property shall be consolidated for determination. Tenant petitions for Rent adjustment from Tenants residing in the same Property may be consolidated at the election of the City, in its sole discretion.
(h) Quantum of Proof and Notice of Decision. No petition shall be granted unless supported by the preponderance of the evidence submitted prior to and at the hearing. All parties to the petition shall be sent notice of the decision.
(i) Finality of Decision. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be the final decision and shall not be appealable to the City Council. Any party disputing the final conclusions and findings of the Hearing Officer may seek review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6.
(j) Time of Hearing and Decision. The City shall not be required to accept petitions until September 1, 2024. The City shall endeavor, but shall not be required, to schedule a hearing on a petition within ninety (930) days after submittal to the City of the petition and the proof(s) of service. A final decision on a petition shall be made within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing.
6. 19.40.060 ANNUAL RENTAL REGISTRATION.
(a) Registration of Covered Rental Unit. On or before July 1 of each year, a Landlord shall register any Covered Rental Unit through the City’s designated rent registry portal, shall provide all required information, shall pay the required rent registry fees, and shall annually submit reports. To the extent that a Landlord has previously complied with the requirements of former Section 19.40.110 (Rent Registry), the Landlord shall on or before July 1, 2024, update the registration previously completed pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 to comply with the requirements of this Chapter.
(b) Rent Registry Fees. A Landlord shall pay the required rent registry fees as set forth in the City Council adopted Resolution Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services. The fees will be used to finance the cost of the rent registry and implementation and enforcement of this Chapter including, but not limited to, administrative time and costs, legal fees and costs, and any other expense incurred to implement, administer, or enforce this Chapter.
(c) Late Fees, Penalty For Late Payment; Penalty For Incomplete Or False Information.
Should a Landlord fail to pay all or a portion of the rent registry fees, or provide incomplete or false information, the City may recover the outstanding amounts, plus accrued interest, fines, and penalties, utilizing any remedies provided by law or in equity, including municipal tax lien Commented [19]: We recommend an internal appeal
process. This ensures that hearing officers are fair
while simultaneously decreasing costly litigation
against the city.
As written, a tenant’s only recourse following an
erroneous decision by a hearing officer would be to file a writ petition in superior court. The Concord City
Attorney would then presumably need to represent the
city in a formal litigation setting. This is avoidable.
Commented [20]: 90 days is a long time, especially for
an aspirational standard.
procedures established by ordinance or State law. Such sums shall be calculated as set forth in the Resolution Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services and applicable law, may be applied on a per-unit basis, and may be subject to adjustment by the City Attorney or Hearing Officer.
(d) Past Due Amounts. To the extent that a Landlord owes rental registry fees, accrued interest, fines, or penalties incurred prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, such amounts shall continue to be owed and continue to accrue. See also Sections 19.40.040(b) and
19.40.050(a)(2).
(e) Notices of termination. Within ten (10) days of service of a notice terminating tenancy upon a tenant, a copy of the same notice and any accompanying materials must be submitted to the City’s designated rent registry portal. Each notice shall be indexed by property address and by the name of the landlord.
(f) Failure to comply with section 19.40.060 shall be a defense to Unlawful Detainer.
7. 19.40.070 JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION.
(a) This Section 19.40.070 shall apply to all Landlords and Tenants in Dwelling Units within the jurisdictional limits of the City, unless otherwise exempted by State law or the provisions of this Chapter. This Section 19.40.070 shall apply to all Landlords and Tenants in Dwelling Units within the jurisdictional limits of the City, unless otherwise exempted by State law or the provisions of this Chapter.
(b) When serving a notice terminating tenancy, filing an unlawful detainer, obtaining an eviction judgment, seeking a writ of execution, or endeavoring to recover possession of a rental unit in any way terminating a Tenancy For Cause or No-Fault, a Landlord must comply with all of the following:
(1) The Landlord must serve a written notice, to the Tenant that, in addition to any information required by federal or State law, the Landlord will terminate the Tenant's Tenancy because of at least one For Cause or No-Fault reason states a ground for eviction as described in subdivision (c) or (d) of this section; and
(2) The Landlord has not accepted and will not accept Rent or any other consideration in return for the continued use of the Covered Rental Unit beyond the term of the terminated Tenancy. in compliance with California Civil Code Sections 1945, 1946, and 1946.1, as may be amended ; and
(3) The Landlord qualifies the termination as For Cause or No-Fault, as specified in this Section. Must seek to recover possession for the stated cause in good faith, honest intent, and no ulterior motive.
Commented [MOU21]: This provision ensures that the city can track trends in evictions and create effective policy. (See Oakland Mun. Code § 8.22.360 subd. (B)(7).)
Commented [MOU22]: This provision is common and
ensures that landlords register. Without such a provision, landlords will feel little need to comply. (See Oakland Mun.
Code, § 8.22.360 subd. (D)(7).)
Commented [23]: This critical language ensures that a
landlord cannot argue that the remedies at section
19.40.120 do not apply to acts like constructive
evictions or harassment tactics. For example, it should be clear that a landlord who shuts off a tenant’s utilities, forcing them to leave, is subject to the remedies of this ordinance, as they evicted without a just cause. This
language is used by other cities. (See Oakland Mun.
Code, § 8.22.360 subd. (A).)
Commented [24]: This language will also protect
tenants who are in eviction court when the ordinance
becomes effective. This is imperative as some Concord
landlords are likely rushing to evict tenants.
Commented [25]: This language makes clear that the
just cause must be stated in the notice. It is not
sufficient for the landlord to merely terminate the
tenancy “because” of a just cause. This language is
absolutely necessary.
Commented [26]: There is other legal authority that
prohibits this. For example, California Code of Civil
Procedure section 1161 and the case law interpreting
it.
Commented [27]: Clarified in subdivision (1) above.
Commented [28]: This language is from the city of
Oakland, and used to prevent pretextual evictions.
(Oakland Mun. Code, § 8.22.360 subd. (D)(1)(b).)
Pretextual evictions are not necessarily retaliatory.
(See Cal. Civ. Code, § 1942.5) As such, protections
are required to ensure landlords do not pursue no-fault evictions in order to displace rent-controlled tenants.
(4) Failing to strictly comply with the provisions of section 19.40.070, including any provisions concerning notice, shall be a defense to unlawful detainer.
(c) For Cause Termination of Tenancy. If a Landlord can show any of the following circumstances, following a written notice to cease, with respect to a termination of Tenancy in a Covered Rental Unit, the termination qualifies as a For Cause Termination:
(1) Default in the payment of Rent The tenant has failed to pay rent to which the landlord is legally entitled pursuant to the lease or rental agreement and under provisions of state or local law, and said failure has continued after service on the tenant of a written notice correctly stating the amount of rent then due and requiring its payment within a period, stated in the notice, of not less than three days. However, this subsection shall not constitute grounds for eviction where tenant has withheld rent pursuant to applicable law.
(2) A breach in the material term of the Rental Agreement, as described in paragraph (23) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the Rental Agreement after being issued a written notice to correct the violation.
a. Notwithstanding any lease provision to the contrary, a landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit as a result of subletting of the rental unit by the tenant if the landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublet following a written request by the tenant, so long as the tenant continues to reside in the rental unit and the sublet constitutes a one-for-one replacement of the departing tenant(s). If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant's written request, the tenant's request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
b. Landlord's reasonable refusal of the Tenant's written request may not be based on the proposed occupant's lack of Creditworthiness, if the occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the Rent directly to the Landlord.
c. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section 42.8(B), a Landlord shall not attempt to recover possession of a Rental Unit as a result of the addition to the Rental Unit of a Tenant's Family Member, so long as the number of occupants does not exceed the maximum lawful number of occupants as determined under section 503(b) of the Uniform Housing Code as incorporated by California Health & Safety Code section 17922.
(3) Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Commented [29]: This provides tenants a warning
before the landlord has grounds to evict. For many of
the stated reasons, a warning notice is required. For
example, a tenant must be provided 3-days to pay rent.
Merely showing a “default in the payment of rent” is not sufficient grounds for an eviction. (Cal. Code. Civ. Proc, § 1161 subd. (2).)
Commented [30]: This language is from the city of
Oakland’s Ordinance. (Oakland Mun. Code, §
8.22.360(A)(1).) The language clarifies that there are
circumstances in which non-payment is justified. (See
Cal. Civ. Code, § 1942.4.)
Commented [31]: Paragraph two is non-payment of
rent.
Commented [32]: This appears to be a typo.
Commented [33]: This language is also from the city of
Oakland. (Oakland Mun. Code, § 8.22.360 subd.
(A)(2)(a).) The language is necessary to ensure that
landlords cannot frustrate the ability of tenants to pay rent by unreasonably refusing to let the tenants replace departing roommates. This tactic can be used by
landlords to clear rent-controlled rental units by
manufacturing unreasonable non-payment cases.
(4) Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5). The Tenant had a written Rental Agreement, and after a written request or demand from the Landlord, the Tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the Rental Agreement for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Chapter or any other provision of law.
(5) Criminal activity by the Tenant in the Covered Rental Unit or on the Property, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the Penal Code, or criminal activity by the Tenant on or off the Property that is directed at other Tenants or the Landlord.
(7). Assigning or subletting the Covered Rental Unit in violation of the Rental Agreement, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(6) The Tenant’s refusal to allow the Landlord to enter the Covered Rental Unit as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 of the Civil Code, and Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
(7) Using the Covered Rental Unit or any portion of the Property for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(7) The employee, agent, or licensee’s failure to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(8) When the Tenant fails to deliver possession of the Covered Rental Unit after providing the Landlord written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the Civil Code of the Tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of the Covered Rental Unit, or makes a written offer to surrender the Covered Rental Unit that is accepted in writing by the Landlord, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that written notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d) No-Fault Termination of Tenancy. If a Landlord can show any of the following circumstances with respect to a termination of Tenancy in a Covered Rental Unit, the termination qualifies as a No-Fault termination.
(1) Owner Move Ins. Intent to occupy the Covered Rental Unit by the Landlord or the Landlord’s Family Member in good faith, honest intent, and without ulterior motive for 36 months.
a. A Landlord may not terminate a Tenancy based on intent to occupy the Covered Rental Unit by the Landlord or the Landlord’s Family Member if the Commented [34]: This is subjective and opens the door
for abuse. Oakland’s language requires the terms of
tenancy to be “materially the same.” Oakland voters
later voted to completely remove this cause for
eviction. (Oakland Mun. Code, § 8.22.360 subd. (a)(3).) We recommend this provision be completely eliminated
or, at minimum, the “materially the same” language be
used.
Allowing eviction for refusing to sign a “similar” lease leads to unnecessary litigation between landlords and
tenants. It is not fair to tenants or landlords to hinge the outcome of an eviction lawsuit on such a subjective
standard.
Commented [35]: This just cause allows landlords to
frustrate tenants’ ability to pay rent by refusing the right to one-to-one replacements of departing roommates.
We recommend the language from Oakland in
subdivision (2) as a reasonable solution.
Landlords can still evict for subletting, but tenants are provided a reasonable opportunity for a one-to-one
replacement.
Commented [36]: The ordinance already prohibits
criminal activity and nuisance. A third cause of action is unnecessary.
Commented [37]: This language is very important
especially if Concord chooses twelve months of
occupancy (which it should not), instead of the thirty-six that is standard in neighboring rent-controlled cities like San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and Richmond.
(Berkeley Mun. Code, § 13.76.130 subd (A)(9)(a);
Oakland Mun. Code, § 8.22.360 subd. (A)(9);
Richmond Mun. Code, § 11.100.050 subd. (a)(6)(d).)
We strongly oppose a twelve-month standard.
intended occupant already occupies a Dwelling Unit on the Property or if a vacancy of a similar Dwelling Unit already exists at the Property.
b. The written notice terminating a Tenancy pursuant to this subparagraph shall contain the name or names and relationship to the Landlord of the intended occupant. The written notice shall additionally include notification that the Tenant may request proof that the intended occupant is a Landlord or the Landlord’s Family Member. The proof shall be provided upon request and may include an operating agreement and other non-public documents.
c. This subparagraph (1) only applies if the intended occupant moves into the Covered Rental Unit within ninety (90) days after the Tenant vacates and occupies the Covered Rental Unit as a primary residence for at least twelve (12) consecutive months.
d. If the intended occupant fails to occupy the Covered Rental Unit within ninety (90) days after the Tenant vacates, or if the intended occupant fails to occupy the Covered Rental Unit as their primary residence for at least twelve thirty-six (1236)consecutive months, the Landlord shall offer the Covered Rental Unit to the Tenant who vacated it at the same Rent, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases, and rental terms in effect at the time the Tenant vacated. If Tenant re-occupies such Covered Rental Unit, Landlord shall reimburse the Tenant for reasonable moving expenses incurred. Such payment shall be in addition to any relocation assistance that was paid to the Tenant in connection with the termination notice. This provision is not exclusive and may be used cumulatively with any other remedy.
e. To the extent permitted by state law, For a new Tenancy commenced during the time periods described in clause d, the Covered Rental Unit shall be offered and rented or leased at the Lawful Rent in effect at the time any notice of termination of Tenancy is served, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases.
f. A Landlord shall only be allowed to terminate a Tenancy pursuant to this subsection (1) if the Landlord meets one of the following: is a natural person that has at least 251 percent recorded ownership interest in the Property;.
(i)
(ii) is a natural person who has any recorded ownership interest in the Property if 100 percent of the recorded ownership interest is divided among owners who are related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild; or
Commented [MOU38]: LLC Ownership should foreclose
“owner” move ins.
Commented [39]: Necessary clarification that an Owner
who conducts a bad faith owner move-in eviction is not
immune from further liability simply because they offer the unit back.
Commented [MOU40]: A 25 % stake creates a situation
where there are eight potential people who are “owners,” the four 25% owners and each of their spouses. This is an
unreasonable standard.
Commented [41]: This language creates a scenario
where a family member with one percent interest in a
property could arguably pursue an owner move-in
eviction in their own name against the will of the
dominant owners.
Owners of substantive interest should be the parties
allowed to prosecute evictions in their name. These
owners can also conduct relative move-in evictions to
move-in their relatives, even those with a minority
interest in the property.
(iii) is a natural person whose recorded interest in the Property is owned through a limited liability company or partnership.
g. Protections for Elderly, Disabled, and Terminally Ill Tenants. Landlords may not evict a tenant for an Owner of Family Member move-in if:
(i) The Tenant has resided in the Dwelling Unit for at least three years and is either at least sixty-two years of age of Disabled; or
(ii). The Tenant is certified as being terminally ill by the Tenant;s treating physician.
For the purposes of this Subsection 42.9, notwithstanding the above, a Landlord may evict a Tenant who qualifies for the exemption because they are Disabled if the Landlord or designated relative who will occupy the Rental Unit is also Disabled and no other units are available at the Property. Likewise, a Landlord may evict a Tenant who qualifies for the exemption because they are terminally ill if the Landlord or designated relative who will occupy the Rental Unit is also terminally ill and no other units are available at the Property.
g. As used in this subsection:
(i) “Natural person” includes any of the following:
(A) a natural person who is a settlor or beneficiary of a family trust; or
(B) if the Property is owned by a limited liability company or partnership, a natural person with a 25- percent ownership interest in the Property.
(ii) “Family trust” shall mean a revocable living trust or irrevocable trust in which the settlors and beneficiaries of the trust are persons who are related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild.
(2) Ellis Act Evictions. Withdrawal of all Covered Rental Units Accommodations at the Property from the rental market is subject to the following conditions and requirements pursuant to the Ellis Act:
a. Landlord complies with all provisions of the Ellis Act, unless otherwise indicated in this Section.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City adopts all tenant protections authorized by the state legislature in the following provisions of the Ellis Act:
Commented [42]: This language is contradictory of
subdivision (g)(i)(B), and does not include the 25%
requirement.
Commented [43]: We recommend deleting this
provision in its entirety. There are many business
benefits to LLC ownership. However, one of the
drawbacks is that the property is not owned by a
natural person. This provision attempts to let owners
have it both ways. The provision encourages
gamesmanship, potentially allowing any living person
to be an “owner” with little oversight. LLC operating
agreements are not public and can be easily created or
manipulated. Further, a tenant may never see the
entire agreement, allowing owners to create superficial “ownership interests. This occurred in San Francisco,
where an LLC paid an individual $25,000 to be an
“owner.” https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-
tenants-sued-landlords-over-bogus-owner-
16705393.php
Commented [44]: While Concord must abide by the Ellis
Act, there is no reason the city should not implement all of the law’s tenant protections. This language applies
the Ellis Act to the maximum extent allowable while
ensuring there is no conflict with state law.
Commented [45]: It is imperative that landlords cannot
selectively “withdraw” rental units where tenants pay
low rent. This protection is authorized by the Ellis Act, but it must be implemented. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 7060.7
subd. (d)(1).)
Commented [46]: The Ellis act uses the term
“accommodations” which has a different meaning than
the Covered Rental Unit. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 7060
subd. (b)(1).)
California Government Code sections 7060.2, 7060.3, 7060.4, 7060.6. This subdivision shall be interpreted to implement all available tenant protections in the aforementioned sections of the Government Code.
b. All notices required by the Ellis Act’s authorized protections shall be served on the City, with the exception of the notice specified in California Government Code section 7060.3 which the City shall record with the Contra Costa County Assessor.
b.
Not less than one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the Landlord intends to withdraw the Covered Rental Units in a Property or structure from the rental market, and after completion of all required proceedings, if any, the Landlord shall provide written notice of termination of Tenancy to all affected Tenants.
c. Landlord's notice to all affected Tenants shall contain the following information:
(i) That the Landlord is evicting the Tenant pursuant to this Subsection;
(ii) That within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice to terminate, the Tenant may notify the Landlord in writing that the Tenant would be interested in re-renting the Covered Rental Unit if any of the Covered Rental Units are re-offered for rent at a future time and advising the Tenant to notify the Landlord of future address changes;
(iii) A description of the Tenant's rights;
(iv) The notice shall be accompanied by relocation assistance and any additional special assistance in accordance with Section 19.40.080;
(v) A description of the Tenant's rights to relocation assistance and any other rights set forth in this Chapter; and
(vi) A self-addressed stamped postcard on which the Tenant may indicate, under penalty of perjury, whether they or a member of their household are a Protected Tenant and under which category (i.e., Lower- Income Tenant, Disabled Tenant, Senior Tenant, Terminally Ill Tenant, School-Aged Child/ren) they claim Protected Tenant status.
d. A Senior Tenant or a Disabled Tenant who has resided in the Covered Rental Unit for at least one (1) year prior to the Landlord's notice of intent to Commented [47]: The language of “the City” was used
in the draft ordinance. However, a specific department
should likely be listed.
withdraw the Covered Rental Unit in a Property from the residential rental market, and after receiving one hundred twenty (120) days written notice, may within sixty (60) days of receipt of the written notice of termination submit a written notice to the Landlord of Tenant’s status as a Senior or Disabled Tenant, in which event the notice of termination shall be extended to one year from the Tenant's date of notice.
(3) Government Orders. The Landlord is complying with any of the following:
e. An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the Covered Rental Unit; orAn order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the Covered Rental Unit; or
f. A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the Covered Rental Unit.
(3) Intent to Demolish/Substantially Remodel. Intent to demolish or to Substantially Remodel the Covered Rental Unit.
a. For purposes of this subparagraph, a Tenant is not required to vacate the Covered Rental Unit on any days where a Tenant could continue living in the Covered Rental Unit without violating health, safety, and habitability codes and laws.
b. In order to terminate a Tenancy based on intent to demolish or to Substantially Remodel the Covered Rental Unit pursuant to this subparagraph, a Landlord must provide the Tenant with written notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.1 which notice shall be in no less than 12-point type, shall be in English and Spanish and include all of the following information:
(i) A statement informing the Tenant of the Landlord’s intent to demolish the Property or Substantially Remodel the Covered Rental Unit or Property.
(ii). The following statement: “If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the Landlord must offer you the opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the Landlord at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated. You must notify the Landlord within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within thirty (30) days of notifying the Landlord of your acceptance of the offer.”
Commented [48]: This just cause is unnecessary and
leads landlords and tenants to believe that their
tenancy can be ended by bad conditions. Bad
conditions, and even red tags do not terminate
tenancies. As the court of appeal held, “A tenancy is
not terminated when a building inspector orders the
tenants to vacate the property due to unsafe
conditions.” (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC
(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1292.)
This ordinance codifies the existing state law by
requiring landlords to allow tenants to return at the
same rent. As such, it does not make sense to create a
cause for eviction based on bad conditions.
Commented [49]: This language is carried over from
SB-567. However, this language is contradictory to the
Ordinance’s requirement that tenants are always
allowed to return at the same rent. Unnecessarily
placing this language on notices will confuse tenants
and make them believe they only have a right to return
if repairs are not made.
(ii) A description of the Substantial Remodel to be completed, the approximate expected duration of the Substantial Remodel, or if the Property is to be demolished, the expected date by which the Property will be demolished, together with one of the following:
A. A copy of the permit or permits (or a written commitment from the applicable governmental agency that such permits are ready to be issued subject only to conditions requiring the Property or Covered Rental Unit to be vacant) required to undertake the Substantial Remodel or demolition; or
B. If the notice is issued to abate hazardous materials and the remodel does not require any permit, a copy of the signed contract with the contractor hired by the Landlord to complete the Substantial Remodel, that reasonably details the work that will be undertaken to abate the hazardous materials.
(iii) A notification that the Tenant has the right to elect one or both of the following: to return to occupy the Covered Rental Unit upon completion of the repairs at the same Rent and the same lease terms subject to any Lawful Rent Increases.
(iv)
A. The right of first refusal to any vacant comparable or superior Dwelling Unit owned by the Landlord at the same Rent, if such comparable or superior vacant Dwelling Unit exists; and/or
B. The first right to return to occupy the Covered Rental Unit upon completion of the repairs at the same Rent, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases, charged to the Tenant before the Tenant temporarily vacated the Covered Rental Unit.
c. In the event the Tenant elects to accept an offer to move to a comparable or superior vacant Dwelling Unit owned by the Landlord at the same Rent, the Tenant is not eligible for any relocation assistance pursuant to Section 19.40.080 herein, the length of the Tenancy shall continue to be calculated from the date the Tenant first entered into a Rental Agreement for the Covered Rental Unit from which the Tenant was displaced.
d. The phrase comparable or superior when used in connection with a Dwelling Unit or temporary housing shall mean a Dwelling Unit or temporary Commented [50]: This is accurate, and should be the
only disclosure given.
Commented [51]: This provision moved to subdivision
(iii)
Commented [52]: A modified version of this provision is moved to section 19.40.080 so it is applicable to Owner Move-Ins as well.
housing that is similar in size or larger, has the same number of bedrooms or additional bedrooms, is located in the City, has similar amenities as the Covered Rental Unit, such as parking, laundry facilities or exercise facilities, allows pets if the displaced Tenant has a pet, and as to a Disabled Tenant, is disability accessible and ADA compliant. The Tenant, in the Tenant’s reasonable discretion may waive any of these factors in deciding whether the Dwelling Unit or temporary housing offered is comparable or superior.
(e) Tenant's Right of First Return to a Covered Rental Unit.
(1) Right of First Return. All Tenants whose Tenancy is terminated based upon a basis enumerated in Section 19.40.070(d)(1) and (4) (3) shall have the first right to return to the Tenant’s original Covered Rental Unit if the Covered Rental Unit is returned to the market by the Landlord or the Landlord’s successor. Rent for such Covered Rental Unit shall be the Rent lawfully paid by the Tenant at the time the Landlord gave notice of termination, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases, unless otherwise specified herein. All Tenants whose tenancy is terminated pursuant to Section 19.40.070(d)(2) shall have the first right to return pursuant to the Ellis Act to the fullest and most protective extent allowable.
(2) Return Within Five (5) Years. A Tenant of a Covered Rental Unit whose Tenancy was
terminated in accordance with Section 19.40.070(d)(2) is entitled to receive notice of the first right to return to rent the same Covered Rental Unit at the Rent previusly charged for the Covered Rental Unit, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases. A Tenant may return to the Covered Rental Unit if:
a. The Tenant has provided the Landlord a current mailing address and/or email address and keeps those addresses updated, at which to receive notice from Landlord that Covered Rental Unit is available; and
b. The Landlord returns the Covered Rental Unit to the residential rental market within five (5) years after the effective date of withdrawal of a Property containing the Covered Rental Unit from the residential rental market.
(3) Return Within Ten (10) Years. A Landlord of a Property containing a Covered Rental Unit that was withdrawn from the residential rental market within the previous ten (10) years must provide one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the previous Tenants of the Landlord's intent to return the Covered Rental Unit to the residential rental market.
(4). Any Tenant displaced from a Covered Rental Unit in connection with the withdrawal of a Property containing a Covered Rental Unit from the residential rental market may request the first right of return from the Landlord within thirty (30) days of
receipt of a Landlord's written notice of intent to return the Covered Rental Unit to the residential rental market.
(2) Recordation of Memorandum. Any Landlord withdrawing a Property containing Covered Rental Units from the rental market shall record a memorandum on a City approved form in the Official Records of Contra Costa County encumbering the property where the Dwelling Unit is located within ten (10) days of providing notice to the Tenants of the Landlord's intent to withdraw the Dwelling Units from the residential rental market. The memorandum must be executed by the fee owner(s) of the Property.
a. The memorandum shall summarize the obligations of the fee owner and Landlord, and any successor in interest to the fee owner and Landlord related to the Property including the Tenant's right to be notified upon Covered Rental Units being returned to the residential rental market.
b. The summary memorandum must encumber the Property for ten (10) years from the date of Covered Rental Units are withdrawn.
c. The Landlord shall deliver to the City a conformed copy of the recorded memorandum within sixty (60) days after filing its notice to withdraw with the City.
(f) School Year Evictions.
a. It shall be a defense to a no-fault eviction under sections 19.40.080 (d)(1) and (d)(3) if a School-Aged Child resides in the Covered Rental Unit, if the effective date of the notice of termination of Tenancy falls during the School Year.
b. Within thirty (30) days of service of the notice of termination of Tenancy, the Tenant must submit a statement with supporting evidence to the Landlord if the Tenant claims to have a School-Aged Child residing in the Covered Dwelling Unit; this information is required in addition to Tenant’s return of the postcard referenced in Section 19.40.070(e)(2)c.(vi). The notice of termination of Tenancy shall contain a warning that a Tenant’s failure to submit such statement within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice shall be deemed an admission that the Tenant is not protected from eviction pursuant to this Subsection (f).
c. A Landlord may challenge a Tenant’s claim of protected status pursuant to this Subsection (f) through commencement of the eviction proceeding.
(g) All notices of termination must be filed with the City within three days of the n
Commented [MOU53]: These provisions can all be
omitted if the proposed language at section
19.40.070(d)(2) is accepted.
8. 19.40.080 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR NO-FAULT TERMINATION OF TENANCY; NOTICE OF CURABLE LEASE VIOLATIONS.
(a) Relocation Assistance for No-Fault Terminations.
(1) For a Tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the Tenancy under Section 19.40.070, if a Landlord issues a termination notice for a no-fault reason the Landlord shall, regardless of the Tenant’s income, assist the Tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the Tenant as described in Subsection (a)(3), below, and the Landlord shall notify the Tenant of the Tenant’s right to relocation assistance and the amount of the relocation assistance at the time the Landlord issues the notice of termination. This disclosure shall be in writing and stated in the notice to terminate tenancy.
(2) Permanent Relocations. When relocation assistance is required by this Section to Tenants who are evicted pursuant to Section 19.40.070(d), the Landlord must make relocation assistance payments as follows:
a. Non-Protected Tenant Relocation Payment. If the Tenancy is terminated pursuant to Section 19.40.070(d)(1)-(32), or pursuant to Section
19.040.070(d)(34) with the intent to demolish the Covered Rental Unit, the Landlord shall pay to the Tenant relocation assistance in the amount of the greater of three times the HUD FMR Rent for the most similar unit type based on the number of bedrooms or $8,500. In addition to this payment, the landlord shall also provide a $3,000 moving stipend.
b. Protected Tenant Relocation Payment. If one of the Tenants living in the Covered Rental Unit from which the Tenants are displaced is a Protected Tenant, then all Tenants living in the Covered Rental Unit are collectively entitled to receive additional relocation assistance in the amount of one additional month of the applicable HUD FMR Rent.
c. Payment Process. For permanent relocation assistance, the Landlord shall provide one-half of the relocation assistance owed to the Tenant within 15 calendar days of service of the notice of termination. The remaining relocation assistance shall be paid to the Tenant in cash no later than the date the Tenant vacates the Covered Rental Unit.
d. Refund of Security Deposit. A Landlord must refund to the Tenant any security deposit paid by the Tenant. A Landlord may withhold any properly itemized deductions from the security deposit in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1950.5.
Commented [54]: Allowing the landlord to simply “notify” the tenant will lead to unnecessary litigation about
whether the tenant was ever “verbally notified”
Commented [55]: This makes it clear that the household
is entitled to the payment even if they received the flat $8,500 relocation fee.
Commented [56]: The language is unnecessary. State
law handles security deposits. (Cal. Civ. Code, §
1950.5.)
(3) Temporary Relocations. A Landlord must pay temporary relocation assistance to Tenants of a Covered Rental Unit who are temporarily displaced due to Substantial Remodel of Covered Rental Unit:
a. Thirty (30) Days or Fewer. A Landlord must provide the Tenant a per diem payment if the Tenant will be temporarily displaced for thirty (30) days or fewer. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant the full amount of the per diem payment when the Tenant temporarily vacates the Covered Rental Unit.
b. Thirty-One (31) Days or More. If Tenant does not make an election pursuant to 19.40.070(d)(4)c., a Landlord must provide the Tenant either a per diem payment or, at the Tenant’s election, comparable or superior temporary housing, if available.
c. Duration Extended. In the event the duration of the temporary relocation is longer than anticipated, the Landlord shall continue to pay to the Tenant the per diem relocation assistance payments on a weekly basis or continue to provide the Tenant with the comparable or superior temporary housing until the Tenant is able to return to the Covered Rental Unit.
d. Per-Diem Amount. The per diem payment amount shall be based on the Federal General Services Administration per diem rate for lodging and meals (M&IE total) in Concord, Contra Costa County, which is updated on a yearly basis.
e. Rent Due. For temporary relocation assistance where the Landlord is providing comparable or superior temporary housing or making a per diem payment, the Tenant shall continue to pay the Lawful Rent to the Landlord for the Covered Rental Unit
f. Refund of Security Deposit. A Landlord shall not be required refund to the Tenant any security deposit paid by the Tenant in connection with a during the Tenant’s temporary relocation.
(b) In the event the Tenant elects to accept an offer to temporarily move during a remodel under section 1940.080(d)(3) to a comparable or superior vacant Dwelling Unit owned by the Landlord at the same Rent, the Tenant is not eligible for any per diem relocation assistance pursuant to Section 19.40.080 herein, the length of the Tenancy shall continue to be calculated from the date the Tenant first entered into a Rental Agreement for the Covered Rental Unit from which the Tenant was displaced. In the event of a demolition under section 1940.080(d)(3) or an owner or family move-in under 19.40.080(d)(1), the tenant shall not be entitled to a relocation payment if the Tenant elects to move to a comparable or superior vacant Dwelling Unit owned by the landlord and,
Commented [57]: The tenancy continues until
terminated for a lawful just cause.
(1) The tenant is informed in a written offer to rent that they may elect to receive a permanent relocation amount and find their own housing;
(2) The tenant is advised in a written offer to rent of the amount of the permanent relocation payment they are entitled to receive;
(3) The tenant is advised in writing of dates and times when the Tenant can view the Comparable or Superior vacant rental unit in person;
(4) If the Comparable or Superior vacant unit is not protected by this chapter, the written offer to rent must state in fourteen-point bold font,
YOU ARE ELECTING TO MOVE FROM A UNIT COVERED BY CONCORD’S
RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROGRAM TO A UNIT THAT MAY NOT HAVE RENT CONTROL OR JUST CAUSE PROTECTIONS. AT THE END OF YOUR LEASE YOUR
LANDLORD MAY BE ABLE TO RAISE YOUR RENT WITHOUT LIMIT OR EVICT YOU WITHOUT CAUSE.
(c) In the event that a Tenant chooses to permanently relocate to a Comparable or Superior rental unit, the Tenant shall be entitled to a $1,500 moving stipend.
(bd) No Waiver. Subject to Tenant’s elections under 19.40.0780(bd)(4)c., a Tenant cannot waive their right to receive relocation assistance required by this Chapter.
(e) Failure to comply with section 19.40.080 shall be a defense to unlawful detainer.
(b) Coordination With Other Relocation Benefits. If a Tenant receives, as part of the termination of Tenancy, relocation assistance from a governmental agency, then the amount of that relocation assistance shall operate as a credit against any relocation payment to be paid to the Tenant under this Section.
9. 19.40.090 REQUIREMENT TO OFFER WRITTEN LEASE; MINIMUM LEASE TERMS.
(a) One-Year Lease Term. If a prospective Tenant wishes to rent a Dwelling Unit from a Landlord and if said Landlord wishes to rent said Dwelling Unit to said prospective Tenant, the Landlord must offer to the prospective Tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of one year. Such offer must be made in writing. If the prospective Tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, this acceptance must be in writing.
Signing a lease which has a minimum term of one year will be considered an offer if signed by the Landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by the prospective Tenant. If the prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, such rejection must be in writing.
Commented [MOU58]: This provision ensures tenants can
afford to stay in Concord.
Commented [59]: Government agencies generally only
aid in disaster situations. These situations generally do not terminate tenancies. (Erlach v. Sierra Asset
Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1292.) If
these tenants receive a bit of extra money, they are
almost certainly entitled to it.
Further, it is unclear how the landlord would know the tenant received benefits. This provision encourages landlords to pry into tenants’ personal financial affairs in hopes of offsetting their own obligations by asserting a tenant received other money “as part of” the termination.
This provision encourages landlords to violate tenants’ rights to financial privacy.
Commented [60]: We believe this provision conflicts
with the ordinance. These protections are helpful to
tenants when there are no just cause or rent
protections. However, when tenants have just cause
and rent control, a year-long lease is not an especially valuable protection.
(b) Six-Month Lease Term. If the prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year as provided in Section 19.40.090(a), but the prospective Tenant continues to wish to rent said Dwelling Unit from said Landlord, said Landlord must offer to said prospective Tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of six months. Such offer must be made in writing. If said prospective Tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of six months will be considered an offer if signed by said Landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by said prospective Tenant. If said prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, such rejection must be in writing.
(c) Shorter Term. If said prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months as provided in Section 19.40.090(b), said Landlord and said prospective Tenant may then enter into a written lease that provides for a term of fewer than six months.
(d) Renewal of Lease. If both the Landlord and Tenant wish to continue the Tenancy, upon the expiration of a Rental Agreement which has a minimum term of one year or six months, a written Rental Agreement shall be offered again in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 19.40.090(a)-(c). The Landlord shall have no obligation to re-offer a Tenant a one- year or six-month lease term if the Tenant has previously rejected such offers in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 19.40.090(a)-(c), and has a Rental Agreement with a term of fewer than six months.
(e) Existing Tenancies. Any Tenant renting a Dwelling Unit may request a written lease with a minimum term of either one year or six months, provided such Tenant has not previously received a written notice of Rental Agreement violation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 and such violation remains uncured. The Tenant shall do so via written notice to the Landlord. The Landlord shall, upon receipt of such notice, offer to said Tenant a written Rental Agreement on terms substantially similar to those of the existing rental arrangement (except as to length of term) in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section, as applicable.
(f) Exemptions. This section shall not apply to Dwelling Units that are exempt from the just cause eviction protections set forth in Section 19.40.070.
10. 19.40.100 NOTICE OF TENANT RIGHTS.
(a) A Landlord subject to this Chapter shall provide notice to the Tenant as follows:
(1) For any Tenancy commenced or renewed on or after the effective date of this Ordinance, as an addendum to the Rental Agreement, or as a written notice signed by the Tenant, with a copy provided to the Tenant.
Commented [MOU61]: It is difficult to require tenants to sign documents. Further, many tenants may reasonably fear signing documents, especially when a landlord says they are required to do so. This provision is unnecessary.
(2) For any Tenancy existing prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, by written notice to the Tenant no later than 180 days after the effective date of the Ordinance adopting this Chapter, or as an addendum to the Rental Agreement.
(b) The notification and Rental Agreement provision shall be in no less than 12-point type, shall be in English and Spanish, and shall include the following:
Concord law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See Chapter 19.40 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. Concord law also provides that, a Landlord must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a Tenancy. See Section 19.40 070 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. In addition, City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.080 provides tenants evicted on a no- fault basis with the right to relocation payments and a right to return at the same rent; see City of Concord Municipal Code Section19.40.070(e) and 19.40.080 for more information.
City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 provides tenants with the right to written leases and minimum lease terms. Landlords must offer tenants the option to enter into a one (1) year written lease. If a tenant declines a one (1) year written lease, the landlord must offer that tenant the option to enter into a six (6) month written lease.
It is the tenant’s choice whether or not to enter into such a written lease with a landlord.
If tenant rejects the initial offers of a written lease with a minimum lease term of 12 or 6 months, the tenant and landlord may enter into a written lease with a term of fewer than 6 months. See City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 for more information.
(c) Manner. Landlords must provide the notice to Tenants in writing if the application and Rental Agreement are processed in writing, electronically if the application and/or Rental Agreement are processed electronically, or both if both methods are utilized tenant requests.
The provision of the notice shall be subject to Civil Code Section 1632.
11. 19.40.110 PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES.
The City Manager is hereby delegated the authority to promulgate procedures, regulations, and guidelines to aid in the implementation of this Chapter.
12. 19.40.120 REMEDIES.
(a) Remedies and penalties.
(1) If a Landlord violates the terms of this Chapter, an aggrieved Tenant may institute a civil action for injunctive relief, actual, statutory, or direct money damages, and any other relief that the court deems appropriate, which shall include a civil penalty of no less than $2,000, and no more than $5,000, per violation, at the discretion of the court. If the aggrieved
Tenant is a Senior Tenant or a Disabled Tenant, the court may award an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, at the discretion of the court.
(2) Any person who violates, aids, abets, or incites another person to violate this Chapter is liable in a court action for each and every such offense for money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered by an aggrieved Tenant (including damages for mental or emotional distress), or for minimum damages in the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be tripled if the trier of fact finds that the defendant Landlord acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of this Chapter.
(b) The court may award punitive damages in a proper case as set out in Civil Code Section 3294 and pursuant to the standards set forth in that code section or any successor thereto, but may not award both punitive damages and triple damages.
(c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a Tenant who prevails in any such action. The cour t shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a Landlord who prevails in any such action if the court determines that the Tenant’s action was frivolous.
(d) The remedies available under this section shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available to the residential tenant under applicable federal, State, county, or local law.
(e) No administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this Chapter.
(f) Authorization of City Attorney to enforce the Ordinance. The City Attorney shall have the authority to enforce provisions of this ordinance; to bring actions for injunctive relief, equitable relief, restitution, and/or penalties on behalf of the city, or on behalf of tenants seeking compliance by landlords with the ordinance..
(g) Any violation of this chapter shall be a defense to an unlawful detainer action.
13. 19.40.130 WAIVER PROHIBITED.
Any waiver of rights under this Chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy.
14. 19.40.140 SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Commented [62]: This provision is important as smaller
cities do not have the right to enforce California’s
Unlawful Competition Law. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
17204 See Also Oakland Mun. Code, § 8.22.370 subd.
(C), 670 subd. (A)(2).)
Commented [63]: This provision is imperative to ensure
tenants can actually stay housed as opposed to suing
after the fact for their displacements.
Chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.
From: Yasmin Meertins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 5:42 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.
The ordinance was written without economic justification. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities.
This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?
I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and remember that your own rent registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families. Please reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.
Yasmin Meertins (She/Her)
Regional Portfolio Manager
1777 Botelho Drive Suite 300 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596
phone: (925) 945-0900 | fax: (925) 256-3780
ElevateToSequoia.com
Find us here:
From: Kevin Schaefer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 5:50 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control
I can’t emphasize enough that what you’re doing with the rent control is insane. You can’t believe how much expenses have increased in the City Of Concord. Rents have not moved in 10 years but I’ve been a landlord. If they’ve moved they’ve moved maybe $100 a month. This is insanity rethink what you’re doing. You will lower the property values for everybody who’s in the market.this is not the way to go. I strongly suggest you rethink your position and vote against these crazy crazy measures. A lot of buildings are still falling down in Concord. Pride of ownership will be taken away and that’s not good for renters in the city.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jean-Pierre (JP) Maeder <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 6:23 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Vote - No - on Concord Rent Control Law
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
As a committed housing provider and investor in our vibrant community, I respectfully express my deep concerns regarding the current rent control ordinance.
The formulation of this ordinance lacks economic justification, overlooking crucial data that illuminates the challenges faced by local property owners. Operating our properties in Concord under this ordinance would lead to substantial losses due to escalating operational costs and liabilities, a matter that warrants thoughtful consideration.
The prescribed rent control formula, fixed arbitrarily at 3%, fails to account for the soaring inflation rates, significantly burdening housing providers. It's important to acknowledge that this approach places Concord in a unique position within the United States, penalizing those who provide essential housing while ignoring the impact of mounting expenses.
While housing providers have potential alternatives, the same cannot be said for tenants who rely on affordable housing options within Concord, particularly given its accessibility to BART and reasonable commuting times. Regrettably, if this ordinance persists, housing providers may be compelled to sell their rental units at market rates to new owner who will live in the units purchased, thereby reducing the rental housing inventory. Consequently, this could exacerbate the scarcity of available units and drive up rents, creating a challenging scenario for both tenants and the community.
Mandating housing providers to issue refunds on legally obtained rent increases, even to tenants who have already vacated, presents a significant financial challenge. This requirement could force more housing providers to sell off units to new owners simply to accommodate these refunds, further diminishing the available rental units.
I earnestly implore a reconsideration of this ordinance, emphasizing that the city's own rent registry report highlights the accessibility of rents in Concord to low-to-moderate income households and working families. Rejecting the rent and eviction control ordinance would safeguard the harmony and prosperity of our community.
Respectfully,
--
Jean-Pierre (JP) Maeder
c: 415-997-3680
o: 925-465-5141
f: 888-464-6508
CA DRE: 02034080
This email is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Thank you.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 6:51 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Concord Rent Control
Good evening. I’m sorry to be sending another email but I just received the attached notice from Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery that they are raising the garbage and collection rate by 6% starting 1/1/24. If the proposed rent control is passed, I will be forced to change to a smaller size garbage can for all 3 properties which will negatively affect my tenants.
As I am sure water prices will be going up, I may have cut costs by capping off the water lines to the washing machines in each unit and not allow the tenants to use them further inconveniencing them.
The proposed rent control will have many negative trickle down effects on both landlords and tenants by hampering the landlords ability to pass on rising costs to tenants.
I will do my best to attend the meeting on 12/1223 but I am returning from a trip that night and my flight doesn’t land in Oakland until 5:45 PM.
Best,
Gary Sabbadini
(925) 286-4187
From: Joel Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 6:15 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Housing
Dear Councilmember Hoffmeister,
I wanted to take a moment to write a letter which hopefully finds you well.
I am a housing provider in Concord and have been following the meetings and discussions about implementing rent-control in Concord Ca. While I am well aware of a housing shortage, I think it is worth considering that in concord there is very much a “quality housing” shortage. Rent control will further exacerbate that, along with thwart future high-density development. As somebody who spends a great deal of time and resources improving our properties, I can tell you that many owners will simply stop with improvements and capital investment. Will they owners and operators the properties to code, yes.. But the tenants and community will suffer with sub- par properties and owner investment.
As you well know our utilities have been on a steep pricing incline for several years. PG&E (Gas/Electric), Water & Sewer, and Garbage are all increasing at +/-10-15% annually. Labor and material costs to maintain our properties and facilities have increased 20% annually. In 20+ years of owning and operating properties we simply cannot pay the utility, labor, and materials increases while our rents are capped at 3% or 60% of CPI.
I would like to add that in my years of maintaining and managing properties that I have never evicted a tenant (with or without cause) in Concord, raised rent more than 5% annually, and we worked with every single tenant who had a hardship during Covid and the years that followed.
We have a very happy group of tenants in the 250+ units which we operate in Concord and we plan on continuing that. While there are some unscrupulous landlords who give many good ones a bad name, this rent control proposal would drive a deep wedge between the property owners, tenants, and the City and would create further degradation on the housing stock in Concord.
California implemented a very fair rent-control after much study, conversation and deliberation.
Perhaps following the statewide policy is progressive and protective enough.
Thank you for your time in reading this and your consideration. Should you have any questions and or comments, I am happy to discuss on a call or over a cup of coffee.
Regards,
Joel Kelly
From: Harry Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11:57 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Law
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am the managing partner for the ownership of Clayton Creek Apartments, which is located at 5255 Clayton Road. We have owned Clayton Creek since the late 90’s and have been very dutiful landlords and overall stewards of the Concord community. As a part of our recognized duty to attempt to raise the standards of Concord, with Clayton Creek beginning to show its age, we are currently in the midst of an approximate $10 million dollar rehabilitation of the community to include a full renovation of the exterior buildings, all new lighting and sidewalks, and brand new landscaping of the entire property. To maximize the security and safety of our residents, we are also budgeted in 2024 to install all new security cameras and a security gate at the entrance of the property. Once completed, I am confident Clayton Creek Apartments will be a property the City can be proud of and can point to as template for all future property renovations in Concord. It is going to be that beautiful!
As I know has been detailed to the council, the proposed ordinance was written without economic justification. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities. For those of us with extensive capital improvements in recent years, especially when coupled with the financial losses of the COVID-19 pandemic, I can unequivocally state that the enactment of this ordinance will prove financially ruinous to our ownership.
Quite frankly, as it already stands, the City of Concord has an image problem. It is becoming more and more recognized for its increasing crime, lower tenant profile, and substandard housing options. This has been directly observed at our Clayton Creek property. The increasing amount of thefts and vandalism occurring at the property, sometimes even by our own residents, is alarming. Rather than cater to this profile, we think Concord deserves better so, at a significant financial investment, we are doing our part to attempt to raise the standard of this rapidly faltering community. I would ask the City of Concord to now do the same. Beyond the lack of economic justification associated with the proposed ordinance and the financial hardship it will cause to
landlords, if approved, I firmly believe this ordinance will be the “kiss of death” to Concord in terms of cementing its reputation as a location of ill repute within Bay Area communities.
For the sake of both the City and its landlords, I would highly encourage the Council to consider something far more reasonable than what is currently proposed.
Sincerely,
Harry Lewis
Managing Partner
Broadway Management Company, LLC
Tel: 925-820-7292
Cell: 831-905-5934
E-Mail: [email protected]
From: Christopher Parker <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 12:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Crazy proposals
These proposed rules are insane. You will crush property owners and create slums as owners won't be able to afford to maintain or improve properties.
Christopher Parker
Associate Broker
Superior Home Realty
DRE 02130733
925-301-7535
superiorhomerealty.com
From: Marty Carbajal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 2:05 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control ordinance
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
As a City of Concord housing provider I am very concerned about the possibility of a rent control ordinance in the City of Concord.
It is important to recognize that the escalation of rental rates emanates from the lack of supply of housing. If we were to fast track the process of housing construction, the problem of out of rental rates will take care of itself.
As any student of economics will attest, rent control ordinances will benefit a few while working against the very people that it is designed to help. It will create subsidized housing for those that will never move and penalize newcomers.
A rent control ordinance will stifle the growth potential of the City of Concord as it will create an incentive for people to stay put no matter if they can get a better paying job elsewhere; it will reduce the availability of housing for those people just starting out as households will have less mobility.
We recently received a notice from the refuse company
announcing that their rates are increasing 6% as of January 1st; how is it possible that their rates are increasing by more than 60% of CPI as the ordinance mandates? Who is supposed to make up the difference? What about the double digit increases in
labor costs, materials and insurance? How are we, the housing providers, going to deal with those issues?
In closing, my opposition to the rent control ordinance is palpable. It is a mistake; it will become a slippery slope that will become a disincentive to additional investment in housing in the City of Concord.
I urge you to reconsider the ramifications of such a draconian measure. I urge you to vote down the ordinance and work toward a more measured solution to the housing issue that affects us all.
Thank You,
Marty Carbajal, CFP
GCM Realty
CALBRE#01415783
mobile #510-387-7954
gcmrealestatesales.com
[email protected]
From: Marty Carbajal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:16 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Ordinance
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I want to declare my opposition to the above measure being considered by the City of Concord City Council.
It is very clear that the availability of housing in the City of Concord has reached a critical level, on page 15 of 97 of the proposed ordinance it states that "there is a critical shortage of rental housing in the City. Due to this shortage, it is very difficult to find adequate, safe, and habitable rental housing at reasonable rates and due to this shortage of rental units, rents in the City are increasing excessively. A substantial number of persons in the City who reside in rental units spend a high percentage of their income on rent, and many have been forced to move out because they could no longer afford to pay the increase in rent".
This could easily be remedied by increasing the availability of housing by relaxing zoning rules and regulations to create incentives to provide more low income housing.
The adoption of rent control will cause lower growth in the City of Concord as it will stifle mobility and will be detrimental to most of those that it appears to help. It will reduce the number of available units and create a subsidy to the people that will never move in order to maintain their rent control unit. It will work against those that alleges to help as the newcomers will have to pay increasingly higher rents to subsidize those that are staying put.
I urge you to vote down the measure and seek more equitable alternatives to alleviate the housing crisis.
Thank You,
Marty Carbajal, CFP
GCM Realty
CALBRE#01415783
mobile #510-387-7954
gcmrealestatesales.com
[email protected]
From: Sara Harkness <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: New Rent Ordinances
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please do not adopt the proposed rent and eviction control ordinance. It is very unjust and will have negative consequences for owners and tenants. These measures are unjustified.
I already struggle to maintain a property that now houses a working middle class family. My rents are below market rate. I pay mortgage, taxes, insurance, yard and home maintenance. I already make no profit.
During Covid-19 I could not enforce lease or increase rents but still I was required to perform my duties and pay my expenses. A requirement to roll back a small and legal rent rate is absurd.
Prior to covid I had tenants who destroyed my property and I have not recovered. The city did not assist me.
Should these measures be adopted, I will be forced to sell this property which will displace the tenants I subsidize already. I am not a corporation, but a retired nurse who has worked to own a rental property to help support myself.
I urge the council to reject the proposed ordinance.
Kind regards,
Sara Harkness
From: Mauricio Carbajal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4:45 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Ordinance
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council members,
I urge you to vote down the rent control ordinance, it will hurt the future of the City of Concord and it will end up being detrimental to those that it is targeted to help most.
It is clear that we have a housing crisis, not only in the City of Concord but in the entire state of California. Some statistics show that we have a housing deficit of over 800,00 homes in the major metro areas.
The problem is that we have a few homes and as any economic student will tell you, with little supply and great demand, the prices of any good will rise. If you cap the price, then the supply will shrink. There will be fewer units available to newcomers because fewer people will move and those available units will be priced higher.
The lack of mobility will reduce economic growth in the City of Concord as people will refuse better paying jobs in order to keep their rent control apartment.
One of the solutions to this problem is to create incentives for new low-income housing construction. Once supply is increased the rental rate will take care of itself.
In closing, I am opposed to the rent control ordinance. We have to do better as a community, we need to adopt a model followed by cities like Walnut Creek, Lafayette of Pleasant Hill rather than Richmond or Oakland were crime and homelessness is rampant.
Thank You,
Mauricio Carbajal
Farmers Insurance
1505 Monument Blvd
Concord, CA 94520-4201
License Number: 0713736
925-602-1900 (Office)
925-602-1901 (Fax)
[email protected]
http://www.farmersagent.com/mcarbajal
Securities offered through Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC. Member FINRA & SIPC.
Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC (FFS) does not accept trading instructions via voice mail, text
messages, email, instant messaging, or fax. Please do not transmit orders or instructions regarding an FFS account by email. For your protection, FFS does not accept and act on such instructions. If you wish to enter a buy or sell order immediately, please speak directly with your financial services agent. Emails, faxes, and voicemails may not be monitored daily, or after normal business hours, and cannot be relied upon to timely communicate your wishes.
This email communication contains information which is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is prohibited.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:01 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Concord Rent Control
Good morning. I am planning on attending the City County Meeting on Tuesday but should my scheduled flight with a 5:30 PM arrival time in Oakland be delayed and I’m unable to attend the meeting, I wanted to share my talking points with you to provide you with time to reflect on them.
Proposal
• Cap rent increases at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower. o What is the economic justification for imposing this in Concord when only 16 cities in CA have a different rent control than the state rent control law o Of the cities with rent control that don’t have a rent board, this proposed Concord rent control would be the most restrictive rent control in the state ▪ Beverly Hills – 8% limit
▪ Los Angeles – 8% limit
▪ Hayward – 5% limit
▪ East Palo Alto – 10%
▪ Palm Springs – 75% of CPI
▪ Oakland – 10%
▪ Los Gatos – 5%
▪ San Jose – 5%
▪ Santa Monica – 75% of CPI
▪ Berkeley, West Hollywood, and San Francisco set by their rent boards o CA State rent control is 10% or 5% plus the CPI, whichever is lower • Require base rents to roll back to January 2023 levels. o What is your justification for doing this? Myself along with many other landlords are still dealing with the losses incurred during the rent moratorium established during COVID.
• Issue rent refunds for any increases above the new rent cap—even to those who voluntarily vacated their units.
o What is the justification for doing this when these rent increases were legally obtained
• Increase permanent relocation payment for no-fault termination up to three months' HUD Fair Market Rent or $8,500 plus additional enhancements for households with special circumstances.
• Charge a new rent registry unit fee of up to $52 per unit. o The current rent registry unit fee is $23 per unit. This would be a 226% increase when you are limiting landlord’s ability to raise the rent to 1.92% (60% of the current CPI rate of 3.2%)
• Garbage rates are increasing 6% in 2024 and went up 11% in 2023 • Water rates are increasing roughly 6% in 2024
• Property taxes went up 2.03% in 2023
• My property insurance rates went up 5.03% in 2023
• PG&E went up 5.5% in 2023
• Concord Business License Fee went up 5.6% in 2023
• Concord Inspection fees have gone up every year
Capping our ability to raise rents to match rising fixed costs will hamper our ability to provide quality housing for our tenants as landlords will be forced to cut costs. • I will have to get smaller garbage cans for tenants
• Cap off the water lines to the in unit washing machines to cut down on water usage • Defer capital improvements on the properties
In your Draft Ordinance, you reference HUD Fair Market Rent – How will this information be used?
TABLE 4: THE FY 2023 AND 20241 OAKLAND-FREMONT, CA HUD METRO
FMR AREA FMRS FOR ALL BEDROOM SIZES
Year Efficiency 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom FY 2023 $1,658 $1,969 $2,405 $3,144 $3,706
FY 2024 $1,825 $2,131 $2,590 $3,342 $3,954
Thank you for your time and consideration
Gary Sabbadini
(925) 286-4187
From: Bob Baptiste <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control ordinance
Good Morning,
As the owner of several rental assets in Concord, I ask that you vote NO to the proposed rental ordinance. This is unfair to owners as it does not allow us to keep pace with inflation, provide refunds to tenants based on January 2023 rents, who does that? It is already difficult enough absorbing lost rents from Covid, now this!!
Please vote NO on this issue.
-- r
Thanks,
Bob Baptiste
Re/Max Accord
5980 Stoneridge Rd Suite 122
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Tel: 925-277-0700
www.bobbaptiste.com
California DRE # 01056636
From: Marianne baldetti <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 8:50 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Rent & Eviction Ordinance
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
The proposed rent control and eviction restriction ordinance to be voted in your upcoming City Council meeting this December 12th is
both draconian and detrimental to all rental property owners in the City of Concord, and misguided at best.
The ordinance itself deeply defies economic facts. The ordinance proposes to cap rent increases at 60% of the CPI or 3%, whichever is lower. This is ludicrous and does not keep up with the current rate of inflation over 3% per year. In fact, the average inflation rate for the past two years alone has been 4.7 and 8.0 in 2021 and 2022 respectively. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation- rates/
As an example of this inflationary set-back, let me give you my own personal case of a 2BR, 1Bath unit rented for $1800/month including water/sewer and garbage services: Assuming a 3% increase is lowest, then that will only provide a maximum of a $54 increase in rent per month. How does this keep up with my constant operational expense increases for water, garbage, utilities, and so on plus material/labor fees for repairs and capital improvements? Impossible. It does not.
This will result in a devastating blow to the rental housing industry in the City of Concord. Housing providers will be operating at a loss, or at best a flat line with no extra revenue for improving their properties. This is a step back: Concord’s rental inventory has substantially improved over the past 10 years in both amount and quality, while providing a robust real estate market. Why does the City Council want to destroy this momentum and housing inventory improvements? In fact, the City Council’s own staff has provided data demonstrating local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities. The City’s Rent Registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families. It reads: “Rents in Concord currently support households earning between 70% to 80% AMI (Area Median Income), which is considered to be accessible to low- to moderate-income households and is generally accessible to working families.”
In short, I strongly encourage the City Council to vote “NO” on this proposed rent and eviction ordinance on December 12th because it will destroy our City’s robust rental market and economy. There is no basis for it as proven by the City’s own Rent Registry report. This is not the right ordinance, not the right time.
Sincerely,
Marianne Simoni
Marianne Simoni
From: Irma Pinnace BODDEN <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:35 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord City Council Needs a Strong and Enforceable Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance
City Clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Concord City Council,
I am so glad to see the Council has committed to passing tenant protections by the end of this year to address the housing affordability crisis and to help limit growing unjust evictions in Concord.
Concord renters have been asking for relief from skyrocketing rents in this city for years.
According to the City’s Housing Element, rents increased by 62% between 2011 and 2021, far outpacing the growth of renter incomes. A strong rent stabilization and just cause ordinance will create stability for families, younger generations, and seniors. So we are grateful to the City Council for their commitment to the 3% cap or 60% of AMI (whatever is lower), which an overwhelming number of speakers demanded during the Sept. 5th Council Meeting. Providing this predictable and reasonable rent cap that is more connected to people’s wages will help families stay housed and rooted in their community here in Concord.
It is disturbing to see the rental market increasingly skewed by the influence of corporate owners and the desire to maximize profits, at the expense of the community. Unfortunately, corporate investors – not local "mom-and-pop" landlords – dominate Concord's rental market.
Sixty six percent of multi-family units in Concord are owned by the top 10% of landlords, which include about 50 companies. Meanwhile, only 15% of multifamily units and 22% of investor-owned units in Concord are owned by local investors.
I applaud the progress Council made during the recent meetings to help ensure the ordinance protects residents from corporate greed. I truly hope that the Council also makes sure this ordinance has teeth and incorporates the following components that are key to keeping families housed.
• Meaningful Enforcement: We need a robust rent program by levying modest fees per unit on landlords, as other cities have done. This funding would expand city staffing capacity to ensure the ordinance is effective and regulated while not overburdening current staff. • Fraud Prevention: Landlords should be required to show proof of intended no-fault evictions (i.e. Substantial renovations, Ellis Act) and the City should levy fines for those who make false claims in order to evict long-term tenants to get higher-paying tenants . • The Right to Return: It is important that those who are temporarily relocated during legitimate renovations need the right of return to their unit at the same price upon completion. • Adequate Relocation Assistance: Residents who are evicted from their home through no fault of their own deserve adequate funds to help them get into a comparable unit, and to cover the burdensome moving costs.
I strongly support these important policy provisions to make Concord’s Just Cause and Rent Stabilization ordinance truly effective and meaningful in protecting people like me and my neighbors from Concord’s excessive rent increases and wave of unjust evictions.
I am counting on your leadership to deliver a strong ordinance that truly will make a difference in the lives of thousands of working class families and seniors who need more affordable rents and economic stability.
Irma Pinnace BODDEN
[email protected]
1311 Lani Kai Dr Apt D17
Concord , California 94520
From: Amanda Sanderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 12:42 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinance
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a housing provider in the City of Concord of two established multi-family properties. I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.
As a long-term housing provider, we have been successful participants in the Multi Family Rental Unit Inspection Program, responded to Covid protocols that resulted in a process that caused excess expenses on the properties, successfully participated in the Rent Registry Program, and navigated restrictions of AB-1482 along with the Rent- Roll- Back provision.
Within our housing communities we have continued to provide habitable housing, and continued to make improvements to the properties, including occupied homes. We have also made financial decisions and adjustments in response to the economy and Concord, ranging from installing a landscape that is drought resistant and LED lighting for less power dependability. Since 2019 (when AB-1482 was first introduced), our two multifamily Concord properties have maintained a less than 3% vacancy trend (most often 0), and a turnover rate of less than 10%. Meaning most occupants of our properties have been established occupants for over 3 years (many exceeding 7). Our property turnover rates show -we do not need rent control; we need rent assistance. Neither of these two properties have had a just cause notice or eviction since 2012.
As a multi-family housing provider with growing fees established by the city and state, increased expenses for the multifamily certification program and rent roll certification program, increased utility expenses that have been well beyond trend, expenses caused by the many natural and economic disasters, the difficulty to maintain insurance in the State of California, and a substantial increase in essential needs to maintain a property- labor, fuel, and inflation of manufactured goods, I find it appalling that the proposed “solution” would be to add more fees into a struggling economy without substantial fact and justification.
I oppose the rent control and just cause ordinance being proposed. This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect new housing as well as existing housing. The city does not have and/or has failed to provide evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those included in the Tenant Protection Act and AB1482. Using the data provided by the rent registry we report to, we can discern that rent increases, on average fall below the statewide cap and that our data is not isolated in tenancy terminations provided by housing providers- it has
decreased. Current laws are working effectively to maintain housing. This legislation is focusing on the wrong problem. Out of the 50 tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent. Tenants need rent payment assistance, not regulated rent control.
Please consider the greater impact of approving the incorrect legislation to assist Concord Communities. Direct your efforts toward solutions that assist all community members and utilize economic justification and current data. Property owners have continued to take losses and suffer hardships from increasing operating expenses and liabilities, forcing more hardship on multi family communities will not provide the positive impact you are striving for.
Please reconsider your actions before our City and Housing providers suffer more and decisions are made that will cause a greater economic impact and not provide resolve.
Thank you for your time,
Amanda Sanderson
Housing Provider- Management
[email protected]
Amanda Sanderson she/her/hers
Portfolio Manager
P | (503)476-5126 F | (360) 841-7318
www.buntingmanagement.com
*This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or you have received this email in error, please keep the contents confidential, notify me immediately and delete the email including any attachments from your system.
Bunting Management Group
From: Emerald Properties <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control
Mayor Hoffmeister, Council Members and City Manager
I have been a Housing Provider here in Concord for over 30 years. I have always enjoyed a good business relationship with City staff going away back to when I had the privilege to be on the Committee charged with the formation of our Rental Housing maintenance Ordinance.
I read your Staff Report relative to Rent Control and other Tenant Protections. As a longtime Tax Payer and a Licensed Business Operator in Concord I sincerely ask that each of you would read and genuinely consider the following facts, before you vote on the various parts of this proposed Ordinance and please do consider the long-term implications of your vote.
Fact 1. As Housing Providers here in Concord, I am out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars and struggling, because of Ordinance 1482 and the Eviction Moratorium. Now we are being obligated to give back some Lawfully Increased Rent, though we gave no increases during COVID. Then to add insult to injury we are also being obligated to limit future increases to 60% of C.P.I.
Fact 2. Remodeling-Upgrading – To attract and to keep, good quality tenants in Concord today, remodeling includes new kitchens, bathrooms, in unit washer and dryers, where possible, double pane windows, etc. This can cost anywhere from $25,000.00 to over $30,000.00 per apartment.
Fact 2A. Insurance Company Inspections and Mandates. These mandates include changing out Zinco Sub Electric Panels and adding GFI electric plugs. To date our inspection hasn’t happened but in a similar size complex, mandated inspection items exceeded $140,000.00.
Fact 2B. Mortgage Company Inspectors show up annually, resulting in similar expenses to make corrections.
Fact 2C. Concord apartment Inspection Program, City records will show positive results associated with Palm Lake. Now we are not saying all of those mandates are all bad and should be dropped but costs to us are prohibitive. To keep the business going and to save our tenants from having
to lose their homes, we borrowed money and then we opted to allow our tenants to just start paying their normal rent again, but the several hundred thousand dollars are still owing.
Fact 3. How Inflation Affect Us. Percentage increases this year. Insurance 15%. Ongoing repairs and maintenance
18%. Administration 12%. Wages 10%. Just a few examples.
Fact 4. Covid-19 Unpaid Rent. Many residents quit paying rent when State Eviction Moratoriums became effective Spring 2020, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars outstanding. Since Government Rent Assistance programs dried-up we are the losers after having committed to avoid Employee layoffs and to not evict non-paying tenants.
Fact 5. Where is the Fire? – What is the justification? You have the duty, the obligation, to justify your actions, the real need. Just because the general assumption is that we need more housing and because Tenant advocates clamor for rent control and disregard statistics, isn’t enough. The fact is Concord and the surrounding communities, to their credit, built a substantial amount of rental housing over the past 5 or 6 years. As a Concord Housing Provider for the past 30 years, I agree with those who claim that, due to competition from this new housing inventory, Concord does have above average vacant rentals today and Housing Providers are offering abnormal rent concessions at move in time. Of the three local communities – Walnut Creek, Concord and Pleasant Hills, Concord, even though rent prices have dropped, rent prices are cheapest by far. Rent in Concord today is considered accessible to – low – to moderate, income households and to working families (City Reports). So where is the justification? We need to make decision based on facts, not knee jerk.
Fact 6. Avoid Legal Challenge – Imposing a 60% of C.P.I. is the last straw. There is no way that we can provide the quality housing that our tenants – your constituents – are used to. They will go somewhere else. This will hurt our City. With Housing Providers having suffered and still reeling from COVID and in light of all the conditions as outlined, this proposal is a “Taking” and obviously ripe for a Legal Challenge.
Fact 7. Due Diligence – As a longtime Concord Business man and always a friend of our City I implore our Council to delay action on this measure and undertake to do the vital and mandatory Due Diligence, to determine the validity of imposing rent control on a City that absolutely has the lowest rent prices and due to the emergence of so much newly constructed apartments, has an abundance of vacant apartments.
Fact 8. Determine Rent Prices Differential – also vacancies. It’s a no brainer. Starting 1/1/23 through 11/30/23 get stats on Walnut Creek, Concord, Pleasant Hills. Actual contract leases, where tenants moved in. Category One Bedroom. Two Bedroom One Bath and Two Bedroom Two Baths Stats Contract Prices less any concessions, divided by 12, to get true monthly value. All information must be 100% verifiable.
Please do consider the bigger picture.
How a City under the stigma of Rent Control is passed up by Housing Investors. That is well documented. How Homeowners and all residents of Concord are hurt by Rent Control because, right or wrong, there is a consensus that our Rental Housing stock deteriorates because of a lack of money, to keep on top of the ever increasing maintenance expenses, especially as properties get older. Please do consider the vitality of our City.
Thank you for your Service.
John Sullivan
(510) 538-4898
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.
The ordinance was written without economic justification. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities.
This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?
I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and remember that your own rent registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families. Please reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.
The following people sent the above email:
1. Celina Liu
2. Benjamin Lenz
3. Wenbin Mo
4. Xiaofeng Wang
5. Jason Ryer
6. Joyce Kelly
7. Warren Wen
8. Reina Banuelos
From: Derek Raynor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 4:57 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Proposed Rent Control Measures in Concord Importance: High
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister, Esteemed Council Members, and Respected City Manager,
My name is Derek Raynor, and I am a devoted Housing Provider in Concord, deeply committed to fostering quality living standards for our city's residents. I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen and an invested member of the community regarding the proposed rent control measures within our city of Concord. While I appreciate the intent to address housing affordability, I firmly believe that implementing stringent rent control measures would yield adverse effects that may significantly harm both landlords and tenants in the long term. With a heavy heart and a profound sense of responsibility, I have grave concerns about the impending rent control proposal under consideration.
Firstly, it is crucial to acknowledge that rent control, while seemingly beneficial on the surface, has historically led to unintended consequences. Such measures often stifle the housing market, dissuade property owners from maintaining their properties, and deter new investments in the housing sector. As a result, the quality of housing deteriorates, which directly impacts the living standards of residents.
Furthermore, implementing stringent rent control measures might encourage property owners to undertake essential repairs and enhancements. When there's no financial motivation to invest in maintenance and renovations, properties are prone to deteriorate, impacting both the visual appeal and practicality of our neighborhoods. This decline in property conditions would initiate a chain reaction, leading to a decrease in the overall value and desirability of the community.
Throughout my service to the Concord community, I have actively witnessed and contributed to its development and success. We currently own or manage 13 communities in Concord and aspire to continue doing so. Nevertheless, the proposed rent control policy could render this ambition nearly unattainable. Yes, your proposition allows for a fair passthrough if we pay $5,000 per petition. However, it's widely acknowledged that such petitions are rarely granted, even when meticulously adhering to the legal requirements.
Moreover, the prospect of reduced revenue due to rent control measures could force property owners to make difficult decisions. To cope with diminished incomes, landlords would be compelled to downsize their workforce, leading to potential job losses within our community.
Additionally, such constraints could hinder our ability to allocate funds for essential capital projects whose funds benefit the entire city, such as infrastructure improvements, public services, and community development initiatives.
Recent articles published in reputable sources, including The New York Times and The Economist, have shed light on the negative effects of rent control in various cities across the country. These articles have consistently highlighted how rent control tends to stifle the housing market, leading to a reduction in available housing and discouraging new investments.
A piece in The New York Times examined the housing market in San Francisco, a city with long-standing rent control policies. The article outlined how these measures contributed to a scarcity of available rental units and resulted in decreased maintenance and upkeep of properties due to constrained landlord revenues. Consequently, this led to a decline in the quality of housing, impacting the living standards of residents.
Additionally, an analysis in The Economist pointed out that rent control often disincentivizes landlords from making necessary repairs and renovations. Without the potential for reasonable returns on investments, property owners are less inclined to maintain and improve their properties, ultimately leading to the deterioration of housing stock.
As a community, we should strive for equitable solutions that address housing affordability without jeopardizing the integrity of our neighborhoods and the livelihoods of residents. I would appreciate it if you could consider alternative strategies that encourage collaboration between housing providers, promote responsible landlord-tenant relationships, and foster a thriving housing market while maintaining affordability and viability for all.
As a steadfast believer in progressive and inclusive governance, I do hope that a comprehensive understanding of the implications will guide your decisions. I earnestly hope that together, we can forge a path that preserves the essence of our community while ensuring fair and sustainable housing practices for all.
I want to thank you so much for your attention to this matter of paramount importance.
Sincerely,
Derek Raynor, CPM | Partner
Vasona Management, Inc.
Direct (408) 354-4200
www.vasonamanagement.com
DRE# 01225182
22645 Grand Street | Hayward, CA 94541 | Tel: 510 -582-1460 | edenhousing.org Broker License No. 872400
December 6, 2023
The Honorable Edi Bursan, Mayor of Concord
& City Council Members
Submitted via Email to: Valerie Barone, City Manager
Re: Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinance
Dear Mayor Bursan and Council Members,
On behalf of Eden Housing, I am writing to express our concern with the proposed ordinance and its potential impact on the City’s rent-restricted, publicly financed portfolio and request that the Council exempt all projects financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credit Financing and/or other public funding that have regulatory agreements in place that already govern among other things the rents that can be charged and the composition of households from income to number of occupants. By design, t hese programs require rents to be significantly below market and are important contributors to the affordable housing supply in Concord and the entire state. They do not require further regulation of the nature being contemplated by this ordinance and may even make it harder to achieve the City’s goals of creating and preserving affordable housing.
By way of background, Eden Housing is one of California’s oldest nonprofit affordable housing developers and owners. Since our inception in 1968, we’ve developed, acquired, and preserved more than 12,000 units of affordable housing. We have been working in Contra Costa County and with the City of Concord for several decades. We own 1,161 units in Contra Costa County and have 3 projects with 207 units in Concord (Virginia Lane Apartments, Coral Court and Sunset Pines that we recently acquired in partnership with the City) and are concerned that the Concord properties will be adversely impacted by this proposed ordinance.
We share the City’s values of protecting tenants and keeping them housed. In fact, we went to great lengths during COVID to assure that our tenants could remain in their housing. We didn’t raise rents for 2 full years across our portfolio and we worked very closely with our tenants to collect state and local rental assistance. We also created our own tenant assistance fund that we distributed to tenants. Even with this, the protracted moratoria have taken a significant financial toll on our portfolio. We are owed more than $4 million in outstanding past due rent from the COVID period, approximately $900,000 of it in Contra Costa County and approximately $173,000 of it at our Concord properties. We do not expect to collect any of this and have been working with our tenants to forgive outstanding balances in exchange for current rent payment.
At the same time, we are facing unprecedented cost increases in areas beyond our control.
Insurance is going up 31%, health insurance for our employees 16%, and PG&E is raising our rates by 13%. Our projects were underwritten with modest annual rent increases to assure that we can sustain them, further restricting our ability to adequately manage these properties is not only a disservice to the residents, but it also runs the risk of placing projects in default.
Our partnership with Concord has focused on the City’s priority of acquiring and renovating aging properties. Our goals have been to both create a new source of affordable housing and in the case of Virginia Lane, improve tenant and neighborhood conditions by upgrading properties that were problematic for the city. These buildings were originally built pre-1995
and use a myriad of highly restrictive programs to assure that the rents are below market – from the city to County HOME funding and funding from the State Department of Housing and Community Development and the Tax Credit Allocation Committee. All these programs restrict how much we can charge in any given year and do not need the further complication of this ordinance which in some instances may also conflict with the programmatic requirements of other jurisdictions that are financing these important af fordable housing resources.
We appreciate and share the City’s concern about the behavior of bad actor landlords, but we urge the Council to exempt tax credit and other publicly financed affordable housing developments from this ordinance. It could prevent developers from even considering the types of projects we’ve engaged in with the City and would be counter to the City’s own affordable housing objectives.
I would also note that Eden is aware of the concerns regarding rent increases in the tax credit program and has been working via our statewide associations to create a uniform solution to this problem at the state level where we think the problem is better resolved.
We greatly appreciate the partnership of the City in our work to solve the collective challenge of affordable housing. Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Linda Mandolini
President and CEO
Eden Housing, Inc.
Cc: Lindsay Haddix, Executive Director, East Bay Housing Organizations
From: sherry topete <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 2:42 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: LOCAL RENT AND EVICTION CONTROL ORDINANCE
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
We are a concerned provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.
This ordinance was written without economic
justification. The city chose to ignore data that
demonstrates that local owners will be operating their
Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities.
This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents
under market and suffered losses during the
COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring
housing providers to issue refunds on rent
increases we legally obtained even to renters
who have already voluntarily moved
out. How is this fair?
We strongly urge you to reconsider your
actions and remember that your own rent
registry report found that rents in Concord
are accessible to low-to-moderate income
households and working families. Please
reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.
Sincerely,
Rafael and Sherry Topete
Benched Correspondence received
from 12:00 p.m. on 12/7/23 until
4:00 p.m. on 12/11/23
Agenda Item No. 4.a
December 12, 2023
From: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 5:26 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: Memo urging Council to revise the draft Just Cause & Rent Stabilization ordinance to truly protect tenants from displacement
Dear Mayor Birsan, Council Members and City Staff,
On behalf of many organizations whose members are low-income and working families, immigrant and refugees, seniors on a fixed income, and young adults struggling to pay the rent, we express our appreciation for the extensive work that has gone into discussing and drafting the provisions of Concord’s new Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance (Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction). We trust that the City is dedicated to passing a strong measure that will protect Concord families from unaffordable rent increases and unfair evictions. So, are dismayed by the draft ordinance that will be discussed on Tuesday, as it falls short of providing much needed protections that vulnerable tenants and the majority of Council sought.
We have no choice but to strongly oppose the current draft, and ask the Council and staff to revise the ordinance, incorporating the suggestions from tenants and their advocates, who are the most impacted and have the most expertise. We are submitting the attached letter on behalf of nine organizations, urging the City to get the details of this law right as soon as possible. We request that the City Attorney provide a revised version of the ordinance for consideration at the City Council meeting on January 9, 2024. We support the proposals that the highly respected non-profit legal organizations Contra Costa submitted to the Council.
Sincerely,
Kristi Laughlin on behalf of
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy
Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay
Lift Up Contra Costa
Monument Impact
Rising Juntos
Todos Santo Tenants Union
--
Kristi Laughlin
Deputy Director of Contra Costa Campaigns
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Concord office: 2140 Minert Rd. 94518
510-847-2399
Preferred pronouns: She/Her
December 8, 2023
T o: Laura Hoffmeister, Mayor
Edi Birsan, Vice Mayor
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Cc: Valerie Barone, City Manager
Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
Kelly Rush, Housing Program Analyst
Dear Members of the Concord City Council and City Staff, We appreciate the extensive work that has gone into discussing and drafting the provisions of Concord’s new Residential T enant Protection Ordinance (Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction). Consistent with the commitment made in its 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City seems dedicated to passing a strong measure that will protect families from unaffordable rent increases and unfair evictions. We, too, share this dedication. For that reason, we have no choice but to strongly oppose the current draft. Instead, in this letter, we respectfully request that:
● The City Attorney and the City Manager meet with tenant attorneys to discuss the concerns raised in the letter and redlines submitted by legal service providers on December 4, 2023;
● The City Attorney provide a revised version of the ordinance for consideration at the City Council meeting on January 9, 2024; and
● The City Council invite a tenant attorney to provide subject matter expertise to the Council, as needed, at the meeting on January 9, 2024; and ● The City Council endorse Option #3 as the only approach to relocation assistance that is both equitable and effective.
Creating an Effective Ordinance
The City Attorney is responsible for translating the will of the City Council into effective law. In the case of Concord’s T enant Protection Ordinance, the City Council has given staff clear direction to write a law with provisions that are strong enough to protect low-income renters from documented issues of displacement and homelessness. The current draft has many of the right components. But unfortunately, they do not work together in the way that the City Council intended.
The letter submitted on December 4, 2023 by the California Center for Movement Legal Services, Public Advocates, Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, and Centro Legal de la Raza outlines nine ways in which the current draft will actually undermine the direction given by a majority of the City Council. For instance, the exemptions are so broad that they could be used to argue that these protections do not apply to any apartments in Concord.
Additionally, the fair return petition process is so permissive that it makes the 3% rent cap optional. Landlords could ask for a higher rent increase every time that they fail to make as much profit as the year before. These issues are too significant to address from the dais.
The City Attorney must go back to the drawing board in order to create a revised draft that will truly protect tenants from displacement and protect Concord from litigation. We request that the City Attorney and the City Manager meet with tenant attorneys to discuss the concerns raised in their letter and redlines as soon as possible.
The City of Concord and the community have been working together to pass meaningful tenant protections for seven years. We are finally at the finish line. But we need to ensure that the legal details are right. It is critical that this ordinance truly protects tenants and honors the sacrifices of the countless residents who took time away from their jobs and families to attend public meetings and risk landlord retaliation. T o accept such a flawed ordinance at this point in the process would mean going back on the commitments made to the community and the State during the Housing Element Update. The Housing Element revealed that too many tenants are barely making ends meet. Every week without these protections, more Concord families face
the terrifying prospect of being forced out of their homes. Time is of the essence to provide an effective, legally defensible ordinance. The City must get the details of this law right as soon as possible. We request that the City Attorney provide a revised version of the ordinance for consideration at the City Council meeting on January 9, 2024.
Concord has committed to passing effective tenant protections as part of its Housing Element to address the documented issue of economic displacement, which violates the fair housing rights of thousands of renters, including immigrants and people of color. Central to Housing Element Law, in particular the mandate to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686, is the need to center the experience and expertise of people impacted by housing inequity and members of protected classes in the creation of policy solutions. Concord has generally conformed with this mandate in recent years. With some exceptions, there were ample and appropriate opportunities for tenants and their advocates to participate in the Housing Element Update and the policy workshops for the present ordinance.
However, when it comes to the actual law, rather than the policies, this ordinance does not reflect the needs of low-income tenants. Despite numerous requests from tenant advocates to provide detailed input on the draft measure, the City has denied these requests. This represents a stark departure from the principle of public participation enshrined in Housing Element Law.
Further, it has led to the present draft being internally inconsistent and even legally vulnerable.
The same problem occurred during the development of the T enant Anti-Harassment Ordinance in 2021-22. The solution now–as it was then–is to continue to solicit and prioritize input from people who will use this law to protect tenants from unlawful rent increases and evictions. Thus, in addition to considering the redlines submitted by the tenant legal aid organizations, we request that the City Council invite a tenant attorney to provide subject matter expertise to the Council, as needed, at the meeting on January 9, 2024.
Providing Equitable and Effective Relocation Assistance We do not think that the current draft of the Residential T enant Protection Ordinance is ready for consideration on December 12. Still, we urge the City Council to resolve the outstanding issue of relocation assistance at this meeting. As stated in our letter, submitted on November 16, 2023, it is clear that Option #3–three times HUD Fair Market Rent plus $3,000 in moving expenses–is the only formula for relocation assistance that is both fair and effective. T able 1, which is attached to this letter, shows that Option #1 would not cover moving expenses for anyone. This would unfairly force tenants who are evicted through no fault of their own to pay thousands of dollars in moving costs. This is money that most low-income tenants do not have.
Without enough money to find a new unit and move into it, low-income tenants will either be forced to locate a less expensive unit (i.e., smaller, more rundown, not in Concord) or fail to make the move to a new unit at all. Option #1 would thus raise the chances of overcrowding, displacement, and homelessness, all of which were identified in the Housing Element as fair housing problems that this protection is meant to address. Option #2 is an improvement over Option #1, since it would partially cover the moving costs of singles and small families, but it
would punish larger families by not covering any of their expenses. Option #2 would thus insert inequity directly into the law. Option #3, by contrast, is the only approach that will ensure that all tenants who are evicted for no fault of their own receive the same stipend for moving costs, which is essential to preventing displacement and homelessness.
Moving is very expensive. For a family who is evicted for no fault of their own, a forced move is not only a disruption to their work, schooling, and social ties, it is also a sudden and unplanned expense that can overwhelm their finances. T able 2, which was also presented in our letter from November 16, 2023, shows a conservative estimate of moving costs for a family of four: $2,966. (A high-end estimate runs over $6,000.) These costs include application fees, packing materials, movers, cleaners for the previous unit, and a temporary storage unit. They also account for lost wages, hotel rooms, and other incidental expenses that increase the economic toll of searching for and moving into a new home. In the interest of promoting both fairness and family economic security, tenants should not be forced to go into debt because their landlord subjected them to a no-fault eviction. They should be made whole. Unfortunately, however, T able 3 shows that both Option #1 and Option #2 would force a four-person family to take on substantial moving-related debt. These approaches would financially penalize low-income families for evictions that are beyond their control. We thus urge the City Council to endorse Option #3 as the only approach to relocation assistance that is both equitable and effective.
Thank you for your consideration,
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy
Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay
Lift Up Contra Costa
Monument Impact
Rising Juntos
T odos Santo T enants Union
From: Wei Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 8:25 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please Vote Down the Rent Control Ordinance
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
As a City of Concord housing provider I am very concerned about the possibility of a rent control ordinance in the City of Concord.
It is important to recognize that the escalation of rental rates emanates from the lack of supply of housing. If we were to fast track the process of housing construction, the problem of out of rental rates will take care of itself.
As any student of economics will attest, rent control ordinances will benefit a few while working against the very people that it is designed to help. It will create subsidized housing for those that will never move and penalize newcomers.
A rent control ordinance will stifle the growth potential of the City of Concord as it will create an incentive for people to stay put no matter if they can get a better paying job elsewhere; it will reduce the availability of housing for those people just starting out as households will have less mobility.
We recently received a notice from the refuse company
announcing that their rates are increasing 6% as of January 1st; how is it possible that their rates are increasing by more than 60% of CPI as the ordinance mandates? Who is supposed to make up the difference? What about the double digit increases in
labor costs, materials and insurance? How are we, the housing providers, going to deal with those issues?
In closing, my opposition to the rent control ordinance is palpable. It is a mistake; it will become a slippery slope that will become a disincentive to additional investment in housing in the City of Concord.
I urge you to reconsider the ramifications of such a draconian measure. I urge you to vote down the ordinance and work toward a more measured solution to the housing issue that affects us all.
Thank You,
Wei Kang
(510) 299-2701
From: Yuehong Fu <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 8:37 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Ordinance
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council members,
I urge you to vote down the rent control ordinance, it will hurt the future of the City of Concord and it will end up being detrimental to those that it is targeted to help most.
It is clear that we have a housing crisis, not only in the City of Concord but in the entire state of California. Some statistics show that we have a housing deficit of over 800,00 homes in the major metro areas.
The problem is that we have a few homes and as any economic student will tell you, with little supply and great demand, the prices of any good will rise. If you cap the price, then the supply will shrink. There will be fewer units available to newcomers because fewer people will move and those available units will be priced higher.
The lack of mobility will reduce economic growth in the City of Concord as people will refuse better paying jobs in order to keep their rent control apartment.
One of the solutions to this problem is to create incentives for new low-income housing construction. Once supply is increased the rental rate will take care of itself.
In closing, I am opposed to the rent control ordinance. We have to do better as a community, we need to adopt a model followed by cities like Walnut Creek, Lafayette of Pleasant Hill rather than Richmond or Oakland were crime and homelessness is rampant.
Thank You,
Yuehong Fu
December 9, 2023
Sent via email to
[email protected]
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
We are an owner of 32 units in Concord California and oppose the rent control ordinance that is being proposed.
We are a small family business and we have owned our rental property for over 30 years. We have struggled through many obstacles as landlords. We provide a well maintained and secure location for our residents while facing changing laws that expose us to increase in liability, along with increases in operating costs including city taxes and fees.
Your proposed ordinance creates continued hardships for the owners. We are NOT large corporations with deep pockets. I’m sure if you check your data, I would guess you will find the majority of the owners you are punishing are small families. Is this your intent? The state already passed rental control (contrary to a proposition that the voters in California voted against). Why do we need additional controls? We live in America. We should not be dictated to on what we charge for rent. This is privately owned property. Your only role should be to make sure we are abiding by the laws to provide a safe and healthy place to live.
Charging a rent registry and requiring us to refund tenants who no longer reside on our property is over stepping your authority and seems unconstitutional.
Perhaps you should start putting caps on Grocery Stores for what they can charge for food. Or how about caps on the gasoline prices. I”m sure you would be very successful against the large oil companies. Instead you pray on small family businesses.
Your actions are harming a lot of good hard working people who provide a very difficult service and benefit to our fellow neighbors.
Stop the political game. The owners will not let this go uncontested. We urge you to reconsider your actions. They will do more harm than good.
Sincerely
Robert Giffin
Linda Giffin
On Dec 8, 2023, at 3:03 PM, Alex Werth <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Councilmember Birsan,
I'm aware that you've received emails from property owners, property managers, realtors, etc. who claim that passing tenant protections with a 3% rent cap will cause adverse economic impacts in Concord. Unfortunately, this is a common strategy used by the real estate industry to create fear and confusion among elected officials who are taking actions to protect renters.
Thankfully, however, there is ample data to refute these claims. As trusted allies, I wanted to share our coalition's talking points in case you find them useful in formulating a response.
I'm also aware that a property owner named Gary Sabbadini has sent a number of detailed messages alleging that a 3% rent cap will prevent him from adequately maintaining his properties. I wanted to pull out some notes from the talking points document that speak to these claims at a general level.
• Landlords claim that, if they cannot charge unlimited rent increases, then they will not be able to maintain their properties, and that tenants, property values, and city revenues will suffer as a result. But taking care of one’s property and maintaining habitability for tenants are not elective choices. They are the primary legal responsibilities of landlords. • Studies have found that the strength of habitability laws and enforcement measures have a much stronger impact on property maintenance than rent stabilization. If landlords are truly concerned with maintaining quality homes for their tenants, then they should support strong code enforcement programs rather than lobby against rent stabilization.
• If landlords genuinely feel as though the rent cap is preventing them from making a fair return, then they can file a petition to request an additional rent increase. • Data from other cities with rent stabilization reveal that landlords rarely undertake these [fair return] petitions....because the vast majority of landlords are able to make a fair return regardless of rent regulations. One reason for this is that an evaluation of fair return is made for a property as a whole. So, even if a landlord loses money on certain tenancies, they tend to compensate for those losses on other units, thus ensuring that their overall financial needs are met.
I also wanted to provide some specific thoughts that address Mr. Sabbadini's claims in more detail.
Good morning. I am planning on attending the City County Meeting on Tuesday but should my scheduled flight with a 5:30 PM arrival time in Oakland be delayed and I’m unable to attend the meeting, I wanted to share my talking points with you to provide you with time to reflect on them.
Proposal
4. Cap rent increases at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower. a. What is the economic justification for imposing this in Concord when only 16 cities in CA have a different rent control than the state rent control law. The economic justification is reducing racial and economic disparities in housing
conditions, which violate the fair housing rights of thousands of Concord renters.
The City of Concord's Housing Element revealed that these disparities--including cost burden, overcrowding, and displacement risk--disproportionately harm lower-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, people of color, and immigrants. The Housing Element further revealed that the protections afforded under AB 1482 have not been enough to stop displacement and affirmatively further fair housing in Concord. As such, the City Council committed to passing stronger local tenant protections, as permitted under State law. b. Of the cities with rent control that don’t have a rent board, this proposed Concord rent control would be the most restrictive rent control in the state I don't know enough about rent stabilization policies in Southern California cities.
But Mr. Sabbadini's information about some Northern California cities is either wrong or misleading, as explained below. So, I would read the rest of this with a grain of salt.
i. Beverly Hills – 8% limit
ii. Los Angeles – 8% limit
iii. Hayward – 5% limit
iv. East Palo Alto – 10% First, East Palo Alto does have a rent board. Second, while the maximum increase in any given year is 10%, in practice the average rent cap for the last 13 years has been 2.5% because it is defined as 80% of CPI.
v. Palm Springs – 75% of CPI
vi. Oakland – 10% Oakland also has a rent board and its rent cap is 3% or 60% of CPI--i.e. the same formula now included in Concord's draft ordinance.
vii. Los Gatos – 5%
viii. San Jose – 5%
ix. Santa Monica – 75% of CPI
x. Berkeley, West Hollywood, and San Francisco set by their rent boards c. CA State rent control is 10% or 5% plus the CPI, whichever is lower
5. Require base rents to roll back to January 2023 levels. a. What is your justification for doing this? Myself along with many other landlords are still dealing with the losses incurred during the rent moratorium established during COVID. This is meant to proactively address the fact that, once it becomes clear that a city is going to pass rent stabilization, many landlords rush to increase rents as much as they can before future rent increases are capped. This is an extremely common approach among cities with rent stabilization in the Bay Area.
6. Issue rent refunds for any increases above the new rent cap—even to those who voluntarily vacated their units.
a. What is the justification for doing this when these rent increases were legally obtained This was an accidental overstep on the part of the City Council. It should not be a part of the final ordinance.
7. Increase permanent relocation payment for no-fault termination up to three months' HUD Fair Market Rent or $8,500 plus additional enhancements for households with special circumstances.
8. Charge a new rent registry unit fee of up to $52 per unit. a. The current rent registry unit fee is $23 per unit. This would be a 226% increase when you are limiting landlord’s ability to raise the rent to 1.92% (60% of the current CPI rate of 3.2%) The increase from $23 to $52 is actually 126%, not 226%. But regardless, this shows that pointing to a percent increase rather than an absolute increase can be misleading. Yes, this may be a 126% increase in registration fees. But that only translates to $29. Meanwhile, if the rent on an apartment is $2,500 and it increases just 1.92%, it still goes up by $48 in absolute terms. In other words, the starting amount matters just as much as the percent change when discussing such figures. Given that talking about percent increases rather than absolute increases paints an incomplete picture, none of the following claims about increasing costs should be taken at face value.
9. Garbage rates are increasing 6% in 2024 and went up 11% in 2023
10. Water rates are increasing roughly 6% in 2024
11. Property taxes went up 2.03% in 2023
12. My property insurance rates went up 5.03% in 2023
13. PG&E went up 5.5% in 2023
14. Concord Business License Fee went up 5.6% in 2023
15. Concord Inspection fees have gone up every year
Capping our ability to raise rents to match rising fixed costs will hamper our ability to provide quality housing for our tenants as landlords will be forced to cut costs. These comments could be construed as tantamount to threats to engage in problematic behavior, if not violate laws, e.g. by reducing housing services or promoting uninhabitable conditions.
Please feel free to reach out to any of us for more information or to share your thoughts on this matter.
Thanks so much,
Alex Werth
Policy and Research Advisor
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Policy, Research, and Campaign Consultant
www.linkedin.com/in/alexwerthphd/
Pronouns: He/Him/His
From: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2023 9:10 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: FW: Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance for residents in low- income housing
Valerie, I was able to locate the letter from Urban Habitat that I referenced in a previous email. As you surmised, this letter was not benched as it was only sent to councilmembers.
Please included this forwarded message and the attached letter in the benched correspondence for our December 12th meeting on Tuesday.
Thank you,
Laura
Laura M. Nakamura
City Council Member, District 5
City of Concord| Web: www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 338-1259 Facebook Page
From: Chris Schildt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:14 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Cc: Linda Yu <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance for residents in low-income housing
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and Concord City Councilmembers,
Thank you for your leadership on the residential rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances. These policies are critical to stabilize renters and ensure Concord is a place all residents can call home. In order for these policies to be effective, they must cover Concord’s most vulnerable residents who live in low-income housing.
Concord’s low-income residents deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by renters who can afford market rate.
Please see attached for our full letter.
Thank you, and we look forward to working with you to create an equitable Concord for all,
Chris
--
Chris Schildt (she/her)
Director of Housing Justice
Urban Habitat
2000 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612
(408) 499-1394
www.urbanhabitat.org
Read our new report, Regional Resegregation: Building Power in Bay Area Suburbs.
Follow us on Facebook!
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Dr.
Concord, CA 94519
September 11, 2023
RE: Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance for residents in low-income housing
To Mayor Hoffmeister and Concord City Council,
Thank you for your leadership on the residential rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances. These policies are critical to stabilize renters and ensure Concord is a place all residents can call home. In order for these policies to be effective, they must cover Concord’s most vulnerable residents who live in low-income housing. Concord’s low-income residents deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by renters who can afford market rate.
Low-income housing is any home that receives public funds to provide rents that are restricted to be below market-rate. It may be owned by a nonprofit or a for-profit corporation. The largest source of low-income housing funding is from Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Over 100,000 low-income homes in the Bay Area receive LIHTC funds, which is 85% of all low- income homes in the Bay Area.
Thousands of residents live in LIHTC housing in Concord, including seniors, families, and people at risk of homelessness. The median income of renter households in LIHTC housing statewide is $21,684. More than 80 percent of residents are Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC).
Low-income renters need rent stabilization. Statewide, 40% of renters in LIHTC buildings are rent burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Rent in these buildings is not based on how much a tenant earns. Instead, the maximum rent is determined by a federal formula based on Area Median Income. State law currently exempts LIHTC housing from the state rent cap in the Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. In nearby cities, renters in LIHTC buildings have received rent increases of hundreds of dollars. The only protection against these tremendous rent increases is to include LIHTC housing in a local rent stabilization ordinance.
Renters in low-income buildings need just cause for eviction protections. There are no meaningful just cause eviction protections for tenants in LIHTC units. Federal law states that tenants in LIHTC units are protected from eviction without “good cause”. However, these protections on paper are not defined or enforced, and are not actually stopping evictions; Research shows that tenants in LIHTC housing get evicted at the same rate as those in market- rate housing.
The City can extend tenant protections to low-income renters without jeopardizing new affordable housing developments. State law exempts all housing built since 1995 from local rent control. New affordable housing developments will not be subject to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance.
Most affordable housing units in Concord are owned by outside investors, not local nonprofits.
There are roughly 1,400 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units in Concord. 80% of these units – more than 1,000 units – are owned by out-of-town investors, primarily from Southern California. The thousands of low-income seniors, families, and workers who live in these homes deserve to have the same level of housing stability as other renters in the city.
Concord can and should follow the leadership of neighboring cities. Antioch includes all low- income housing in its newly adopted rent stabilization program, and Petaluma’s just cause for eviction ordinance also covers all low-income housing. Berkeley, which has had rent stabilization since 1978, also includes corporate-owned LIHTC buildings in its ordinance.
Please approve the rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances with LIHTC units covered.
Thank you for your hard work, and we look forward to working with you to create an equitable Concord for all.
Chris Schildt
Director of Housing Justice
Urban Habitat
Linda Yu
Housing Practice Co-Director & Clinical Supervising Attorney East Bay Community Law Center
From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:08 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn
<[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent Message Regarding Proposed Rent Control Ordinance - Discussion of Below Market Rents and the 60 Percent Provision
Dear Laura Hoffmeister, Edi Birsan, Dominic Aliano, Laura Nakamura and Carlyn Obringer,
I am writing as an owner of a 10-unit apartment building in Concord. I am not writing in any other capacity and my comments are my personal comments and may or may not align with the views of any organizations of which I am a member or otherwise support. This message is sent to you to express concerns about the draft version of the rent control ordinance. I have read the document and while I respect the work performed to date, there is much more work to be done before the ordinance is passed. Nothing in my message to you should be taken as challenging the work you have done so far or calling anyone out personally for the place where we find ourselves today as a result of the work. I am simply looking for a better outcome for all concerned.
I read the document last week. Ever since reading it I have been stressed, lost sleep and am worried about my financial future, the future of those looking for housing in Concord and the future of Concord itself. My wife and I share the mission of providing reasonably priced housing for those who choose to rent a place to call home in Concord. And we have been doing so. The proof is in the numbers. Our two-bedroom units are approximately 875 square feet each, provide laundry in each unit, a small private backyard for each unit and two covered parking spaces. Market rent is $2,300+ per unit. Our current rents are $2,065 per unit, which is
11.4 percent below market. Four of the 10 units are under the HELP program for tenants with low income. In 2022 the allowable rent for these units was $1,826. We are currently renting them for $1,660 per unit which is 10.00 percent below the allowable rent for these units as of 18 months ago. I am sure the shortfall is greater for 2023 and will be even greater in 2024.
Since the pandemic started in early 2000, we have had one rent increase. Our collected rents have lagged the market and allowable rents under HELP by $2,054 per month, which is $24,648 per year and for a period of four years, $98,952. So no one can say that we are not providing cost effective l housing for our tenants. We do however need to prepare for retirement and must be realistic about how much we can give to others. I am in my late 60’s my wife is in her early 70’s. We will have two key sources of income in retirement: social security; and the net income from our apartments. We have worked our whole lives to own these apartments. We purchased these apartments 20 years ago as we needed a source of income which keeps up with inflation.
Growth of rental income equal to or in excess of inflation is a key component of us being able to retire and not run out of money.
Under a rent control ordinance which provides 60 percent of CPI with a 3 percent cap, we might assume average rental increases of 2.4 percent per year. This indicates that to reach market and allowable rents under the HELP program, it will take us in excess of 4 years to reach current market rents, and by that time it is likely market rents will be another 10 percent higher than they are right now. In other words for being tenant centric housing providers for the first 20 years of our ownership, we will be permanently damaged and unable to ever approach market rents for our units. We have heard that the City of Concord wants to help small apartment owners yet I see nothing in the ordinance which would allow us to be treated any differently than the large owners who have maximized their rents each year. As a small owner with below market rents, we are being permanently punished for the acts of others.
One response to the concern of rents lagging inflation for a long period of time is that when tenants move out, we will be able to re-rent at market. Unfortunately that simply will not help.
Our tenants rarely move out and the lower rents are compared to market, the less likely they are to move out. We have four tenants who have been with us for 20 years. I do not see them moving out. And we have two tenant who have returned as adults to rent units with us after having grown up in the same complex as children. The four tenants in our HELP units will not be moving. They are paying $1,660 in a $2,300 market. So easily eight of our ten tenants will likely never move. And under the proposed ordinance we will suffer very small rent increases for those tenants which will erode our net income (income after expenses).
The real issue here is the 60 percent of CPI provision. When you were considering rent control some years ago before the statewide rent control passed, I twice came to counsel meetings to voice my concern about what at that time was being proposed: a 3 percent allowable annual increase. I clearly stated that 3 percent as a cap was too low and that it would cause issues with expenses going forward growing more quickly than income. The current proposal of 60 percent of CPI with a 3 percent cap is even more devastating and this is what I have been losing sleep over.
CPI in and of itself does not keep up with the true cost of goods and services. CPI understates the true cost of living increases over time. The longer the time period the worse the effects. This is why endowments set their grow rates at:
CPI + the spending rate (usually about 5 percent), + a margin (usually an additional 1 to 2 percent) for a total of about 9 percent
We should all agree that CPI understates the true cost of goods and services and not allow a discounting of that rate, when others in the “real world” are adding 1 to 2 percent onto CPI, not taking 1 to 2 percent (or in the case of your proposed ordinance about 1.2 percent) off of CPI.
This is absolutely devastating to long term owners who have below market rents and who have not increased rents over the past four years to keep with inflation.
PLEASE REMOVE THE 60 PERCENT FACTOR AND PROVIDE FOR RENT INCREASES OF 3 PERCENT PER YEAR.
I would be happy to discuss my concerns and other ideas if you would be so kind as to call me at the number below.
James Dye
925-784-1650
From: Courtney Pal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 9:35 AM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Cc: Nick Griffin <[email protected]>; Dan Sawislak <[email protected]>; Aaron Tiedemann <[email protected]>
Subject: RCD Comments on Rent Stabilization Policy
Good morning Sophia,
Attached please find a letter from Resources for Community Development regarding the rent stabilization ordinance. We would appreciate if you could share this letter with Council before their meeting on Tuesday.
Best,
Courtney
Courtney Pal | she/her/hers | Policy Manager
Resources for Community Development
2220 Oxford Street | Berkeley, CA 94704
RCDHOUSING.ORG | 510 841 4410 x334#
December 11, 2023
The Honorable Edi Bursan, Mayor of Concord
City of Concord City Councilmembers
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Delivered via electronic mail
Re: Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Dear Mayor Bursan and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Resources for Community Development (RCD), I am writing to express our concern with the broad application of the proposed rent stabilization ordinance to all Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit financed properties. We request that the ordinance is amended to exempt affordable housing developments that have Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing (LIHTC) as well as a regulatory agreement from a government agency funding source that imposes income and rent restrictions.
RCD is a non-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving affordable homes for people with the fewest options. Since 1990, we have developed over 2,600 affordable rental homes across the Bay Area. Within Concord, we currently provide 235 homes affordable to low-income individuals and families, with another 62-unit development scheduled to open its doors next year.
As a mission-driven non-profit, we share the City’s goals to improve housing affordability and prevent displacement and homelessness. Indeed, we support the other provisions of this ordinance package, including just cause for eviction and expanded relocation benefits for tenants. Affordable housing nonprofits have implemented similar programs in our portfolios for many years. We support the extension of these types of policies to the private housing market to help keep tenants housed.
We are concerned specifically with the rent stabilization provision of the ordinance because it fails to account for fundamental differences in both the goals and financial structure of for-profit and non- profit housing providers.
To be clear, substantial rent increases beyond what tenants can reasonably pay do not align with our values or meet our goals as a mission-driven non-profit. Our properties are regulated and monitored by multiple state and local agencies to ensure rents remain at below market rates. Many properties, including those with funding commitments from Contra Costa County, already have stipulations in
their regulatory agreements that limit rent increases to no more than 5% annually. Additionally, RCD has voluntarily adopted our own internal equity-based policy to distribute rent increases based on tenants’ rent burdens, in order to help keep people stably housed. As a result, the reality is that rents at our properties are often much lower than the ceilings set by regulatory agencies: across our portfolio, only 2% of RCD tenants pay the maximum restricted rent we’re permitted to charge.
That being said, our properties are underwritten assuming modest annual rent increases to ensure that our buildings have the operating income to remain safe, beautiful, well-maintained, service enriched, and sustainable resources for our tenants and the surrounding community. Due to the shortage of public funds for affordable housing development, we often need to maximize the amount of conventional financing we can leverage from the operating cash flow in order be able to finance and actually construct the property. Our developments are underwritten with a much smaller ratio of cash flow to debt obligations than for-profit multifamily housing developments. For- profit landlords have a much larger margin before lower-than-planned income affects their ability to meet their debt obligations and maintain their properties. However, for non-profit properties operating with thin margins, limits on rent increases below those originally underwritten in the deal can reduce cash flow below what is required to maintain buildings to the high standard that our tenants deserve.
To provide a real-world example of these impacts: RCD’s Lakeside Apartments in Concord is an acquisition and rehabilitation project that we completed in 2005. We are currently evaluating the feasibility of a rehabilitation project to ensure this property can continue to provide high-quality housing to very low-income and special needs communities. In today’s constrained finance environment, there are insufficient public funds to address the totality of the property’s maintenance needs. Therefore, we need to leverage conventional bank financing that is supported by property cash flow. For every $1 of additional rental cash flow, $157 is leveraged towards additional construction work on the property. Any rent increases connected to this rehabilitation work would comply with our rent restrictions, local regulatory agreements, and our own internal equity-based policies, taking great care to ensure that rent increases don’t create an undue burden.
However, an additional outright limitation on rent increases as low as 3% or 60% of CPI, as proposed in this ordinance, will limit our ability to fully address the physical needs of this property.
We certainly understand and share advocates’ and Council’s concerns regarding “bad actor” landlords, including certain LIHTC properties. We appreciate the difficulty of reigning in the behavior of those landlords without also impacting those acting in good faith. At the state level, we are working with partners to craft legislation that addresses these intricacies while also preventing rent increases that create housing instability.
With its current language, we worry that the proposed rent stabilization provisions would not only negatively impact tenants at our existing affordable housing developments, but also discourage the creation of new affordable housing in the city - particularly for acquisition and rehabilitation work that we know is a priority. We urge you to amend the ordinance to exempt affordable housing developments that have Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing (LIHTC) as well as regulatory agreements from a government agency funding source that imposes income and rent restrictions.
We appreciate your consideration of these comments as we work towards our shared goal of affordable housing for all.
Sincerely,
Courtney Pal
Policy Manager
Resources for Community Development
CC: Nick Griffin, Director of Asset Management, RCD
Dan Sawislak, Executive Director, RCD
Sophia Huckabay, Housing Program Manager, City of Concord Aaron Tiedemann, Policy Manager, EBHO
From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Urgent Message Regarding Proposed Rent Control Ordinance - Additional Thoughts on Proper Application of CPI (CPI Plus a Percentage)
Dear Laura Hoffmeister, Edi Birsan, Dominic Aliano, Laura Nakamura and Carlyn Obringer,
I sent an email earlier this morning about my concerns about the proposed rent control ordinance and specifically, the 60 percent of CPI provision. I am writing to provide some additional thoughts on the proper application of CPI.
Again, I am writing as an owner of a 10-unit apartment building in Concord. I am not writing in any other capacity and my comments are my personal comments and may or may not align with the views of any organizations of which I am a member or otherwise support. This message is sent to you to express concerns about the draft version of the rent control ordinance. I have read the document and while I respect the work performed to date, there is much more work to be done before the ordinance is passed. Nothing in my message to you should be taken as challenging the work you have done so far or calling anyone out personally for the place where we find ourselves today as a result of the work. I am simply looking for a better outcome for all concerned.
Additional thoughts on CPI:
1. When the State of California passed statewide rent control, the general terms were: CPI plus 5 percent, not to exceed 10 percent total. This was a good formula, with perhaps numbers which are a bit too high.
2. I believe the City of Concord should implement a similar formula, with different numbers, but certainly not a number which is less than CPI.
3. As mentioned in my prior email, endowments use a formula which includes a 1 or 2 percent margin above CPI.
4. Hence, I think the proper formula is:
CPI, plus 1.5 percent, not to exceed 5.00 percent
This is half of the Cap provided by the statewide rent control and less than one third of the margin (1.5/5.0) provided by statewide rent control. It would be a victory for proponents of rent control without unfairly punishing housing providers.
The issue with the CPI provision currently included in the proposed ordinance is that it is modeled after or copied from cities which I do not want to see Concord become in terms of housing policy or affordable housing: Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond and San Francisco.
There are so many abuses that can occur with a rent control ordinance: In my work as a real estate agent I once sold a 7-unit property in San Franscisco where the top floor penthouse was occupied by a tenant who was a protected tenant and who rented out two of the three bedrooms to other tenants. He made a profit doing so and actually made money living there. The landlord could not raise the rent due to others living there and the landlord could not evict the tenant or the sub-tenants.
This is but one example of why I think the proposed ordinance in Concord needs a lot more work. I am sad that I was not included in prior work you did with landlords. I do not recall receiving any notices or invitations. This is the reason I am writing to you today, December 11th.
Again, please call me to discuss if you are able to do so. My cell number is 925-784-1650.
James Dye
925-784-1650
From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 11:32 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Urgent Message Regarding Proposed Rent Control Ordinance - Thoughts on the Rollback Provision
Dear Laura Hoffmeister, Edi Birsan, Dominic Aliano, Laura Nakamura and Carlyn Obringer,
I sent two emails earlier this morning about my concerns regarding the proposed rent control ordinance and specifically, the 60 percent of CPI provision. I am writing to share thoughts on another provision of the proposed rent control ordinance which is of great concern to me: the rollback provision calling for rents to be rolled back to their January 1, 2023 levels.
Again, I am writing as an owner of a 10-unit apartment building in Concord. I am not writing in any other capacity and my comments are my personal comments and may or may not align with the views of any organizations of which I am a member or otherwise support. This message is sent to you to express concerns about the draft version of the rent control ordinance. I have read the document and while I respect the work performed to date, there is much more work to be done before the ordinance is passed. Nothing in my message to you should be taken as challenging the work you have done so far or calling anyone out personally for the place where we find ourselves today as a result of the work. I am simply looking for a better outcome for all concerned.
Thoughts on the proposed rollback provision:
1. The proposed rollback provision to January 1, 2023 is untimely and unfair given economic events over the past four years.
2. The pandemic started in January 2000, we have had one rent increase since the start of the pandemic. I am sure many other housing providers are in the same situation.
3. At the same time, there have been 12-month periods during the pandemic where the CPI as reported by the US government has increased over 9 percent in one 12-month period.
4. During the period January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2024 (a four year period) the cost of goods and services is up substantially while the ability of landlords to raise rents to offset these costs of operations has been limited. As a result, rents for existing tenants have lagged inflation and costs and rents for existing tenants have also lagged market rents. So locking rents for any period of time to January 1, 2023 rents, is locking rents to a level below which they otherwise would have been if we had not all experienced significant inflation and a moratorium on rent increases.
5. To now ignore those time periods during which costs have increased at an unprecedented rate, and to lock rents at the muted levels which existing tenants were paying in January 1, 2023, is effectively reducing the rents landlords can charge to keep their heads above water after experiencing the highest inflation in over 40 years.
6. I looked up the All Cities CPI numbers for January 2020 and for the latest month reported, October 2023 and found the following:
a. January 2020 was 257.971
b. October 2023 was 307.671
c. The represents an increase of 19.26 percent
d. When the numbers come out for November, December and January, the amounts will be even higher.
e. During this time period it is fair to say, CPI, which again understates to true increase in the cost of living, will exceed 20 percent
7. During this period while CPI will be up 20+ percent, we raised rents 5 percent.
8. The provisions of the proposed rent control ordinance will mean that we will permanently leave a 15 percent increase in CPI on the table never to be realized and we will have an impossible time keeping up with changes in the cost of living moving from this point forward.
You have found us as housing providers in a damaged state and you are proposing to continue to damage us into the future via a rollback provision and a proposed limit of less than CPI with a very low cap.
I believe the rollback provision should be eliminated or alternatively, housing providers should be allowed to implement the statewide rent control formula for the period from January 1, 2023 until such time as a well-conceived and thoroughly vetted rent control ordinance (with a future implementation date, not a retroactive implementation date) is enacted in Concord.
If the currently proposed rollback period is enacted, housing providers will have had flat rents for over FOUR years (January 1, 2023 through some yet to be determined date in 2024, with only one rent increase. As shown via the math above, this is untimely and unfair. The City has other options to help renters including but not limited to:
considering a livable minimum wage in Concord;
providing fee waivers for construction of new affordable housing in Concord;
finishing the work on the Concord Naval Weapons Station;
considering universal income.
There is no reason to fully burden small property housing providers with the desire to provide affordable housing to tenants wanting to make their home in Concord.
James Dye
925-784-1650
From: Dennis Razzari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 1:50 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Ananthan, Stefanie <[email protected]>
Cc: Diana Fox <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Hearing 12/12/23 Amending Concord Municipal Code 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program
Ms. Fockler and Ms. Ananthan,
Attached is Davidon Homes letter in opposition to the Concord City Council’s amending and adoption of Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program. Please circulate this letter to the Mayor Laura Hoffmeister and City Council Members as well as City Manager Valerie Barone. A copy will also be hand delivered to the City this afternoon.
Thank you,
Dennis Razzari
President & CEO
Davidon Homes
1600 S. Main Street, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-945-8000 ext 112 Office
925-260-4381 Mobile
[email protected]
City Clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, I am a Concord resident and am very concerned about the proposed draft ordinance for Rent Control and Just Cause as renters have fought for 7 years to have meaningful and strong protections.
With this ordinance, we believed we would finally have the protections we desperately needed.
However, the draft of the ordinance is unacceptable. It offers too many loopholes and falls short of what the council had promised to community members. The loopholes allow landlords to ignore the 3% rent cap and does not protect tenants from unjust evictions.
The draft offers too many exceptions that allow landlords sidestep the rent cap and provides weak eviction protections. My community in Concord did not fight for 7 years to have an ordinance that doesn't truly protect us.
We have trusted you to pass strong Rent Control and Just Cause policies. Now, we are counting on you to hold true to your promise!
Please send this ordinance back. We can not support this policy until it:
1. Ensures that as many renters as possible are covered
2. Offers a more limited definition of "fair return" for landlords
3. Offers better protections from bad faith Owner Move Ins
4. Implements all of the Ellis Act protections
5. Ensures that violations of this ordinance can be used as a defense against unjust evictions.
We are counting on you to make this policy strong. Please send it back for improvements before voting to pass it.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
The following people sent the above email:
1. Aaron Prather, Concord, CA
2. Maria Mejia, Concord, CA
3. Margaret Petcoff, Concord, CA
4. Elena Bernal, Concord, CA
5. Jennifer Gonzales-Sperske, Concord, CA
6. Cynthia Martinez, Concord, CA
7. Rev. Millie Phillips, Oakland, CA
8. Michelle Queirolo, Oakland, CA
9. Jody Smith, Concord, CA
10. Stewart Florsheim, Piedmont, CA
11. Laura Eberly, Concord, CA
12. Katherine Walley, Walnut Creek, CA
13. Melissa Cardinet, Walnut Creek, CA
From: Bay Area Rentals <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 2:51 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.
The ordinance was written without merit. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities. Are you aware of the increased cost to obtain insurance in California? Many are being denied coverage. Those who were dropped are having to acquire it through California FAIR plan are paying 100, 200, upwards of 500% more than they did in the past. That's leaving very, very little profit if any. Would you work for less than minimum wage? Would you pay to work? That is what will happen if you continue to set these rent control caps.
Banks will not finance properties that are not producing an income. You will single handedly destroy the city of Concord if you continue to make law, ordinances, and policies for a business industry you know nothing about. Do you know how much it costs to maintain an individual unit? How about an entire apartment building? What does a property manager charge? Do you know the average number of days, weeks or months units are vacant and therefore producing zero income? The mortgage, insurance, utilities, management fees, maintenance, leasing and marketing efforts all still must still be paid even when the unit is producing zero dollars. Let's not forget, your salary and all those in the council are paid with funds from taxes. Taxes are still due even if a unit is vacant and/or the rent is not paid. Taxes also increase every year regardless of the income generated. Profit or loss, the bills are still due.
You should spend your weekends showing vacancies only to be stood-up more than half the time or Thanksgiving fielding calls reporting backed up toilets, jammed garbage disposals, no hot water, etc and calling dozens of trade professionals to see who's available and can meet you.
This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. The market is at an all-time low. We have units sit vacant for months!
I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and remember that your own rent registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families.
Please reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.
The state of California has rent control policies in place. There is no reason to even have members of a Concord Rent Control; it should be eliminated. The salaries paid to this regime should go to better things. Things that are needed like more Police. Creating policies and problems to maintain a board is unnecessary, a waste of tax payors money, discrimination against landlords, and ultimately a disservice to renters. Why would anyone want to own and operate rental properties in Concord? This is a thankless job and hard enough. Stop this, now. You are wasting our limited resources on policies that will not help landlords, property managers, or renters.
Benched Correspondence received
from 4:00 p.m. on 12/11/23 until
3:00 p.m. on 12/12/23
Agenda Item No. 4.a
December 12, 2023
From: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Date: December 11, 2023 at 3:41:23 PM PST
To: "Hoffmeister, Laura" <[email protected]>, "Birsan, Edi" <[email protected]>, "Aliano, Dominic" <[email protected]>, "Nakamura, Laura" <[email protected]>, "Obringer, Carlyn" <[email protected]> Cc: "Barone, Valerie" <[email protected]> Subject: Just Cause and Relocation Assistance
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, Palm Terrace Rental Condominiums (PT) at 2925 Monument Blvd. in Concord, was approved for conversion to condominiums at the height of the recent housing bubble. After it burst, with a 50% drop in prices, many foreclosed owners returned to the rental market.
At that time, it was clear that PT would need to postpone conversion. Since then, all PT leases have included the mandated notice provided by California G.C. Sect. 66459 which is included in the attached condo addendum. You will see that it provides a Right of First Refusal to purchase the unit at a discount when it is offered for sale, and it provides an additional one year extension of the notice period, in consideration for the lease. It does not require further consideration in the form of Relocation Assistance.
Your staff has now informed me that PT would be covered by the Just Cause and Relocation Assistance provided for in your proposed rental housing regulations. If that were the case it could cost us another couple million dollars to complete this project. That is not necessary because the existing tenants have already agreed to move with no relocation assistance in consideration for an option to buy, and for an extended notice period. In fact, if your new regulation is adopted it could constitute unlawful interference with existing legally enforceable contractual agreements, and the additional costs would result in substantial damages to the ownership. Of course, we could not allow that to stand.
Agreement on that point should not require a legal interpretation. It should simply require an honest, good faith decision on your part to abide by existing obligations. The legal details can follow.
To summarize, the owners of PT request that it be fully exempted from the applicability of this ordinance by adding an additional category to Sect. 19.40.020 (a). The new and final category would be;
19.40.020 (a) (10) The condominium conversion project known as Palm Terrace, and consisting of 190 units located at 2925 Monument Blvd., Concord.
In the event you are unable to agree on this when you vote on the ordinance, it is my suggestion that you postpone the vote until your legal folks can meet with those of PT in an effort to avoid any further waste of taxpayer money and reach an amicable decision on the relevant issue. Thank you very much for your attention to this.
Merle D. Hall, agent for the owners of Palm Terrace.
PS: In case you have not seen it, I have also attached a John Burns Research Report on the Bay Area Housing outlook. If you have not studied it, you may find it informative. Not only are multi-family rents already beginning to come down, but it illustrates an interesting aspect of the demand for rental housing. Many tenants who would otherwise buy, are backed up in rentals because the resale inventory is only 1/3 of normal. Of course, that will change, and as rents continue to decline relative to inflation, you will see that the “crisis” you are concerned about does not exist at all. So although City costs, and owner operating costs will be greatly increased, there will be no benefit at all from this ordinance.
PALM TERRACE CONDOMINIUM RENTALS
(rev 2-9-19)
CONDOMINIUM RENTAL ADDENDUM
That certain Lease Agreement dated __________________, and executed by PALM TERRACE CONDOMINIUM RENTALS (OWNER) and ________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ (OCCUPANT) and concerning premises located at 2925 Monument Blvd., Concord, CA, Unit # ____________ is hereby modified as follows:
1) Condominium Notice: Although Palm Terrace Condominium Rentals are not now available to purchase, and although this does not apply at this time, California law (G.C. sect. 66459) requires us to provide the following notice exactly as it is worded below:
TO THE PROSPECTIVE TENANTS OF 2925 MONUMENT BLVD.,
CONCORD, CALIFORNIA, UNIT # ___________.THE UNIT YOU MAY
RENT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC AS A
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. THE RENTAL UNIT MAY BE SOLD TO THE
PUBLIC, AND, IF IT IS OFFERED FOR SALE, YOUR LEASE MAY BE TERMINATED. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 90 DAYS PRIOR TO ANY OFFERING TO SELL. IF YOU STILL LAWFULLY RESIDE IN THE
UNIT, YOU WILL BE GIVEN A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO PURCHASE THE UNIT.
2) Condominium Notice Extensions: During the first lease year, or any following year during which the lease is continuously extended without interruption, and notwithstanding the foregoing condominium notice, OWNER agrees to allow OCCUPANT to extend the lease one additional year after the end of any lease period during which OCCUPANT receives notification that the unit will be offered for sale. OWNER further agrees to give OCCUPANT the right to purchase the unit at a price equal to 3% less than the price offered to any member of the general public.
3) Options to Extend: Provided OCCUPANT is not in default on its rent, and other charges, and provided it continues to comply with OWNER’S qualifying requirements, and has performed all its duties under the lease, and provided it gives OWNER 30 days written notice prior to the termination date of the lease, OCCUPANT, at its sole discretion, shall have the right to extend the lease one additional year. Additional year to year extensions shall be subject to mutual agreement between OCCUPANT and OWNER.
4) Extension Rental Rate Provisions: The rent during the second year (first one year extension described in paragraph 3, above) shall remain the same as the original beginning rent unless the market rent, as shown on OWNERS rate sheet (see below), is less than the original rent, in which case the rent for the extension year shall be reduced to the market rent. After the end of the first two years the rent shall be determined as follows:
• Market Rent: The rental rate for all additional extensions shall be based upon the “Fair Market Value” (FMV) for the unit as of the effective date of the extension. The term FMV represents the actual monthly rental amounts that new “arm’s length” renters are paying on new leases for Palm Terrace units. These amounts constantly change to reflect current market conditions from time to time. They are applied to each type and model of both rental grade and ownership grade units. They are posted on the most recent Palm Terrace Rate Sheet which is constantly updated and available in the leasing office for review at any time upon request by OCCUPANT.
• Renewal Discounts: The rental rate for annual extensions that are agreed upon between OWNER and OCCUPANT after the first two years shall be subject to renewal discounts based upon the then current FMV less 5%
5) Month-to-Month Rent: During any “month-to-month” (see Section 4 of the lease) tenancy resulting after the end of any lease period or any extension thereof, the rental amount shall be the FMV, as described above, plus $100.00 per month.
6) Waiver of Notice: OCCUPANT hereby confirms and agrees that the foregoing constitutes advance “Notice of Rent Increases” that may otherwise be legally required and waives same.
7) Cleaning Charge: Upon move-out, OCCUPANT shall thoroughly clean the premises, including washing and wiping the linoleum and vacuuming the carpet. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding other charges provided in Section 3 of the lease, OCCUPANT additionally agrees to pay $200.00 to reimburse OWNER for its own cost of professional carpet cleaning to restore the premises to condominium grade condition.
8) Other: All other terms of the Lease Agreement shall remain the same.
THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGE HAVING RECEIVED, READ, AND AGREED TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
OCCUPANTS: OWNER:
____________________________________ Palm Terrace Condominium Rentals
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________ By: __________________________
Dated: _____________________ Dated: ________________________ (rev 2-9-19)
BIA Bay Area Regional
Housing Forecast 2023
December 1, 2023
1 Please note, the City is not publishing this document as it appears to be Copyright protected. For more information on this document, please contact the sender .
From: Miguel Ramirez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject:
Rent control Not a good solution .. robbery at its finest
From: Jim Basuino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 2:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Vote against Rent Control
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.
The ordinance was written without economic justification. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities.
This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?
You recently allowed the Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery to impose a 6.5% increase in rates. They already have the highest trash collection rates in the county. PGE & and other utilities including water and sewer have raised their rates significantly over the past 18 months. How is this fair?
I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and remember that your own rent registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families. Please reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.
James Basuino
From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:49 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord considers rent control and ‘just cause Item 4 A.
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.
This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.
These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.
Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law is working effectively.
Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.
This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to true solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.
Sincerely,
Wallace Freddie
From: Sharon Vannucchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control & Homeless issues
City of Concord,
What are we doing about rent control, and affordable housing?
There's plenty of housing in the Port Chicago area.
Asbestos is not an issue unless it is disrupted.
Is Apple more important than our city?
Sharon Vannucchi
From: T S <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 9:07 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Watkins, Scott <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft ordinance for Rent Control and Just Cause
Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members,
My name is Antonio T. Shelly and I am a worker in Concord. I am very concerned about the proposed draft ordinance for Rent Control
and Just Cause that renters have fought for the last 7 years to have meaningful and strong protections.
With this ordinance, I understood that our constituents would finally have the protections they desperately needed. However, the draft of the ordinance is unacceptable. It offers too many loopholes and falls short of what the council has promised to the Concord community. We need more protection for vulnerable residents, veterans, low-income, seniors, refugees, and immigrants.
The draft offers too many exceptions that allow landlords sidestep the rent cap and provides weak eviction protections. Tenants in Concord did not fight for 7 years to have an ordinance that does not truly protect renters.
As an individual, I have always supported the protections of tenants. Concord residents have trusted you all to pass strong Rent Control and Just Cause policies. We are counting on you now to hold true to your promise.
Please send this ordinance back. We can not support this policy until it:
1. Ensures that as many renters as possible are covered
2. Offers a more limited definition of "fair return" for landlords
3. Offers better protections from bad faith Owner Move Ins
4. Implements all of the Ellis Act protections
5. Ensures that violations of this ordinance can be used as a defense against unjust evictions.
I am counting on the Council to make this policy strong. Please send it back for improvements before voting to pass it.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
Sincerely,
Antonio T. Shelly
USN Veteran
City of Concord and all Committee Members;
Re: Rent Control/ additions / modifications/ implementations
1. It’s disgusting that the City of Concord is having this vote on Dec 12, when most people are busy preparing for the holidays – it mirrors the times when the city passed so many laws during covid. It’s almost as if you did so there wouldn’t have so much opposition.
2. The City Council adopted the certified HEU on August 22, 2023, with all of its racist language. Language that also actually excludes Concord residents from having a say. Is this how you run the government in Concord? You purposely discriminate and insert de facto racist language in city policy? To make it worse you want to adopt and further strict rent control throughout the city.
https://concordhousingelement.org/
“Rezone properties in higher-income, predominantly white areas of Concord by December 2024 to provide capacity for at least 1,000 new units of lower-income housing. This program is intended to meet new state requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.”
“Spend at least 20% of the Cannabis Community Benefit Fund on qualifying projects in the City’s low-resource areas, with priority given to areas of high racial/ethnic diversity and poverty. Qualifying projects will include workforce development, small business assistance, improving quality of life and economic opportunity, and public improvements, and will be informed by a community outreach process to be conducted by July 2024.
“Allow multi-family housing projects “by right” (without a public hearing or appeal process) in all commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, provided that all objective design standards are met.”
3. The city has allowed out-of-area wealthy non-profits to run its housing element without giving appropriate consideration to the actual people of Concord. These same non profits are responsible for the mess that has ruined Alameda County, San Francisco and every other jurisdiction that has adopted extreme housing policies. These policies have been condemned and rebuked by both the San Francisco City Controllers Office and the mayor of San Francisco. In basic you are getting economic and financial advice
from wealthy “non-profits” that have failed elsewhere that are now trying it in Concord – they NOT from our community. They are paid individuals/corporations whose job it is to attend meetings and advocate for programs that will help their own bottom line. Here are just a few that have attended the Concord Meetings.
a. EBHO – of Oakland, CA 94607 per their own tax filing in 2021 has a net asset of $2,286,778. A wealthy non-profit should be giving its money way not asking other people to pay for their asks.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943232405/2022131693493016 06/full
b. MONUMENT IMPACT filed this for 2021 year that they have a revenue stream of $2,663,504 of which $790,000 goes into payroll.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943370919/2022329093493028 03/full
c. BAY AREA LEGAL AID – of Oakland, CA has a revenue of $22,860,765 with a pay roll of $11,415,111
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941631316/2022231393493030 47/full
d. EDEN HOUSING – of Hayward CA has a revenue $90,990,309 per their filings that includes $7,677,235 in payroll.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231716750/2022431493493013 14/full
e. EBASE - of OAKLAND CA has net assets of $3,736,361and payroll of $820,612. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943314108/2023326993493004 13/full
f. Alliance Of Californians for Community Empowerment ACCE – of Los Angeles has a revenue of $1,148,639 and payroll of $183,686
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/271482731/2022031893493198 50/full
Even cities like San Francisco that have spends billions on housing and rent control, admit that they have failed. These same failed non-profits are the same ones that have come to Concord and pressured this city to make the same mistakes they made in San Francisco and Oakland. Rent control just simply does not work. No economic study can show that it has - the Goldwater report lays it all out quite simply.
https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/new-report-government-imposed-rent-control-doesnt- make-housing-more-affordable/
As things become more public and therefore transparent it seems quite clear that the people of Concord have been left in the dark and that political aspirations have become part of policy. The “Non-Profits” that are pressuring you to expand rent control are wealthier than any Concord landlord. Perhaps they should use their wealth to pay for peoples rents instead of asking everyone else to do it.
I encourage all of you council members to learn on your own about the failure of rent control and I encourage you to vote NO on any current and future policies.
Respectfully,
Turtle & Charlie Pfeiffer
Concord Residents
From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 7:55 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord considers rent control and ‘just cause Item 4 A.
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
Let me educate you on the so-called tenant’s welfare or AB-1482:
1. Proposition 10 was placed on the ballot in 2018 by Michael Weinstein who embezzled millions from the state of California in Aids foundation who was never prosecuted or imprisoned. I wonder why?
2. Proposition 10 Failed and voters rejected it. Implemented by David Chu and Newsome to take effect January 2020 with 10% cap or 5% + CPI with no justification since voters rejected it on the ballot. But then again Newsome is a Chinese puppet and a communist/socialist bought and paid by China and Russia.
3. According to your own city staff report about a year or 22 years ago Concord is the 4 lowest Bay Area cities to rent and the rental market.
4. First, we are forced to absorb all COVID-19 losses, no evictions, tenants’ harassment, $5,000 payments to not just cause evictions, etc. and now this?
5. I have appeared before this city council on several occasions regarding being attacked with a deadly weapon by someone trespassing onto our property and stealing mail with no prosecution whatsoever, I wonder why?
6. Your input from housing providers is nothing but a joke since I have yet to receive a single call or invitation from anyone in your staff for any stakeholders meeting, polling, etc. It is just one sided and pro rental advocates who contribute nothing, pay for nothing except to destroy this wonderful city we call home and are given every opportunity to get anything they want, why?
7. PG&E has quadrupled from $300 to over $1,200 with no end at site and no justification whatsoever and the PUC approved it unanimously. Last I checked PG&E was to be broken to northern and southern utility providers controlled by the state with reasonable rates, etc. But that never occurred. PG&E declared bankruptcy, paid millions in bonuses to their board members and executives without paying a cent in over 10-20 billion of damages caused as a result of their negligence. Obviously, they bought off Gavin Newsom and the Buru crates in Sacramento and the PUC.
8. Contra Costa Resource Recovery will raise their bills by 6% increase in 2024.
9. Increase rent registry from $5/unit to $52/unit?
10. Current inflation rate is 3.2%.
11. Products/services/fuel/all costs for maintaining the property have doubled with no justification.
12. You are nothing but temporary employees and not very bright from our point of view.
13. Yet this city council is considering rent increase to 3% or 60% of CPI?
14. You are destroying the very city you proclaim to protect and serve, destroying small mom and pop housing providers for providing quality housing to their renters and community at large?
15. What have rental advocates and their thugs offered you, bribes, illegal votes, some misguided honorary award?
16. Council member Nakamura stated that she really wants to take on corporations, really. Take on PG&E or Chevron Corporation at Martinez, you will not make it pass the front gate.
17. The Biden Administration has sent over $70 billion to Ukraine with no accountability in order to fight the Russian aggression and invasion. All we need is $20 billion in order to deal with the state sponsored terrorist groups like tenant advocates and their thugs in order to liberate the State of California from the rain of communism and socialism that has infested this state
Attached is our Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery rate increase letter that will increase their bills by 6% for 2024 yet you or this idiotic city council only wants to allow our rents to be increased by 3% annually? How can we be expected to keep up with utilities that are selected by the same city council who takes bribes and provide an affordable and decent apartment in this city?
Thank You,
Wallace
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 3:04 PM Wallace Freddie <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.
This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.
These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.
Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law is working effectively.
Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.
This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to true solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.
Sincerely,
Wallace Freddie
From: Anne Shafizadeh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:58 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting December 12, 2023: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction
As Concord embarks on a path that has been tried in many cities such as NY, SF, Portland and more covering both coasts and economic cities, my question for you is where has this worked? The outcome of these misguided city ordinances is that rental housing is sold or converted into condo or other forms of owner occupied residences removing thm entirely from the rental market and your control. Those in possession of a well-maintained rental unit refuse to leave even when their interests move but choose to sublet and remain in possession. This does not benefit the owner or the city but benefits the lucky renter protected by you. you seem to think Richmond's rental policies are the model to follow. We sold and ran from Richmond. Perhaps, with an election on the horizon, the citizens of this city need to replace you with those who let market forces, supply and demand (proven to be reliable guideposts), and quality of life in Concord be more important than. your power and the ability to manipulate rental business decisions. Why do Concord, Richmond, have the worse schools in the W. county.? Martinez and Pleasant Hill are not that different in character from Concord on the county north side yet they are both better places to live with similar housing profiles but better without so much government interference and costs? Without government interference, they demand better schools for their children, better opportunities for recreation, better job opportunities, better government meaning less of it so free enterprise and market forces of supply and demand can balance rents and rental housing opportunities. Overbearing government makes for and uneven balance that favors one at the expense of the other. In concord, tenants are favored and owners are. disadvantaged. No wonder renters in possession sublet rather than return the property to the owner when they can assume owe=nership benefits by subletting. While the cous=cil can take pride in their rules and regulations, they will find that good landlords will sell and leave and remove the property from the rental mo=arket and your control. The property owner is not obligated to be a pawn in the city's welfare program by controlling prices. I am not even sure some of these ordinances are constitutionally allowed but we will see if they can be challenged in the courts. i urge you to resist controlling the income we small housing providers can obtain from the properties we own and depend on for our own living and needs. For Those of us who are retired, this is our sole source of income out of which we pay our taxes including property taxes that pay for your salaries and and community needs.
please cease controlling rental supply in the city. Please cease adding burdens and costs to our business and encumbering us with more bureaucracy and paperwork. i guess that keeps you employed but it does not add any economic benefit to the city residents--you rfe an economic drain on city resources. Remember that. we are the voters and we, property owners, pay for your salary and your livelihood.
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:32 PM Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
On December 12, 2023, City staff will present Council with a draft ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 “Residential Tenant Protection Program” to increase “just cause”
eviction protections, expand the City’s rent registry, and establish a rent stabilization program.
During the September 5, 2023 Council meeting, staff presented Council with the feedback received from tenants and property owners and, based on this feedback, requested that Council provide direction on specific policy components of rent stabilization and just cause for eviction. Council continued the item and deliberated on the matter over the course of two additional Council meetings held on September 12 and October 10, 2023.
For the City Council meeting to be held on December 12th, the agenda, the staff report documents, and the draft Ordinance are available on the City’s agenda page. The meeting will be begin at 6:30 PM and will be held in Council Chambers at Concord City Hall, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord. Members of the public will be able to participate either in person or remotely via Zoom. Instructions for participating remotely are included in the meeting agenda.
Thank You,
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3032 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
From: Alyssa Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 7:10 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter from California Nurses Association regarding Concord's Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance
Dear Mayor Birsan, Council Members and City Staff,
Please see the attached letter from California Nurses Association, urging the revision of the draft ordinance for consideration at the January 9, 2024 City Council meeting. Thank you.
In Solidarity,
Alyssa Kang (she/her/hers)
Community Organizer
National Nurses United/California Nurses Association
[email protected]
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
December 11, 2023
To: Mayor Edi Birsan
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember
Cc: Valerie Barone, City Manager
Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
Kelly Rush, Housing Program Analyst
Dear Members of the Concord City Council and City Staff,
California Nurses Association/National Nurses United is the largest and fastest-growing union and professional association of registered nurses in the nation and represents over 100,000 direct care nurses in the state and nearly 225,000 RNs nationwide. We have many members who reside and work in Concord and Contra Costa County.
Nurses know that housing security is fundamentally a health issue and witness on a daily basis how housing inequity and insecurity only worsen conditions for our patients, especially those who are immigrant, low-income, and from communities of color. Housing is a healthcare issue and housing, just like healthcare, should be a fundamental right for everyone. This is why members of CNA have joined Concord renters, members of the Raise the Roof Coalition, and other allies over the past 7 years in the fight to push the City to pass tenant protections such as rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies. These changes are greatly needed to address the dramatic economic displacement of low-income tenants that Concord has seen over the last decade.
In a detailed letter, dated December 8, 2023 to the Concord City Council and City Staff, respected labor and community-based organizations signed on to oppose the current Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction draft. This letter is based on research by community advocates and attorneys who outlined multiple ways in which the current draft would actually result in undermining the City Council’s specific direction given to staff to protect Concord tenant rights. We strongly support the need for the Council to incorporate the suggestions from both legal advocates and tenants, i.e., those with the most expertise and those who would be most detrimentally affected by an insufficient and weak Tenant Protection Ordinance.
We urge a revised Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance for discussion at the upcoming January 9th meeting. We hope we can count on your leadership and call on you to take
action to protect and stop the displacement of our patients, families, neighbors, and community members to make Concord more inclusive especially for our most vulnerable and marginalized communities.
Thank you for your consideration,
California Nurses Association
From: Ellen Rea <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 10:17 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Mayor of Concord/ Meeting 12/12/2023.
Attention : Rental Controls and Freezes
Dear Mr. Mayor of Concord, CA
Your rent proposals are off the track. You do not understand the rising costs and demands the rental owners have to deal with. There is a plethora of financial demands each and every land lord must address daily such as: the rising costs of the following: Property Taxes, Homeowners Insurance, Earthquake Insurance, Gardeners Monthly fees, yearly upkeep of Furnaces and Airconditioning. All general up keep of the building itself, gutter and roof upkeep, painting and repairs, upkeep of kitchen appliances. Landlords don’t just take their rent checks for profit facing the above. It is an on going financial demand for the owner of rental property.
Seventy five percent of rental properties have mortgages, one more monthly cost for the owner.
During the Covid Pandemic most tenants just could not pay. All Landlords took a huge losses, never to be recovered.
I am a member of CAA, I am sure you must be aware of this association and their guidance to Rental Property Owners. They are also in 100% In complete disagreement of your proposal. It is time for you to look at the “Big Picture” of what Rental Cost Restrictions could do to a community like Concord. It will become a low class community with a diminishing economy. I know my Economics !
Sincerely,
Ellen BRASIEL Rea
353 Conifer Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control will destroy small business owner -increase homelessness-
Do you think City of Oakland , SF, Berkeley and Los Angeles have improved the quality of life for their citizens since the inception of rent control? There are increase in homelessness, crime and lack of security to taxpayers. Who is responsible for this?
Do you believe introducing more government agencies will help the community? Do you see any improvement in those cities ???
Save City of Concord by voting against Rent Control!
I have been small rental property owner in Berkeley and Oakland for years and the rent control only created a litigation cesspool against small business owners and leading insurance companies leave the state . Please do NOT vote on rent control in Concord as it only helps big businesses and litigation lawyers and destroys small businesses. More government control destroys core of small business owners .
Who will pay for the rent control agencies ? Tax payers? Pandemic destroyed business and the eviction moratorium by City of Oakland and Berkeley led the small business owners and minorities go bankrupt .
Rent control only impede on the core of the foundation where our country has been built that is small business!
Are you intending to destroy it?
Can you tell me how many complaints the city of concord received from the tenants that had problems with landlords in Concord? If there are few bad apples , doesn’t mean the entire system has to go through government controlled bureaucracy that can destroy small business owners?
Currently with the high inflation cost, insurance companies leaving the state , high cost of utilities, it’s no time from City of concord to destroy small business owners .
Pandemic policies killed millions of small business owners and your support for rent control in this turbulent environment will guarantee the death of small business owners.
Thank you ,
Azita Berloui
From: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 10:43 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Cc: Kristy Powell <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 2023 Year in Review
This reminded me of one day after we renovated Palm Terrace, and I went into the leasing office to see how many new deals they had. The staff reported it was a slow week-end, but they did have two good prospects from Walnut Creek. “WC, I said, that’s great, our product is just as good if not better, and our prices are half as much. “
They said, yes, they loved our product, and our prices, but then they went online to check out the schools. The next day they called back and said thanks, but no thanks.
I tried to meet with the principal of the local elementary school to find out why the majority of her grads were below grade level in both English and Math. She refused to meet.
After following up with more research we published the attached Red Alert and then asked Rocketship to come to Concord. Since day 1, Rocketship has had an uphill fight. In fact, the president of the MDEA called me up and threatened to use their union influence to block any of my future projects if I didn’t back off. Now look at Rocketship today.
Concord does not have a high rent issue. Look at your surveys. Concord has a crime issue, and Concord has an education issue. So why are you listing the MDUSD as the only school that applies to the definition of a “School aged child” in your proposed draconian regulations for rental housing? BTW: purely as a matter of amusement, I discovered the attached letter I began to write the last time the City talked about rent control. It’s not finished, but I thought it might be worth a laugh.
From: Rocketship Public Schools <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 9:43 AM
To: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Subject: 2023 Year in Review
Serving nearly 11,000 children and families every day
Friends,
Sixteen years ago, we opened our first school in downtown San Jose with 160 fearless Rocketeers and families. Today, we have grown into a formidable force in public education, with 23 schools across California, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Washington DC, and Texas, serving nearly 11,000 children and families every day. Our progress from that single school to a widespread national network mirrors the rise of innovative public charter schools across the country.
See how far we’ve come in our 2023 Year in Review. A few highlights you’ll find inside:
• A major new Stanford CREDO study found that Rocketeers gain five to seven months of additional learning per year.
• A global research institute highlights how Rocketship parents are using their voices to influence local and state policies that impact their families and communities. • Our educators reflect the communities we serve, with 81% identifying as people of color. • We are elementary-only by design, working to improve the entire ecosystem of public education in the communities we serve.
While we celebrate our network's incredible successes, Rocketship remains a work in progress. We are committed to continuous learning. We are relentless in our pursuit of innovative methods to better serve our students, nurture our talent, and support our parents to champion equity and excellence in their communities. Together, our collective of parents, teachers, leaders, supporters, and students are igniting a movement to reshape the future for underserved communities throughout our nation.
Together, we are unleashing potential.
Read more
Share this email:
Manage your preferences | Opt out using TrueRemove®
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.
View this email online.
350 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 109
Redwood City, CA | 94065 US
This email was sent to [email protected].
To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.
1 WALNUT CREEK HOLDINGS, INC.
2925 Monument Blvd., #1, Concord, CA 94520
Tel: 925-685-0586, Fax: 925-825-3888
August 7, 2016
To: City of Concord
Honorable Mayor and Council members
Interested Staff and Commissioners
Re: Rent Control Study
From: Merle Hall (Managing Owner: Palm Terrace Condominium Rentals)
Background: Palm Terrace (formerly Village Green, 1980, Greenwood Court, 1970) was previously a failed multi-family community. In 1996 the prior owners defaulted on their loans and transferred control of the property to me through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization. I then proceeded to renovate the project at a cost exceeding 15.0 million dollars, over three times the initial construction cost of the project. Palm Terrace is a successful community today. The following attempts to explain some of the reasons why Palm Terrace would never have been renovated, had rent control existed:
Definitions:
1. Residential Rent – The price paid for rental housing
2. Rental Housing – Housing is a product, or commodity (shelter) similar to food, or clothing, that is available in a vast market consisting of many producers (owners) and many consumers (tenants).
3. Market Pricing – Absent government intervention in the marketplace, the market price of any product, or commodity, is solely a function of supply and demand.
As supply increases, or demand decreases, the price will fall. As demand increases, or supply decreases, the price will rise.
4. Demand Variables – Demand is driven by people; and people are primarily attracted by jobs and opportunity. In that context, demand for shelter varies by the location of the product (access to jobs); by quality of the product (age, condition, amenities, and design); and by environmental quality (climate, schools, crime, etc.). For example; the closer to jobs, the higher the demand; the newer and more desirable, the higher the demand; and the better the schools, the higher the demand.
5. Supply Variables – Supply is driven by profitability; and that is a function of the difference between net revenue (rent, less operating expenses) and cost (debt service, the cost of capital). If net rent is high enough to cover cost, banks will loan money and supply will be produced. If the cost of providing the product exceeds net revenue, capital will not be available and production will stop.
6. Rental Competition – Like any other market product, owners compete among each other to build, maintain, upgrade, or otherwise improve and provide the best possible product, in order to attract the most qualified customers who will pay the
2 highest rent and be profitable. Likewise, tenants compete among each other for the best possible shelter, at the lowest possible price. Therefore, the rental amount paid for housing is not the result of a negotiation between owner and tenant; it is the result of competition among owners to get the best tenants, and competition among tenants to get the best deals. That is how a healthy rental market operates.
7. The Income Property Market – Housing is income property. Its value rises, or falls, in direct relation to its net income. Investments in property are made on the basis of the outlook for net income. In other words, the benefits of perceived demand, both by existing and future occupants, versus the projected costs of capital and operations. Buyers and sellers of property negotiate their prices based on their outlook for net income. That is how a healthy property market operates.
8. Rent Control – This occurs when an arbitrary external force, government, intervenes in the pricing mechanism. That intervention disrupts supply and demand. It disrupts healthy competition among owners for the best tenants, and among tenants for the best products. It reduces access to shelter from those who can afford it, but can’t get it; and it subsidizes the cost of shelter, at the owner’s expense, for those who can’t afford it. That limits the value of property, resulting in the loss of equity capital, and disrupts an otherwise healthy market.
Market Cycles: I’ve been selling rental properties in the East Bay area for over 50 years.
I can remember when a Concord property owner came into my office and said, “rents in Concord have gone up every year for the last 10 years, and I think they are about to peak; but rents in Oakland have been flat for 10 years, and I think they are about to take off; so I want to sell my Concord property and buy an Oakland property”.
The next day an Oakland property owner came in and said, “Rents in Oakland have been flat for the last 10 years, but rents in Concord are going great; so I want to sell my Oakland property and buy in Concord.” Both of these situations were driven by the demand variables listed above.
Demand tends to flow in cycles, and Concord sometimes experiences extreme effects.
Due to its location, Concord is a low rent market to begin with, and the recession of the early 1990’s nearly wiped out the rental housing business in Concord. Jobs were lost and peopled doubled up in their shelters, so demand was low, and vacancies were high. The owners of numerous larger properties could not cover expenses and debt service, and they lost their properties in foreclosure.
Next was the Silicon Valley “dot.com” bubble. Rents swelled up in the Silicon Valley like water from a breaking dam. A wave of increases flowed up the Peninsula, up the East Bay, and eventually out over the east bay hills. The wave slowly petered out and stopped at Walnut Creek. While south bay rents skyrocketed, Concord rents barely murmured.
The “sub-prime lending” bubble came next. The economy seemed to be doing well.
Everyone was buying houses, whether they could afford them, or not, and prices were skyrocketing … even in Concord. But rents languished; and it was a disaster for rental property owners. They could not keep their units full … due to the volume of people
3 moving out and buying houses. The market did not begin to stabilize until after the collapse.
From: east ocean <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:32 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: December 12, 2023 Council Meeting: Tenant-friendly legislation
Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, and Council Members, I am writing about proposed tenant-friendly legislation to be ratified in tonight's meeting (agenda item 4a) and to oppose these measures in full. I am part of a small, family run property management business that has provided housing in Concord for over 50 years. We manage several 4-plex buildings: older units with deferred maintenance that rent at ~50% of current market rates, and we pay for water and garbage services as well. Our last rent increase was in 2020: we did not increase rents during COVID.
The last several years have been extremely difficult for us financially. Last year, the garbage fees increased by 15%, and the water rates will increase by 7%. Fire and liability insurance in California is very expensive, if you can even find a carrier. We pay annual MFIP inspection and rent registry fees. In the last 5 years, we have spent over $70,000 for new fences to ensure the safety of our tenants. Of course, repairs still must be done regardless, as well as changes that inspectors require. The cost for all of those things has increased many many times over CPI.
We would love to make improvements and updates, but there is no money. Especially if you limit rent increases to 60% of CPI: the current statewide rent control of 5% over CPI allows us to survive.
Your proposed legislation of relocation fees of a minimum of $8500 or 3 times the HUD rate is excessive for those of us who charge rents at below market rates. In our case, $8500 would be over 6 months of rent.
Your proposed legislation is one-sided: it cherry picks all the benefits for tenants, without any compensation for housing providers. At present, there is no mention of any of the following:
allowance for rent banking, passing though capital improvements, or maintaining exemptions allowed for in AB 1482, the statewide law. There is absolutely zero incentive for anyone to want to be a housing provider. Please take a more comprehensive view and think about these other facets first.
You are sympathetic to the plights of tenants, but you should also consider the situation for small property managers. Your approach should be balanced and fair, and none of these measures is that. Tenants have talked about working multiple jobs to pay their rent, being stressed, and missing out on family time. But do you really know what the life of a property manager is like? We are on-call 24/7, day or night. Holidays are spent worrying something bad will happen, that tenants will call needing repairs (and they have). There is no break: my parents never went on a trip together. My father barely saw my graduation, and I had to convince my mother to attend her sister's funeral.
If you approve these measures, we will be forced to go out of business. We simply cannot survive. The apartments would be bought by investors, large management companies, or developers, all of whom want quick profits and will not make long-term commitments either to
tenants or the community. Investors and large management companies would evict the current residents, make token changes, raise rent to market rates, and flip the buildings. Developers would demolish the buildings to make new, high-density housing, and we know how long that can take. In each of these scenarios, you will be actually decreasing the amount of available housing, thus raising tents and making the situation for tenants worse, as well as ending our livelihood.
I implore you to forgo this legislation and thank you for your time. You are welcome to email me if you would like to learn more.
Respectfully, Tammy Chen
From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:19 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Urgent Message Regarding Proposed Rent Control Ordinance - Discussion of Process and Fees for Requesting a Fair Rate of Return
Dear Laura Hoffmeister, Edi Birsan, Dominic Aliano, Laura Nakamura and Carlyn Obringer,
I have sent prior emails about my concerns regarding the application of the CPI, and the freezing of rent rates for 2023 at January 1, 2023 levels (which are already depressed levels). I am now writing about the process a small property owner would have to go through and the costs involved to request an exception of the stated rent increase otherwise provided by the ordinance.
I am writing as an owner of a 10-unit apartment building in Concord. I am not writing in any other capacity and my comments are my personal comments and may or may not align with the views of any organizations of which I am a member or otherwise support. This message is sent to you to express concerns about the draft version of the rent control ordinance. I have read the document and while I respect the work performed to date, there is much more work to be done before the ordinance is passed. Nothing in my message to you should be taken as challenging the work you have done so far or calling anyone out personally for the place where we find ourselves today as a result of the work. I am simply looking for a better outcome for all concerned.
I am concerned about the provisions in the proposed rent control ordinance which indicates tenants (of which there are thousands) can appeal rent increases at no cost, while housing providers will be charged the actual cost of an appeal which is estimated at $5,000, but which has no limit on the amount charged. For small housing providers like me (10 units with 4 units under the HELP program) if we ever appealed, it would be for six units only. The cost per unit is prohibitive, at $833 per unit. Compare this to a large housing provider with 50 or 100 units, and the cost per unit would fall significantly to $50 to $100 per unit. This is not at all fair to small private property owners.
I am also concerned about the premise that rents in Concord are too high. That is not at all my experience based on our current rent levels and the experience of the few other landlords who have been in touch with me over the years. Again, our rent levels are $1,660 per month for the HELP two- bedroom units and $2,065 for market rate two-bedroom units. I am also afraid the income levels that you have based your rent to income ratios on is flawed. We have seen tenant income tax returns (which I am thinking you have not) which report incomes at or below the rent levels. This is because these tenants are reporting 1099 income and not reporting cash income. As many people are in the housekeeping, gardening, landscaping, home repair, handyman, and painting businesses they are often paid in cash. So the statement that rents are too high and incomes are too low is simply not correct.
PLEASE REMOVE THE $5,000 ESTIMATED FEE FOR A RENT REVIEW, HAVE A FIXED FEE OF $1,000 OR
LESS AND MAKE THE PROCESS PURLY AN ADDMINISTATIVE PROCESS WITH ONE OR TWO PAGE FORM FOR OWNERS TO COMPLETE AND SUBMIT.
PLEASE PROVIDE A FORMULA WHICH WILL BE USED TO PROCESS SUCH REQUESTS.
I would be happy to discuss my concerns and other ideas if you would be so kind as to call me at the number below.
James Dye
925-784-1650
From: D'Marco Anthony <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:35 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment 4a
Hello Concord City Council,
My name is D’Marco J. Anthony, and I am a Concord resident in District 5. I just wanted to emphasize that strengthening tenant protections is important, and would have an impact on tenants in every single district; not just District 3. Consequently, every single one of you has an obligation to vote to implement Just Cause protections for the constituents in your respective districts, and the residents throughout our city as a whole.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the district I live in. Many people think we are all a bunch of White conservative homeowners, but this is not true. For starters, we vote solidly blue in partisan elections, and we recently elected a progressive councilmember in last year’s non-partisan municipal election. Despite this, the Pioneer called our district “largely conservative”. Also, there are many renters scattered throughout our district. I specifically remember a District 5 renter giving a public comment in Spanish at a past meeting, about landlord harassment. My family and I are also renters in District 5, and we often wonder where we would go if all of a sudden we were evicted. We are a relatively big family currently living in a relatively smallish house, but our options if we were unfairly evicted would either be to rent an apartment in Concord, or we would be forced to move to a different city in order to afford renting a house. Just cause protections would give many of us renters peace of mind.
I strongly urge this Council to move forward with tenant protections.
Thanks,
D'Marco J. Anthony
From: Jean Claude (JJ) B. Mallein Jr. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:38 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control Public Hearing
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.
The ordinance was written without economic justification nor any consideration to balance the interests of housing providers and residents. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities.
This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?
The most recent inflation data shows that inflation is easing down from 3.2% to 3.1%. Based on a 3.1% inflation rate/CPI, housing providers would be limited to a 1.86% rent increase, which is unconscionable given the substantially larger increases in utilities and maintenance/operational expenses, not to mention additional Concord rent registry fees. If you insist on enacting a completely unnecessary rent control ordinance, then the formula must be fair to balance the interest of housing providers and residents. The current formula solely benefits residents at the sole expense of housing providers and will jeopardize many housing providers as well as the housing stock for Concord.
It is also unconscionable to retroactively require housing providers to provide refunds of “legal” rent increases. This should have been addressed and approved in the beginning of the year when the rent control discussion began, not 12 months after the fact. The council could have adopted an interim ban on rental increases or set a temporary increase limit, but you did not, and doing this after an entire year is without question prejudicial to housing providers and unduly burdensome if not impossible for many housing providers.
If there are housing providers breaking the law with illegal increases, then resources should be directed to address those “bad apples” not punish all of the conforming housing providers and jeopardize their livelihoods. The proposed rent control ordinance is not the answer.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and remember that your own rent registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families.
Please reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.
JJ Mallein
Housing Provider
Warning: This email, including any attachments, may contain confidential or privileged information and is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If you have received
this email in error, please do not retain, read, copy or disseminate any part of it and delete it from your computer. Please also notify the sender immediately by return message.
From: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:54 PM
To: [email protected]; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Kristy Powell <[email protected]>; Bonnie Hall <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control 12-12-23
Please include in public communications for tonight’s meeting. Thank you
1 12/12/2023
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Re: Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program
You have a lot of stuff in here that is simply not right. Start with your “findings”. Concord does not have a “shortage of rental units.” The State of California has a shortage. Concord has as large or larger proportion per capita as any other city in the surrounding area. It is misleading to say otherwise.
It also says rents are “increasing excessively”. Where does that come from. In checking our data here at Palm Terrace, I see we have raised prices by 3% annually since before Covid. During the same period, annual collections increased 2.4%. In that time, inflation was about twice as much.
That is not “excessive”.
Further “low-and moderate-income tenants have difficulty finding affordable housing”. A more accurate statement of reality would be; Of all the cities in the Diablo Valley, Concord has the largest inventory of affordable housing. Go across the border to WC, and see what those rents are.
Another thing is the “Fair Return”. How can you say that when you cap increases at 60% of CPI, and every day the Fed says it’s CPI target is 2%. That’s a 1.2% cap? Here’s reality. I bought my first house, a PH bungalow, in 1960 for $10,000. A couple years later I was in R/E and sold a nice Concord bungalow for $10,000. Today each of those would sell for over $500,000. That’s a
6.7% annual compounded rate of increase … 5.5% more than the proposed 1.2% cap that transfers money from one person to another. This also debunks the notion that CPI is a fair measure of cost-of-living increases.
The real problem is worse than that. It’s a function of “Useful Economic Life”. That’s an IRS definition that means how long you can depreciate an asset. Applied to rental property, it would be that period during which income exceeds operating expenses. In other words, Rent, less taxes, insurance, payroll, utilities, maintenance, etc. The question is; how fast do those expenses increase?
A good example is Concord Disposal, the garbage company regulated by the City of Concord, with employees in the same union as some City employees. In the last five years, our garbage bills have increased 6.7% annually. Our own in-house payroll increased the same, at 6.8%. So
6.7% is a good measure of increasing operating costs.
Now run the numbers. When rents are increasing 1.2% and everything else is 6.7% The bottom line is slipping by 5.5% per year. With operating expenses starting at half of income. The expenses will be equal to the income (end of Useful Economic Life) in about a dozen years, and the property will be dead. A vote for this would be killing your own rental housing stock.
2 In Concord, It’s even worse. In the decades after WWII, Concord buildings catered to a low income market, and were often built new to the lowest standards. Now they are wearing out, and replacement, remodeling, and upgrade expenses are increasing. Owners should be incentivized, instead of penalized, to improve their buildings. That also keeps out gangs, crime, and drugs.
Staff says to ignore that because the proposal promises a “Fair Return”. But the proposal uses the CPI, which we have already demonstrated is rigged. According to broadly accepted standards of appraisal, Fair Market Value is that price agreed to between a willing seller and willing buyer (or LL and T) in the absence of duress. How does that work in the rental business. Well, our project has 472 bedrooms. 68% of those are in 3-4 BR units. It’s a family community. The willing buyer (renter) is the family of a couple with good jobs and small kids standing in the sidewalk with no place to rent because someone who can’t afford to match the price of the willing renter is squatting in the unit at a below market price mandated by the brute force of government. If government wants to shelter unqualified people it should pay to do that. In this case, the loss the owner is suffering should be reimbursed by the City.
How about the displaced tenant provisions. Not only are you taking away property rights by limiting the “return” on investment, but you are proposing to encumber the property for a period with a written and recorded memorandum of a Right to Return. That is a legal interest, and the various definitions of real property include legal interests. So you are taking property to pursue your policies.
“Nor shall private property be taken for public use without the payment of just compensation.” 5th Amendment, US Constitution. What happened to the oath of office that included preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States of America?
In conclusion, the good news is that we get to pay a $10,000 increase in City of Concord taxes while losing revenue, losing value, incurring higher administrative expenses, and paying untold thousands in legal costs for every “Fair Return” hearing presided over by a government appointed bureaucrat with a conflict of interest. That happens on your side as well. Don’t believe the staff’s estimate of administrative costs. It never comes out that way.
Some of you have said you agree with all this, and you understand that in the end rent control contributes to more housing shortages and even higher rent. The bottom line is supply and demand. Yet you say, you can’t vote your conscious because you would lose votes. So much for integrity in government. Others say, we must take care of …. Self-righteousness always leaves you on your death bed wallowing in self-pity for the damage you did while not knowing what you were doing.
For the good of Concord, and in support of freedom, stop and rethink where you are going.
Sincerely yours,
Merle Hall
From: Priscila Morelos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 2:10 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 4a
Hello Concord City Council,
I am Priscilla Morelos, a renter in Concord’s district 3 and am very concerned about the proposed ordinance for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause. Community members and housing justice advocates have fought for 7 years for meaningful and strong tenant protections. With this ordinance, our community believed we would finally have the protections we desperately need. Unfortunately, the draft ordinance is unacceptable. It offers too many exceptions, allowing landlords to sidestep the rent cap and provides weak eviction protections. The Concord community didn’t fight for 7 years to have an ordinance that doesn’t truly protect us.
As the ordinance is written, our housing could be excluded from the rent cap. A rent increase of more than 3% could mean my family having to move out of our city and home during the middle of the school year. Which would be emotionally and mentally difficult for my children and something I would not want to do.
We are counting on you, City Council, to send this ordinance back. We can not support this policy until it ensures that as many renters as possible are covered, implements all of the Ellis Act protections to ensure the most vulnerable are protected such as school aged children, and ensures that the violations of this ordinance can be used as a defense against unjust evictions.
We are counting on you to make this policy strong. It must be sent back for improvements before voting to pass it.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
P. Morelos
From: Margie Wells <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 2:10 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control
Here is my response to the City Council's meeting tonight, Dec. 12, 2023, regarding Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction.
Margie Wells, Broker, Owner
DRE# R01008011
Wells & Associates Real Estate Group
Certified Short Sale Specialist
Residential Sales
Investment Sales
Property Management
(925) 754-5400 OFFICE
(925) 754-7800 FAX
(925) 813-9777 CELL
[email protected]
From: Christina Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 2:17 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 4a
Hello Concord City Council,
I am Chris Kelly, a renter and worker in Concord’s district 2 and am very concerned about the proposed ordinance for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause. Community members and housing justice advocates have fought for 7 years for meaningful and strong tenant protections. With this ordinance, our community believed we would finally have the protections we desperately need. Unfortunately, the draft ordinance is unacceptable. It offers too many exceptions, allowing landlords to sidestep the rent cap and provides weak eviction protections. The Concord community didn’t fight for 7 years to have an ordinance that doesn’t truly protect us.
As the ordinance is written, our housing could be excluded from the rent cap. A rent increase of more than 3% could mean that I may not ever have the opportunity to create a safe and secure place and continue to work in the place that I love.
We are counting on you, City Council, to send this ordinance back. We can not support this policy until it:
1. Ensures that as many renters as possible are covered 2. Offers a more limited definition of “fair return for landlords”
3. Offers better protections from bad faith Owner Move In 4. Implements all of the Ellis Act protections
5. Ensures that violations of this ordinance can be used as a defense against unjust evictions.
We are counting on you to make this policy strong. It must be sent back for improvements before voting to pass it.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
Thanks Mrs Kelly
From: Vienna GMail <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 2:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 4A
Hello Concord City Council,
I am Vienna Bautista, a renter and community leader in Concord’s district 2 and am very concerned about the proposed ordinance for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause.
Above everything, I am a parent with young children. As the ordinance is written, our housing could be excluded from the rent cap. I worry that a rent increase of more than 3% could mean my family having to move. I do not want to have my children be forced to move from their school and friends during the middle of the school year. It is something I do not want to put my children through.
These ordinances should ensure that as many renters as possible are covered, have an implementation of all of the Ellis Act protections to ensure the most vulnerable are protected such as school aged children, and ensure that the violations of this ordinance can be used as a defense against unjust evictions.
We are counting on you to make this policy strong. It must be sent back for improvements before voting to pass it.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
Respectfully,
Vienna Bautista
From: Bathsheba Birman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for rent stabilization ordinance
Thank you for instituting this ordinance and the previous one to provide more protections and rent stabilization for tenants. I live in a large complex owned by a corporate landlord who has properties all over California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. In addition to my corporate landlord my complex has been managed by a succession of management companies owned by hedge funds. Since 2016, I and the other occupants of my unit have never had a direct communication with the landlord listed on my lease. The total amount of rent paid for my unit since 2016 is approximately $200,000 yet I have had difficulty getting responsiveness on numerous issues. Examples I’ve experienced include:
Illegally attempting to raise the rent during the Covid rent increase moratorium.
Failure to disclose upon request what common area expenses of the property owner are included in the mandatory utilities that tenants pay; failure to provide upon request documentation of the utility bills used to determine the amounts allocated to each tenant monthly.
Repeated price discrimination incidents where comparable units were offered to new tenants for lower amounts than my renewal letter as an existing tenant.
Continuing to raise rent without providing amenities, services or repairing existing equipment included in my rent for my unit and in the complex.
Failure to respond to repeated calls, emails and maintenance portal requests; deleting my maintenance requests from the portal without completing the work.
Failure to remove for four years despite repeated requests under the right of quiet enjoyment adjacent tenants who had daily arguments and domestic violence that involved multiple police visits and child services issues.
Failing to provide air conditioning units with BTUs sufficient for the size of the apartment, failing to repair or replace the existing malfunctioning unit despite repeated requests until it completely stopped working, and failing to provide an additional portable air conditioner as promised by management.
Lack of security resulting in numerous mailbox break-ins that wasn’t addressed for months and my personal information being stolen.
An unhoused man breaking into the laundry room and pool house repeatedly without tenants being informed or increased security.
Failing to address an incident where the property’s landscaping company was negligent and accidentally killed multiple animals in front of me.
Laundry rooms that are unclean, unsecured, have machines that don’t work and leaks that are a slip and fall risk.
Garbage and litter on the property that isn’t picked up.
Thank you for supporting the tenants who live, work, own businesses and make purchases in Concord rather than non-resident, corporate landlords who profit from but aren't invested in the community.
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.
The ordinance was written without economic justification. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities.
This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?
I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and remember that your own rent registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families. Please reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.
The following people sent the above email:
1. Edward Nowicki
2. Paul Van Amsterdam
3. Ormo Lau
4. Wali Fedaie
5. Ron Navarra
6. Marvin A. Remmich
7. Stephanie Bergin
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.
This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.
Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law is working effectively.
We have only raised our rent by 5% although the county of Contra Costa allows 5% plus CPI which is about 8.5% ever since the end of moratorium. Meanwhile, the city of Concord has increased its building inspection fees by more than 50% with no justification whatsoever.
Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent. This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to true solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.
The following people sent the above email:
1. Anthony Freddie
2. Walter Freddie
City Clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, I am a Concord resident and am very concerned about the proposed draft ordinance for Rent Control and Just Cause as renters have fought for 7 years to have meaningful and strong protections.
With this ordinance, we believed we would finally have the protections we desperately needed. However, the draft of the ordinance is unacceptable. It offers too many loopholes and falls short of what the council had promised to community members. The loopholes allow landlords to ignore the 3% rent cap and does not protect tenants from unjust evictions.
The draft offers too many exceptions that allow landlords sidestep the rent cap and provides weak eviction protections. My community in Concord did not fight for 7 years to have an ordinance that doesn't truly protect us.
We have trusted you to pass strong Rent Control and Just Cause policies. Now, we are counting on you to hold true to your promise!
Please send this ordinance back. We can not support this policy until it:
1. Ensures that as many renters as possible are covered
2. Offers a more limited definition of "fair return" for landlords
3. Offers better protections from bad faith Owner Move Ins
4. Implements all of the Ellis Act protections
5. Ensures that violations of this ordinance can be used as a defense against unjust evictions.
We are counting on you to make this policy strong. Please send it back for improvements before voting to pass it.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
The following people sent the above email:
1. Paola Galdamez, Concord, CA
2. Melanie Sonsteng, Concord, CA
3. Sylvia Valentine, Concord, CA
4. Donna Walton, Concord, CA
5. Jackie Bueno, Richmond, CA
6. Rev. Will McGarvey
7. Ashish Dixit, Concord, CA
8. Sophie J, Walnut Creek, CA
9. Genie Velez, Pittsburg, CA
10. Alice Matthews, Concord, CA
11. Lydia C Vera, Concord, CA
12. Garcia Freddy, Concord, CA
13. Eden Jimmerson, Concord, CA
14. Melgazar Salazar, Concord, CA
15. William Goodwin, Pittsburg, CA
16. Elsa Valdovinos, Concord, CA
17. Heriberto Velasco, Concord, CA
18. Lizeth Velasco, Concord, CA
From: C Gribbon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3:03 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Unfair proposed rent control
I have been a housing provider for over 60 years now in Concord. I am in my 90s.
I have continued to offer housing well under the recommended rental rate as provided by the Section 8 program.
I go years without rent increases to my tenants. This rent control proposal will make this no longer an option for me I will be forced to raise rents every year to the max.
This proposal will have the opposite impact on the rental housing market in Concord that the city council is hoping for.
For example I will be left with no choice but to sell my rental houses in the Concord area. My tenants will not be able to afford to buy this and as such many Property Owners will be put in this position and you will actually be shrinking the rental housing market in Concord by eliminating the small investor.
The small investors will be forced to sell their homes.
We had the rental Review Committee and that proved that there were very few houses that were above fair rents and offered a resolution.
Small property investors will be forced to sell in Concord and just go invest in many of the nearby cities such as Brentwood Martinez Lafayette Pleasant Hill Walnut Creek that do not put these severely strict restrictions on them with the money they have invested all of their life.
For me to essentially to give a years back of rent ($8500!!!) if something was to happen to my health on a property I have owned for the last 60 years is unfair and discriminatory against the elderly.
I have been a good and fair housing provider.
Please vote against this proposal. I would like to continue to be an investor in Concord but this proposal will make that no longer a viable option for me.
Thank you for your consideration
Benched Correspondence Received
After 3:00 p.m. on 12/12/23
Agenda Item No. 4.a
December 12, 2023
From: karina Hernandez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Hola buen dia!
Todos necesitamos urgentemente rentas asequibles. La inflacion esta impactando nuestros bolsillos y si sigue asi habra mas familias sin hogar.
Necesitamos por favor de su apoyo.
Gracias de todo corazon
From: WARREN WEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 7:05 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Crime and low quality of life is future of Concord just like Richmond and Oakland
Beautiful concord will turn into Oakland and
Richmond where crime is high becoming low quality
of life
The city with rent control will be like Oakland and Richmond because investors will not invest in housing anymore.
Value will be decrease and funds for social service from property tax will be decrease.
Government involved in market prices is like communism, is never good at pricing. Invisible hands is better then government that controls when it comes to market
You don’t want to be the person who voted and turn Concord into crime ridden and lower quality of life like Richmond and Oakland because of you. That will be your bad legacy years after you leave the office if you vote for it. How the future is like just look to Richmond and Oakland.
Common sense Tax payer.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 4a
City Clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, My name is _________ and I am a Concord resident (or worker) and am very concerned about the proposed draft ordinance for Rent Control and Just Cause as renters have fought for 7 years to have meaningful and strong protections.
With this ordinance, we believed we would finally have the protections we desperately needed.
However, the draft of the ordinance is unacceptable. It offers too many loopholes and falls short of what the council had promised to community members. The loopholes allow landlords to ignore the 3% rent cap and does not protect tenants from unjust evictions.
The draft offers too many exceptions that allow landlords sidestep the rent cap and provides weak eviction protections. My community in Concord did not fight for 7 years to have an ordinance that doesn't truly protect us.
We have trusted you to pass strong Rent Control and Just Cause policies. Now, we are counting on you to hold true to your promise!
Please send this ordinance back. We can not support this policy until it:
1. Ensures that as many renters as possible are covered
2. Offers a more limited definition of "fair return" for landlords
3. Offers better protections from bad faith Owner Move Ins
4. Implements all of the Ellis Act protections
5. Ensures that violations of this ordinance can be used as a defense against unjust evictions.
6. We are counting on you to make this policy strong. Please send it back for improvements before voting to pass it.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.