Concord City Council
January 9, 2024

From: Holly Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 11:39:25 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for Concord rental control and JC

Hello Mayor Brisan

Thank you for your effort for the ordinance about Concord rental control and JC.

You try to work with tenants and landlords together to make Concord better.

About the draft, I have the following comments, Thank you!

1. For the properties rental income far below HUD standard, suggest to keep the CA cap rate (10%) no change.

I am a realtor at east bay, I have been working on buying multiple families for my client for a quite few years. I have the chance to access the rental roll. Most of the concord multiple families built around 1960-1970 and categorized as Class C property. As I know, the typical 2 bedroom/1 bath, 700- 800 Sqft apartment rent is around 1600, some even much lower, just above $1000. 3% rental caps will make the property owner can't survive with the increased expense(insurance, pg&e, water and sewer, property tax and maintenance).

2. To solve the renal problem, I believe the key is increasing the available housing in the market. The rental control will lose investors. If there is no rental control in Concord, I know lots of investors will come in, either they build more multiple families/SFH or they will build more ADUs as Concord houses have very big lots. Rental control will make Concord not good for investment.

3. Suggest no roll back policy as it is time consuming and waste City lots of money.

In the end, I wish the City, landlords and tenants work together to solve this problem and make Concord better! Thank you!

Regards,
Holly Chen

From: Emerald Properties <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 1:27 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control

Mayor,
I have been a Concord Housing Provider for over 30 years. I have always enjoyed a positive business relationship with City Staff. Having been connected with Concord residents for so long, naturally I don’t want the City to deteriorate. Setting a Rent Control, cap at 60% of CPI will do just that.

Proud Owners. We are proud owners of an older but very desirable 300 unit complex that our stable tenants are proud to call home. There is absolutely no way that we can operate this older facility and provide the quality of life, that our tenants are accustomed to, with rents being controlled at less than 5%. Why? A) Setting the cap at 5% doesn’t mean we always get 5% - For instance this year rents have dropped. In most years if a new tenant moves into a renovated apartment at the then market rate, he/she won’t get 5% (maybe no increase) after 12 months occupancy, because rents do not go up 5% each year.

B) To retain our stable tenants (many have been our tenants for over 20 years) and to attract good quality residents to our City, when a vacancy comes up we are faced with total remodeling of kitchens and bathrooms and generally upgrading at a cost of $20,00000 to $30,000.00 per apartment. Right now, we are demolishing and refurbishing our pool and recreation area at a cost in excess of $60,000.00. Next years budgeting includes re-roofing, re-designing our aging landscaping and other big-ticket items. On top of our inflation effected operating expenses, we got to put money aside to address all such upcoming expenditures.

Deteriorating Rental Housing – A Blight to Our Respectable Neighborhoods. I implore you to consider the bigger picture, the welfare, the quality of Life of Homeowners – of all residents of Concord – your constituents. We depend on you, our Elected City Council, to not do this to Concord. Visualize what we all want our City to look like 10 years – 20 years down the road. Please don’t devastate our Rental Housing stock by imposing this 60% of CPI, while the ever increasing costs of operating, of upgrading, our older apartments, are going through the roof. “A Taking”. Let’s avoid a Legal Challenge. The Housing Providers in Concord – Mom and Pop as well as larger investors – have been Financially Devastated by the COVID Pandemic and the Eviction Moratorium. Unscrupulous Tenants took advantage of the shortcomings of the Law and quit paying rent. Our Company is out of pocket several hundreds thousand dollars, owing by Tenants who skipped out

owing big money, as well as those who are still living in our apartments, but we are being deprived of our rights to collect those funds.
60% of CPI. Imposing the proposed Rent Control and other Tenant Protections, against that background is unwise and constitutes a “Taking” and obviously is ripe for a Lawsuit – an unwelcome expense, to our Concord Taxpayers. Please put the vitality of our City first and avoid this catastrophe.

Thank you,
John Sullivan
510-538-4898

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Regarding the rent control ordinance

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.

Thank you.

Jim yan
A mom and pop housing provider in concord

Sent from my iPhone

From: SBC Properties <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 10:39 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: SBC Properties <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control

ref: rent control issue in Concord.
12/15/23

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and oppose the rent control ordinance.

It is very hard to be a landlord at this time, especially small business like us, rising interest rate, fees, tenants are very demanding, tenants do not pay and it is very hard to evict them, and many other things.

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.

Trisha Tran of SBC Properties

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 12:23 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Rent control hearing continuation

Thank you for confirming that staff will not be meeting with proponents and that changes to the ordinance (if any) will not be made until January 9 meeting. The concern is that staff will make those changes before the January 9 meeting without public vetting.

Best,
_____
Rhovy Lyn Antonio ▪ Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association
[email protected] ▪ (408) 342-3506
CAA is your partner in the rental housing industry.

Find out how we're working for you.

CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Rent control hearing continuation

Rhovy,

Yes, once Council settles on the policy we will roll out an implementation process.

The draft ordinance put forward by staff, based on Council majority direction, is now in the hands of Council in terms of what they keep, what they eliminate, and what they change. If you have comments you want shared with the Council, please write them down and submit them or do direct outreach by phone or e-mail to Councilmembers.

Neither the City Attorney nor staff are meeting to review the draft ordinance with advocates or opponents at this point in the process.

Valerie

Valerie Barone, City Manager (she/her/hers)
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3150 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01, Concord, CA 94519

Subscribe to our City News e-newsletter to stay informed about what's happening in your community!

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Rent control hearing continuation

Thank you, Valerie. The procedural steps can be complex which is why the term “sausage making” is prevalent in public policy, as you are already aware.

Please do let me know if the City Attorney will meet with the proponents and we would like an opportunity to review the ordinance with her as well.

Have a great weekend.

Best,
_____
Rhovy Lyn Antonio ▪ Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association
[email protected] ▪ (408) 342-3506
CAA is your partner in the rental housing industry.

Find out how we're working for you.

CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 5:37 PM
To: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Rent control hearing continuation

Rhovy,

I understand your concern and position. And, I’m happy for a conversation, which Wendy can set up for later in the month, just ask her to set up the call if you want one. She is on this e-mail.

I think you should be prepared that the Council, after deliberating and discussing the item, may direct modifications to the ordinance on the night of January 9th and then introduce the ordinance.

If you have proposed edits to the draft ordinance you want Council to consider, I suggest you draft them up as a red-line and send them in to the City to be shared with Council and the public. If you have concerns related to some of the edits the tenant advocates are asking for, I suggest you document those in a letter too and send them in so they can be shared with Council and the public.

Valerie

Valerie Barone, City Manager (she/her/hers)
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3150 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01, Concord, CA 94519

Subscribe to our City News e-newsletter to stay informed about what's happening in your community!

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 12:20 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Rent control hearing continuation

Thank you for your prompt response. I sent an email since your assistant advised me so when I tried to reach you by phone.

Please do let me know if amendments will be presented at the January 9th meeting because we have serious concerns of amendments that were demanded last night – especially if these amendments are incorporated in the draft ordinance language without proper vetting. I can understand technical amendments such as proper citations. However, many of the demands were not technical in nature and actually changes the scope of the ordinance. It is our hope that if these amendments make it in the draft ordinance that there would be equal time given to get rental housing providers’ feedback as this ordinance have a direct impact on them as the true subject matter experts.

Happy to discuss over the phone so my question doesn’t get lost in translation.

Best,
_____
Rhovy Lyn Antonio ▪ Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association
[email protected] ▪ (408) 342-3506
CAA is your partner in the rental housing industry.

Find out how we're working for you.

CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 12:11 PM
To: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Rent control hearing continuation

Rhovy,

Thank you for being at last night’s meeting and thanks to your members who also showed up and shared their concerns and ideas with the Council.

You are correct that the item has been continued until January 9th at 6:30 pm. Public comment was closed last night so none will be taken at the meeting on the 9th on the item. However, individuals/organizations may submit written comment.

The team hasn’t met to debrief from last night and prep for the meeting on the 9th, so I do not yet know what will or won’t be put into a staff report. However, it is a continuation from last night’s meeting, not a new noticed meeting.

Valerie

Valerie Barone, City Manager (she/her/hers)
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3150 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01, Concord, CA 94519

Subscribe to our City News e-newsletter to stay informed about what's happening in your community!

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control hearing continuation

Hi Valerie,

I am giving an update to the local owners today and want to confirm the following actions from last night:
- City Council voted to continue the hearing to January 9 - Since public comments ended last night, there will be no public comments taken during the meeting on January 9
- However, letters can still be submitted to the City Council

And most importantly, is the staff report going to stay the same for the January 9th meeting or will staff amend the ordinance according to public comment from last night’s meeting?

The latter question is most important, so can you please clarify so I can send an accurate message?

Best,
_____
Rhovy Lyn Antonio ▪ Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association
[email protected] ▪ (408) 342-3506
CAA is your partner in the rental housing industry.

Find out how we're working for you.

CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:16 PM
To: Jennifer Morales <[email protected]>
Cc: Vanessa Chena Davila <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: January 9th Council RS & JC Meeting Clarification

Jennifer,

Thanks for reaching out with your questions.

The Council continued their deliberation and actions on the rent stabilization/just cause ordinance item from their last meeting to the meeting of January 9th. Think of it as the same meeting, just occurring over two nights.

There will not be a revised version of the draft Ordinance produced by staff as we have yet to receive any direction from the Council. Public comment for the item was closed at the last meeting.

Hope this information helps and I hope you enjoy the upcoming holidays.

Valerie

Valerie Barone, City Manager (she/her/hers)
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3150 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01, Concord, CA 94519

Subscribe to our City News e-newsletter to stay informed about what's happening in your community!

From: Jennifer Morales <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 11:01 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>
Cc: Vanessa Chena Davila <[email protected]>
Subject: January 9th Council RS & JC Meeting Clarification

Hello Valerie and Susanne,

I hope you all are doing well and staying dry!

I’m Jennifer Morales, organizing manager with Monument Impact. Through our Community Engagement program, we help tenants come together to understand their tenant rights and advocate for tenant protections. As we saw at last week’s meeting, council moved to wait to decide on the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction draft ordinance as councilmember Hoffmeister was out due to personal reasons.

I was wondering if you could all clarify rising questions about the process before and at the January 9th city council meeting:
a. Will there be a revised version of the ordinance be issued in advance of 1/9 meeting? If so, isn't permitting additional public comment required?

Or

b. If a revised version is not going to be released, i.e., the council members will be making revisions in real time at the 1/9 meeting, we request in the strongest of terms that legal experts (city and Raise the Roof-related) meet ahead of 1/9 meeting to discuss technical details.

Appreciate your help with these questions, as it will help communicate to community members, we work with what the next steps in the RS & JC are.

I hope you both have a lovely holiday!

Thank you,

Jennifer Morales
Community Engagement
Organizing Manager

Phone : (925) 315-5154
Address: 1760 Clayton Rd. Concord, CA 94520

From: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 9:01 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; maryjo rossicommunications.com <[email protected]>; Kristy Powell <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: FW: Rent control

All, one of my grandsons is an engineering student at Montana State, in Bozeman. This morning we were talking about an elective course he is taking in Economics, and I was telling him about Concord Rent Control. He sent me this. Check out page 5/5. 95% of economists disagree that rent control has had a positive impact on the amount and quality of affordable rental housing.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile for the City to consider ways to better educate the misinformed special interests that are pushing so hard to get government intervention in the market place.

From: Henry <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 7:56 AM
To: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control

Here's a PDF of the section from the text that explains rent control as well as gas prices. Quick and easy read to understand the concepts.

12/20/23, 8:54 AM Print Preview
https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5981412521541428189454401007&eISBN=9780357133576&id=1835227972&nbI… 1/5 Chapter 6: Supply, Demand, and Government Policies: 6-1a How Price Ceilings Affect Market Outcomes Book Title: Principles of Economics
Printed By: Henry Hall ([email protected])
© 2021 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning 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: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 3:00 PM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: One of the reasons I wanted to have a short meeting with you is I had a few questions

Hi Joelle,

Please include the following questions as part of the packet to Council on January 9th.

Thanks,
Sophia Huckabay
Housing Manager

Begin forwarded message:

From: Weil, Jeffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: One of the reasons I wanted to have a short meeting with you is I had a few questions

It appears the cost of living may actually drop to 2.1% next year which means 60% of COL would limit rent increases to 1%. Is there anyone working for The City of Concord or working in general who would consent to a cap on wage increases of 1% indefinitely?

How much is the cost for the administrative judge or person if a landlord is losing money and wants to appear?

How come landlords have to pay this and tenants don’t?

How long does it take to get a hearing, and what specific paperwork is required, forms etc?

If someone has owned their property for a long time and paid off their mortgage they will have cash flow, but should a mortgage cost be imputed to calculate if there is positive or negative cash flow?

If a roof needs repair or replacement how does that cost fit in within the calendar year? What about if a unit is vacant which impacts the property’s overall cash flow?

Are there other business types ie gas stations, everyone needs gas, or baby formula, or any other business in Concord where the business owner is restricted to a 1-2% annual increase?

Is this increase rule indefinite or is there a sunset clause?

Thank you so much for helping me with these answers !

Jeffrey Weil, MCR.H, CCIM, SIOR
Executive Vice President | Walnut Creek
CA Lic. 00786195
[email protected]
Direct: +1 925 389-2194
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 200 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | USA

colliers.com

| View Privacy Policy

From: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2023 5:28 PM
To: Weil, Jeffrey <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Your presentation yesterday evening was excellent! Thank you, Jeffrey!
Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3387 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
<image001.png>

<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>

www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.

From: Weil, Jeffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Your presentation yesterday evening was excellent!

Jeffrey Weil, MCR.H, CCIM, SIOR
Executive Vice President | Walnut Creek
CA Lic. 00786195
[email protected]
Direct: +1 925 389-2194
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 200 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | USA

colliers.com

| View Privacy Policy

<image013.jpg>

To view this email as a web page, go here.

December 1, 2023 Issue: 262

This newsletter provides a comprehensive look at the commercial real estate market, focusing on factors that affect office activity. Our sources span across a variety of news sources, including; The New York Times, Bisnow, SF Registry, and many others.

Share this newsletters with others so they can stay up-to-date on the latest trends.

Jeffrey Weil, CCIM, MCR.h,
SIOR
Executive Vice President
CA License No. 00786195
[email protected]
+1 925 279 5590

Overview

As I write this in mid-November there were a few announcements that capsulized where the office market currently is. A 100,000 square foot office building which was valued at $680/rsf in 2018 just traded for $150/rsf. Microsoft just announced it was placing 130,000 sf of its downtown San Francisco office space on the sublease market. Charles Schwab Company announced it was laying off 5-6% of all its employees which works out to roughly 2,000 workers out of work. The same day Block announced it was laying off 1,000 employees. Then the big news hit, of WeWork declaring bankruptcy and shedding 400,000 sf of San Francisco office space and apparently millions more across the U.S. I know of several 100-250,000 sf Class A office buildings in my local Contra Costa market that are rumored to be traded in the $70-100/rsf range. I’ve predicted that our 50% average U.S. return-to-office currently will get up to 70% over the next few years due to corporate mandates but will level off at 70% long-term. I used Chatgpt to learn there is 18 billion square feet of office space in our country, including government and corporate offices. This means we have 5.4 billion square feet of excess office space! I did further research and New Capital reported that there is almost one Billion square feet of empty office space, and if stacked as a single office tower at 20,000 sf per floor would span 48,000 floors. Ok, forget all that, it is almost the holiday season so indulge in eggnog and spend special time with your family and co-workers!

A Few Very Positive Bay Area Office Announcements!!

Walmart is subleasing 719,000 of office space in a four-building complex at Crossman Drive at Caribbean Drive in Sunnyvale, and OpenAi will be leasing 40,000 sf at 1455 and 1515 Third Street in San Francisco. Hooray!!

SF Business Times Reported an uptick in San Francisco office tours

Major brokerage companies report San Francisco office vacancy is now almost 34%. AI is the big new wonder leasing office space in the city, but for every new AI lease, another existing tenant is downsizing. As of this week, national office occupancy is up just a fraction, with Los Angeles below 50% and Houston at the high end at 61.5%.

What Employees Want In Order To Return To The
Office

The SF Business Times Oct. 2, 2023 reported on a recent survey of 2,000 full-time employees by Owl Labs, The Hybrid Work Survey, which found “…69% of employees believe their company is requiring in-office work due simply to traditional work expectations. That disconnect is one of many factors that have limited enthusiasm for returning to the office. Even with recent mandates, the percentage of employees in the office in large cities isn't significantly different than it was at the beginning of the year — still hovering just north of 50% — according to data from Kastle Systems. Owl Labs found employees are heavily prioritizing flexibility in both hours and work location — noting that employees who have hybrid or remote flexibility were less likely to have changed jobs in 2023 than full-time office workers. That desire for flexibility puts many workers at odds with companies that are ditching hybrid work entirely, but there is some good news for those businesses: about 94% of workers said they would go back with some concessions that address common in-office pain points.” What are possible employers offering to get their workers back in the office? Flexible dress codes. According to an Owl Lab survey, office workers who come in every day may spend $1,000/month on commuting, parking food and other costs they don’t face when working from home. Subsidized food and beverages, and more privacy are also on the list.

A Renovated, but Vacant New York Office Building
Will House 1,000 Migrants

Austell Place, a 170,000 sf 100-year-old office building which was renovated in 2019, will now have 1,000 migrants living in the building. It had previously been converted from a 100-year-old warehouse to a modern office building. It has floor-to-ceiling windows. I tried to find details of how this office-to-residential conversion will work but at this point was unable to locate more information. Most office buildings with extensive vacancy are more modern, and older office buildings with smaller floor plates reportedly are easier to convert to residential.

5.2 Million Square Feet of San Francisco Office Space
May Be Suited For Housing Conversion!

If true, this could be great news! A recent working report from New York University and Columbia University identified older office buildings that were physically suited for conversion from office to residential. “The paper’s authors…identified 140 office buildings across San Francisco for which residential conversion could make financial sense. San Francisco, the paper’s authors write, is among the markets where apartment rents have historically been high enough that the math behind conversions could work; they point to various policy levers that – pulled at the local, state, or even federal level — could also help get residential conversions over the finish line. That includes zoning adjustments, tax abatements, debt subsidies and government grants to assist developers in transforming obsolete office buildings into more environmentally-friendly housing.” San Francisco Business Times Sept. 12, 2023. A major side benefit, if this theory holds water, is that office tenants in these buildings would be relocated to other, non-conversion buildings, thus further reducing the office vacancy rate in San Francisco.

The Cost To Build A New Suburban Class A Office
Building And Why Prices Are So Low

I have recently interviewed a number of office building experts and for suburban Class A office buildings in the Walnut Creek/Concord Northern California region, the cost to build a brand-new Class A office building is $500-700/square foot. This price includes land, architectural, permits, construction of the base building, parking structure, all the soft costs like permits, fees, the cost of tenant improvements and lease-up expenses. In Concord today there are several Class A, well-located office buildings expected to sell for $70-120/square foot. Why such a bargain price? These buildings require substantial lease-up to secure new tenancies, with tenant improvements and leasing fees costing $75-125/rsf. The buildings might also require common area upgrades which could add another $50-100/rsf. The effective rent for this area s $24-30/rsf per annum, full-service, and when you deduct the cost of all the building services of PG&E, water, sewer, property tax and insurance, janitorial, maintenance, property management and on and on the actual net rent might only be $10-14/rsf per year. This is less than many warehouses in our area rent for! With office vacancies expected to remain high for years to come due to corporate downsizing and the slow return-to-office, it is no wonder buildings are selling for such a low value. Of course, if you want in on the action, please contact me and I will cheerfully represent you in purchasing one of these bargains! [email protected]

More Bay Area Office Workers Returning To The
Office

The Bay Area News Group reported that 26% of residents work remotely, down from 36% in 2021. However, ‘despite the drop-off, there were still more than four times as many people working from home in 2022 as in years leading up the pandemic, when just 6% of workers were mostly remote.’ Public transit ridership has gone from 3% to 6%, but still down from the 15% that took buses and trains before the pandemic.

Prologis, The Largest Industrial Real Estate Developer
and Investor In The World, Is Using AI

The San Francisco Business Times reported on September 28, 2023, that the CEO of Prologis, Hamid Moghadam, who runs the Billion (yes, Billion!) square foot portfolio of industrial real estate said “What are the big decisions we make?” “What do we charge for a lease, how long of a lease do we sign … basically, all of the decisions that go around leasing with customers. Now we’re using a lot of AI to drive those decisions. “Prologis is also using the technology to understand where it should deploy capital within its existing portfolio”, Moghadam said, “helping the company predict things like which facilities it should invest in on a speculative basis — that is, before a tenant surfaces — or where within its network it should begin establishing charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.”

Coffee Badging-Return to Office, Kinda…

Office workers mandated to return to the office, at least a few times a month, are finding a productive way to work the system to get noticed, socialize, meet with their colleagues, and not face horrendous commutes. They work from home in the morning, then zip in when the commute traffic has died down, spend 11 am to 3 pm making the rounds, hanging out at the coffee machine, saying hello to the bosses and making sure they are noticed, and then before the afternoon commute starts they are on their way back to home to get more real work done. “More than half, 58%, of hybrid workers admit to ‘coffee badging’, or the act of going into the office building for their morning coffee, earning an imaginary badge for it, and then going home to work for the remainder of the day. That’s according to a June survey of 2,000 people from from Owl Labs, a company that makes videoconferencing devices.” Jennifer Liu, CNBC, Oct. 5, 2023

The Signs Keep Pointing to Long-Term Reduction In
Office Space Needs

Contrary to reports of corporate executives mandating or begging or offering incentives for employees to return to the office, many will and many won’t. Either way, we have far too much office space than is needed, even if more folks come into the office three days a week. As a case in point, last week Dropbox agreed to pay $79 million in lease termination fees to get out of 165,000 square feet of San Francisco Mission Bay office space. Dropbox still has hundreds of thousands of feet of office space in the City so this is just a downsize and one of many examples of corporate office space reductions.

Remember, there are a number of silver linings to this grim office space saga. For the most part office tenants are making out like bandits when they negotiate a lease renewal or relocate. Many of my clients have been receiving 5-12 months up-front free rent, as well as discounted contract rent (that is why you want to hire me, [email protected]).

If you have a company that has longed to own its own office building, in many regions you can now purchase one 75% less than what it would have cost you just 3-4 years ago! What a bargain, and owner/users may get SBA 20-year fixed-rate financing with just 10% down! If you already own Class A office buildings and have a lot of cash, you can pick up these deep-discounted bargains and cost-average the rest of your portfolio. If you are one of the non-traditional lenders out there charging (and getting) crazy-high interest rates on commercial loans, you are also enjoying the silver lining. Let me know if you have other silver linings we can share!

90% Of Maturing CMBS (Commercial Mortgage-
Backed Securities) Of Office Properties Defaulted At
Their Maturity In September

89% defaulted ($672 million) and 11.1% ($83.7 million) were paid off during September 2023. None were extended or modified, according to Moody’s Analytics. A new company, Arthroto, has a plan to make the conversion of office to residential easier and cheaper by using factory-manufactured components that can be assembled floor by floor without disrupting other floor tenants. Add this to the other ideas being tried in different parts of the continent, like growing high-value produce in Class A office buildings, growing cannabis, conversion to homeless housing (which I have not seen any successful examples as of yet) and with older, small-floor plate buildings, straight conversion from

office to residential.

CEO’s Confident Workers Will Return To The Office

A recent 2023 U.S. CEO Outlook survey by corporate-services firm KPMG poll showed that CEO confidence in having their employees return to the office almost doubled over the past year, and while 45% believed that workers would continue in hybrid positions last year, in 2023 only 34% believe this. Last year 20% of CEOs thought corporate jobs might be fully remote, but in 2023 only 4% believe this will be the case. Right now in much of the United States, 50% of workers have returned to the office, many coming in two to three days a week, while in Texas this figure is closer to 60%. In my opinion over the next 2-4 years, this will increase from 50% to 70% and then level off, and we will not see the office occupancy of pre-Covid ever again. Companies will still make record profits, and those mandating may make exceptions for exceptional employees they do not want to lose to competitors. There still is a significant portion of the workforce who either relocated away from the mother ship or has grown to enjoy saving 2-4 hours a day not commuting. AI may displace a sizable portion of our office workers as well. The bottom line for our nation is we have far too much office space, both short and long term, than our actual office space demand. New construction will happen in select sub-markets, and there will be demand for the newest, glitziest, safest, and amenity-filled office tower by those corporations willing to pay a premium for premium space. Over time obsolete buildings will be razed or converted to make room for housing or other uses.

This is the section where I mention my family, and I am glad to report that my 98-year- old father is still going strong like the Energizer Bunny. With a lady friend from his senior center where he lives in Oakland, he took Uber to San Francisco to see the symphony.

The place he is at has a wonderful restaurant and each night he dines with friends. During the day he has a personal trainer having him work out, they have live entertainment, chair volleyball, and all types of daily events. My kids are doing fine, with 21-year-old Hunter still at the local Junior College and 26-year-old Jordan running Inspired Flight in San Luis Obispo, making some of the most sophisticated industrial drones in the country.

Not much family excitement, which can be a good thing!

Every day is special, as there are no guarantees in life. Treasure what you have, especially the non-monetary gifts like friends, family, faith, and try to live your bucket list while you still have mobility and your senses. I wish all of you a wonderful holiday season and thank you so much for taking the time to read this!

Contact Me

<image022.jpg>

Jeffrey Weil, CCIM, MCR.h, SIOR
Executive Vice President
CA License No. 00786195
[email protected]
+1 925 279 5590

<image023.jpg>

<image024.jpg>

This document/email has been prepared by Colliers for advertising and general information only. Colliers makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, regarding the information including, but not limited to, warranti es of content, accuracy and reliability. Any interested party should undertake their own inquiries as to the accuracy of the information. Colliers excludes unequivocally all inferred or implied terms, conditions and warranties arising out of this document and excludes all liability for loss and damages arising there from. This publication is the copyrighted property of Colliers and /or its licensor(s). © 2023 . All rights reserved. This co mmunication is not intended to cause or induce breach of an existing listing agreement.

This email was sent by: Colliers
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA Unsubscribe | Update Preferences

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 10:12 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control and Just Cause Regulations

Subject: Proposed Rent Control Caps and Just Cause Regulations for Single Family Homes
Mayor Hoffmeister, City Council Members, City Manager and Staff:

I am writing to you because I believe the new Concord rent control and “just cause” regulations presented by city staff at the 12/12/23 city council meeting have some serious flaws which will create negative unintended consequences.

First of all, I think we can agree there has long been an imbalance of power between apartment owners and low income renters. Without renter protections, a tenant could be evicted with a 30 day or 60 day notice after lease expiration for any reason or no reason at all. With such short notice, a low income tenant often has great difficulty finding replacement housing. I support thoughtful efforts to level the playing field so low income people have the time and resources to move when an apartment owner needs to take the property off the market temporarily or permanently.

As you know the state of California implemented Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction regulations in 2020 (AB1482) to address this power imbalance: trying to help poor tenants while still allowing landlords the ability to modestly raise rents to cover their costs and make needed improvements. Not perfect, but generally a step in the right direction.

Here are the two major problems I see in the proposed Concord ordinance:
1) The unprecedented inclusion of all single family homes and condos in the “Just Cause” regulations.

The state legislators and virtually every city council in California has been wise to exempt individually owned single family homes and condos from rent control and “Just Cause” eviction rules. Why? Because most homeowners are not professional landlords. They may need to rent their home for a few months or a few years due to a temporary job relocation or because of their own health or that of a loved one. Making the rental process much more complicated and expensive makes it less likely that person will choose to rent the home out. Homeowners will just leave it vacant. “Just Cause” regulations applied to individually owned single family homes or condos will result in fewer homes on the rental market, higher rental prices, and more homes sitting vacant. Exactly the opposite of what is intended.

As I read the benched correspondence from that city council meeting, I noted there were no single family home owners complaining about these proposed regulations. Did city staff mail formal notifications about these proposed new regulations to all single family homeowners and condo owners in the city? I did not receive such a notice. I only learned about it by reading the notes from the council meeting. Does the council really want to include tens of thousands of

homeowners in this new set of controls and regulations? How can you even vote on a measure where thousands of people who may be affected now or in the future have not been formally notified?
I have no rentals in Concord and my home is not up for rent, but at some point in the future we may need to rent out our home due to either our own personal health problems or a need to temporarily relocate as care givers. You may find yourself in the same position someday. How many of us have elderly relatives who may not want to sell their homes, but need to move in with a son or daughter or go to a nursing home? Please read the proposed “Just Cause” regulations carefully from the viewpoint of the average homeowner in Concord. Should they be subject to the Ellis act? Rent registry? Large relocation expenses? These “Just Cause” regulations were set up for corporate landlords who own permanent rental housing. They should not be applied to the individual Concord homeowner who may need to rent out their home for a few months or a few years.
2) Capping rent increases to 60% of CPI or 3% (whichever is less) is punitive to landlords and will dramatically reduce apartment maintenance and degrade our affordable housing stock.

Structural deterioration of older properties will get worse over time due to the lack of incentive for investment. A simple cap of 100% of CPI with a process for appeal in extraordinary circumstances would be fair for both tenants and landlords.

In conclusion, I would recommend your regulations follow the same exemption list found in the state law. Keep it simple. Do not apply these rules to individually owned single family homes and condos. Focus your rent registry and Ellis Act requirements on corporate landlords who have the resources to manage and implement Concord-specific rent and eviction regulations.

I would also recommend staff develop an FAQ for the entire proposal. What was presented at the December 12 meeting was very difficult to understand and apply to personal situations.

Taking the time to prepare an FAQ list with community input will help identify gaps in the regulations and will be a benefit to everyone affected. Let’s do this right.

Sincerely,
Mike McDermott
Concord, California

From: Linda Mandolini <[email protected]>
Date: January 4, 2024 at 3:46:39 PM PST
To: "Barone, Valerie" <[email protected]>, "Rush, Kelly" <[email protected]>, "Huckabay, Sophia" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], Courtney Pal <[email protected]>, Chris Johnston <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinance

FYI, I am forwarding a copy of the joint letter we are going to send this afternoon from Eden, RCD an CHW to each of the council members. We have had individual meetings with two council members, will be meeting with the Mayor tomorrow and have a third council member scheduled for Monday. I am also forwarding email from Kara Douglas to Councilmember Nakamura, one of Eden’s Board members, who formerly ran housing for Contra Costa County. She is reaching out to a few of the council members directly to articulate the challenges she sees in relation to the county’s financing. The joint letter from Eden, RCD and CHW is attached. I will copy Valerie on the email to each of the council members. Thank you.

Best,

Linda

Linda Mandolini
President
22645 Grand Street Hayward, CA 94541
Office 510-247-8117
[email protected] | edenhousing.org
Eden Housing creates and sustains high-quality affordable housing communities that advance equity and opportunity for all.

From: Kara Douglas <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 3:13 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinance
Councilmember Nakamura,

I am Kara Douglas Eden Housing board member and a retiree from Contra Costa County. I am writing to request that the Council not include affordable housing projects with long

term regulatory agreements in the City's proposed rent control ordinance. This would include low-income housing tax credits, State funds and local (City and County) funding.

Because the rents are below market and capped to be affordable to low-income households, the projects operate at very slim margins.

I managed the County's affordable housing program for 17 years. During that time, Concord and the County jointly funded a number of affordable housing developments. The long-term assumptions for operating costs were closely analyzed and agreed to by all funders to ensure the projects were feasible for their required 55-year term. These assumptions include anticipated increases in expenses and rents. Many of these projects are excellent examples of preservation and improvement of existing housing stock. These projects meet some of your Housing Element goals. Including this type of project in the rent control ordinance will create financial hardship and discourage future investment in the older housing stock by responsible, mission driven non-profit developers.

The County used HOME Investment Partnership Act funds to support several projects. The owners of these projects must comply with federal regulations regarding rent and income restrictions. The federal regulations require rent increases for over-income tenants that will exceed the limit in the proposed ordinance.

Please feel free to call me at 925-588-8026 if you would like to discuss these issues.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kara Douglas

22645 Grand Street | Hayward, CA 94541 | Tel: 510 -582-1460 | edenhousing.org Broker License No. 872400

January 4, 2024

The Honorable Edi Birsan, Mayor
The Honorable Carlyn Obringer, Vice Mayor
The Honorable Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
The Honorable Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
The Honorable Laura Nakamura, Councilmember

CC: Valerie Barone, City Manager

Re: Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinance

Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, Councilmember Aliano, Councilmember Hoffmeister and Councilmember Nakamura,

As non-profit owners of buildings constructed before 1995 and financed with the low-income housing tax credit program and/or city of Concord affordable housing funding, we are writing to outline our concerns with expanding the draft ordinance to projects financed with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and other affordable housing programs. We respectfully request that the Council exempt all projects financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credit Financing, projects that have a long-term city of Concord Regulatory Agreement and other public funding programs that have long-term regulatory agreements in place. Examples of these include programs from the CA Department of Housing and Community Development, and County or regional housing programs.

Eden Housing, Resources for Community Development (RCD) and Community Housing Works (CHW) own 644 housing units that would be impacted by this provision. Our affordable properties charge substantially below market rents and were acquired with underwriting assumptions that call for rent increases in modest increments designed to keep pace with expenses. Unlike the market rate properties, the rents at these properties are subject to long- term (55 year) regulatory restrictions.

As an example, Eden analyzed the rents at its Virginia Lane property, they are well below market – with an average rent of $1,000, the rents at this property range from 53% - 86% below the HUD Fair Market rent for a comparably sized unit. In every instance the rents being charged are also considerably below the maximum allowable TCAC rents (ranging from 30 – 65% below maximum allowable rents.)

Similarly, at RCD’s Lakeside Apartments, which primarily houses families in units with two- or three- bedrooms, the average non-subsidized rent is $1,050. On average, rents are less than half of HUD Fair Market rent for a comparable market-rate unit. In every instance, rents being charged at Lakeside are below the maximum allowable TCAC rents and the average household pays 28% less than the maximum allowable TCAC rent.

In many of our projects, the City of Concord is a lender on the properties and participated in the financial structuring of the projects. The most recent of these was Eden’s acquisition of Sunset Pines and Coral Court. The City lent $6.4 million to the project and consented to 4% annual rent increases in its underwriting. As was the case with Sunset and Coral, the lenders and investors

made loans to all the affordable projects with the understanding that we would run the properties to meet the proforma projections and assure ongoing operating feasibility. Adding already restricted affordable properties to the City’s rent stabilization ordinance would restrict our rent increases in a manner that jeopardizes the basic underwriting feasibility assumptions we collectively made, and the City agreed to. Because our rents are already very low, subjecting these properties to an ordinance that would allow for the lesser of 3% or 60% of CPI - 1.6% will create problems for these properties ranging from:

 severely limiting our ability to adequately operate and maintain the properties,  limiting our ability to refinance and improve the assets as they age;  and in the worst case, risks placing the projects in default with our primary lender and other state and regional lenders.

We are sure this wasn’t the City’s intent when it invested in helping us acquire and renovate these properties.

Additionally, affordable housing operators would be unable to utilize the Fair Return Petition process because its provisions and timing constraints are in direct conflict with other regulatory requirements. Several of the Eden and RCD properties also have additional regulatory requirements placed by the State of California Housing and Community Development Department. These requirements have specific budget approval timing requirements. In its review, the state looks at the rent burden on each household and has minimum requirements for tenant rent payment and minimum feasibility requirements. We must submit for approval and increase rents as directed and approved by the State of California or they will assess negative points on future new housing applications. A local ordinance that doesn’t allow us to comply with state regulatory requirements harms not only these projects, it harms our entire effort to create new affordable housing.

As Eden and RCD have noted in previous correspondence, local, regional, and state housing programs by design 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 the proposed additional restrictions to the 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. At Eden, 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. Both Eden and RCD have adopted equity-based rent increase policies that take into consideration tenant rent burdens and have worked hard to balance rent burdens in our properties.

In the past three years, we’ve all faced substantial pressure on property operations in our portfolios. Not only have we experienced long-term non-payment of rent due to extended rent moratoria, but we also face unprecedented spikes in our operating costs across the board.

Imposing the stabilization ordinance on top of an already constrained operating structure renders would make it infeasible to operate these properties.

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. To do otherwise, would prevent developers from even considering the types of preservation projects we’ve engaged in with the City and would be counter to the City’s own affordable housing objectives.

Finally, we note that the California Legislature is working on AB 846, a bill that would limit the annual rent increases across the board in the tax credit portfolio. We believe that a single standard that takes into consideration the already below-market nature of these rents would be a better solution than risking project feasibility by including LIHTC properties in this ordinance. As active members of multiple housing policy associations we believe the State will act on this legislation in this next legislative session. At a minimum, the Council should consider waiting to see if a statewide standard is approved for all LIHTC housing.

We greatly appreciate the partnership of the City and your commitment to affordable housing.

Thank you for consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Linda Mandolini Dan Sawislak Sean Spear
President & CEO Executive Director President & CEO
Eden Housing, Inc. RCD Community Housing Works

Cc: Lindsay Haddix, Executive Director, East Bay Housing Organizations

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.

The following people sent the above email:

1. Meg Keeley, Walnut Creek, CA

2. Laquanda Thomas, Concord, CA

From: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 5:28 PM
To: Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>; Reed Robertson <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Myers, Lori <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest by City Council Members with Regards to Rent Control Vote

Good Afternoon Ms. Brown,

Thank you for your timely response.

While I appreciate your detailed explanation of exceptions to the FPPC, I do not entirely agree with your interpretation.

Perhaps due to my limited knowledge of the law, I rely more on common sense approach, which in my interpretation, any city council member who’s in in a position of power to vote on limiting rent increases, and they themselves “rent” within the boundaries of such an ordinance, would be benefiting financially from voting for any rent limitations. Therefore such council member could potentially be biased in their decision making process posing a direct conflict of interest and should be excluded from discussion and voting on any such ordinance.

I would hope that your heart you agree with this simple common sense interpretation.

However, I recognize that in your capacity as the city attorney your role is protect the city council members from potential litigation and would not voice such agreement on the public record.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

Blaine Carter
(925) 963-6168

O
n Jan 4, 2024, at 4:29 PM, Brown, Susanne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Carter:

Thank you for your email, which appears to focus on conflict of interest and bias matters.

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has identified certain conflict-of-interest exceptions which apply here, including the following:

1. Public Generally Exception. A decision’s financial effect on a public official’s financial interest is indistinguishable from its effect on the public generally if a “significant segment” of the public is affected and the “effect on the official’s interest is not unique” compared to the effect on the

significant segment. FPPC Regulation 18703(a). “Significant segment” means at least 15 percent of residential real property within the public official’s jurisdiction if the only interest the official has in the decision is the official’s primary residence. FPPC Regulation 18703(b)(2).

2. Rent Control Ordinance/Tenant Protection Measures. This exception applies to decisions affecting all residential rental properties (other than those protected by Costa-Hawkins) within the public official’s jurisdiction, if the public official owns no more than three residential units, and the public official’s only affected interests are as a lessor of the property or as renter or owner of his or her primary residence. FPPC Regulation 18703(e)(4).

Bias matters are typically only at play in quasi-judicial situations (e.g. where rules are applied to facts) and not legislative acts, such as rent stabilization/just cause for eviction policies. Rather, a key role of elected officials is to effect legislation they feel will benefit their community.

I hope my response alleviates your concerns. This email exchange will be published as part of packet for the January 9
th City Council meeting.

Regards,
Susanne Brown

Susanne Meyer Brown │City Attorney
City Attorney's Office │ City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/08 | Concord | CA 94519
Main: (925) 671-3160 | Fax: (925) 671-3469
[email protected]

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION - This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information and is intended only for use by the recipient named above. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of such information received in error is prohibited. Please delete and notify sender if you received this message in error.

From: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2023 1:16 PM
To: Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>; Reed Robertson <[email protected]>
Subject: Potential Conflict of Interest by City Council Members with Regards to Rent Control Vote

Dear Ms. Brown,

As a small business owner of a single rental unit in the city of Concord, I have participated in numerous dialogs at city council meetings regarding the reasons why I feel the City Council should not expand its local ordinance for rent control beyond the existing California Law AB1482, which was passed into law on January 1, 2020.

At the time AB1482 was heralded as one of the greatest victories for tenants providing the strongest regulations for landlords in the country. AB 1482 included provisions that place limits on rent increases, protections from evictions without cause, as well as relocation fees for no-fault evictions.

Now, three years later, small business owners such as myself are yet again under attack by local tenant advocacy groups who continue to apply political pressure on landlords by means of a sympathetic city council for the city of Concord, who continue to cater to such groups when other cities do not, which begs the question as to why?

AB 1482 provides some of the strongest protections for tenants in the entire continental US. So why do the five city council members of Concord take it upon themselves to expand the already existing state law by making it even more restrictive for small businesses owners.

The answer may be two-fold.

First, as I have mentioned publicly on the record at prior city council meetings, I believe that at least two members of the council have aspirations to further their political career with campaigns for county supervisor positions. For individuals such as Council Member Birsan who continue to cater to constituents outside his own district such as those in District 3 which include the Monument Corridor, passage of a local ordinance with stronger provisions already set forth in AB1482 could help bolster a new campaign for country supervisor. Council Member Birsan has already had one unsuccessful campaign and has indicated he will continue his efforts to regroup for another bid for the position. Council Member Aliano has made it clear he intends to pursue a career in politics and actually moved into District 3 to be able to launch his political career with a run for city council.

However, there may be personal motive for passage of a local ordinance that supersedes the restrictions of AB 1482, and that is one of individual financial gain.

It has come to my attention that perhaps several members if not all of the city council members may themselves be renters. Therefore, if this is in fact the case, passage of local ordinance that limits rent increases beyond that of AB1482, would benefit anyone who rents in the city of Concord, including a city council member who casts such a vote.

Under the California Fair Practice Act- Conflict of Interest Rules, it states:

"A public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biase d decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision."

"An official with a disqualifying conflict of interest may not make, participate in making, or use his or her position to influence a governmental decision."

Clearly any vote by a council member who is indeed themself a renter would be inherently biased, as the voting member would financially benefit from such a local ordinance which strengthens tenant protections including limiting rent increases, thus benefiting the council member financially as well.

Therefore, as the acting city attorney, along with Ms. Barone, the city manager, I call on you both to address this possible conflict of interest by calling upon each council member at the next city council meeting to publicly state on the record if they themselves either rent or own their residence in which they list in order to represent their respective districts.

If it is corroborated that members of the council do in fact rent their primary residences, then under the California Fair Practice Act, I urge you to mandate those individuals recuse themselves from further participation, discussion, or vote, on the matter of "Rent Control" in the city of Concord.

By not doing so, you would be putting the city itself at risk, making it liable for any potential class action damages incurred by landlords.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Conflicts of Interest Rules (ca.gov)

Conflicts of Interest Rules
Learn what constitutes a conflict of interest and how to determine if someone should be disqualified from partic...

Respectfully,

Blaine Carter
3130 McKean Drive
Concord CA 94518
925-963-6168

-----Original Message-----
From: Dea Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 7:04 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control

Hello City Council
I believe the City of Concord should follow the state laws and guidance, just as it does in housing developments.

Layering will create addi�onal burdens on our city.

Thank you
Dea Smith

Sent from my iPhone

Agenda Item No. 6.a
Benched Attachment 2
January 9, 2024
1 | Page
Rent Increase Caps in California and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Covered Units City % of CPI
cap % +/- CPI cap Max
Cap
Min
Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable
Rent
Increase
(12/18/23)
LIHTC Units Covered
Rent
Stabilization
Just Cause for
Eviction
State of CA - AB 1482
Tenant Protection Act
5% + local
CPI 10% N/A Varies per
region No No
Alameda City 70% of CPI 5% 1% 2.90% No No
Antioch 60% of CPI 3% N/A 1.68% Yes N/A
Baldwin Park 100% of
CPI 5% 1% 3.80% N o Yes
Berkeley 65% of CPI 7% 0% 4.40% No No
Beverly Hills
(Chapter 6 tenancies)
100% of
CPI N/A 3% 3.20% N o No
Commerce 5% + local
CPI 10% N/A 8.80% No No
Culver City 100% of
CPI 5% 2% 4.25% N o Yes
East Palo Alto 80% of CPI 10% 0% 4.20% No (if current
HUD contract) Yes

2 | Page
City % of CPI
cap % +/- CPI cap Max
Cap
Min
Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable
Rent
Increase
(12/18/23)
LIHTC Units Covered
Rent
Stabilization
Just Cause for
Eviction
Fairfax 60% of CPI 5% 0% 1.68% No* No*
Hayward 5% 5.00% No Yes
Inglewood
(5+ units)
100% of
CPI 10% 3% 3.80% No Yes
Inglewood
(1-4 units) 5% + local
CPI 10% 8.80% No Yes
Larkspur 5% + local
CPI 7% 7.00% No Yes
Los Angeles City 100% of
CPI 3% 3.20% No (exemption
issued by City) Yes
Los Angeles County
(Unincorporated)
100% of
CPI 8% 0% 3.00% Yes Yes
Los Gatos 70% of CPI 5% N/A Yes N/A
Mountain View 100% of
CPI 5% 2% 5.00% No No
Oakland 60% of CPI 10% 3% 2.50% No Yes
Oxnard 4% N/A 4.00% No Yes
Palm Springs 75% of CPI No N/A
Pomona 100% of
CPI 4% N/A 4.00% No No
Richmond 60% of CPI 3% 0% 3.00% No** Yes

3 | Page
City % of CPI
cap % +/- CPI cap Max
Cap
Min
Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable
Rent
Increase
(12/18/23)
LIHTC Units Covered
Rent
Stabilization
Just Cause for
Eviction
Sacramento 5% + local
CPI 10% 9.20% No No
San Francisco 60% of CPI 3.60% No No
San Jose 5% 5.00% No No
Santa Ana 80% of CPI 3% 2.54% No No
Santa Monica 75% of CPI 3% 0% 2.80% Yes (unless built after 1979)
Yes (unless built
after 1979)
West Hollywood 75% of CPI 3% 0% 2.50%
Yes (unless
operated by non-
profit)
Yes

Average 81.5% 5.0% 5.9% 1.1% 4.2% LIHTC Covered

Rent
Stabilization
Just Cause for
Eviction
Count (out of 29
listed jurisdictions) 20 4 25 14 26 5 11

* Per Fairfax City staff, not covered under rent stabilization or just cause for eviction ** Per Richmond City staff, not covered under rent stabilization

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 8:21 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: rental control ordinance

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. Did you know Republic Services (garbage service) is increased their rates by 19.5% starting January 2024 due to SB 1383.

A good number of home insurance providers are leaving
California resulting in considerably higher fire insurance rates. I had a non-renewal on a unit two years ago and the new insurance cost doubled. How do expect housing providers to survive if we are unable to increase rent to meet our expenses?

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?

Many of “mom and pop” landlords are exchanging out of their California single family rentals to other states that don’t impose overbearing rental restrictions. Those sold units in Concord are now owner occupied, not investor owned. Concord is losing a good number of rental units every year because of this. Do you want this to continue or get worse?
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 9, 2024

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.

Joyce Kelly
Single Family housing provider for over forty years.

From: Marvin Remmich <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 3:19 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 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.

Did you know..."Believe you will be successful and you will." Marvin A. Remmich
dre #00530491
Broker, Emeritus, CCIM, CDPE, CREO, NRBA, TAN

RAM Properties
Office: 925 837 0199
Email: [email protected]; www.MarvinRemmich.com

-----Original Message-----
From: vada sly <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 4:03 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control

The city is not looking at all the parties involved in an owner taking over a property to live in. Not all owners have a lot of money. We always kept our rent way under the market for the concerns of the tenets. If we needed to move into a rental and pay Exorbitant fees that wouldn’t work. We would end up selling the property and that wouldn’t be good for either party. As a senior citizen I would need to be able to move into the rental and give the tenant 60 days notice to move. Seems to me rent control only benefits The tenets and has no concern for the property owner. It Has to be 50-50 not one-sided. Why the city would wanna do this makes no sense. You’re just Eliminating people who want to have rentals.

And the majority of renters don’t have the money to buy. It seems to me more like you’re trying to get rid of rental property all together.

Sent from my iPhone

From: Ron Navarra <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 7:07 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: My voice is in opposition to Concord's proposed rent control! Vote NO

I am frustrated with the City Council majority’s crusade for rent control. I object to the tenor of some council members who are unresponsive, argumentative, or dismissive of my concern. This is a punitive public policy and that the city is not looking at the best interest of all its constituents such as me. I have sent previous emails stating my opposition and again ask the same -Vote No!

Sincerely,
Ron Navarra

From: Rich Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 7:23 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Concord Rent Control

Hi Joelle Fockler,

I am a landlord and own i house in Concord, 1 house in Kensington, a duple\x in El Cerrito and a 4 flex in El Cerrito. My house in Concord is currently being rented for $400.00 per month under market. Our oldest daughter lived in it until 2018 when she was accepted at the Salvation Army Officer Training College I rented it . At the time I talked to Lynda Diamond, local realtor, to get get her advice on how much I should rent it for and she said $$3,150.00. I felt that was a little high and rented it for $2850.00. I had spent about $45,000.00 on it before I rented it.

I feel Concord’s rent control is punitive at 60% of the CPI or 3%, which ever is lowest. I can live with 3%, so I would like to see the 60% of the CPI removed from it. As you know we have statewide rent control and it does not apply to single family dwellings, but I have never raised either one of my houses rent every year. I had tenants in my Concord house for 3 years and I never raised their rent.

Last year out of my 8 tenants 3 did not get any increase in rent, 2 got a $50.00 and 3 got a $100.00 increase, My Kensington tenants got about a 3% increase, 2 of my tenants in my 4 plex got about a 5% and their current rent is still about $450.00 below the market. One of my tenants in my duplex has lived there for 30 years and is currently paying $1825.00 per month where as a friend of mine has the same building and his getting $2600.00 per month. that is all she can afford and I will live with it.It is her home.

The 2 units in my 4 plex that got the $100.00 per month increase are not very neat tenants and I am always reminding they to to clean up their private patios and not to store stuff in the common area.

I mention these rents as there are other landlords like I. I was upset when I heard the tenant at last months meeting telling how she got a $300,00 a month rent increase plus had to pay $1500.00 for damages. Was she in an apartment or a house? If in an apartment, that would have been illegal under the state wide rent control. In fact that was criminal in my mind.

In November I had a new wall furnace installed in one unit of my duplex and it cost $2100.00. In 2021 I had one installed in my 4 plex and it was $1400.00.

As of July 1, 2024 we can only charge 1 months rent for the security deposit. If you have tenant that does not pay the rent and does damage to the unit we are out a lot of money. What it will mean for me that I will not make exceptions for prospective tenants the that have less than a 650 FICO score. It will make it harder for some tenants to rent. Also if we have an outside wooden stairway or deck we will have to pay an inspector to inspect it. I just rebuilt my deck on my 4 plex and I do feel that is a good thing, but another cost.

My big question is how will Concord enforce the rent control? When will that be addressed.

Sorry for the long email.

Rich Lewis

P .S. I was the one that brought up the 16.704 % salary increase.

To: The Concord City Council
From: Peter Alevizos, Owner, Santos Plaza Apartments
Date: January 5, 2024

I have been the proud owner of a multifamily property in Concord for over 20 years. In the last few years, it has been a financial struggle. All my costs have risen far above inflation and above what I could reasonably pass on to my tenants. My insurance cost alone has risen 230% in the last six years, and I have learned that it will increase another 25% above its current level this year. Other costs have risen less but far above inflation and far above what can be passed through to tenants. This also ignores major capital expenses such as roofing or exterior painting, both of which I have also done in the last six years. I am not an active buyer and seller of real estate. While both renters and municipalities expect that housing will be maintained, they do not seem to be aware of any real data on what this costs. It seems that Rent Control of the kind envisioned in Concord is blind to what it costs to operate and maintain multifamily rental housing. Choosing arbitrary targets for inflation and ignoring the reality of operations and management is simply a politically expedient way to ensure that cost to one constituent group is constrained; it is easier than ensuring adequate amounts of housing is built and that such building is a major determinant of the market cost of rents.

Please consider the following points in your deliberations:

1. Rent Control is and has been one option to control the costs of housing for renters. It serves a majority of people, at the expense of a small minority of owners without the public or its representatives as a whole being forced to fully understand its complexity and simply installing it in their communities. It expediently serves both the NIMBYism of homeowners who fight growth and all the pressures to help moderate- and low-income citizens at the expense of existing rental property owners. Some fear that property owners don’t stand a chance.

2. Rent Control is easier to administer when compared to the prolonged and expensive alternatives of politically managing and operationally administering the growth and development of the housing supply in our cities.

3. Rent Control is an easier-to-pass “solution”… because it faces a small opposition whose voice (and votes) are miniscule when compared to the number of renters, homeowners and their activists.

4. Rent control as proposed discriminates against housing developers so that owners and investors are disincentivized from taking the risk/reward ratios needed to build new housing.

5. Rent Control is therefore a useful but myopic solution to housing cost containment, constraining the cost of housing under the guise of assisting others to maintain housing.

Despite its demonstrably good intensions, most of its negative effects are born by property owners and it doesn’t solve the housing crisis.

6. The problems of Rent Control have gotten national attention at the level of the Supreme Court because it directly attacks the rights of private property owners, limiting their right to compensation while demanding that they personally absorb the majority of inflation in housing costs that affect all of us in society: (Community Housing Improvement

Program v. City of New York and 74 Pinehurst LLC v. State of New York); it is prudent to await the courts findings before going forward.

7. Rent Control is what has led to “Builder’s Remedy”. It’s as if municipal administrators are ignorant or biased against the managed free market we live in, seeking expedient but imprudent solutions to the need for both lower cost and greater density housing.

8. Look at NY City to see the long term effects of such restrictive rent controls. If you don’t know what this means, you simply should if you are representing the best interests of our community. Let us hope wisdom prevails against expediency. God’s speed.

From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2024 12:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control

We are owners of the Mt View apartments in Concord .I am sure you are aware of the difficulties apartment owners have had for over three years .We have been unable to raise rents due to Covid restrictions and have had many residents not pay rent .Futher restrictions are not needed and will lead to to inability to pay for increased insurance cost , increase in utilities costs and increased cost to hire workers.We have been improving the property over the years and plan to continue.If we are unable to pass the cost on we be unable to improve our property.Please vote no on this needless program .thank you Dennis Fuller Sent from my iPhone

From: Nick Mosteiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2024 10:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Response to Residential Tenant Protection Program

Hello City Clerk.

Please include my attachment as further public comment to the Concord City Council proposal on Residential Tenant Protection Program, to be further
discussed at Council meeting on January 9, 2024. The document is in WORD; if this format is unsuitable for inclusion, please let me know at your earliest
opportunity, and I can resend it in the format you specify.

Thank you.

N Mosteiro

January 5, 2024

Hello Concord City Council.

I am a 30+ year resident of Concord, and I have owned/managed 8 rental units in Concord for over 25 years.

My comments are directed to the proposed Residential Tenant Protection Program presented to the City Council on December 12, 2023 – specifically the rent stabilization program.

It is my opinion that Council supports fair rents and fair rent increases for residential tenants, and that it also supports fair and reasonable financial return to rental unit providers.

The basic components of the rent stabilization program – as I understand them – are the following:

1. Cap rent increases over a 12-month period to 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is lower.

2. Base for rent increases is actual rent as of January 1, 2023.

3. Any rents already collected since January 2023 above cap to be returned to tenant, even if tenant has voluntarily vacated premises since January 2023.

Here are my thoughts on the rent stabilization components described above, • CPI is not a good basis for determining fair rental increases. Rental providers should consider expenses they have in order to provide the units, not the expenses the tenants have. As an example, CPI includes food and clothing, rental provider expenses do not.

CPI changes monthly. Lease start and end dates occur in any month of the year. Will Concord be providing monthly CPI values to be used for the start of tenant leases in order to satisfy the rent increase cap? A single percentage increase, such as 5% as used in many communities, is easier to understand and maintain. This number can be adjusted up or down by Concord as it chooses annually. The current proposal would permit all rent increases to be capped below 3% during 2024. I can make a fair return at 5%; I will lose money at the ‘under 3%’ cap. As others have pointed out, almost all routine rental provider expense increases have exceeded 6% in 2023. • Basing rent increases across the board on current rent (as of January 2023) treats all rental providers and situations the same – the same formula but with vastly different results. Above-market rents, market rents, and below-market rents would be treated identically. This is grossly unfair and punitive to providers such as myself that have made units available at fair rates for many years. My highest rent for a 2BR/1BA unit is currently $1600 a month, which is far below the average rent in Concord. • RECOMMENDATION: Through the current Rent Registry, Concord has collected rental information for several years. From that data, determine what a fair rent would be for each unit category (i.e., STUDIO, 1BR/1BA, 2BR/1BA, and so on) for 2023. Then, project

what a fair rent would be in 2024 for each category. If a provider’s unit is below a certain percentage of the fair rent in 2023, exempt the unit from the provision’s payback language. If the rent or increase for the unit would be under the fair rent for 2024, allow the rent increase for 2024 but cap at 5% or the fair rent – whichever is lower. This approach does not penalize the rental provider that already has fair rents, unlike the current proposal. The ‘Fair Rent Petition’ process should remain to cover special or unanticipated situations. The process is costly and takes time. I feel my recommendations will reduce the need for this process, but capital/ required improvements will still need to be reviewed on a case basis.

Thank you for your consideration.

N Mosteiro

From: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2024 8:44 PM
To: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Reed Robertson <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Myers, Lori <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest by City Council Members with Regards to Rent Control Vote

I feel that the language on the cited paragraphs is written, intentionally, for the average person to NOT understand it, and for it to be susceptible to different interpretations.

My understanding from your response, Ms. Brown, is that there are exceptions, and the “exceptions” are acceptable as long as it benefits the community.

However, these "rent stabilization laws" are only going to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to create more rental housing in the market. So in reality, in the long run, it’s not going to benefit the community.

These policies will have the reverse effect.

What is very clear to me, is that the more reckless policies are created, the less rental housing will be available .

It has been proven, according to many studies and facts, that rent control/rent stabilization only contributes to an "affordable housing" shortage.

So, can anyone explain how that is beneficial to the tenants?

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 04:29:04 PM PST, Brown, Susanne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Carter:

Thank you for your email, which appears to focus on conflict of interest and bias matters.

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has identified certain conflict-of-interest exceptions which apply here, including the following:
• Public Generally Exception. A decision’s financial effect on a public official’s financial interest is indistinguishable from its effect on the public generally if a “significant segment” of the public is affected and the “effect on the official’s interest is not unique” compared to the effect on the significant segment. FPPC Regulation 18703(a). “Significant segment” means at least 15 percent of residential real property within the public official’s jurisdiction if the only interest the official has in the decision is the official’s primary residence. FPPC Regulation 18703(b)(2). • Rent Control Ordinance/Tenant Protection Measures. This exception applies to decisions affecting all residential rental properties (other than those protected by Costa-Hawkins) within the public official’s jurisdiction, if the public official owns no more than three residential units, and the public official’s only affected interests are as a lessor of the property or as renter or owner of his or her primary residence. FPPC Regulation 18703(e)(4).

Bias matters are typically only at play in quasi-judicial situations (e.g. where rules are applied to facts) and not legislative acts, such as rent stabilization/just cause for eviction policies. Rather, a key role of elected officials is to effect legislation they feel will benefit their community.

I hope my response alleviates your concerns. This email exchange will be published as part of packet for the January 9th City Council meeting.

Regards,
Susanne Brown
Susanne Meyer Brown │City Attorney
City Attorney's Office │ City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/08 | Concord | CA 94519
Main: (925) 671-3160 | Fax: (925) 671-3469
[email protected]

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION - This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information and is intended only for use by the recipient named above. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of such information received in error is prohibited. Please delete and notify sender if you received this message in error.

From: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2023 1:16 PM
To: Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>; Reed Robertson <[email protected]>
Subject: Potential Conflict of Interest by City Council Members with Regards to Rent Control Vote Dear Ms. Brown,

As a small business owner of a single rental unit in the city of Concord, I have participated in numerous dialogs at city council meetings regarding the reasons why I feel the City Council should not expand its local ordinance for rent control beyond the existing California Law AB1482, which was passed into law on January 1, 2020.

At the time AB1482 was heralded as one of the greatest victories for tenants providing the strongest regulations for landlords in the country. AB 1482 included provisions that place limits on rent increases, protections from evictions without cause, as well as relocation fees for no-fault evictions.

Now, three years later, small business owners such as myself are yet again under attack by local tenant advocacy groups who continue to apply political pressure on landlords by means of a sympathetic city council for the city of Concord, who continue to cater to such groups when other cities do not, which begs the question as to why?
AB 1482 provides some of the strongest protections for tenants in the entire continental US. So why do the five city council members of Concord take it upon themselves to expand the already existing state law by making it even more restrictive for small businesses owners.

The answer may be two-fold.

First, as I have mentioned publicly on the record at prior city council meetings, I believe that at least two members of the council have aspirations to further their political career with campaigns for county supervisor positions. For individuals such as Council Member Birsan who continue to cater to constituents outside his own district such as those in District 3 which include the Monument Corridor, passage of a local ordinance with stronger provisions already set forth in AB1482 could help bolster a new campaign for country supervisor. Council Member Birsan has already had one unsuccessful campaign and has indicated he will continue his efforts to regroup for another bid for the position. Council Member Aliano has made it clear he intends to pursue a career in politics and actually moved into District 3 to be able to launch his political career with a run for city council.

However, there may be personal motive for passage of a local ordinance that supersedes the restrictions of AB 1482, and that is one of individual financial gain.

It has come to my attention that perhaps several members if not all of the city council members may themselves be renters. Therefore, if this is in fact the case, passage of local ordinance that limits rent increases beyond that of AB1482, would benefit anyone who rents in the city of Concord, including a city council member who casts such a vote.

Under the California Fair Practice Act- Conflict of Interest Rules, it states:

"A public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests.

To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision."

"An official with a disqualifying conflict of interest may not make, participate in making, or use his or her position to influence a governmental decision."

Clearly any vote by a council member who is indeed themself a renter would be inherently biased, as the voting member would financially benefit from such a local ordinance which strengthens tenant protections including limiting rent increases, thus benefiting the council member financially as well.

Therefore, as the acting city attorney, along with Ms. Barone, the city manager, I call on you both to address this possible conflict of interest by calling upon each council member at the next city council meeting to publicly state on the record if they themselves either rent or own their residence in which they list in order to represent their respective districts.

If it is corroborated that members of the council do in fact rent their primary residences, then under the California Fair Practice Act, I urge you to mandate those individuals recuse themselves from further participation, discussion, or vote, on the matter of "Rent Control" in the city of Concord.

By not doing so, you would be putting the city itself at risk, making it liable for any potential class action damages incurred by landlords.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Conflicts of Interest Rules (ca.gov)

Conflicts of Interest Rules
Learn what constitutes a conflict of interest and how to determine if someone should be disqualified from partic...

Respectfully,

Blaine Carter
3130 McKean Drive
Concord CA 94518
925-963-6168

From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 10:42 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>; Blaine Carter <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Myers, Lori <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest by City Council Members with Regards to Rent Control Vote

Please put in public record.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 10:40 AM Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Reed,

I want to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. As you know this item is before Council Tuesday night and what policy they set is up to a majority of the Councilmembers.

As you wrote this e-mail directly to me and the City Attorney, I’m unclear if you want it entered into the public communication package on this item.

Would you let me know?

Valerie

Valerie Barone, City Manager (she/her/hers)
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3150 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01, Concord, CA 94519

Subscribe to our City News e-newsletter to stay informed about what's happening in your community!

From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 10:20 AM
To: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>
Cc: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Myers, Lori <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest by City Council Members with Regards to Rent Control Vote

To Susanne and Valerie,

I caught this front page blip this morning and it seemed appropriate for this email thread. Now that the spectre of removing Costa Hawkins is going to the voters later this year its hard to see any developer building rental housing in San Francisco or any city with rent control laws more stringent than 1482. Last meeting I asked the question "How can the city council expect to have future political careers when they are turning their backs on their voters".

Another question for the city staff on this email, "Will you be able to keep your jobs after investment in the city's housing stock collapses?" Certainly you'll miss whatever goal HCD has for the city. Will the city council point fingers looking for a scapegoat to throw under the bus? Will HCD seize control of city's planning and row after row of affordable tenement housing onto the city? If a landlord is facing escalating insurance, utility, and repair costs why would they invest into price controls? Susanne alluded to a few months ago talking about why if someone had a house that was exempt under costa hawkins would they build an ADU to make both units fall under rent control? San Francisco has spent billions of dollars and 4 decades trying to answer that question and has made themselves into a national laughingstock.

Of course considering the heavily biased/censored/asinine staff report presented to the city council many people would argue you should lose your jobs now.

Reed Robertson
Concord

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 8:45 PM Maria De Sousa <[email protected]> wrote:

I feel that the language on the cited paragraphs is written, intentionally, for the average person to NOT understand it, and for it to be susceptible to different interpretations.

My understanding from your response, Ms. Brown, is that there are exceptions, and the “exceptions” are acceptable as long as it benefits the community.

However, these "rent stabilization laws" are only going to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to create more rental housing in the market. So in reality, in the long run, it’s not going to benefit the community.

These policies will have the reverse effect.

What is very clear to me, is that the more reckless policies are created, the less rental housing will be available .

It has been proven, according to many studies and facts, that rent control/rent stabilization only contributes to an "affordable housing" shortage.

So, can anyone explain how that is beneficial to the tenants?

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 04:29:04 PM PST, Brown, Susanne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Carter:

Thank you for your email, which appears to focus on conflict of interest and bias matters.

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has identified certain conflict-of-interest exceptions which apply here, including the following:

• Public Generally Exception. A decision’s financial effect on a public official’s financial interest is indistinguishable from its effect on the public generally if a “significant segment” of the public is affected and the “effect on the official’s interest is not unique” compared to the effect on the significant segment. FPPC Regulation 18703(a). “Significant segment” means at least 15 percent of residential real property within the public official’s jurisdiction if the only interest the official has in the decision is the official’s primary residence. FPPC Regulation 18703(b)(2). • Rent Control Ordinance/Tenant Protection Measures. This exception applies to decisions affecting all residential rental properties (other than those protected by Costa-Hawkins) within the public official’s jurisdiction, if the public official owns no more than three residential units, and the public official’s only affected interests are as a lessor of the property or as renter or owner of his or her primary residence. FPPC Regulation 18703(e)(4).

Bias matters are typically only at play in quasi-judicial situations (e.g. where rules are applied to facts) and not legislative acts, such as rent stabilization/just cause for eviction policies. Rather, a key role of elected officials is to effect legislation they feel will benefit their community.

I hope my response alleviates your concerns. This email exchange will be published as part of packet for the January 9th City Council meeting.

Regards,
Susanne Brown
Susanne Meyer Brown │City Attorney
City Attorney's Office │ City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/08 | Concord | CA 94519
Main: (925) 671-3160 | Fax: (925) 671-3469
[email protected]

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION - This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information and is intended only for use by the recipient named above. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of such information received in error is prohibited. Please delete and notify sender if you received this message in error.

From: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2023 1:16 PM
To: Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>; Reed Robertson <[email protected]>
Subject: Potential Conflict of Interest by City Council Members with Regards to Rent Control Vote

Dear Ms. Brown,

As a small business owner of a single rental unit in the city of Concord, I have participated in numerous dialogs at city council meetings regarding the reasons why I feel the City Council should not expand its local ordinance for rent control beyond the existing California Law AB1482, which was passed into law on January 1, 2020.

At the time AB1482 was heralded as one of the greatest victories for tenants providing the strongest regulations for landlords in the country. AB 1482 included provisions that place limits on rent increases, protections from evictions without cause, as well as relocation fees for no-fault evictions.

Now, three years later, small business owners such as myself are yet again under attack by local tenant advocacy groups who continue to apply political pressure on landlords by means of a sympathetic city council for the city of Concord, who continue to cater to such groups when other cities do not, which begs the question as to why?
AB 1482 provides some of the strongest protections for tenants in the entire continental US. So why do the five city council members of Concord take it upon themselves to expand the already existing state law by making it even more restrictive for small businesses owners.

The answer may be two-fold.

First, as I have mentioned publicly on the record at prior city council meetings, I believe that at least two members of the council have aspirations to further their political career with campaigns for county supervisor positions. For individuals such as Council Member Birsan who continue to cater to constituents outside his own district such as those in District 3 which include the Monument Corridor, passage of a local ordinance with stronger provisions already set forth in AB1482 could help bolster a new campaign for country supervisor. Council Member Birsan has already had one unsuccessful campaign and has indicated he will continue his efforts to regroup for another bid for the position. Council Member Aliano has made it clear he intends to pursue a career in

politics and actually moved into District 3 to be able to launch his political career with a run for city council.

However, there may be personal motive for passage of a local ordinance that supersedes the restrictions of AB 1482, and that is one of individual financial gain.

It has come to my attention that perhaps several members if not all of the city council members may themselves be renters. Therefore, if this is in fact the case, passage of local ordinance that limits rent increases beyond that of AB1482, would benefit anyone who rents in the city of Concord, including a city council member who casts such a vote.

Under the California Fair Practice Act- Conflict of Interest Rules, it states:

"A public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests.

To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision."

"An official with a disqualifying conflict of interest may not make, participate in making, or use his or her position to influence a governmental decision."

Clearly any vote by a council member who is indeed themself a renter would be inherently biased, as the voting member would financially benefit from such a local ordinance which strengthens tenant protections including limiting rent increases, thus benefiting the council member financially as well.

Therefore, as the acting city attorney, along with Ms. Barone, the city manager, I call on you both to address this possible conflict of interest by calling upon each council member at the next city council meeting to publicly state on the record if they themselves either rent or own their residence in which they list in order to represent their respective districts.

If it is corroborated that members of the council do in fact rent their primary residences, then under the California Fair Practice Act, I urge you to mandate those individuals recuse themselves from further participation, discussion, or vote, on the matter of "Rent Control" in the city of Concord.

By not doing so, you would be putting the city itself at risk, making it liable for any potential class action damages incurred by landlords.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Conflicts of Interest Rules (ca.gov)

Conflicts of Interest Rules
Learn what constitutes a conflict of interest and how to determine if someone should be disqualified from partic...

Respectfully,

Blaine Carter
3130 McKean Drive
Concord CA 94518
925-963-6168

From: Janet Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 4:16 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to City Council regarding proposed rent control ordinance

Hello Joelle,

I am submitting these comments for the city council and hope you can distribute them for their review and consideration.

Thank you,
Janet Kennedy
532 Eagle Nest Dr.

Martinez, CA

January 8, 2024

To Mayor Brisan and members of the Concord City Council, My name is Janet Kennedy and am currently the Chair of the Board of Directors for Resources for Community Development. Several years ago, I was the Housing Manager for the city. During that time, the city was struggling with complaints from many residents about increasing rents, and the deteriorated condition of their units. Conditions were so dire and many of the residents, left without a lot of options for housing, lived in substandard units. They were not given leases; we’re required to pay rent in cash so there was no record of payment and were threatened with eviction and ICE if they complained to the city. It was awful! Those property owners were part of the reason for the city implementing their multi-family inspection program.

At the same time the city took a proactive approach to creating new, affordable housing and improving the existing housing stock by partnering with nonprofit housing developers that were committed developing and maintaining affordable housing. These actions as well as the multi- family inspection program have created hundreds of permanently affordable and well maintained and managed housing units for many Concord residents. The affordable units have been financed through city, state, county, and federal dollars all with many restrictions and requirements related to rents and the operation of the properties.

Now 20+ years and millions of city dollars later, this proposed rent control ordinance seems punitive for the nonprofit housing developers already faced with a long list of requirements related to the financing of these affordable properties. As long-standing partners with the nonprofit housing development community, I hope the City Council will consider excusing them from any additional rent restriction requirements.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these comments.

Sincerely,
Janet Kennedy

From: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 8:22 PM
To: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>; reed robertson <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Brenda Kain <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Myers, Lori <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Failure of Rent Stabilization Policies

Dear Ms. Brown,

As part of our ongoing conversation, regarding the upcoming discussion and potential vote on additional rent stabilization ordinance for the City of Concord, I would like these comments included in the public record.

As I have already mentioned, it is my belief that under the California Fair Political, Practices, Commission guidelines any such government official, who may benefit from a policy they themselves vote for, may be inherently biased, should not be allowed to participate in discussion or vote of any such policy.

Therefore, it should be asked of each Council member at tomorrow night's meeting if they either own or rent their primary residence for which they represent a seat on the council. Any council member that is themselves a “renter” would benefit from a rent limitation policy, and therefore could be potentially biased in their decision, which, according to the FPPC should be recused from any such discussion or vote.

Additionally, the historical evidence for economic models on rent control are well- established. While they may serve some benefit to renters in the short term, in the long run, they have negative consequences that include a shortage of available inventory, reduction in the quality of rental units leading to the erosion of surrounding real estate property values, which ultimately to a reduction in city property tax revenue, the emergence of shadow markets, and the risk of expediting, gentrification.

These are the facts that have been well documented in hundreds of rent control studies over the past 50 years in major metropolitan cities, such a Chicago, a Boston, and New York.

That is why the majority of cities in the continental US do not enact such policies that have long-term detrimental effects on the population, especially those of minorities status.

The data on rent control hasn’t changed as demonstrated as recent as the 2019 Stanford study on rent control titled: Effects of rent control expansion on Tenant , Landlord’s Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco.

The study showed that in the two decades following rent control policies passed in San Francisco a reduction in affordable inventory occurred resulting from a combination of

tenants remaining in oversized properties, as well as landlords, pulling inventory off the market. The study further discusses decrease in local property values.

If the data on rent control policies hasn’t changed, what has? What’s changed it is the individuals that comprise the Concord city Council have changed and bring with them a liberal philosophy and ideology without regards to actual data or historical facts.

Concord City Council’s members in the years 2011-2016 rejected tenant advocacy groups call for rent control. During these years council members such as Dan Helix, Ron Leone, Tim Grayson, and Laura Hoffmeister recognized the trap of rent control policies as represented by the historical data and flatly rejected calls for such policies that would ultimately hurt those calling for its enactment.

This is what true governance is about doing what’s right, not just what’s politically expedient, or to garner votes for future political aspirations.

The problem of rent control has always been the same one of simple economics.

Anyone who took a high school economic course knows that price is dictated by two independent variables, supply, and demand which are inversely related.

Artificial price controls, such as rent control, artificially cap price increasing demand without adjusting supply. The result is a steady increase in price as demand increases, but the supply of inventory does not. This has been the same result shown in 50 years of rent control studies.

Just today the San Francisco chronicle online published an article titled: S.F. housing crisis: Will 2024 be another slow year for building homes? The article discusses the restrictive policies on building enacted within the state and city of San Francisco, which will be hard-pressed to meet its mandate of building 82,000 new homes from 2023 to 2031.

Two years ago the Concord housing manager presented data, showing Concord lagged far behind other municipalities at only 7% for new housing, permit approvals.

I travel the East Bay for business and see massive new housing projects along the 880 corridor in Hayward, Union city, and Fremont.

Where are the housing projects in Concord?

Two years ago, Avalon builders was in negotiations to build 300 housing units off Cowell Road, some of which would have been allocated for low income housing.

Unfortunately, the city Council members insisted on a higher percentage of union labor be used by the builder, which would drive the cost making the project unfeasible for the builder. Avalon withdrew from the project discussion and built a 300-home track in Lodi instead.

As one can see the shortages of an adequate supply of housing is not the fault of small business landlords. Rather, it is the result of restrictive policies, enacted by city council members, such as these now serving who are either shortsighted and uninformed in

their policy making decisions, or acting out of political expediency to further their political careers.

Moreover, is should be asked are these punitive and restrictive ordinances necessary at this time?
A December 6, 2023 article in the San Francisco chronicle titled: S.F. Rent prices sinking faster than most US cities: How far will they go? The article discusses how rent prices in the city of San Francisco have fallen 4.5% to their lowest point since mid 2021, while Marin county has fallen as much as 6.1%.

Another news article ran October 9, 2023 on NBC local news discussed the largest bay area reduction in rents occurring in Oakland by 7.3%.

This trend is seen throughout the entire bay area. Not only have rents stabilized, they are declining steadily and quickly as a result of more people working remotely or opting to move further from metropolitan areas to more attractive, lower rent markets in the central valley or Sacramento.

In summary, the need for additional rent stabilization policies in the City of Concord go beyond fair and equitable for both parties, and are punitive and restrictive for small business landlords.

The historical evidence shows rent stabilization policies are detrimental to the long-term viability of the rental market they mean to serve has been well established.

The majority of cities across the continental US, reject these policies based on the historical evidence.

Only in communities with left-leaning liberal ideology governance who willfully ignore the historical evidence, and enact such policies is it demonstrated their failure, resulting in the highest cost of living as seen in cities such as San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, and New York.

This has always been the case, and it always will be.

The future for residence of Concord will be no different if the current members of the Concord City Council take it upon themselves to assume they know better than all the academic professors and economic advisors who all agree unanimously “rent stabilization” policies fail to produce the desired results and ultimately hurt those in community which they intend to protect.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Blaine Carter
(925) 963-6168

From: varinder Sudhir <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 3:13 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please revise

Good Evening,
After carefully reviewing your email, I would like for you to consider adding a few key points to make our argument stronger on the Concord City Council being unfair towards property owners.

The first item I would like to address is the City Council capping the rent at a maximum of 3% or 60% of the change in the CPI. 3% is very minimal as the price of everything has gone up substantially. Inflation affects property owners in various ways whether its maintenance, utilities, repairs, etc. This policy is very strict and one-sided as it’s favoring the tenant only.

Another item that I would like to mention is the responsibility that a property owner must incur that a tenant is never liable for. The tax that property owners pay goes directly to the infrastructure of the city, which everyone benefits from but not everyone pays for. With such strict measures on the percentage in which a property owner can raise the rent and such expensive tax costs such as the sewer line reconstruction fees, this leaves property owners in a tough situation.

A key point that I believe we have to convey is “negligent tenants”. I understand that everyone makes a mistake here and there, however, continuous mistakes end up being very costly for us. I am pretty sure we all have had an inconvenience that has costs hundreds to if not thousands of dollars, but do we claim that tenants are bad? No. We advise them how to prevent an issue like this in the future and to be cautious if they see something. We do not demand them to be financially responsible for it or raise their rents incredibly high.

A majority of tenants describe property owners that house tenants as “greedy and selfish slumlords that do not maintain their property” when that is simply not true. Most of us property owners are trying to made a good and honest living while maintaining the property to make sure everything is in order and appease the tenant. We wish and want the best for our tenants, whether they stay 6 months or 20 years, however, we as property owners want to be treat fairly as well.

From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [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. Our average insurance, trash, city fees, utilities cost raise is on average about between 5% - 8%, how can I be expected to operate with the city of Concord proposed fee of 3%? Our PG&E costs have quadrupled with no justification whatsoever, from the state, PUC or any agency in charge of controlling these increases with no end at site. Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy?

We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair?

This city council gave themselves a pay raise of 17%, wants to increase the so-called rental registry fees to $50 from the existing $5/unit over 90% increase with no justification, have increased its building inspection fees by more than 50% with no notification or justification whatsoever, and now this. You are all like a walking contradiction DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO hypocrisy.

Mark Twain once wrote, “you're never wrong for doing the right thing.”. But I would add that doing the right thing often takes great courage and integrity of which this city council has NONe..

Please let me explain how we make a decent and hard working living at Concord. We wake up at 6 am every morning six days a week in order to clean our apartment complex, attend to our maintenance requests, attend to our tenants, help our disabled tenants get their mail, help them carry their groceries, etc. And at the end of decades of hard work having nothing to show but to have our property devalued, being harrassed, and bullied by the so-called rental advocates, the state, and now this city council why? Please let AB 1482 work even though it was not voted for but imposed upon us by the state of California. In fact it has worked far better than expected at the city of Concord according to your own staff research. Do not be misled or bullied by the rental advocates and their actors since they have yet to provide any shred of evidence of what they claim. Please have the courage and integrity to do the right thing by opposing the proposal before this city council and do not destroy this city that you proclaim to protect and preserve. Let the city of Concord prosper and become a vibrant city like Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Lafayett, Orinda as opposed to destroying it like Oakland, Richmond, and Antioch dominated by crime and violence. I hope you will look favorably on me as well as many hard working housing providers throughout Concord.

Thank You,

Wallace

From: Anthony Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 10:08 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [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. Our average insurance, trash, city fees, utilities cost raise is on average about between 5% - 8%, how can I be expected to operate with the city of Concord proposed fee of 3%? Our PG&E costs have quadrupled with no justification whatsoever, from the state, PUC or any agency in charge of controlling these increases with no end at site. Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy?

We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair?

Please let me explain how we make a decent and hard working living at Concord. We wake up at 6 am every morning six days a week in order to clean our apartment complex, attend to our maintenance requests, attend to our tenants, help our disabled tenants get their mail, help them carry their groceries, etc. And at the end of decades of hard work having nothing to show but to have our property devalued, being harrassed, and bullied by the so-called rental advocates, the

state, and now this city council why? Please let AB 1482 work even though it was not voted for but imposed upon us by the state of California. In fact it has worked far better than expected at the city of Concord according to your own staff research. Do not be misled or bullied by the rental advocates and their actors since they have yet to provide any shred of evidence of what they claim. Please have the courage and integrity to do the right thing by opposing the proposal before this city council and do not destroy this city that you proclaim to protect and preserve. Let the city of Concord prosper and become a vibrant city like Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Lafayett, Orinda as opposed to destroying it like Oakland, Richmond, and Antioch dominated by crime and violence. I hope you will look favorably on me as well as many hard working housing providers throughout Concord.

Thank You,

Wallace

From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [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.

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. Our average insurance, trash, city fees, utilities cost raise is on average about between 5% - 8%, how can I be expected to operate with the city of Concord proposed fee of 3%? Our PG&E costs have quadrupled with no justification whatsoever, from the state, PUC or any agency in charge of controlling these increases with no end at site. Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy?

We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair?

Please let AB 1482 work even though it was not voted for but imposed upon us by the state of California. In fact it has worked far better than expected at the city of Concord according to your own staff research. Do not be misled or bullied by the rental advocates and their actors since they have yet to provide any shred of evidence of what they claim. Please have the courage and integrity to do the right thing by opposing the proposal before this city council and do not destroy this city that you proclaim to protect and preserve. Let the city of Concord prosper and become a vibrant city like Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Lafayett, Orinda as opposed to destroying it like Oakland, Richmond, and Antioch dominated by crime and violence. I hope you will look favorably on me as well as many hard working housing providers throughout Concord.

Thank You,

Wallace

From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 10:31 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [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. Our average insurance, trash, city fees, utilities cost raise is on average about between 5% - 8%, how can I be expected to operate with the city of Concord proposed fee of 3%? Our PG&E costs have quadrupled with no justification whatsoever, from the state, PUC or any agency in charge of controlling these increases with no end at site. Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy?

We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair?

This city council gave itself a 17% pay increase, increases its building inspection fee by more than 50% with no justification, is proposing a 90% increase for the rental registry that has yet to be used by the incompetent city council or staff form $5/unit to $50/unit and is proposing rent increase to be capped at 3% or 60% or CPI? Is this city council this stupid or have you been bought and paid for by the rental advocates by promising you fake votes or illegal votes? If your

own district did not want more restrictions like Laura Nakamura in district 2 who are you representing yourself or your constituents? I have never met a bunch of sleazy politicians and hypocrites as I have in Concord. If you have any political aspirations, I would encourage you to place them on hold. Since you will never make it beyond this sleazy seat occupied by you which you do not deserve or are entitled to.

Please let me explain how we make a decent and hard working living at Concord. We wake up at 6 am every morning six days a week in order to clean our apartment complex, attend to our maintenance requests, attend to our tenants, help our disabled tenants get their mail, help them carry their groceries, etc. And at the end of decades of hard work having nothing to show but to have our property devalued, being harrassed, and bullied by the so-called rental advocates, the state, and now this city council why? Please let AB 1482 work even though it was not voted for but imposed upon us by the state of California. In fact it has worked far better than expected at the city of Concord according to your own staff research. Do not be misled or bullied by the rental advocates and their actors since they have yet to provide any shred of evidence of what they claim. Please have the courage and integrity to do the right thing by opposing the proposal before this city council and do not destroy this city that you proclaim to protect and preserve. Let the city of Concord prosper and become a vibrant city like Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Lafayett, Orinda as opposed to destroying it like Oakland, Richmond, and Antioch dominated by crime and violence. I hope you will look favorably on me as well as many hard working housing providers throughout Concord.

Thank You,

Wallace

From: Anthony Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 10:59 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [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. Our average insurance, trash, city fees, utilities cost raise is on average about between 5% - 8%, how can I be expected to operate with the city of Concord proposed fee of 3%? Our PG&E costs have quadrupled with no justification whatsoever, from the state, PUC or any agency in charge of controlling these increases with no end at site. Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy?

We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair?
This city council gave itself a 17% pay increase, increases its building inspection fee by more than 50% with no justification, is proposing a 90% increase for the rental registry that has yet to be used by the incompetent city council or staff form $5/unit to $50/unit and is proposing rent increase to be capped at 3% or 60% or CPI? Is this city council this stupid or have you been bought and paid for by the rental advocates by promising you fake votes or illegal votes? If your own district did not want more restrictions like Laura Nakamura in district 2 who are you representing yourself or your constituents? I have never met a bunch of sleazy politicians and hypocrites as I have in Concord. If you have any political

aspirations, I would encourage you to place them on hold. Since you will never make it beyond this point you sleazy, old, overweight, fat, useless, over the hill bureaucrats.

Please have the courage and integrity to do the right thing by opposing the proposal before this city council and do not destroy this city that you proclaim to protect and preserve. Let the city of Concord prosper and become a vibrant city like Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Orinda as opposed to destroying it like Oakland, Richmond, and Antioch dominated by crime and violence. I hope you will look favorably on me as well as many hard working housing providers throughout Concord.

Thank You,

Anthony

From: Carrie Sherring <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 11:24 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Today's council meeting

Hello Ms Nakamura,

I realize the public comments are closed for the Residential Tenant Protection program proposed amendment on tonight's agenda, but I'm hoping you'll listen to me as one of your constituents.

I feel it is very unfair to extend the relocation fees to landlords of single family homes. It is well known most SFH landlords are "Mom and Pop" landlords, often renting out their old home, and are not most commonly corporate landlords as in multi family rentals. The residents of district 5 are mostly middle income, as are those that can afford to rent a house here.

I own a house in Turtle Creek, and when my mother began her long journey with dementia, I moved into her house, also in Turtle Creek, to care for her. My contractor and his growing family asked to rent my home temporarily, and I charge them significantly below market rent, as I hope to move back before long. I don't make a profit, but the rent covers my mortgage while I need to be away for my mother.

This legislation will make that impossible for me. I am a 65 year old hourly service worker, and my tenants household income is certainly higher than mine. Should I have to pay thousands to them in order to move back into my house, or in order to sell the house so I could cut back on work in my older years, I would not be able to afford to do so.

Should the council pass this amendment, I will have to raise the rent the maximum allowable amount each year until I have accrued enough to cover the new expenses I will face. Likely the tenants will then choose to move somewhere cheaper and I will sell. Neither the tenants or I want that, and it is bad for the available housing in the city.

I have great sympathy for for the underprivileged in this town, and your similar concern is one of the reasons I voted for you. But those who are renting houses, and not on public assistance to do so, are not underprivileged, as rents of 4 bedroom houses in this area are averaging about $4,000 (I charge far less).

But this is hurting middle class people to help other middle class people, and will certainly result in less rental houses on the market.

Please vote against the amendment.

Carrie Sherring

From: Jean Claude (JJ) B. Mallein Jr. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 1:00 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 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 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.

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.

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.

The council has already approved multiple utility increases well in excess of 1.86%, and utility expenses have continued to increase 7-10% annually. Moreover, due to the aging housing stock in Concord, we are getting multiple non-renewal notices for insurance, and the only insurance carries willing to take on this risk our increasing their premiums by 30-50%. How can housing providers in Concord operate when increasing expenses are outpacing our ability to increase income? The proposed rent increase cap is setting up Concord housing providers, Concord and all Concord renters up for failure.

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: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 12:58 PM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Ananthan, Stefanie <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Unjust treatment of property owners

Please include the e-mail below in the public record.

I spoke with him directly about whether he wanted it to go before Council and the public and he said yes.

Valerie

Valerie Barone, City Manager (she/her/hers)
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3150 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01, Concord, CA 94519

Subscribe to our City News e-newsletter to stay informed about what's happening in your community!

From: varinder Sudhir <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 12:19 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Unjust treatment of property owners
Good Morning Ms. Barone,
After carefully reviewing your email, I would like for you to acknowledge some issues that I believe property owners in Concord have been dealing with and find to be unjust.

The first item I would like to address is the City Council capping the rent at a maximum of 3% or 60% of the change in the CPI. 3% is very minimal as the price of everything has gone up substantially. Inflation affects property owners in various ways whether its maintenance, utilities, repairs, etc. This policy is very strict and one-sided as it’s favoring the tenant only.

Another item that I would like to mention is the responsibility that a property owner must incur that a tenant is never liable for. The tax that property owners pay goes directly to the infrastructure of the city, which everyone benefits from but not everyone pays for. With such strict measures on the percentage in which a property owner can raise the rent and such expensive tax costs such as the sewer line reconstruction fees, this leaves property owners in a tough situation.

A key point that I believe we have to understand is “negligent tenants”. I understand that everyone makes a mistake here and there, however, continuous mistakes end up being very costly for us. I am pretty sure we all have had an inconvenience that has costs hundreds to if not thousands of dollars, but do we claim that tenants are bad? No. We advise them how to prevent an issue like this in the future and

to be cautious if they see something. We do not demand them to be financially responsible for it or raise their rents incredibly high.

A majority of tenants describe property owners that house tenants as “greedy and selfish slumlords that do not maintain their property” when that is simply not true. Most of us property owners are trying to made a good and honest living while maintaining the property to make sure everything is in order and appease the tenant. We wish and want the best for our tenants, whether they stay 6 months or 20 years, however, we as property owners want to be treated fairly as well.

Sincerely,
Varinder K Sudhir

AB 846

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 846 (Bonta)
As Amended March 9, 2023
Majority vote

SUMMARY
Prohibits an owner of a project funded by a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) from increasing rent for a unit, in a calendar year, in excess of the amount permitted by existing law as a result of an increase in the area median gross income or an unspecified percent, whichever is less.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS
Background on the LIHTC Program: The LIHTC is an indirect federal subsidy developed in 1986 to incentivize the private development of affordable rental housing for low-income households. The federal LIHTC program enables affordable housing sponsors and developers to raise financing through the allocation of tax benefits to investors. Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) administers the program and awards credits to qualified developers who can then sell those credits to private investors who use the credits to reduce their federal tax liability.

The developer in turn invests the capital into the affordable housing project.

In 1987, the Legislature authorized a state LIHTC program to augment the federal tax credit program. The amount of state LIHTC that is statutorily authorized and allocated by TCAC is limited to $70 million, adjusted for inflation. In 2020, the total credit amount available for allocation was about $100 million plus any unused or returned credit allocations from previous years. In 2019, AB 101 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 159, Statutes of 2019 was signed into law, providing an additional $500 million in "enhanced" state LIHTCs in 2020 and future years, subject to appropriation.

Rent Restrictions in LIHTC Properties: To qualify for occupancy in a LIHTC unit, a household's income must be at or below the income level for that unit's income category at the time of occupancy – but the tenant's actual income does not determine the rent. Instead, federal law establishes a maximum rent for LIHTC units that is 30 percent of the area median income (AMI) for the income category the unit is deed-restricted to serve, adjusted for household size. As AMI fluctuates over time, federal and state rules allow for adjustments to the rent dependent on how much AMI has increased (or decreased, or stayed the same) year over year. However, these rules only apply to units that are already charging the maximum allowable rental rate under TCAC's rent limits.

For units in properties that do not already charge the maximum allowable TCAC rent, there are no current restrictions on how much rents may be increased per year, only the hard upper cap at the TCAC maximum rent. For example, an affordable housing development may not have raised rents in several years, and under current law, the owner is permitted to "catch up" to a higher rent, up to the maximum allowable TCAC rents, in one or multiple increases in a year. The sponsors and author contend that this policy allows for unpredictable and potentially significant jumps in rent that can jeopardize the ability of low-income tenants to remain in their units. Page 101 of 122 AB 846

AB 1482 (Chiu), Chapter 597, Statutes of 2019, caps rent increases in certain types of housing in a 12-month period to the lower of 5% plus the change in the consumer price index, up to a maximum hard cap of 10%. AB 1482 (Chiu) specifically exempted deed-restricted affordable housing from these caps because, as detailed above, an existing policy controls maximum rents on these units. However, a number of other states have enacted rules limiting the allowable annual rent increases in LIHTC properties or creating a process for evaluating proposed increases that exceed certain thresholds, including New Jersey, Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, and Georgia. Most of those states also limit increases to once per year.

Policy Considerations: LIHTC properties are heavily regulated by federal and state rules, as well as by the regulatory agreements associated with local and state funding programs, which already makes the operation and compliance of affordable housing very complex. A rent cap adds yet another regulatory layer that will complicate management of the properties.

Establishing a rent cap will have a disproportionate impact on properties that do not already charge the maximum allowable TCAC rents. Many affordable housing owners and managers view the management of their residents' rent burden as a key area of their mission in affordable housing. However, they also must balance this with the long-term stewardship of the properties.

Circumstances arise where larger rent increases may be necessary to cover for years of little to no rent increases, especially when operating costs increase at disproportionately high rates. Many affordable housing properties have faced significant operating cost increases in recent years – Novogradac, a consulting firm that specializes in affordable housing finance, observed in its 2022 "Multifamily Rental Housing Operating Expenses and Income Report" that operating expenses for properties in California increased by 26.2% from 2018 to 2021. During that same period, rental income increased by 10.9%. Thus, properties sometimes need rental rate flexibility in order to keep up on staffing expense increases and maintenance obligations and ultimately to prevent the risk of foreclosure, at which point all affordability restrictions are lost.

A rent cap may yield the undesirable effect of forcing owners and managers to levy annual rent increases on all tenants, instead of using a more equitable tenant-based approach to rent increases governed by the actual income of a tenant and their current rent burden. This bill proposes an annual rent cap – which, under the current bill language, would be either the existing AMI growth rate cap for the affordability level of the unit, or an amount yet to be determined, whichever is less. The author and sponsors wish to move this bill forward without specifying the latter cap percentage, to allow for continued conversations with the affordable housing management community. If the committee chooses to allow this, at a minimum, a rent increase policy for LIHTC properties in California should include these components:
1) An owner should always be able to increase rent to 35 percent of the household's income, subject still to the maximum TCAC rent limit. Tenants' rent burden in affordable housing ideally should not exceed 40 percent of their income;
2) Tenants with rental assistance or residing in units with rental assistance like project-based housing vouchers should be exempt, as their portion of the rent is always 30 percent of the household's income; and
3) There should be an exemption in the event that TCAC or the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allows a change in AMI targeting for the unit due to a loss

AB 846

of rental assistance. These "float up" provisions are part of the TCAC and HCD programs and critical to inducing private lending and investment in the developments.

According to the Author
"Lower-income tenants often wait years to secure a coveted spot in affordable housing, only to be surprised, frustrated, and disappointed to learn there is little to stop their rent from rising well above what they can actually afford. LIHTC rents are set based on AMI, this structure essentially punishes low-wage earners because high-wage earners change the balance scale. In an era of ever-rising income inequality, this makes little sense and frustrates the entire purpose of the LIHTC program to provide affordable housing for lower-income families. AB 846 is a common- sense approach already employed in a number of states to address the problematic rent-setting formula established in federal law. The bill will impose a cap on rent increases in LIHTC properties to provide greater housing stability for low-income tenants while still ensuring that affordable housing properties can remain financially viable over time." Arguments in Support
According to the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the bill's cosponsors, "…[B]ecause LIHTC rents are tied to AMI, whenever AMIs rise, property owners are free to raise rents up to the new maximum. Just because the median income in an area has risen does not mean that the incomes of households living in LIHTC units have also gone up. In addition, an increase in AMI does not bear any relationship to whether the owner's costs to operate and maintain the property have increased. Nonetheless, the current rules mean that owners of LIHTC properties can – and often do, particularly the for-profit owners— raise the rent to the new allowable maximum whenever AMIs go up. Over time, a tenant whose income has changed very little may find themselves in an 'affordable' unit while also paying 60% or more of their income in rent. While this is a long-standing issue, it has been particularly devastating in the last year for LIHTC tenants already struggling to recover from the economic impacts of the COVID pandemic."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS
None.

VOTES
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-2-0
YES: Wicks, Wendy Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Quirk-Silva, Ward NO: Joe Patterson, Sanchez

UPDATED
VERSION: March 9, 2023
CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000263

MHI-55919\2889321.1
1331 N. California Blvd.

Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www.msrlegal.com
Travis Brooks
[email protected]

Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
January 9, 2024

VIA E-MAIL

Honorable Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor
Obringer and City Councilmembers
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
MS/01
Concord, CA 94519
E-Mail: [email protected]

Re: Opposition to Proposed Rent Control and Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (Agenda Item 6(a))

Honorable Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, and City Councilmembers:

This firm represents Greencourt, LLC (“Greencourt”), a local business and owner of the Palm Terrace Concord (“Palm Terrace”), a townhome apartment community with 190 homes at 2925 Monument Boulevard in the City. We write to express our serious concern that, if the proposed amendment of the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program (the “Ordinance”) were to apply to Palm Terrace, the Ordinance would make it all but impossible for Greencourt to complete upgrades necessary to convert its units into for sale condominiums.1 To ensure that the City does not violate Greencourt’s common law vested rights, established when Greencourt obtained approval of its condominium conversion and expended millions of dollars to upgrade its property, we respectfully request that the Council include language in the Ordinance that expressly exempts projects like Palm Terrace which have already obtained the approvals necessary to complete condominium conversions and where such approvals remain valid.2
In 2006, the City approved a conditional use permit, tentative map, and variance allowing Greencourt to convert Palm Terrace’s 190 rental units into for sale condominium units (“2006 Approvals”).3 Conditions of approval associated with the

1 When market conditions allow, these long-approved condominium conversions would ultimately help remedy the City’s severe shortage of homeownership opportunities for young families.
2 For your consideration, we have attached proposed modifications to City Code section

19.40.020 (a) which would exclude the Palm Terrace, as Exhibit A. 3 Thereafter, Greencourt obtained (and has renewed) all necessary approvals from the state Department of Real Estate to offer units for sale as condominiums.

Honorable Mayor Birson
Vice Mayor Obringer and City Councilmembers
January 9, 2024

MHI-55919\2889321.1
2006 Approvals required Greencourt to make costly and substantial improvements to each unit to be converted, several on-site amenities, nearby public roadways, and landscaping. In the years since the 2006 Approvals, Greencourt has and continues to invest millions of dollars to make the improvements and obtain the building permits necessary to comply with the conditions of approval. Greencourt performed this costly work in reliance on the 2006 Approvals.

Accordingly, Greencourt has a vested right to operate Palm Terrace, and ultimately to sell its units as condominiums, without being subject to the Ordinance, which could make it all but infeasible – with its costly rent control and tenant relocation provisions for renovations – for Greencourt to complete the condominium conversions. (See City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1184 [state Supreme Court confirms that a prior condominium conversion approval conferred vested rights on apartment complex which precluded a City’s application of a later enacted rent control ordinance to that complex]; see also Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Reg’l Comm’n (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785 [property owner that has obtained building permits and performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in reliance on a land use permit has a vested right to exercise the land use permit without being subject to subsequently enacted laws or regulations.])
To conclude, if the Council decides to move forward in adopting the Ordinance, we respectfully request that it include language exempting projects like Palm Terrace.

This comports with state law principles that would preclude the City from applying the Ordinance to Palm Terrace by virtue of the common law vested rights it secured through the 2006 Approvals, several building permits, and millions of dollars in upgrades.

Very truly yours,

MILLER STARR REGALIA

Travis Brooks

TZB/kli

cc: Susanne Brown, City Attorney, [email protected] Valerie Barone, City Manager, [email protected] Client

EXHIBIT A

MHI-55919\2889704.1

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.
(4) 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.
(5) Dwelling Units in which the Tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the Owner who maintains their principal residence at the Property. (6) Emergency shelters, and homeless shelters as defined in Code Section

18.200.070.
(7) Residential facility/ies, as defined in Code Section 18.20.020. (8) 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.
(9) Accessory Dwelling Units.
(9)(10) Townhome developments. A development consisting of 100 or more townhomes (multi-story Dwelling Units connected on at least one side to another dwelling unit) for which the City has approved a use permit and final map authorizing a residential condominium conversion.
(b) Partially Exempt (Exempt from Rent Stabilization but subject to Just Cause for Eviction).

MHI-55919\2889704.1
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. 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.

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2:14 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter from CAA re: 01/09/2024 Rent Control Public Hearing

Good afternoon Mayor Birsan and City Council,

Please see the attached letter from the California Apartment Association re: rent and eviction control public hearing item 6A.

Best,
_____
Rhovy Lyn Antonio ▪ Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association
[email protected] ▪ (408) 342-3506
CAA is your partner in the rental housing industry.

Find out how we're working for you.

CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening

January 9, 2024
Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, 94519

Re: 01/09/2024 City Council Agenda item #6A Rent Control & Just Cause Eviction Public Hearing
Honorable Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council, The California Apartment Association (CAA) represents local rental housing providers in Concord who provide quality, safe rental housing for Concord renters. We engaged our members as well as other local owners on the current rent and eviction control proposals to give them a voice at city hall and raised awareness on the various restrictions that the Concord City Council would be imposing on their rental homes.

CAA continues to oppose the proposed rent and eviction control ordinance and maintains that the city has no economic justification to warrant a punitive bureaucracy designed to overly regulate private rental housing providers without any consideration of the hardship the ordinance will impose on them. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that rents for Concord renters have been increasing at such a dramatic rate to warrant government intervention. In fact, the city’s own analysis of its rent registry, a database that was developed in 2020 to guide policy decisions for the city’s rental housing market, concluded that “Rents in Concord currently support households earning between 70% to 80% AMI, which is considered to be accessible to low- to moderate-income households and is generally accessible to working families.” Based on CAA’s review of the ordinance, Concord’s overly prescriptive rent and eviction law is one of the strictest of its kind. Our members continue to express concern that the City Council will revise the draft to add more restrictions. CAA offers these additional comments to supplement our unequivocal opposition to the ordinance that has already been communicated in past statements.

Relocation Payment for No-Fault Lease Termination is Excessive The City Council must recognize that it has already made this provision stricter than state law. CAA and its members are perplexed that the city continues to make this punitive when its own rent registry data showed that the overwhelming reason for renters vacating their unit is their own voluntary reasons, meaning their tenancy was not terminated by the housing provider. Rent registry data showed that tenancy terminations in 2021 and 2022 were 90% renter initiated. The city has failed to demonstrate that No-Fault, owner-terminations are occurring that would warrant an adjustment in relocation payments.

The proposal to increase the relocation payment is excessive and puts a tremendous burden on a housing provider who wants to move-in themselves or a family member.

Claims of “unit costs” as first month’s rent, last month’s rent, and a security deposit are very misleading. The first month’s rent is rent renters would have to pay anyway so it’s not a sunk cost unless they are paying rent for the new place a full month before moving out of their current place. Last month’s rent is considered part of the security deposit under CA law and under AB 12 – effective July 1, 2024, security deposits will be limited to 1 months’ rent with a limited exception for small owners, in which case the limit is 2 month’s rent.

Moving expenses such as hotel rooms and storage units are excessive and are not based on any legal entitlement since such demands do not exist in a typical relocation payment.

Owner move-in and substantial renovation terminations have both already been strengthened by SB 567, signed by Governor Newson last year. We recommend the City Council to keep the relocation payment liability at its current form in the city’s local law.

Substantial Renovation Provision Conflicts with Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Chapter 19.40.070 (d)(4)(b)(iv) is inconsistent with vacancy decontrol as protected by the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Paragraph (b)(iv) requires the renter to be given the option of selecting one or both of returning to rental unit after renovations are complete or a comparable or superior unit at same rent. It’s a Costa-Hawkins vacancy decontrol violation to require the housing provider offer a different unit at the same rent. See Bullard v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization Bd. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 488, 492-93 (“The San Francisco rent control ordinance, by purporting to limit the amount of rent a landlord may charge for a replacement unit following an owner move-in eviction, directly contradicts state law providing:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an owner of residential real property may establish the initial rental rate for a dwelling or unit....” (Civ. Code, § 1954.53, subd. (a) Therefore, the challenged provision is preempted.”). CAA recommends that this provision is removed from the ordinance.

Relocation Payment for Tenant Households
The current version of the ordinance requires that the relocation payment is paid per tenant vs. tenant household. This is inconsistent even with the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) and standard practices in other jurisdictions where the relocation payment is given to the tenant household. Levying hefty penalties to housing providers is a critical deterrent for offering rental housing units to prospective renters. Housing providers have repeatedly testified removal of units from the rental market if it becomes cost prohibitive to gain possession of their homes back.

Incorrect Citation for At-Fault Just Cause – Lease Violation Chapter 19.40.070 (c)(2) allows termination of tenancy based on material violation of the lease. However, the provision incorrectly references “paragraph (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure” when referencing state law. It should refer to “paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” as that’s the paragraph that deals with violations of the lease (paragraph 2 in CCP 1161 is non-payment of rent.

Owner Move-In Provisions Have Faulty Language
Chapter 19.40.070(d)(1)(a) states that “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 intended occupant already occupies a Dwelling Unit on the Property.” This is problematic because it does not account for situations in which the intended occupant may have a legitimate need for a different unit at the property – e.g., maybe the housing provider or family member have expanded their family and now require a larger unit, or maybe the housing provider, or family member are elderly or have become disabled and now need a ground floor unit. This problem could be fixed by amending the restriction to only apply if the intended occupant already occupies a comparable unit.

Chapter 19.40.070(d)(1)(g) uses the same definitions for “natural person” and “family trust” as SB 567. There are some issues with this definition that are known and expected to be fixed at the state this legislative year. CAA recommends that the city refer to the definitions in state law, as it may be amended, so that it stays consistent.

Effective Date of CPI Adjustments
Chapter 19.40.040 specifies the annual general increase, but it does not include a provision to the time periods during which the current vs preceding year’s CPI is effective. Most rent control ordinances that are CPI based have a statement similar to “No later than June 30th each year, the City shall announce the amount of the CPI adjustment, which shall be effective as of September 1st of that year.” This type of provision serves two purposes. First, it puts the onus on the city to announce the permissible increase each year, so there’s no ambiguity or disagreement. Second, and more importantly, it gives a fixed cutoff date, in this example, September 1, at which you stop using the previous year’s CPI and start using the new CPI. This is important because even though the ordinance says to use the April CPI numbers, those numbers aren’t typically available until sometime in June or July and it creates a gray area between April and June/July as to what the applicable CPI is.

This ambiguity occurred during the initial implementation of the Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482, and it was later amended for clarity. AB 1482 uses April CPI data and August cut-off date for when the new CPI takes effect (see Cal. Civ. Code 1947.12(g)(3)(B)), this allows time for the data to be published and announced in time for 30-day notices to be issued with the new CPI. CAA recommends the city to add the clarifying statement for CPI adjustments.

Fair Rate of Return Petition Must be a Fair Process
Due to the crippling rent control formula and increased regulatory fees and liabilities Concord housing providers will incur should the ordinance passes, it is imperative to recognize that the Fair Rate of Return as outlined in Chapter 19.40.050 is the only mechanism a housing provider has to address the financial burden rent control is guaranteed to bring. This is a typical MNOI/CPI standard. Hence, it is crucial that the process is fair and cannot be designed to be overtly limited favoring only one-side.

Going through this tedious process will already be cost prohibitive due to the fees and professional services likely needed to present a case. Moreover, the result of the hearing is not guaranteed to favor an upward rent adjustment. Housing providers were not given due process when the city council majority pursued rent control, so they should be given one, at minimum, through the rent adjustment petition process.

Unlimited Subletting is a Safety Issue
Unauthorized subletting should be discouraged as it poses a safety hazard for current residents in the property. Background screening is a standard procedure for prospective renters as this allows the housing provider to fully vet the renter with the safety of the property and other existing renters in mind. Unauthorized subletting bypasses this process and gives an unvetted individual access to the property without permission or a legal contract that can be used to regulate the unauthorized subletter’s tenancy. Subletting should not be considered a right, and certainly, the city council must recognize the danger of a one-for-one replacement as it creates a situation where the current renter may no longer be the original renter on the lease.

CAA, its members, and the coalition of concerned local housing providers are hopeful that the information presented here, in addition to the personal letters sent to the city council are carefully considered as the city crafts continues its discussion on the woefully misguided rent and eviction control ordinance.

Best,

Rhovy Lyn Antonio
Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs
California Apartment Association

Received phone call from Judith Forrest stating she is in opposition to a rent control ordinance, saying that rent control ordinances don’t really help tenants. (January 9, 2024, at 12:58 p.m.)

From: Linda Mandolini <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Ordinance

I am writing as a follow up to correspondence sent earlier this week to each of the Council members regarding the City’s proposed rent stabilization ordinance and the regulation of affordable housing – tax credit and/or other affordable housing. By way of background Eden Housing owns two projects we developed in partnership with the City of Concord – Virginia Lane and Sunset Pines and Coral Court.

These properties have unique underwriting structures, and their financial feasibility would be jeopardized by the inclusion of these properties in the ordinance. It is my hope that the Council will consider this carefully before placing them in the ordinance and would urge consideration of one of the two following alternatives:

Preferred Case: We think the city should maintain the current exemption as drafted. If that can’t happen, I would suggest that the city maintain the ordinance as drafted and wait to see what the State of California does with pending legislation on this issue. As the Chair of the Housing Policy Committee for the California Housing Consortium, I have been actively involved in working towards compromise legislation and believe that this will get done before the end of the current legislative session. If the State doesn’t act, the council could implement something next year.

Alternative Case: If that cannot happen, I suggest the city adopt the AB1482 standards for the tax credit projects. I suggest the City make this non-retroactive, but effective as of the date of the ordinance so that no future increases can be contemplated outside of the AB1482 standards. For projects with other public funding, we cannot roll back our budgets since those approvals were due last September. It would be unnecessarily punitive and would cause financial harm in the case of projects like Virginia Lane that had no increases for 2 years.

This policy would be a clear recognition that affordable housing underwritten with City support is unique and different from market rate housing. I also suggest that the city exempt any projects or, at exempt any units, with conflicting affordable housing regulatory agreements (city, county, state, regional) provided that those agreements are long-term agreements (55 year regulatory agreements.) This allows for us to manage the over income tenant problem. Note under HCD and Home regs, we are required to increase rents on households that exceed the income requirements from these regulatory bodies. As owners, we face non-compliance penalties for over income tenants, so I think it’s important that we have a place to go for this exception. It is the State’s view that these are mandatory rent “adjustments” and are not to be considered rent increases. It is HCD’s view that their programs are not meant to subsidize over income tenants. HOME has the same view. In both cases the rents are capped at TCAC maximum levels for the unit sizes.

Thank you for consideration of these additional comments.

Linda Mandolini
President
22645 Grand Street Hayward, CA 94541
Office 510-247-8117
[email protected] | edenhousing.org
Eden Housing creates and sustains high-quality affordable housing communities that advance equity and opportunity for all.

From: Debra Ballinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 12:54 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Feedback on Concord's Just Cause and Rent Stabilization Draft Policy

City Clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, My name is Debra Ballinger and I am a Concord resident and a consultant. I'm very concerned about the proposed draft ordinance for Rent Control and Just Cause since renters have fought for 7 years to have strong protections.

In these past 7 years, the housing crisis has worsened, contributing to the 35% increase in homelessness in Contra Costa since 2109 and increasing evictions. With this ordinance, we believed we would finally have the protections we desperately needed. However, the draft of the ordinance has too many loopholes and seriously 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.

With the numerous exceptions that allow landlords to sidestep the rent cap and provides weak eviction protections, it's just not an acceptable draft. Invitation Homes, which according to the Anti Eviction Mapping Project, is the second largest owner of single family rental homes in Concord, has recently reached a multi-million-dollar settlement with Attorney General Bonta for increasing rents beyond the cap imposed by AB 1482. We do not need to see a repeat of this in a local ordinance.

LIHTC owners are exempt from AB1482 and corporate owners, are the most egregious, raising rents multiple times a year and ignoring habitability issues. This is why they must be included in the ordinance.

I know that nonprofit developers and other LIHTC property owners are lobbying to exclude their properties from Concord's ordinance or for increasing the rent cap. The problem is that a higher cap disproportionately impacts low wage workers whose incomes do not increase at a similar rate, forcing people to take on extra jobs to afford the rent.

We don't need an ordinance with loopholes in it. We have counted on you to pass strong Rent Control and Just Cause policies. 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 to protect tenants.

Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.

Sincerely,
Debra Ballinger
Debra Ballinger
[email protected]
Concord, California 94519

From: Peter Gaughan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 3:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: A Housing Justice Paralegal/Union Organizer's Take on the Renter's Protections in Concord

City Clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, My name is Peter Gaughan and I was born and raised in Concord in a working class and mostly renter community. I 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.

Benched Correspondence Received
After 3:00 p.m. on 1/9/2024
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 9, 2024

6. We are counting on you to make this policy strong. Please send it back for improvements before voting to pass it.

I have worked in housing justice, I was a paralegal at the Eviction Defense Collaborative and now work for the United Auto Workers as a union representative for many housing justice organizations. I know from firsthand experience that renter's protections save lives and communities, but only when they are written as robust, enforceable, and thorough policies.

Many a legislative body as approached these issues with the right energy and intent but have ended up passing policies which inadvertently hurt renters by having loopholes, having overly restrictive or broad definitions, and/or by not being citable in unlawful detainer court.

If you have any questions or follow up on how best to protect Concord's working class, please connect with EBASE, the Contra Costa Labor Council, and the Todos Santos Tennant's Union. You are also welcome to contact me at the information listed in my signature. Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.

Solidarity Forever,
Peter Gaughan (They/Them)
West Coast Regional Organizer, NOLSW-UAW Local 2320
call/text: (415) 602-9947 | email: [email protected] 750 O'Farrell Street #411, San Francisco, CA 94109 | nolsw.org Peter Gaughan
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94109

From: Linda Mandolini <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: HUD to Publish Notice Changing Calculation of Income Limit Cap; Sets Annual Maximum Increase at 10%

FYI, since it’s relevant to the conversation at hand
Sent from my iPad

Linda Mandolini
President
22645 Grand Street Hayward, CA 94541
Office 510-247-8117
[email protected] | edenhousing.org
Eden Housing creates and sustains high-quality affordable housing communities that advance equity and opportunity for all.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Shola Olatoye <[email protected]>
Date: January 9, 2024 at 2:17:13 PM PST
To: Linda Mandolini <[email protected]>, Darnell Williams <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: HUD to Publish Notice Changing Calculation of Income Limit Cap; Sets Annual Maximum Increase at 10%

FYI

Shola Olatoye
Chief Operating Officer
22645 Grand Street Hayward, CA 94541
Office 510-247-8118
[email protected] | edenhousing.org
Eden Housing creates and sustains high-quality affordable housing communities that advance equity and opportunity for all.

From: Novogradac <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 9:54 AM
To: Shola Olatoye <[email protected]>
Subject: HUD to Publish Notice Changing Calculation of Income Limit Cap; Sets Annual Maximum Increase at 10%

View Web Version

HUD to Publish Notice Changing Calculation of
Income Limit Cap; Sets Annual Maximum Increase at
10%
WASHINGTON–Jan. 9, 2024–The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will publish a notice in Wednesday’s Federal Register setting an absolute annual cap of 10% on income limit increases for housing financed by low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs), private-activity bonds (PABs) and for various HUD programs, including Section 8. Previously, the cap was 5% or twice the annual percentage change in median family income. This also establishes a cap of 10% on rent limit increase for LIHTCs and PABs. The notice also solidifies HUD’s recent policy to calculate the cap–which changed two years ago–as “using the most recent unadjusted estimates of median family income provided by the Census Bureau via the ACS.” That means HUD will calculate fiscal year (FY) 2024 income limit caps based on the change in national family median income from 2021 to 2022. Novogradac previously calculated that if HUD used the same methodology as in 2022 and 2023, the 2024 cap would be

14.78%–a figure that can now be no higher than 10%. Comments on the notice will be accepted through Feb. 9, but HUD requests that comments are limited to six questions.

The Income Limits Working Group will discuss the issue and respond to the proposed change.

Find more breaking news from Novogradac at www.novoco.com/news.

Learn more about Novogradac's expertise and professional services.

Notice pursuant to IRS regulations: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this message is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code; nor is any such advice intended to be used to support the promotion or marketing of a transaction. Any advice expressed in this article is limited to the federal tax issues addressed in it. Additional issues may exist outside the limited scope of any advice provided any such advice does not consider or provide a conclusion with respect to any additional issues.

© 1996-2023 Novogradac

About Us | Professional Services | Firm Locations

This email was sent by:

Novogradac
1160 Battery St. East Building, Suite 225
San Francisco, CA, 94111

Update Email Preferences/Email Address | Unsubscribe