1. Residential properties are defined as 1-4 units. These landlords were not notified of this ordinance. Many owners found out through other sources shortly before the meeting on December 12, 2023.
2. Most residential units in the City of Concord are owned by individuals, and not corporations. These landlords do not look at their rentals as a business, but rather a long-term investment. This ordinance would force these owners to raise rents yearly, so as not to lose their opportunity in the future, which would go against what you are trying to accomplish with this ordinance.
3. Owners of 1-4 units typically work with their tenants when there are issues of non-payment, or other crisis that come up for their tenants. This ordinance would cause them to think twice about working with a tenant and could possibly give them the reason they need to have someone evicted so they could move someone else in at a higher rent, as this ordinance is so restrictive to these landlords that haven’t kept pace with market rents.
4. After speaking to some of these owners, I heard the following stories that will be a thing of the past if this ordinance is pushed onto residential (1-4 units) properties, and those who do not run their properties as a business:
- A tenant that did not get a rental increase for 19 years!! (paid $995 a month, far below market).
- A landlord that worked with a woman whose husband walked out on her and did not give her a rent increase for the remaining time she was there because her income had been severely affected (rent was at $1095…again far below market). - A man who came down with covid a couple of months ago and couldn’t work. He wasn’t given an eviction notice, was allowed to catch up over the course of a few weeks, and because he was a good tenant, forgave the late fee as well. - An elderly woman who lost her husband, and the landlord worked with her and reduced her rent to make it affordable for her while her family found other options for her. - These stories and many, many more will sadly no longer happen for the residents of the City of Concord who rent from these individuals.
You see, residential property owners typically buy property as a long-term investment, where over time they see the value of their property increase, it’s not all about the monthly rent. Most of these properties run at a loss for the first several years due to mortgage, property taxes and maintenance exceeding what they get for rent. These properties are small and do not have several units like apartment buildings to help increase their income to cover these expenses.
I understand when you have corporations that are running apartment buildings as a business, and are concerned about their profit and loss, and their return on investment, and they raise rents on a regular basis, that these tenants are greatly affected. I understand that there should be protections in place for our most vulnerable tenants, and from large corporations that just look at them as a number. What I hope you understand is that those of us with properties that are 1-4 units get it. We get that folks don’t want to be forced out of their home; we honestly don’t want the turnover! We work with our tenants, in most cases to a fault! We work with them to find solutions that work for both tenant and landlord. This ordinance will take that ability away from us. We will be concerned about falling too far behind market rents and we will be forced to raise rents every year. We will be forced to treat our tenants and properties as a business, instead of just an investment where we get to also help people along the way.
We understand peoples’ lives are at stake, where someone lives becomes their home, and we respect that.
Please allow us to continue to treat our tenants with the respect they deserve.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
Anne Kendall
From: Jenny Terry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 4:17 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Vicki Woodbridge <[email protected]>; Vicki Woodbridge <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Margie Wells' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Impact to Single-Family Home Rentals - Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction
Hi Kelly and Sophia:
Complete overreach by the Concord City Council. Absolutely unconstitutional. Taking property rights from owners and giving them to non owners. I have no idea how anyone could believe this was ok. I believe in helping people, yes. This is not the way.
You are going to eliminate rental homes in Concord. Antioch has already experienced this, and it’s only been a year. Quality investors who maintain their properties avoid Richmond like the plague.
I have owned my Concord property for almost 40 years. I have sacrificed a LOT, financially and physically, to maintain and improve my property over those many years. It is FINALLY providing limited income for my retirement. I have FINALLY been able to afford badly needed improvements and repairs. You propose to take that away, and make it impossible to maintain and improve my property further. You want me to lose money every year.
How does 60% of CPI provide a fair return? That means you want me to lose 40% annually to inflation. CPI + 3% would be more reasonable. But ANY rent control is unconstitutional. Read it lately? Our constitution? I have.
AND you have damaged my property value, eliminating investor buyers, by simply having this discussion for the past year. Will the Concord City Council and its employees compensate me for lost property value?
Make it a great day!
Jenny Terry
925-200-3902
From: Rush, Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 1:00 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Impact to Single-Family Home Rentals - Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction
RENT STABILIZATION, JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION TO BE
CONSIDERED JAN. 30
As part of the City’s recent Housing Element update, which was approved by the State, the City Council committed to adopting rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies to address tenant displacement.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, the Concord City Council will consider a revised version of a draft Ordinance establishing Rent Stabilization (also referred to as Rent Control) in Concord and update Concord regulations on Just Cause for Eviction. The revised draft ordinance would amend Concord’s existing Residential Tenant Protection Program to include the proposed rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions. •
• Public Comment will be taken by the Council at this meeting. You must be present in person to participate in oral public comment. Please see the City’s agenda website on how to submit written public comment in advance of the meeting.
• The staff report will be available on the City’s agenda website no later than Friday, January 26 at 5 p.m. The new draft Ordinance is currently being written by staff based on past Council direction.
• Information on past Council discussions on this topic can be found by reviewing the Council meetings of January 9, 2024 and December 12, 2023
RENT STABILIZATION
Here is a brief description of major features to be included in the proposed new Ordinance:
• Limit annual rent increases to 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower. • Controls the allowable rent increases upon the first date of occupancy but does not control the dollar amount for starting-of-occupancy rent (i.e., it preserves vacancy decontrol). • Includes a “rent rollback” provision that sets rents to the dollar amounts that were charged for rent as of January 12, 2023, plus allows for up to the Ordinance-allowed rent increase of 2.52% for the 2023 calendar year (2.52% is 60% of the CPI for April 2023). • Rent stabilization would apply to multi-family rental complexes of 2 or more units built before Feb. 1, 1995. It would not apply to rented single-family homes, rented condominium units, or rented accessory dwelling units.
• The Ordinance would establish a process utilizing a Hearing Officer whereby tenants could appeal their rent increases, if they believed them to be inconsistent with the City Ordinance, and whereby property owners could request higher rent increases, above what the Ordinance would otherwise allow, to obtain a fair return on their investment property.
JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION
Here is a brief description of major features to be included in the proposed new Ordinance:
• Just cause regulations do not apply when a tenant is evicted for “at-fault” reasons, such as non- payment of rent, breach of a material term of the lease, or occupying the space in such a manner as to create a nuisance or criminal activity.
• Just cause protections for tenants would be triggered when a tenant is evicted for “no-fault on the tenant’s part” reasons, such as when an owner wants to move into the unit, wants to remove the entire complex from the rental market (Ellis Act eviction), or needs the unit vacant to perform substantial rehabilitations.
• A “right of return” would be available in some instances, such as when substantial rehabilitation is completed, or if an owner returns the unit to the rental market within a specified time after an Ellis Act eviction.
• Just cause for eviction would apply to most rented units in Concord, including rented single- family homes and rented condominium units. It would not apply to rented accessory dwelling units.
• In the case of no-fault evictions, just cause provisions in the revised draft Ordinance would require the property owner to pay three times the Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Rent (FMR) and an extra $3,000 to cover moving expenses. If applied in 2024, the total payment required would range from $8,475 for a studio unit to $14,862 for a four- bedroom home, apartment, or condominium. Prices are set by HUD for each calendar year.
Certain tenants, such as those over 62 years of age, or who are terminally ill or disabled, would be eligible for an additional month of FMR.
• Everyone who owns property subject to either rent stabilization or just cause protections would be required to register their unit(s) with the City of Concord annually and pay a yet-to-be- determined annual registration and administration fee.
These are complicated new regulations being proposed and the Council has been discussing them for many months. If you are interested in this important policy topic, please take the following steps: (1) review the information provided in the links above, (2) register on the interested party e-mail list by emailing [email protected], and (3) attend the Council meeting on Tuesday, January 30. Only people attending in person will be allowed to speak at the meeting. You may also send comments on this topic directly to [email protected].
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: http://www.cityofconcord.org (925) 671-3032 | [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Subject: 1/30 City council meeting: Proposed Just Cause Regulations for Single Family Homes
January 25, 2024
Subject: “Just Cause” regulations for Single Family Homes and Condos
Mayor Birsan, City Council Members, City Manager and Staff:
I watched the last two council meetings when the proposed rent control and just cause regulations were discussed. I was dismayed that some of our council members did not seem to understand the harm which will be caused to new Concord renters and Concord property owners if “just cause” regulations are extended to individually owned single family homes and condominium units.
State law includes single family homes owned by large corporate landlords like Blackrock in their “just cause” regulations, but the law specifically exclude single family homes owned by individuals like you and me. Why? Because they understand most individual homeowners do not rent their homes out permanently. Collectively they represent an important part of the rental inventory, but individual units are put on the market for a few months of a few years based on individual circumstances. They are not part of the permanent rental housing stock.
Let me repeat: most of these individually owned rentals are not permanent. Their owners are not corporations with deep pockets. They are your neighbors who have to move out of town for a temporary job assignment, or grandma who needs to go into assisted living and doesn’t want to sell her home. Their life situation changes. They return home from the military. Their kids come home from college or get married and need a place to live. They die and the home needs to be sold.
Most homeowners are not professional landlords. Making the rental process much more complicated and expensive makes it less likely that a homeowner will choose to rent their home out. They will just leave it vacant. This will harm new renters as inventory declines, rents go up, and single family homes become harder to find. At today’s prices, only relatively affluent, well qualified renters can afford single family homes. If they can’t find these units, they will have to settle for a smaller apartment, which will put them in competition with lower income people. Not good.
Please also understand that many renters are looking for temporary rental homes while they are working temporary assignments or are new to the area and want to rent before they decide to buy a
home. A six month lease or a one year lease may be exactly what they need. Requiring the owner to pay large move out expenses makes no sense when the two parties agree to the term of the lease.
Does the council really want to include thousands of homeowners in this new set of controls and regulations? Is city staff ready to maintain a rent registry with thousands of people instead of just a hundred or so large corporate landlords? How will fees be collected? How will this be enforced? The state regulations and almost every city with some form of rental control focuses on corporate landlords who own permanent rental housing. Our city council should not apply these “just cause” regulations to the individual Concord homeowner!
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 on corporate landlords who have the resources to manage and implement Concord-specific rent and eviction regulations.
Sincerely,
Mike McDermott
Concord, California
From: Alex Werth <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 11:43 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Eviction Data Is Key to Ensuring Accuracy and Equity of Concord's Rental Housing Policies
Dear Members of the City Council and City Staff,
On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition, I am submitting the attached letter, which explains in detail the importance of eviction notice data to the implementation of Concord's forthcoming tenant protection ordinance. The letter lays out five key points:
1. Not collecting eviction notices undermines enforcement and makes Concord an outlier.
A record of notices is needed to ensure that both fault and no-fault evictions are carried out in a lawful manner, and thus that the protections in this ordinance are actually implemented. For that reason, 13 out of 15 Bay Area cities with local just cause measures collect notices from landlords.
2. Collecting notices can correct the inaccuracies of Concord’s rent registry. While the rent registry requires landlords to self-report eviction activities, property owners have not provided accurate information, thus undermining the City Council’s ability to collect information and legislate with integrity. Eviction notices provide the irrefutable record that members of this City Council have long requested.
3. Collecting notices can ensure that Concord can make informed policy decisions. The data captured in eviction notices offer an irreplaceable source of information on many pressing policy issues, including: neighborhood “hotspots” and racial disparities, corporate evictions, informal evictions, and more. It is also needed to assess the impact of the City’s policies and, if necessary, make adjustments.
4. Collecting notices will not significantly increase program costs or registration fees. The managers of other Bay Area rent programs state that collecting eviction notices requires minimal staff time, especially when landlords upload pdfs directly through the rent registry portal.
5. Concord’s financial constraints for implementation are self-imposed. Collecting eviction notices only seems like it will stretch staff capacity because the City has proposed registration fees and staffing levels that are a fraction of comparable cities. There is ample room to increase fees, and thus the rent program’s budget, while remaining one of–if not the–lowest-cost cities for landlords anywhere in the Bay Area.
At the last meeting, four out of five members of the City Council expressed opposition to this crucial, cost-neutral measure. However, we know that each of you values using accurate data to inform important decisions about the city's rental housing landscape. As tenants and advocates, we hope that you will reconsider this matter at your meeting on January 30th.
Thank you for your consideration,
Alex Werth
Policy, Research, and Campaign Consultant
www.linkedin.com/in/alexwerthphd/
Pronouns: He/Him/His
January 25, 2024
To: Edi Birsan, Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Vice Mayor
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Cc: Valerie Barone, City Manager
Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
Kelly Rush, Housing Program Analyst
Collecting Eviction Data Is Key to Ensuring the Accuracy and Equity of Concord’s Rental Housing Policies
Dear Members of the Concord City Council and City Staff,
At its meeting on January 9, 2024, four out of five members of the Concord City Council opposed requiring landlords to submit copies of eviction notices to the rent program. This decision to reject real-time data that reveals the conditions experienced by renters and the impact of the City’s own regulations came as a surprise. While the members of this City Council have diverged in terms of your policy preferences, you have been united in your insistence–for some of you, going back to 2016–that the City needs accurate information on rental housing conditions, including eviction, to properly legislate on the matter. In the interest of promoting good and responsive government, we feel that this decision needs to be revisited for five principal reasons:
1. Not collecting eviction notices undermines enforcement and makes Concord an outlier. A record of notices is needed to ensure that both fault and no-fault evictions are carried out in a lawful manner, and thus that the protections in this ordinance are actually implemented. For that reason, 13 out of 15 Bay Area cities with local just cause measures collect notices from landlords.
2 2. Collecting notices can correct the inaccuracies of Concord’s rent registry. While the rent registry requires landlords to self-report eviction activities, they have not provided accurate information, thus undermining the City Council’s ability to collect information and legislate with integrity. Eviction notices provide the irrefutable record that members of this City Council have long requested.
3. Collecting notices can ensure that Concord can make informed policy decisions.
The data captured in eviction notices offer an irreplaceable source of information on many pressing policy issues, including: neighborhood “hotspots” and racial disparities, corporate evictions, informal evictions, and more. It is also needed to assess the impact of the City’s policies and, if necessary, make adjustments.
4. Collecting notices will not significantly increase program costs or registration fees. The managers of other Bay Area rent programs state that collecting eviction notices requires minimal staff time, especially when landlords upload pdfs directly through the rent registry portal.
5. Concord’s financial constraints for implementation are self-imposed. Collecting eviction notices only seems like it will stretch staff capacity because the City has proposed registration fees and staffing levels that are a fraction of comparable cities. There is ample room to increase fees, and thus the rent program’s budget, while remaining one of–if not the–lowest-cost cities for landlords anywhere in the Bay Area.
In short, collecting eviction notices is a cost-neutral way to ensure the accuracy and equity of Concord’s rental housing policies for years to come.
Not collecting eviction notices undermines enforcement and makes Concord an outlier.
In the Bay Area, 13 out of 15 cities with local just cause measures–including comparatively small cities, such as East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Fairfax, and Larkspur–require landlords to provide copies of eviction notices.1 It is effectively standard practice because cities understand that they need to be informed about eviction notices to make their policies work as intended. This is true for both no-fault and fault evictions.
In terms of no-fault evictions, landlords must follow specific procedures to remove a tenant for no fault of their own in a lawful manner. For instance, Concord’s draft ordinance requires landlords to receive construction permits in order to conduct a substantial renovation eviction, meet the terms of ownership in order to conduct an owner move-in eviction, provide relocation assistance for all no-fault evictions, and more. Without collecting no-fault eviction notices, the City will be unable to
1 Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Fairfax, Hayward, Larkspur, Mountain View, Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, and San Jose collect fault and no-fault eviction notices from landlords, while Alameda and Petaluma collect no-fault notices. San Rafael and Union City are the only cities with just cause that do not require landlords to submit copies of eviction notices.
3 monitor these processes and thus ensure that tenants receive the much-needed safeguards that they are promised under this ordinance.
Collecting eviction notices is needed to implement the laws governing non-payment evictions–by far the most common type of eviction–as well. Local and State law provide clear guidelines that a landlord must follow in order to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, including providing notice of termination of tenancy. At the meeting on January 9, 2024, Concord’s City Attorney stated that she intended to include language that makes it clear that failure to follow these steps, as codified in the City’s ordinance, constitutes a defense against an eviction lawsuit. So, while there may be fewer procedures involved in non-payment evictions, thus requiring less oversight from the City, Concord must still encourage landlords to comply with the required noticing procedures or else allow tenants to contest their evictions, as guaranteed by this ordinance. The easiest way to do this is to require landlords to upload a digital copy of such notices to the rent registry.
In sum, requiring landlords to submit copies of eviction notices to the rent program in a timely way is critical to the lawful implementation of both fault and no-fault evictions in Concord, and thus the letter and spirit of its just cause policy in its entirety. If it excludes this simple, streamlined method for ensuring compliance–which is required in 87% of Bay Area cities with just cause–then the City Council will undermine this ordinance from the outset.
Collecting notices can correct the inaccuracies of Concord’s rent registry.
As we wrote in our letter dated September 5, 2023, and as the City Council noted at the meeting on January 9, 2024, there is clear evidence that the City’s current data on evictions is inaccurate.
Under the current approach, landlords are supposed to self-report their eviction activity, including both notices and unlawful detainers (UDs), to the rent registry. Between July 2021 and June 2022, however, landlords only reported filing two UDs against tenants in Concord. 2 By contrast, records
from the County reveal that the Sheriff’s Office carried out 33 physical evictions at apartments in 4+ unit properties in Concord over the same time period.3 This proves that the self-reported data on evictions captured by the rent registry is structurally flawed. Moreover, it is well known that only a small percentage of UDs lead to Sheriff evictions. Instead, most UD cases are resolved through default judgment, settlement, or when a tenant moves out without the presence of the Sheriff. As such, the degree of underreporting in Concord is likely even more dramatic.
Good data is a prerequisite for good policymaking. Given your consistent call for collecting data on rental housing conditions, why rely upon the word of landlords–especially when there is evidence they are withholding information–when there is a paper trail that can provide a more accurate and nuanced picture of eviction activity? Requiring landlords to submit copies of eviction
2 City of Concord. October 31, 2022. Residential Rental Registry Report, p. 5. 3 Data provided by the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office in response to a public records request. 31 of these evictions were in properties for which the landlord had completed the rent registry in 2022, meaning that they should have been captured by the registry data. The other two were in properties that had not been registered.
4 notices under this ordinance is needed to actualize the City Council’s stated desire to collect information and legislate with integrity.
Collecting notices can ensure that Concord makes informed policy decisions.
Again, we appreciate that using accurate data to inform policy decisions is a shared value across all members of this City Council. When it comes to rental housing policies, there are many critical policy issues that can be addressed by eviction notices, including, but not limited to, the following:
Neighborhood “Hotspots”: Eviction notices list the address of the property, which can be used to identify geographic concentrations of eviction. As we wrote in our letter dated August 18, 2023, evictions disproportionately harm women, children, and people of color.
Between January 2019 and April 2023, 52% of all physical evictions in Concord occurred in the 94520 zip code–the most racially diverse in the city, where almost 70% of residents are people of color and 49% of them are Latino/e–even though it only contains 48% of renter households.4 Moreover, our survey of the eviction courts in Contra Costa County found that 41% of tenants were Black, even though only 16% of the renter households in Contra Costa are headed by Black people.5 Collecting and mapping eviction notices is thus critical to monitoring for disparate impacts by race, income, and immigration status; affirmatively furthering fair housing, as required by State law; and targeting housing preservation strategies to the communities where they are most needed.
Corporate Evictions: Eviction notices can be used to determine whether certain types of owners–e.g., corporate owners or outside investors–use eviction more often than others.
Given the dominance of outside, corporate investors in Concord’s rental market, this data is vital to encouraging responsible stewardship of the city’s rental housing resources.6
No-Fault Evictions: Cities with rent stabilization and just cause often see an increase in no-fault evictions as landlords look for avenues to circumvent protections and decontrol apartments. Tracking no-fault eviction notices will allow the City to identify any such trends and, if needed, revise the regulations to ensure that all no-fault evictions are conducted in good faith, not to evade City policy.
Arrearages: If the cause of eviction is non-payment of rent, then eviction notices typically list the amount of back rent owed by the tenant. This data can be crucial to understanding the relationship between economic hardship and eviction and designing rental assistance programs that work, with precision, to prevent displacement and homelessness.
4 Data provided by the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office in response to a public records request. Data on race and household tenure are from the 2021 American Communities Survey. 5 East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy. December 2022. Unrepresented: A Report on Eviction Court Watch in Contra Costa County, p. 6.
6 The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. 2023. Property Ownership and Consolidation in Concord.
5 Informal Evictions: It is well-known that a large number of evictions–likely most–occur without any legal process.7 Often, tenants who receive an eviction notice will “self-evict” because they do not know that they have the right to cure or contend the alleged violation and/or they are afraid of going to court and, potentially, ending up with an eviction filing or judgment on their record. Moreover, the tendency to self-evict is most pronounced among low-income people, immigrant communities, and people who do not speak English as their primary language, making informal eviction a major source of housing inequity. As such, it is not enough to examine UD filings–which are, in any case, difficult to access–or Sheriff’s data. Eviction notices provide an irreplaceable window into the stage of the process at which many tenants, especially the most vulnerable, experience displacement.
Impact of Solutions: Finally, it is important to measure interventions against their results.
In the absence of eviction notice data, it will be impossible to tell whether various policies are having their intended impacts and, if not, revise them in an informed manner.
Collecting notices will not significantly increase program costs or registration fees.
At the meeting on January 9, 2024, it appeared as though the primary reason for resistance to implementing the standard practice of collecting eviction notices was concern about the cost of administration. This concern prevailed even though the City Manager admitted that staff had not investigated the cost of such activities. Our research among other cities, however, indicates that collecting eviction notices requires minimal staff time and resources:
Mountain View: The manager of Mountain View’s rent program reported that collecting eviction notices, in itself, does not require much staff time. This is especially true because Mountain View’s rent registry is designed so that landlords can upload notices directly into its database. She added that while follow-up actions can require more staff time–Mountain Views sends information about resources to all of the parties named in each termination notice–“the tracking…isn’t intensive.” “We would fundamentally not be able to run as strong of a program or have any idea what was going on otherwise,” she stated. 8 San Jose: The manager of San Jose’s rent program also reported that collecting eviction notices is straightforward. In San Jose, the work of receiving and cataloging these notices is performed by the rent program’s office administrators. She explained that the only hard part of this process is when landlords submit notices in both electronic and paper formats, which requires cross-referencing to avoid duplication. However, the City is in the process of changing its submission procedures to more closely mirror Mountain View’s, which will
7 Sabiha Zainulbhai and Nora Daly. January 20, 2022. “Informal Evictions: Measuring Displacement Outside the Courtroom.” New America.
8 Email communication with Anky van Deursen, Manager, Rent Stabilization Division, City of Mountain View, January 18, 2024.
6 eliminate this issue. “The problem we have,” she explained, “is self-imposed because of the system we have.”9
In sum, collecting eviction notices is unlikely to increase the costs of administering Concord’s rent program.
Concord can do better–its financial constraints for implementation are self-imposed.
Even if collecting eviction notices does lead to a marginal increase in program costs, the City has substantial room to grow its program, while still remaining small and low-cost to landlords relative to comparable cities. As of now, the City anticipates running the rent program with just 2.5 FTEs.10 This is completely out-of-step with neighboring cities. According to the City’s own research, the average number of FTEs among comparable Bay Area cities with operational rent programs is
15.11 The minimal scale of Concord’s approach seems to stem from an unwillingness to establish registration fees that are on par with the rest of the region. In particular, Concord intends to set fees between $49-52 for a fully covered unit and $29-32 for a partially covered unit.12 Again, this pales in comparison to the comparable cities, which average $224 and $137, respectively.13 At the last meeting, Vice Mayor Obringer opposed the proposal to collect eviction notices on the grounds that increasing the rent program staff would require the City to dip into its General Fund.
This is incorrect. Rent programs are self-financing and cost neutral. It is the responsibility of the City to determine how many staff people are needed to effectuate its rental housing policies and set its registration fees accordingly. As shown above, the City must collect eviction notices in order to both implement this ordinance in its current form and improve it in the future–even if this means increasing fees from the initial proposal. Thankfully, there is room to raise these fees and still remain one of, if not the, lowest-cost municipality anywhere in the Bay Area. The notion that it is too costly to collect eviction notices arises from an artificial sense of scarcity created by the City in the first place. We hope that you will correct this approach and add a provision to collect eviction notices for all covered units. The accuracy and equity of Concord’s rental housing policies depend upon it.
Sincerely,
The members of the Raise the Roof Coalition
9 Meeting with Emily Hislop, Manager, Rent Stabilization Division, City of San Jose, January 10, 2024. 10 City of Concord. December 12, 2023. Agenda Staff Report, p. 11. 11 City of Concord. October 10, 2023. Attachment 4: Examples of Program Administration Costs and Activities, Table 1. These cities are Alameda, Berkeley, and Richmond. While Antioch only has 2 FTEs, it does not have a just cause ordinance, rental registry, or operational rent program, so it is excluded from this analysis.
12 City of Concord, December 12, 2023, p. 6.
13 City of Concord, October 10, 2023, Table 2.
From: Kristy Powell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 1:50 PM
To: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to Concord City Council
Good afternoon Wendy,
Please kindly include the attached letter and supporting document in the 1/30/24 council packet under communications.
Thank you,
Kristy Powell
President
Walnut Creek Holdings, Inc.
P.O. Box 905
Concord, CA 94522
925.685.4246
Palmterraceconcord.com
Unit # #6 #92 #42 #56 #8 #20 #137 #38
Default Date 5/1/2020 4/1/2020 3/6/2020 6/1/2020 12/1/2020 12/1/2020 3/1/2021 3/1/2021 M/O Date 5/1/2021 6/1/2021 1/27/2023 10/2/2022 9/15/2022 7/28/2021 10/11/2023 8/1/2021 Days In Breach 365 425 1057 859 653 239 954 154
Rent Loss 23,918.00$ 23,604.00 $ 50,163.95 $ 44,969.49$ 74,727.65 $ 15,742.60 $ 40,084.23 $ 9,177.12$ Turnover Cost 10,000.00$ 10,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 10,000.00$ 15,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ Vacancy Loss 4,311.00$ 4,170.00$ 6,465.00$ 5,845.00$ 7,240.00$ 4,650.00$ 8,000.00$ 6,405.00$ Buyout Cost 3,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost 40,329.00$ 27,675.00 $ 71,628.95 $ 60,814.49$ 96,967.65 $ 30,392.60 $ 63,084.23 $ 25,582.12 $ Reimbursement -$ -$ 28,340.36 $ 39,934.95$ 41,221.77 $ -$ 26,653.60 $ -$ Net Loss 40,329.00$ 37,675.00 $ 43,288.59 $ 20,879.54$ 55,745.88 $ 30,392.60 $ 36,430.63 $ 25,582.12 $ Total Net Loss 290,323.36$
Stolen $ Used For New House Clothes New Car Cosmetic Surgery Unknown New TV Designer Items Furniture Vacations Vactions Car Furniture
New House Furniture New Cars
Vacation
From: Weil, Jeffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 11:43 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comments to January 30, 204 Rent Stabilization Program
Public comments to January 30, 204 Rent Stabilization Program
I own an 8-unit apartment house on Galindo. I try to keep my rents low and have had very little turnover. My rents average $1,650/month, we have a pool and covered parking. Every time a tenant moves out, I spend significant dollars getting the apartment ready for the next tenant. I had to replace a commercial washer which cost $2,100, and running the laundry room is not a profit center but a convenience for the tenants. When there is a toilet hack up or leak or other tenant issue, we have to drop everything and take care of it, even if it is on a weekend or in the middle of a family event. Last year in 2023 my PG&E bills for the common area went up 20%, and the insurance for this property went up 25%.
My mortgage rate will be doubling within the next few years. Being limited to a 1- 2% annual rent increase (based on current and projected CPI) is criminal. How many City of Concord employees would like their wage increases limited to 1-2%, and how many Concord residents would accept this extremely low wage increase for whatever jobs they have? My family doesn’t expect to get rich running this business but we should at least be allowed to not lose money! Have a 5-7% rent increase limit. If the City of Concord wants to subsidize rents, then use City money to do so, not small businesses. Also, if Tenants can appeal without paying a fee Landlords should have the same privilege. Thank you!
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 2.a
January 30, 2024
From: klange127 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 11:45 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: RENT STABILIZATION, JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION
To whom it may concern,
I have been a landlord since 2008 and am concerned about the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction ordnance's negative impacts on both tenants, landlords, and the City of Concord.
As a landlord, I only raise rent when absolutely necessary. Tenants often rent from me for 4-5 years before I raise the rent. In most cases, this happens when the tenant decides to move out and the rent is adjusted to the market rate for the new tenant. With these new ordinances, I will be forced to implement a yearly increase at the highest percentage possible. This will have a negative impact on tenants.
I encourage you to reconsider this ordinance.
Thank you.
~Kevin
From: Greg Brumley <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 3:12 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: 1-30-24 Concord City Council meeting regarding Rent control & just cause eviction
Please see attached letter to Mayor Birsan and Councilmembers,
Greg Brumley
Greg Brumley
Brumley Properties LLC
Concord CA 94519
1/28/24
Dear Mayor Birsan, and Councilmembers Hoffmeister, Nakamura, Obringer, & Aliano,
I am writing again to express my concern and opposition to your seriously misguided efforts related to rent control and just cause eviction in Concord.
My family has owned and operated apartment buildings in Concord since 1963. I was born, raised, and still call Concord my home. As a child, I grew up in one of our apartments, where my parents managed the business after working their full-time jobs. We provide rental housing to our friends, neighbors, and peers. We are not “fat cat” real estate tycoons from out of town. We are not exploiting our tenants and fellow citizens.
Your actions are threatening my family’s livelihood. Based on a rental cap equal to 60% of CPI, in my two buildings, the maximum increase in 2024 will generate an additional $17,000 annually. While at the same time, our increased cost for utilities, property insurance, and property taxes alone will exceed $24,000 in 2024. How is that sustainable? How can we keep our properties well maintained and appealing to our tenants? I urge you to reconsider your plans. The current legal limits outlined under AB1482 are reasonable and fair to both tenants and housing providers.
Regards,
Greg Brumley
From: Pacific Bay Group <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 3:51 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: upcoming rent control hearing
Though this is from letter below, it clearly reflects my thoughts on the subject and more. Many of my investor clients have rental properties - (and yes some abuse of a limited number of other landlords has occurred) but it important to understand tenant abuse and illegal activity can be far worse from my conversations and first hand experience.
Most of my clients are single unit investors or have a small portfolio of rentals and is hedge on investments and family inheritance.
One client gave a 90 day notice to a ADU renter during Covid which ended one month from the notice and this clever renter went to the rental board and the owner was forced to pay her 5000.00! for what.
The move out time was not during Covid period but she tweaked the system. She had violated her lease terms and was asked to leave formally (constant late payments of rent) .
This is but one of many abuses and use cases tenants have used and will use in the future with compensation rewards when a landlord give just notification of nonpayment of rent, damage, noise nuisance, Illegal pet acquisition, etc.
This will force the demise of the rental market in Concord; Sell offs of properties, etc. or condo-ization and taking rental properties off the market.
The moving expense and compensation recommendations are unrealistic and puts undue burden on landlords. Why should a landlord have to take responsibility of a tenant’s move out to the tune of 3000.00 plus another approximate 4500.00-6600.00 in rent compensation (three months at 1500 -2300 for 3 month compensation). This is unheard of and rare if ever in rental codes.
In general, I recommend to landlords first month and security deposit as not to place an undue burden on renters initial move in expense. But most renters ignore the law and contract terms (security deposit cannot be used for rent) and they use the deposit for the last month’s rent and then leave thousands in damage that the owner must then repair without security deposit. I have witnessed this often. Full repainting, total carpet replacement, damage floor for plumbing leaks not reported, etc.
My suggestions:
• 3-5% rent cap is reasonable.
• No move out expense but sufficient notice to move out at 60 days. (maybe suspension of last month’s rent only)
• And no owner move in restrictions based on tenants health or condition. This is highly unusual and unfair.
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote no.
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property. The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market.
The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment.
Jeff Auen
Auen Group
RE/MAX ACCORD
DRE: 01244711
[email protected]
From: Thomas Portue <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 6:33 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Proposed Rent Control Initiative, January 30, 2024
Dear Council Members:
I am unable to attend the meeting on rent control scheduled for January 30,2024.
However, I would like to go on record voicing an opinion on the matter. I do not own property in Concord. However, the rent control proposals currently under consideration are draconian and beyond severe. These insane proposals will have a far-reaching impact on the local housing industry and beyond.
I have been a landlord in the rental property business for more than 43 years. Before and even during that time I was a long-term tenant in San Francisco. I spent the first 11 years of my life living in a housing project with a single parent and three siblings. We were in our next rented apartment for thirty four (34) years. We were there before rent control was instituted in 1977 and we were there for several years after. The mom n pop owners lived right next door. The rent was never paid late. I made my own repairs and “improvements”when I was able to. This is how we kept our rent affordable.
Our rent did not remain low because of rent control. We had our own rent control. It was based on reciprocity. It was based on what the landlord needed to charge based on their needs. It was also based on what they needed to charge in order to keep us as good tenants. It was based on mutual respect.
Our experience as former tenants has formulated our approach to property ownership.
Most of our current tenants have been with us for several years. And they’re all under current market rate. One tenant received his first increase after 8 years of tenancy.
When he got the increase he expressed his gratitude and amazement that we had taken so long to do so. He has now been with us for 18 years.
Our preference is to keep good tenants for as long as possible. Our goal is to keep the rent as reasonable as possible. If this council and other rent control protagonists continue on this insane path you will force landlords to AUTOMATICALLY raise rents each and every year. You will create unwarranted acrimony between tenants and property owners. Rents will climb consistently in spite of what would otherwise be a natural economic progression. It's the freedoms associated with a free market economy that have built this great nation. Government intervention and overreach such as this puts those freedoms in grave danger.
Thanks to “Bidenflation, and other progressive policies, the allowed California rent increase this year is almost ten percent. Because of a state mandate to now
unnecessarily and prematurely retrofit decks, our costs will be going up substantially.
Because of Sacramento’s incompetent dealings with the insurance industry, our insurance premiums have quadrupled across the board. This doesn’t even take into consideration the rising costs of all other goods and services. And yet you want to limit a property owners “right” to raise rents by a paltry 2.5%?!!
I am not in favor of rent control of any kind. But the statewide rent control ordinance is much more fair than these outrageous proposals. For the moment, I’m still able to keep increases to my long term, responsible tenants under the current statewide allowances in place. These proposals being considered by the Concord city council are an outrageous overreach that has now reached our front door.
I do not think I’m alone when faced with the prospect that all property owners will be forced to raise rents to every tenant by the maximum allowable amount each and every single year. When tenants complain, I will remind them of an old adage. Voting has consequences.
Rent control is nothing short of outright “theft” in the guise of altruism. It stifles accountability and a natural, balanced economic order. It promotes bad behavior and unwarranted leverage. There are a myriad of other paths the city council could pursue to attain a more stable and affordable housing market. You should think about all the progressive ideologies that have contributed to rising demands and competition for affordable housing. There are so many other ways to address these problems. But for the sake of political correctness, you chose to ignore them. If you continue to promote acrimony between property owners and tenants, it will have disastrous effects. As legislators, you might find out that the “low hanging fruit” of rent control will not be as sweet as you might expect.
I pray for the day that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually grant a writ of certiorari and put this unconstitutional insanity to rest once and for all.
Thomas Portue’
Pleasant Hill, CA
From: BC <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 2:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Concord rent control - I OPPOSE
To City of Concord Council Members -
Can this proposal be worked on further towards a fair compromise? At least for the time being, do more research and postpone the decision until there can be a fair and equitable solution. Current proposal will be detrimental to Concord if it passes. The measures are too way too aggressive and penalizes the landlord. The landlord is the side that is providing housing that you are inadvertently harming/eliminating with these proposals.
Rent is a function of supply and demand. I don't like the fact the the price of homes are so expensive but there are more buyers than there are homes. Same is true for rent. Let the market decide. If folks are priced out, then maybe the Council should consider allowing developers to build more homes.
The State of California already have rent laws in place that seem to work for landlords and tenants. Imposing the proposed regulations on Concord landlords are counter productive to the goal of providing affordable housing.
Affordable housing comes from creating more supply. Look at toilet paper during the Covid pandemic for an example. Once there is supply, the price will come down. Look at gas as another example. When there is limited supply, prices go up.
The measures the Council is proposing is too aggressive. It is penalizing people who rent their home/investment and assuming landlords are preying on tenants, makes a lot of money on rent, costs don't increase. In reality, all costs (repair techs, lumbar, costs of goods, etc.) have been rising! That is why the Feds have been raising interest rates - to tackle the increasing costs ! Insurance in California is a big concern for all homeowners. Insurance costs have doubled for some. PGE bills are another rising cost. (Yet I don't see a cap on their fees) These rising costs are not being considered by the City Council Members.
I am not saying that the tenants should bear all the costs but rather rent be a function of the market supply and demand.
I would not consider buying a home in Concord for investment if these measures were passed. Based on how the Council meetings went last year , I am considering the future of my investment to avoid these restrictions. I can almost guarantee you that my home
now will not be another rental in Concord if sold. The rent I have charged has always been below market. I did not raise rents for 7 years until just 2 years ago and still it is below market rent by 15%. My goodwill, fair and reasonable practice seems like it has worked against me.
Investors will not invest in Concord further decreasing supply and driving up prices (Econ101) if measure passes. Even if another investor bought the home, rent is reset. New investor will price rent based on the new mortgage payment (likely higher than mine) taxes (likely higher than mine) and etc. This new rent will be higher than what I am charging. How does this help rent stabilization?
In addition, all reports show that rent stabilization measures dont work. Why do you think it will be any different in Concord? It leads to fewer rentals, less maintained rental properties and poorer living conditions. I am presuming you have read these reports. I just don't understand how it improves the situation in Concord. We don't want Concord to become Oakland. We want it to stay family friendly, safe and affordable. We have a common goal but these measures are NOT serving the residents in Concord.
I am completely AGAINST the proposed measures.
Bernice Chau
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 05:08:09 PM PDT, City Clerk <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for your comments – they will be inserted into the record, posted to the website, and sent to the City Council for review prior to tomorrow night’s City Council meeting.
Kindly,
Stefanie Ananthan│ Deputy City Clerk
(925) 671-3085 | [email protected] 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/03, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
From: BC <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:54 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano,
Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]> Subject: Concord rent control
To City of Concord Council Members,
I oppose the rent control measures the City of Concord wants to impose. I am a single family home landlord. I have owned this home for 20+ years. The proposed 3%/60% of CPI is unacceptable and counter-productive to the future of Concord.
I oppose the suggested changes to the rental laws for the primary reason that it is economically unreasonable for a private landlord ( typically owning single family homes/condos vs corporations.) I only have 1 rental home.
Expenses, cost of maintenance, cost of building materials and labor are going up by more than 3% per year. Just insurance alone has doubled - that is 100% increase. If there can be a cap to expenses, then a cap to rent would make sense.
In addition, there is the thought to roll back this proposal to Jan 2023. Because I own less than 4 units, I was not on the notification list for the proposal. If rolled back, my 2023 expenses which were planned based on income becomes an unanticipated debt burden.
Keeping up with a home is expensive. There is regular maintenance which includes repairs, upkeep, landscaping, taxes, and insurance for example. The proposal doesn’t not take into account rising costs, which is out of my control. PGE will be increasing costs so that they can bury their lines. Those are fixed costs that I have to pay. I guess I don't need to have landscaping if push comes to shove - which is a disservice to the neighbors, the City of Concord and its residents.
Rent control encourages me to sell my rental here in Concord and invest elsewhere. (If other homeowners think like me, there will actually be less rentals in Concord and/or only large housing corporations managing the available rental units) . I dont have the legal background to maneuver and keep up with the strict housing requirement for fear of a lawsuit.
I understand the tenants' plight. The problem is complex. As with home prices, the need for housing is greater than the availability . Reducing the rent cap to 3% or 60% of CPI will not solve the problem.
Article in 2018 research shows that rent control in fact “decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood”. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/
Excerpt from article in Forbes March 2023
“NAA’s latest research aligns with decades of data and real-life case studies that all lead to the same conclusion: rent control is a failed policy that brings more harm than relief to local communities,” said Bob Pinnegar, NAA president and CEO. “It’s not surprising that policies that make it harder Signed,
Bernice Chau
AB 846
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 846 (Bonta)
As Amended January 25, 2024
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Prohibits an owner of an affordable housing project that received low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) from increasing the rent for a unit more than certain specified amounts in any 12-month period.
Major Provisions
1) Prohibits an owner of an affordable housing project that received LIHTC and is subject to a regulatory agreement from increasing the rent for a unit more than the lesser of the following in any 12-month period:
a) The amount permitted by existing law as a result of an increase in the area median gross income;
b) Five percent plus the percentage change in cost of living; or c) Ten percent of the lowest rental rate charged for that unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase;
2) Defines "percentage change in the cost of living" to mean the same as in the rental rate provisions of the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) of 2019;
3) Notwithstanding 1), allows an owner of a project to increase the rent up to 30% of the monthly income of the household occupying the unit;
4) Exempts projects from the cap in 1) when the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) or the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allows for a rent increase due to the termination or exhaustion of project-based rental assistance or operating subsidy or to ensure financial stability, as determined by TCAC, or fiscal integrity, as determined by HCD; and
5) Provides that this bill does not authorize a local government to establish limitations on any rental rate increases not otherwise permissible under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, nor affect the existing authority of a local government to adopt or maintain rent controls or price controls consistent with existing law.
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. 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.
AB 846
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. The Governor's January 2024 budget proposal would eliminate the enhanced state LIHTC allocation and reduce the credit back to pre-2019 levels.
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% 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.
AB 1482 (Chiu), Chapter 597, Statutes of 2019 enacted the TPA of 2019, which 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%. The TPA 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 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 creates another regulatory layer.
Establishing a rent cap will likely have a disproportionate impact on properties that do not already charge the maximum allowable TCAC rents. Many nonprofit affordable housing 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
AB 846
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.
This bill, as amended, proposes a rental rate increase cap in a 12-month period for all LIHTC units in the state. The increase cap would be the lesser of: the amount permitted by existing law as a result of an increase in the AMI; 5% plus CPI, as defined in the TPA; or 10% of the lowest rental rate charged for that unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. The bill proposes two exemptions to address the need for flexibility to account for specific circumstances in which higher rent increases may be warranted or necessary for fiscal stability:
1) In some situations, an operator may not have raised rents on a tenant for several years and in that time, the tenant's income may have grown. Other tenants might be receiving rental assistance – like a voucher – that helps subsidize the portion of monthly rent they are responsible for paying out-of-pocket. This bill allows an owner of a development to increase the rent up to 30% of the monthly income of the household occupying the unit, notwithstanding the cap; and
2) In the event that TCAC or HCD allow a rent increase for a property due to the loss of project-based rental assistance or operating subsidy, risk to financial stability, or fiscal integrity, the cap will not apply. These "float up" provisions are part of the TCAC and HCD rules and are critical to inducing private lending and investment in developments.
According to the Author
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%
AB 846
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
Unknown.
VOTES
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-2-0
YES: Wicks, Wendy Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Quirk-Silva, Ward NO: Joe Patterson, Sanchez
UPDATED
VERSION: January 25, 2024
CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002628
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 25, 2024
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 9, 2023
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 846
Introduced by Assembly Member Bonta
February 14, 2023
An act to add Section 50199.19 50199.24 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to low-income housing.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 846, as amended, Bonta. Low-income housing credit: rent increases.
Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program, through which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, chaired by the Treasurer, Committee allocates low-income housing tax credits aimed at providing affordable low-income housing within and throughout the state. Existing law authorizes the committee to undertake specified responsibilities in allocating the tax credit, including entering into regulatory agreements relating to projects that are allocated the tax credit.
Existing law requires the committee, when allocating the tax credit, to prefer specified projects, including projects that serve lowest income tenants at rents affordable to those tenants.
Existing law, the
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified conditions.
This bill would prohibit a project assisted by the an owner of a project that received an allocation of the low-income housing tax credit and is subject to a regulatory agreement from increasing rent rent, over the
97
course of any 12-month period, for a unit in excess of more than the lesser of the amount permitted by the program as a result of an increase in the area median gross income, or a unspecified amount, whiche ver is less. 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, as defined, or 10% of the lowest rental rate charged for that unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. Notwithstanding these provisions, the bill would authorize an owner of a project to increase the rent up to 30% of the monthly income of the household occupying the unit. The bill would not apply when the committee or the Department of Housing and Community Development allows for a rent increase, as specified. The bill would specify that it does not authorize a local government to establish limitations on any rental rate increase not otherwise permissible under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act or affect the authority of a local government to adopt or maintain rent controls consistent with that act.
V ote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no yes. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 50199.24 is added to the Health and 2 Safety Code, immediately following Section 50199.23, to read:
3 50199.24. (a) For the purposes of this section, “percentage 4 change in the cost of living” means the same as in paragraph (3) 5 of subdivision (g) of Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code. 6 (b) An owner of a project that received an allocation of housing 7 credit pursuant to this chapter or Section 12206, 17058, or 23610.5 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and that is subject to a 9 regulatory agreement shall not, over the course of any 12-month 10 period, increase rent for a unit more than the lesser of the 11 following:
12 (1) The amount permitted by this chapter as a result of an 13 increase in the area median gross income.
14 (2) Five percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living. 15 (3) Ten percent of the lowest rental rate charged for that unit 16 at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the 17 increase.
18 (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an owner of a project may 19 increase the rent up to 30 percent of the monthly income of the 20 household occupying the unit.
97 — 2 — AB 846
1 (d) This section shall not apply when the committee or the 2 department allows for a rent increase due to the termination or 3 exhaustion of project-based rental assistance or operating subsidy 4 or to ensure financial stability, as determined by the committee, 5 or fiscal integrity, as determined by the department. 6 (e) Nothing in this section authorizes a local government to 7 establish limitations on any rental rate increases not otherwise 8 permissible under Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 1954.50) 9 of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, or affects the 10 existing authority of a local government to adopt or maintain rent 11 controls or price controls consistent with that chapter. 12 SECTION 1. Section 50199.19 is added to the Health and 13 Safety Code , to read:
14 50199.19. An owner of a project assisted by a credit pursuant 15 to this chapter shall not, in a calendar year , increase rent for a unit 16 in e xcess of the amount permitted by this chapter as a result of an 17 increase in the area median gross income or ____ percent, 18 whiche ver is less.
O
97 AB 846 — 3 —
From: julie andrews <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 10:11 AM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Re: strict anti landlord rent control
yes thank you
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:02:06 AM PST, Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Julie,
Thank you for providing your comments. Would you like your comments to be included as a benched item for tomorrow night’s council meeting?
Thanks,
Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager
City of Concord | Website: http://www.cityofconcord.org (925) 671-3387 | [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
From: julie andrews <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 8:45 AM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: strict anti landlord rent control
I am against the changes proposed . They would decrease the available single familty homes for rent and people will not invest in the town.
when I purchased my home I felt that if I needed to rent out my home it for personal or financial reasons, It was a good investment.
Now I woulld like to rent my home for a few years until I decide weather to sell or continue to rent. This ordinance will harm me if I choose to only lease it out and not renew the lease. I would to renting my home at a grave loss.
When new investor considers investing in concord they will be reluctant. This is not good for people who are looking to rent. the availability of rental will decrease. It has been proven in various california citys that this type of rent control decreases new investment in rental properties.
It seems what concord needs is more low rent Public Housing. That is funded by the government to provide housing for people who want to sign a 1 year lease that is not a lease but a garantee and the tenent will never have to move without landlord paying them 3 months rent. Making an investment in concord would require that they rents be higher to cover the cost of 3 months payment required when the landlord decides to not lease the property and does not renew the lease financial loss for landlord the ability to not Which would make leasing out property in concord a bad investment.
Please stop these rent control proposals
Regards
Julie Andrews
From: Heypaula10 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:06 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Exclude single family homes from rent control.
I oppose the rent control of homes in Concord. I will leave my home vacant if rent control passes if I need for any reason to move out. It hurts seniors who may need to rent out home and then want to move back. You will lose rental stock and increase vacant houses. Please don’t control SFR owners rights .
Thank you. Paula Johnstone.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Steve Talbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 9:25 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Proposal
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My husband and I own a home in Concord. We purchased the home in 1985 and now rent the home at lower
than market rent, according to your HUD figures. We also have over forty years of experience in the multi-family housing
market. We have done a great deal of the work involved by ourselves, while my husband maintained a full-time job for many
of those years.
When I was young, after college, I lived in a small room in my landlord's home. Rent control was on the ballot. As a renter, I
did not vote for it. Why not? I did not, and still do not believe that I had the right to take the results of another person's hard work,
investment and sacrifice. Ownership should be responsible (honestly, most of our rents are below market and I have never kicked
someone out to get a higher rent), but it should be ownership.
Going into business is at its heart about RISK. Please consider risk in your decision which involves having a rent well below a formulated
CPI (which often does not correlate with our reality). What is the goal here? Do you actually want to provide more available housing?
This new proposal may "protect" tenants for now, but what will it mean for the future. What investor or owner in his/her right mind would invest in rental housing . Already an investor cannot buy and home in Concord and rent it out at anything near an "affordable" rent, while paying expenses.
With proposed move-out expenses, certainly no owner thinking living elsewhere for a relatively short period and planning to return would have a home available for rent.
Please research was happened to the New York market in the 70's, when places were abandoned and not repaired. What is San Francisco now? Middle-income people cannot not afford the city. Rich and poor (subsidized or on the streets) live there.
Personally, I have a hard time understanding the constitutionality of making people operate a business at a loss.
During COVID, we did not apply for a business subsidy. We received payment for only one tenant (after expensive legal bills and about one year with no rent) How many other groups of people were asked to continue working, but not receive pay?
Also, with the continual addition of risk to our business, how can we continue to take any risk with new tenants? Remember, we not only went through financial losses during COVID, but the state recently put additional risk onto landlords but making it illegal to accept a "last month's rent " upon move-in.
So, a tenant may move in for a deposit (no more than a month's rent) and one month of rent, than never pay again. Also, the cost of eviction is quite high and takes quite a bit of time, at further loss.
And the idea of a 3% increase in rent??? Why not just put your money into a T-bill and save yourselves a ton of bother? Then, you don't have to repair a water heater on Christmas eve, or arbitrate another dispute over noise or parking? Oh, and by the way, that water heater, now costs about $1000, lasts for 3-5 years instead of 30, and can't be repaired with a new thermocouple, due to environmental regulations. And if you put it in yourself, the Home Depot guarantee is negated. I could go on and on about increased fees, costs , rules and paperwork requirements over the years. I'm sure that you are also aware that insurance companies are leaving the state and that insurance companies have been allowed hefty increases amounting to multiple times that 3%.
So, in considering this further restriction on the ownership of property, please consider the equal and opposite reactions. Remember when Berkeley put in rent control? I believe that homes that had been available for students was taken off the market. This will probably happen in Concord. I could imagine that there may be more homes available for sale as it does not pay to rent them, nor to keep them empty. This could good and bad for Concord, as more people are forced to sell homes that are unprofitable as rentals, but it may not be good for tenants, as from where will new homes be found? Who will take a risk, when the moveout expenses are so enormous? And why should an owner have to take on the responsibility of tenant's health or children when renting? Funny, when I went through breast cancer treatments, the county still wanted property tax to be paid on time and the mortgage was still due...
One last reaction before I close, due to the state of CA's fairly recent rent control law allowing for increases of 5% + the local CPI increase, I have been giving increases largely
in the full amount possible in the last few years, because I don't know what is coming. Any landlords who were "nice" and didn't raise rates, were caught by rent control and
forced to rent out the same quality of housing for less than other landlords-hardly fair. Also, I understand that the law would like to prevent big increases due to the threat to owners of even more control, but when you roll back rents to Jan. 23 levels, are you allowing no increases for all of 2023?
Why would anyone rent out their homes? Unless that's the goal?? This is all crazy to me.
Thank you for your time in reading this. There so much more information about this business. I've seen more than I could ever write. Susan Talbert.
From: Sonkoly <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 9:05 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control restrictions-in Concord
Hello Dear city representatives
Please don’t forget Concord citizens interest
Istvan T. Sonkoly Concord resident
Phone:
From: Ramirez, Hugo (MYR) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 12:35 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments re: 1/30 agenda item 2a from a peer public servant
Dear Colleague and Council Members,
As a local government practitioner and expert in implementation of tenant protection policies and programs, I offer the following comments as a peer public servant.
I have been tracking Concord’s journey in crafting a rent stabilization and just cause ordinance.
One key component that is based on best practice in our region and that is glaringly missing from Concord’s draft ordinance is requiring landlords to submit copies of eviction notices to the rent program.
Without this vital information, Concord is precluding its elected leaders and policymaking/program implementation staff from being data-informed on tenant-landlord matters beyond just the rent program. In my experience as someone who works in this public policy/program implementation space, this data is essential to informing tenant protections and other tenant-landlord issues more broadly.
Operationally, collecting this vital information would not significantly increase costs for the rent program despite Concord’s registration fees that are significantly lower than most all other rent programs in the region. (I encourage you to explore right sizing your fees to ensure full implementation of the rent program.)
I am happy to provide additional peer support, if helpful.
Thank you,
Hugo
Hugo H. Ramírez (he/him/his)
胡高拉米雷斯
Manager, Eviction Prevention and Housing Stabilization Programs
Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development
1 S. Van Ness Ave., 5th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94103
[email protected] │ 628-652-5939
A guest on traditional, unceded Ramaytush Ohlone land.
Give your input on MOHCD’s strategic plan!
https://engagesanfrancisco.com/
From: Avneet Kahlon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 2:23 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Landlord……Calculation for thought
As a landlord, with our 4Plex renting for $7,000 /month ($1,500 to $2,150), and CPI of say 5%, I can expect to raise rent by 3% or $210 per month (max possible under proposal). That is $2,520 a year. Council members expect landlords to keep up with inflation in painting, flooring change, HVAC, roofing, landscape, sewer fee, with that kind of rent increase cap? If I decide to sell my building when I am old, I will regret having kept the rent low because that will bring the property price down. Now, I cannot change my tenants. I disagree with the adoption of 60% of CPI when CPI truly does not reflect inflation all us experience in our budget.
Cities with old buildings with rent control fall into disrepair and thus a bad quality of life for residents of the town. Picture Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco.
Our rentals are among the best kept units and rent cap is sending a dissuasive signal for improvement.
The adoption of $3000 + three months rent will dissuade me from ever thinking of giving a place to my now teenage children when they grow up. I can live with that :-) We have never asked any of our tenants to move and have even given rent reduction to accommodate financial hardships in life. NO MORE.
I do not agree with city putting a rent cap percentage.
I can accept the other two as increasing tenant rights but do not want city councilmen trampling on free market with misuse of position and unfair adoption.
I did not attend any of the public meetings as the measures to be adopted were always evolving and the meetings get to be sessions of raised tempers.
Hope to persuade you to NOT adopt rent control.
Thanks for your service to the city and us, residents of Concord Regards,
Avneet Kahlon
Concord, CA 94521
.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 2:41 PM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>; Maria De Sousa <[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]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Myers, Lori <[email protected]>; Ananthan, Stefanie <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Failure of Rent Stabilization Policies
Hello Joelle, Valerie please post these for tomorrow's meeting.
Concord is now asking for increased payouts to elderly and disabled people under the basis "It costs them more to move out". This a very noble thought, but would raise costs to renting to that group of people. It would also be a violation of someone's civil rights to raise rents to cover those increased costs . Thus the city is layering even more reasons to run vulnerable people out of town on top of already giving people no reason to rent to long term tenants(See the Maria Ramos example from before).
On top of price controls giving landlords little reason to maintain the existing housing stock, and disincentivize creating new rental units the city is flirting with the same report card Bluto Blutarsky received, that is of course 0.0 all housing classes failed.
Reed Robertson
Concord
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:12 AM Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]> wrote:
Your comments will be inserted into the record, posted to the website, and sent to the City Council for review prior to tonight’s meeting.
Joelle Fockler, MMC | City Clerk
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3390 | [email protected]
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
From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 2:56 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: What size of a residential-rental businesses need a business license in Concord
This e-mail is being shared with all Councilmembers
Laura H.,
I conferred with our Business License team and they shared that when four or more multi- family residential units are located at the same address and/or share the same APN they are required to obtain a business license.
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: Holly Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 3:01 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: About concord rent control
Hello City council members and city Clerk
Thank you for your effort to the ordinance about Concord rental control and JC.
I am a real estate agent and Concord home owner. I have the following comments to bring up. Thank you!
1. Please see below the HUD standard, Most of Concord multiple familie's rent is far below this standard. Suggest the rent cap only applies to the house whose rent is above the standards. The 3% rent cap will make the homeowner can't survive.
2 Current rental control will push investors out of Concord, this will make Concord rental houses become less and less. Investors can build more apartment complexes or build more ADUs. I have few investors, they clearly indicate they will not buy an investment house or add ADU at Concord if this rental control passed.
3. Suggest no roll back policy as it is not practical and also not reasonable, It will waste taxpayers money.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Holly Chen
From: Hannah Holloway <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 3:25 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on 1/30 Council Agenda Item 2a: Verifiable Eviction Data Is Critical to an Accurate and Effective Residential Tenant Protection Program
Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, Councilmember Hoffmeister, Councilmember Nakamura, and Councilmember Aliano:
I write to you regarding your upcoming consideration of amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program to urge you to champion data-informed policymaking by requiring that landlords submit eviction notices to the rental registry.
I have copied the text of my letter below, as well as attached it to this email as a PDF.
TechEquity Collaborative raises public consciousness about economic equity issues that result from the tech industry’s products and practices, and advocates for change that ensures tech’s evolution benefits everyone. We work at the nexus of tech and the economy to advance policies that address structural inequities, with a focus on housing and labor. As we’ve advocated for state and local policies to meet Californians’ housing needs, we’ve found that the conversation lacks comprehensive data about the extent of the problem.
Without comprehensive, publicly-held, and publicly-maintained data, renters must often rely on advocates and community organizations using our own information, combined with a fragmented and insufficient data infrastructure, to provide services, enforce clients’ and constituencies’ rights, and understand how complex policies interact statewide.
At its January 9, 2024 meeting, the majority of Concord City Council members opposed requiring landlords to submit copies of eviction notices. This is troubling, as there are already proven discrepancies between Concord landlords’ self-reported data and what’s in other official databases. In the absence of using verifiable documents such as notices to track evictions, landlords have undercounted evictions in the city by 94%, with just 2 evictions self-reported in Concord compared to the 33 evictions found in the County Sheriff’s Office records over the same time period. Adding an eviction notice requirement to Concord’s rental registry will ensure that City Council is receiving the high-quality data necessary to make responsive and informed public decisions.
Collecting eviction notices is more than just a matter of data accuracy. It will also help protect renters— for whom the Tenant Protection Program was created and named—by ensuring that evictions are conducted with the proper notice and procedural requirements. 13 of the 15 Bay Area cities with just cause protections require eviction notices to ensure that their programs are working as designed.
Fragmented and inadequate information allows for large swings in the cited number of people impacted by the eviction crisis. The truth is nobody knows the scale and extent to which households are at risk.
Everyone understands that the scale of the crisis is huge, but specifics such as who is disproportionately impacted, geographic concentrations, repeat bad actors, and more are difficult to determine without
cities such as Concord stepping up to demand more from those who already have the data.
Timely and comprehensive data is critical to meeting the needs of renters and addressing our housing crisis. Verifiable eviction data is an essential component of better understanding the problem so that we can meaningfully fix it. I urge you to take a complete view of the Concord rental landscape—which by necessity must include how people lose and are displaced from their homes—by including eviction notices in your upcoming amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program.
Sincerely,
Hannah Holloway [she/her]
Director of Policy & Research | TechEquity Collaborative Work in tech? Become a member today.
Please note, TechEquity offices close at 1pm on Fridays.
January29,2024
To:EdiBirsan,Mayor
CarlynObringer,ViceMayor
LauraHo
ffmeister,Councilmember
LauraNakamura,Councilmember
DominicAliano,Councilmember
Cc:ValerieBarone,CityManager
SusanneBrown,CityAttorney
SophiaHuckabay,HousingManager
KellyRush,HousingProgramAnalyst
VerifiableEvictionDataIsCriticaltoanAccurateandE
ffectiveResidentialTenantProtection
Program
DearMembersofConcordCityCouncil:
IwritetoyouregardingyourupcomingconsiderationofamendmentstotheResidentialTenant ProtectionProgram.Iurgeyoutochampiondata-informedpolicymakingbyrequiringthatlandlords submitevictionnoticestotherentalregistry,inadditiontostrengtheningtheevictionstandardsand theoverallscopeoftherentalregistry.
TechEquityCollaborativeraisespublicconsciousnessabouteconomicequityissuesthatresultfrom thetechindustry
ʼsproductsandpractices,andadvocatesforchangethatensurestech ʼsevolution benefitseveryone.Weworkatthenexusoftechandtheeconomytoadvancepoliciesthataddress structuralinequities,withafocusonhousingandlabor.Aswe
ʼveadvocatedforstateandlocal
policiestomeetCalifornians ʼhousingneeds,we ʼvefoundthattheconversationlackscomprehensive dataabouttheextentoftheproblem.
Withoutcomprehensive,publicly-held,andpublicly-maintaineddata,rentersmusto enrelyon advocatesandcommunityorganizationsusingourowninformation,combinedwithafragmented andinsufficientdatainfrastructure,toprovideservices,enforceclients ʼandconstituenciesʼrights, andunderstandhowcomplexpoliciesinteractstatewide.
1
AtitsJanuary9,2024meeting,themajorityofConcordCityCouncilmembersopposedrequiring landlordstosubmitcopiesofevictionnotices.Thisistroubling,astherearealreadyproven discrepanciesbetweenConcordlandlords
ʼself-reporteddataandwhat ʼsinothero fficialdatabases.
Intheabsenceofusingverifiabledocumentssuchasnoticestotrackevictions,landlordshave undercountedevictionsinthecityby94%,withjust2evictionsself-reportedinConcord 1compared tothe33evictionsfoundintheCountySheri
ffʼsOfficerecords2overthesametimeperiod.Addingan
evictionnoticerequirementtoConcord ʼsrentalregistrywillensurethatCityCouncilisreceivingthe high-qualitydatanecessarytomakeresponsiveandinformedpublicdecisions.
Collectingevictionnoticesismorethanjustamatterofdataaccuracy.Itwillalsohelpprotect renters—forwhomtheTenantProtectionProgramwascreatedandnamed—byensuringthat evictionsareconductedwiththepropernoticeandproceduralrequirements.13ofthe15BayArea citieswithjustcauseprotectionsrequireevictionnoticestoensurethattheirprogramsareworkingas designed.
Fragmentedandinadequateinformationallowsforlargeswingsinthecitednumberofpeople impactedbytheevictioncrisis.Thetruthisnobodyknowsthescaleandextenttowhichhouseholds areatrisk.Everyoneunderstandsthatthescaleofthecrisisishuge,butspecificssuchaswhois disproportionatelyimpacted,geographicconcentrations,repeatbadactors,andmorearedi fficultto
determinewithoutcitiessuchasConcordsteppinguptodemandmorefromthosewhoalreadyhave thedata.
Timelyandcomprehensivedataiscriticaltomeetingtheneedsofrentersandaddressingour housingcrisis.Verifiableevictiondataisanessentialcomponentofbetterunderstandingtheproblem sothatwecanmeaningfullyfixit.IurgeyoutotakeacompleteviewoftheConcordrental landscape—whichbynecessitymustincludehowpeopleloseandaredisplacedfromtheir homes—byincludingevictionnoticesinyourupcomingamendmentstotheResidentialTenant ProtectionProgram.
Sincerely,
HannahHolloway|TechEquityCollaborativeDirectorofPolicy&Research 2DataprovidedbytheContraCostaSheri
ffʼsOfficeinresponsetoapublicrecordsrequest.
CityofConcord.October31,2022.ResidentialRentalRegistryReport,p.5. 2
From: Cheryl Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 3:42 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Just Cause for Eviction
I would like to express my concerns regarding what I understand is being proposed by the Concord City Council. As an owner of one single family home that we rent out I do not understand why we would be subject to just cause regulations. If we accept a person in our home for a one year lease would this apply if after that period is up we do not think the person is a good fit for our home. Or if we rent our home on a month to month basis it should be understood this is a short term agreement. For example we may know of something coming up in our future where we can not commit to other than month to month. The wording that I've seen does not address these type of issues. Please document my concerns in going forward. Maybe there should be like regulations for tenants that break their agreements.
Cheryl Harbaugh
From: Ethan Silverstein <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Marstall, Kevin <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Cc: Leah Simon-Weisberg <[email protected]>; Jackie Zaneri <[email protected]>; rhea elina laughlin <[email protected]>; Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]> Subject: TIMES SENSITIVE - Raise the Roof and Movement Legal letter re: Concord's proposed Tenant Protection Program
Dear Council:
Please find the attached letter from the Raise the Roof Coalition and the California Center for Movement Legal Services regarding the Tenant Protection Program.
Thank you
January 29, 2024
Sent via email to:[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]
Dear Concord City Council:
We thank you for the significant improvements to the City’s Tenant Protection Program. We recognize the substantial effort that went into improving this ordinance. While the City did not implement many of our suggestions, we recognize this ordinance as a step in the right direction for Concord tenants. However, we urge the Council to make four critical changes to have our full support of the Tenant Protection Program.The full text of the proposed revisions is provided in the attachment to this letter.
I. Low-Income Tenants Should Not Be Less Protected. Affordable Housing Must Be Regulated.
We do not believe that low-income tenants should be subject to more significant rent increases than other Concord residents. The proposed policy creates a two-tiered system, where certain low-income tenants can receive five percent rent increases and cannot file rent petitions. Concord residents who live in market-rate housing will generally have rent increases limited to a maximum of 3% while having access to the tenant petition process. We ask that the Council honor its commitment to protecting tenants in low-income housing projects. This requires protecting all affordable housing tenants from excessive rent increases.
If there must be a carve-out for certain affordable housing properties, the carve-out should be limited to properties with acurrent local regulatory agreement that limits rent increase to4% annually. The current ordinance would exempt future affordable housing properties without current contracts with the City or County.
II. Tenants Should be Protected from Fraudulent Owner Move-In Evictions Council has not decided how long an owner or relative must intend to live at a property to justify an owner or relative move-in eviction. Tenants urge the City to follow in the footsteps of cities with effective tenant laws, such as Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Richmond, which require three years of intended occupancy. This is imperative to ensure owners do not move themselves or their relatives into a rental unit for the sole purpose of evicting rent-controlled tenants.
Further, Council should clarify who is an “Owner” and who is not. We do not object to owners moving into their properties or moving in their family members, assuming they pay relocation expenses and otherwise follow the law. We also do not oppose owners moving in close family members, even if that family memberdoes not have any interestin the property.
However, Concord’s current language allows family members with 1% interest to file eviction lawsuits against tenantsin the family member’s own names. Such a system risks tenants being caught up in inter-family disputes, divorces, etc. While we have no objection to family members moving in, it must be clear who can bring an eviction action against a tenant. That authority should rest with an individual who has a significant interest in the property.
Further, Concord’s current draft allows LLCs to move in people who claim to be associated with the LLC. While we understand that LLC ownership is not exclusively used by large corporate actors, if a small owner holds their property through an LLC, they can quickly transfer the house to personal ownership before evicting. This is something that a business acting in bad faith is unlikely to do. LLC operating agreements are not public records and caneasily be manipulated to evade Concord’s important law. As such, individuals who claim to be associated with LLCs should not be able to use the owner or relative move-in justification.
We suggest giving any 51% owner the right to file an eviction action against a tenant to move themselves in or move in any of their family members, even family members without any ownership interest. However, the “owners” in question must be real people instead of fictitious business entities.
III. Remove The Two New Loopholes
Between drafts, two new loopholes appeared in the ordinance.
First, a new exemption to rent control and just cause was added for certain duplexes where the owner lives on-site. Tenant advocates reject exemptions based on who the tenant’s neighbor is. In many cases, these tenants need protection the most. These policies have a demonstrated history of failure. More importantly, this exemption was not discussed publicly. The addition of this exemption is described as a “cleanup” in the staff report – this is inaccurate. This exemption is a substantive policy decision. There is no legal reason this exemption must exist.
Second, a new requirement was added to the ordinance that gives landlords a complete defense to civil claims under the rent-control laws if the tenant didn’t first petition Concord’s Program.
This “administrative exhaustion” requirement would be the first we know of in the state, as far as current rent ordinances. The “administrative exhaustion” requirement ensures that large corporations can systematically violate rent control laws. For example, if a landlord issued illegal rent increases to all tenants in a 75-unit building and refused to rescind them, the tenants could not band together and sue, arguably, until each and every tenant had an individual hearing with one of Concord’s hearing officers. This addition enables corporate landlord abuses, takes away tenants’ right to access the courts, and does so on the dime of the City of Concord, which will be forced to hear unnecessary petitions. While we support city hearings as an option for tenants, it must not be a requirement. This new loophole should be closed.
IV . Evictions Should be Documented
Across the state, landlord trade associations vigorously fight against data collection concerning eviction notices (while simultaneously claiming there is “no data” supporting tenant protections).
Currently, no state agency collects eviction notices. Many, if not most, notices are never filed in court. When they are, the lawsuits are often shielded from public view.
The City must take it upon itself to monitor trends in displacement. Doing so requires minimal resources. The City must merely require landlords to file their notices, either through email or in person. To ensure compliance, a defense to eviction must be added when the notice is not filed within seven days of service.
In addition to allowing the City of Concord to monitor trends in displacement and monitor the effectiveness of its legislation, the collection of notices is necessary to ensure landlords comply with the law. Without any record of eviction notices, how can a tenant know if the same owner has claimed to do numerous owner move-in evictions? Basic transparency is necessary to ensure the law is followed.
V . Conclusion
While this ordinance does not address all the concerns that tenants and their advocates and non-profit attorneys have raised, with the four changes above, it can be an ordinance we can celebrate. We hope these changes can be made and the policy can be passed, providing tenants the basic protections they deserve.
Raise the Roof Coalition
California Center for Movement Legal Services
(e) Except in connection with a Fair Return Petition or a Tenant Petition, no administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this Chapter.
IV . Evictions Should be Documented
The Council can ensure evictions are documented by making a motion to Add Subdivision (e) to 19.40.060, reading “(e) any notice of termination must be filed with the rent registry within seven days of that notice being served on the Tenant. Failing to file a notice of termination within seven days shall be a defense to unlawful detainer.”
From: Marianne baldetti <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 4:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Proposed Ordinance
Dear City of Concord Council Members,
I am extremely concerned about your proposed rental control and tenant protection ordinance that goes above and beyond the state mandated 2019 Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482). I strongly urge you to vote “NO.”
The proposed ordinance is predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. This just is NOT the case. The facts themselves prove this. Look at the City of Concord’s own rent registry data which shows in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out rather than any owner-initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far. Rents capped at 60% of the CPI or 3% whichever is lower will financially destroy mom-and-pop property owners such as myself and the approximately 60% plus other ones like myself. Besides the rental income restrictions, the following provisions such as restrictions on owner move-ins, relocation fees, roll back of rent to 1/2023 levels, residency requirements of move-in owners, 1:1 move-in provisions, just cause eviction restrictions, and so on to name just a few in the proposed ordinance will destroy the once robust city’s rental market. These provisions are far reaching and border on a property owner’s legal rights.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment and spiraling down commercial housing real estate market.
Sincerely,
Marianne Simoni
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 4:13 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: No on Rent Control
Below is my letter to the City Council. I have also attached it as a Word document.
Mike Handlin
•Concord, CA 94518
January 29, 2024
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote no. Rent control is not working in San Francisco, Berkeley and other cities that have adopted it. It discourages building new rental homes and apartments.
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property. The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market.
The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment.
Respectfully,
Mike Handlin
Concord, CA 94518
Mike
Mike Handlin
Renee White Team
Keller Williams Realty
Past President, Contra Costa Realtors In Motion
Past Director, California Association of Realtors
Past Director, Contra Costa Association of Realtors
From: John Tashjian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 5:21 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: *Please Read- RE: Rent Control proposal*
All,
Thank you in advance for reading my email regarding the severe rent control measures by the City of Concord. My name is John Tashjian and I own one rental unit on . We purchased this property in 2004 with the goal of having supplemental income during our retirement. I was extremely disappointed to hear that the city is considering placing severe rental restrictions on all rental units with a cap of 3% annual rent increase despite inflation. As you are aware during the past 3-4 years the rate of inflation has exceeded 6-8% each of these years which puts landlords in a very bad position of not charging a fair rent for tenants to the detriment of mom and pop landlords who are trying to make a fair return on their investment. In addition the proposal of charging $14K in the event of evicting a tenant is outrageous. The city council doesn't seem to understand economics 101 here. Anytime there are strict regulations like this it will not only hurt landlords it will equally hurt tenants as well.
This bill does not affect large corporate landlords which have the power to charge whatever they want and evict whoever they want. Why would you want to give preferential treatment to large corporations at the expense of mom and pop landlords as well as tenants- many of which are already stretched out- trying to make ends meet.
If this passes I will likely be forced to sell which means the tenant will have one less place to live and believe me I am not the only person who will do this in Concord as it will not make economic sense to keep the property as an investment in Concord. If you believe in free markets please leave things alone and default to California laws which are already liberal as it is. This type of local overreach is unacceptable and should be illegal. At worst put this proposal on the next November ballot and allow Concord citizens to vote for this. This should be decided by the will of the people and not by a handful of council members who don't seem to understand what they are doing. Placing these restrictions will decrease supply which will significantly increase rents for tenants. I hope you all understand the consequences of this reckless far left extremist bill.
I hope you will not allow this insane bill to pass.
Thank you!
John Tashjian
From: Gregg Syrovatka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Gregg Syrovatka <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Rent Control Ordinance
Dear Concord City Council,
I’m writing today to express my concerns over the new Rent Control Ordinance that is being contemplated for the City of Concord. I believe the current Rent Control under the State of California is sufficient and provides more than enough protection to the tenants while still providing financially beneficial investments to landlords.
I urge you to vote, “NO” when the time comes to vote on this proposed Ordinance.
As a homeowner in Concord for almost 40 years, I’ve enjoyed Concord for being a family -oriented city that is clean, has great parks, and is safe in most parts. However, I’m very concerned as to what the landlords will be forced to do if these provisions are passed. The terms of this proposed Ordinance make it onerous to have a rental property that will be able to perform financially. The City should be encouraging investment in housing to solve the housing availability issues instead of hindering investments.
Upon reading the proposed Ordinance it seems clear that there are punitive measures included. Are you trying to punish all landlords for the deeds of the bad ones? What about the good tenants and good landlords? They are being affected just like the bad ones that this proposed Ordinance seems to punish.
Landlords need tenants to survive, and tenants need landlords to survive. This relationship is symbiotic and does not need government interference in private transactions with private property. As we have seen time and time again, government action creates unintended consequences. Please think of the City, its residents, and the long-term consequences before casting your vote. Do you really want Concord to be another Richmond or Antioch? I don’t! If did, I’d be living there now.
Sincerely,
Gregg Syrovatka
, Concord
[email protected]
Below is my rebuttal to some of the major points of the proposed Ordinance:
RENT STABILIZATION:
· Limit annual rent increases to 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower.
How does this make anyone want to invest in income property in Concord? if you are today, it might be a
good reason to get out. Where will the tenants go if the properties are sold or converted to condos? How will the landlords keep up with inflation and be able to maintain their property? · Controls the allowable rent increases upon the first date of occupancy but does not control the dollar amount for starting-of-occupancy rent (i.e., it preserves vacancy decontrol). This ais already a part of the State wide Rent Control that is in effect today.
· Includes a “rent rollback” provision that sets rents to the dollar amounts that were charged for rent as of January 12, 2023, plus allows for up to the Ordinance-allowed rent increase of 2.52% for the 2023 calendar year (2.52% is 60% of the CPI for April 2023). This is just a punitive measure and is not fair. It doesn’t consider reasonable rent changes to recover losses incurred via COVID restrictions or to normalize the rates to the current market conditions.
· Rent stabilization would apply to multi-family rental complexes of 2 or more units built before Feb. 1, 1995. It would not apply to rented single-family homes, rented condominium units, or rented accessory dwelling units. This provision is trying to appease the small mom & pop landlord when these same mom & pop landlords will likely be under the same provisions of this Ordinance in the future. This sounds like typical marketing spin with no guarantees that this Ordinance will not be expanded to cover these properties in the future.
· The Ordinance would establish a process utilizing a Hearing Officer whereby tenants could appeal their rent increases, if they believed them to be inconsistent with the City Ordinance, and whereby property owners could request higher rent increases, above what the Ordinance would otherwise allow, to obtain a fair return on their investment property. This sounds like the creation of another bureaucratic organization that will need to be funded. Another waste of taxpayers’ money.
JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION:
I won’t summarize this portion of the proposed Ordinance, but this is EXTREMELY ONEROUS and very punitive. How do you expect a landlord to come up with this type of money? With all of the earlier limits of the proposed Ordinance, how do you expect a landlord to come up with these payments? Did the tenant earn it? Does the tenant own the private property? Did the tenant take the risks of homeownership and all the responsibilities that go along with that ownership? These monetary payments are totally unreasonable. As I’ve had in all lease agreements, if the landlord wants to break a lease, they owe the tenant one month’s rent to ‘buy out’ the lease. Same exact stipulations for the tenant; if they want to break the lease, the tenant owes the landlord one months’ rent to ‘buy out’ the lease. Again, a symbiotic relationship.
January 29, 2024
City of Concord
Mayor and City Council Members
Re: City Council Meeting Tuesday January 30, 2024
Rent Control Public Hearing
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned and angered about the proposed strict rent control ordinance being considered and respectfully request a NO vote.
This ordinance is based on totally false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate leases on mass numbers. You can’t ignore your own rent registry data that in 2022, rent increases were at or below the state mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner initiated termination.
The revised rent control ordinance is ill conceived. The ordinance goes too far in capping rents and doesn’t give the owner any way to cover their own cost increases. The relocation fees are so excessive it will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market.
This ordinance is government overreach, totally one sided and unfair to owners. This ordinance is based on the false premise that all owners/landlords are bad and all tenants are good. That premise is totally false and far from reality.
I have my own personal experience and can say with all sincerity that all tenants are not angels and they take advantage of owners. I had to evict a tenant because the rent and utilities were not not being paid.
It took months to perfect the eviction. Once I took possession of the property I found it totally trashed.
It took me months and a great deal of expense to clean and repair the property. It cost me thousands and at the same time I had no income. The tenant walked away. I had to take the tenant to court in order to get partial reimbursement. That meant more time and expense. This is one example.
A second example. I had a tenant who broke the lease and vacated early. Per the terms of the lease there were costs and expenses that were the responsibility of the tenant. The tenant walked away and now I have to find this person and take them to court. More time and expense.
Where in the ordinance is the owner protected from dead beat tenants? Where are there protections for the owners? Where is there any fairness and equity?
The ordinance limitation on rent increases is ridiculous. An owner’s costs can go up more than the ordinance allowed rent increases. One example of increase in expense is the owners insurance. How is it fair to owners if they can’t even cover their cost increases?
The proposed definition of owner is absurd.
There is no rational reason for an owner to be required to pay any relocation costs. An owner has the right to do whatever they want with their property. Why are owners of rental properties expected to provide support to tenants? Owners are not responsible for tenants and should not be put in that position.
Rent control and similar ordinances are government entities passing the buck and burden to provide affordable housing onto owners of rental properties. Over the years city, county and state governments have not done what is needed to provide affordable housing and have caused the conditions we deal with today.
I hope you seriously consider what I have stated and addressed in this letter. This ordinance is totally wrong and unfair is all aspects.
Dennis Cedros
Owner of rental home in Concord.
From: Emmanuel Pun <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 10:38 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control
Dear Mayor Birsan and members of the City Council,
We are greatly concerned about your harsh rent control proposal and try to persuade you to vote no.
We firmly believe that the dynamic of this harmful ordinance has been established by false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state- mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination. Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property.
As our tenants are longtime tenants. We seldom raise their rent. For sure, it is way under the fair market value. Small housing providers like us should be allowed to raise the rent to the current market value before rent control becomes effective. Otherwise, we will be the victims of this rent control ordinance. The rent we charge will never catch up with the current rental market value or HUD fair market rent.
The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market. The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment.
Regards,
Emmanuel & Julie Pun
From: Deena Levine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 8:06 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: JFCS EB Support of Latest Draft Ordinance (Tenant Protections & Just Cause Evictions)
Dear Concord City Council Members:
Thank you very much for your consideration of the content in the attached letter from JFCS East Bay.
Sincerely,
Deena Levine-Lipsett
January 29, 2024
Dear Mayor Birsen, Vice Mayor Obringer, Council Member Hoffmeister, Councilmember Nakamura, and Councilmember Aliano:
We write to you in our capacity as leaders of Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay (JFCS East Bay), and as a follow up to our letter submitted December 11, 2023, urging you to scrutinize and amend the legal details of Concord’s new Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance. We are a Concord-based non-profit concerned with mental health and social services; many of our clients reside in Concord and include locally born as well as immigrants and refugees from around the globe. Our clients are the renters who would suffer from inadequate protections.
We are aware that a new draft of the Ordinance came out just three days ago, and from what we understand from posts in Next Door, landlords will be asking you to reject the revisions.
Without thorough protections, an increasing number of Concord families would face the frightening prospect of being forced from their homes. Our immigrant and refugee clients are particularly vulnerable because of language and cultural barriers.
Our vision is “A community where everyone can flourish with dignity.” In this spirit, we ask that you do everything possible to truly protect Concord residents from displacement.
Sincerely,
Robin Mencher - CEO, JFCS East Bay
Deena Levine-Lipsett & Stewart Florsheim - Co-Chairs of JFCS East Bay Public Policy & Advocacy Committee
From: Sam Greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:09 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: East Bay for Everyone Letter in Support of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protections
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of the members and supporters of East Bay for Everyone, please see a letter in support of Concord's proposed rent stabilization and just cause tenant protections ordinance. A copy of the letter is also attached.
Best regards,
Sam
----
January 30, 2024
RE: Support for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protections
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
East Bay for Everyone, an all -volunteer, grassroots housing advocacy organization working to make East Bay cities and communities more affordable and resilient, stands in strong support of the proposed updated Ordinance to increase Just Cause eviction prot ections, expand the City’s rent registry, and establish a rent stabilization program. These basic tenant protections will prevent the displacement of longtime Concord residents and keep Concord’s community together. In the midst of this historic housing crisis, it is incumbent upon local leaders to protect all residents from displacement.
Rent stabilization has been implemented to make communities more resilient all across California, to massive success. Residents across the Bay Area, in Antioch, Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, Fairfax, San Francisco and San Jose, are given the assurance with rent stabilization that they won’t be displaced out of the region or even the state due to rent gouging and huge year-over-year rent increases.
The strengthened relocation assistance this measure will provide is vital to the community’s resilience, as it provides financial security for those displaced from their homes. Fundamentally, no one should live under a constant threat of homelessness, and it is the city’s responsibility to ensure that its residents do not do so. People of color, immigrants, and low -income people are disproportionately affected by the housing crisis, and are most vulnerable to displacement, and this Ordinance would ameliorate this risk.
East Bay for Everyone strongly believes that the housing crisis must be solved using an all-of-the-above strategy, which includes protecting vulnerable tenants and minimizing displacement. This was a key
issue in the city’s Housing Element community outreach process; community members and organizations consistently brought up expanded rent stabilization and tenant protection policies as a way to alleviate their housing burden.
We would ask for one amendment, which is for the February 1, 1995 cutoff date to change to a rolling cutoff date including all buildings more than 30 years old. This should still allow new construction to pencil while helping many more tenants live in rent stabilized housing.
Solving the housing crisis will take a generation, but protecting longtime residents from being forced out of the community they’ve built and called home will materially transform people’s lives right now.
Therefore, we strongly encourage you to support this item as proposed with no amendments.
Sincerely,
The members and supporters of East Bay for Everyone
1/29/2024
Marjorie Kane, Concord, phoned and stated opposition to rent control.
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
From: Victoria Snyder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on the Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance
Hello Concord City Council and City Staff,
My name is Victoria Snyder. I am a supervising attorney with Contra Costa Senior Legal Services. I have provided free legal services to seniors in Contra Costa County for almost a decade with my organization and am excited for this new era of promoting housing stability in Concord after the passing of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause. Thank you all for bringing back a revised draft tonight, after overwhelming input from tenants and non-profit tenant attorneys and community advocates asked for significant changes to close loopholes. There are many positive improvements! Thank you for all your hard work in this time consuming process. We are not done yet.
There are a few critical issues that remain, which serve to undermine enforcement of this ordinance and keep it from protecting the lowest income residents in Concord such as:
1. Low-income tenants should not be less protected. Affordable housing properties should not be exempted. I have seen tenants in LIHTC (low income housing tax credit) properties struggle and experience displacement or homelessness when faced with large rent increases.
2. Tenants Should be Protected from Fraudulent Owner Move-In Evictions. Who is an “owner” eligible for an owner move should be clearly defined and finite, and should be limited to people, not businesses.
3. Show a commitment to meaningful enforcement of this ordinance and good government by having the city collect all types of eviction notices. Documentation can help us know and understand the impact this ordinance will have.
4. Do not make arbitrary exemptions to the rent stabilization ordinance. Allowing exemptions to be larger than the protections would undermine the purpose of this amazing new ordinance.
5. Tenants should be able to choose how they defend their rights and not be obligated to go through the petition process. We should reduce barriers to tenants enforcing their rights, not create new ones.
The quality of this ordinance matters as it is about helping working families, seniors, young people, immigrants and BIPOC residents to stay in their homes and not get pushed out of their communities through skyrocketing rents and unjust evictions. It is time for the City to take action to make Concord a more affordable city where all can thrive.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
Victoria Snyder (pronouns she/her)
Supervising Attorney
2702 Clayton Rd., Ste. 202
Concord, CA 94519
Telephone: (925) 609-7900
Fax: (925) 609-7901
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am very, very -in fact, extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote no. WE ARE A NATION OF opportunity. My husband and I bought a little duplex that is rented. He is deceased so I no longer have the benefit of his social security check for my livelihood and needs. I am entirely dependent on the rent from this property. It is well maintained, I pay for the gardener and repairs. My property is sufficiently nice that my current tenants would like me to sell to them and remove the property from the rental market entirely and I may be willing to consider their offer. So many of the rentals in Concord are owned by seniors who depend on this income for our medicines, food, and special needs. It is very difficult maintaining and providing for my needs without going into debt. I have property taxes, insurance which is high, repairs which are expensive, and other costs that are funded by the rents and I live on what is left. I need to replace the fences but the price of materials and labor. Continues to rise that I have now to save another year before I can afford this needed maintenance. And the client base in Concord is determined by the quality of Concord schools. They are among the worse resulting in high income families to prefer WC or PH or Martinez to Concord. As a result, Concord is segregated by economic class. You want accentuate this stratification with these ordinances? There is the claim that we gouge our tenants. There is the claim that we force our tenants to move. Both are lies. We cannot afford to have a vacancy and we adjust our rent increase per the ability of our renters. A cost of living adjustment is the floor below which we will be falling behind in meeting our escalating costs of living and toward poverty NOT the ceiling as you wish to define it. Are your incomes determined by these standards? Are they? While some food prices have come down SOMEWHAT, they are still very high. The price of meat is so high it is now a luxury item. Go to Safeway and compare prices!
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property. The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market. The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach. It may even be unconstitutional.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment.
Sincerely,
A Shafizadeh
From: Kathleen Kern <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:13 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Tenant/Landlord proposals
Dear City Council,
The proposed regulations are too restrictive to landlords. Running a business comes with so many costs already and now the City regulations will come in and swoop the small profits there are when securing investment properties. It takes YEARS to see profits after taxes, insurance, repairs, mortgages….
Yes, we are for protecting tenants, but not at the cost of landlords trying to make it work too. Not reasonable.
Ask yourself if YOU owned a rental if you would be fine with these regulations.
I don’t see how you could be unless you were independently wealthy or already inherited said rental.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Kern
Sent from my iPad
From: Debra McManus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:23 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Comment Letter - Rent Stabilization/Just Cause Ordinance
Dear Joelle,
Please find attached my letter for tonight's Council meeting.
Regards,
Debra
--
Debra Ballinger McManus
Interim Executive Director
United Latino Voices
Need to meet? https://calendly.com/debrabmcmanus
January 30, 2024
Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, Councilmembers Aliano, Nakamura and Hoffmeister, and staff,
I extend the thanks of United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County to the City for bringing back a revised draft ordinance tonight, after overwhelming input from tenants, nonprofit tenant attorneys, community advocates and residents who asked for significant changes to close loopholes. We appreciate that there are a number of positive improvements to the ordinance.
While I’m grateful that we are getting closer to a truly protective rent stabilization ordinance, there are still measures to strengthen to make this work for tenants, especially those with low incomes who have borne the brunt of Concord’s every increasing rents. As tenants are forced to move due to unsustainable rent increases, threats of eviction or an unlawful detainers landlords increase the rents. This means that every month more units that were formerly affordable, are no longer affordable to families and seniors who earn lower wages or live on fixed incomes, which has increased the housing crisis. We have heard from landlords in Council meetings over the years about why Concord needs poor people. In reality, Concord benefits from a diversity of people from all racial, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
Therefore, low-income tenants should not be less protected. This would be the outcome if affordable housing properties are exempted from the ordinance. If there must be a carve-out for certain affordable housing properties, the carve-out should be limited to properties with a current local regulatory agreement that limits rent increase to 4% annually. The current ordinance would exempt future affordable housing properties without current contracts with the City or County.
Undoubtably, you have heard from landlords who do not see why this ordinance is even needed. I’ve seen the posts on NextDoor by a local landlord who is among those organizing other landlords to fight this ordinance. One of the many bones of contention he mentions in his post is restrictions on Owner Move-In Evictions. We suggest giving only owners with 51% interest in the property the right to file an eviction action against a tenant to move themselves in or move in any of their family members, even family members without any ownership interest. However, the owners in question must be real people instead of fictitious business entities. The whole concept of an "owner move-in" eviction is that the owner actually has to move in. Owners are already required to move in for at least 12 months under state law (SB 567).
Please, do not make arbitrary exemptions to the rent stabilization ordinance, such as duplexes with owners living next door. This seems to be a new provision that was never discussed or requested by Council members from the dais. Why do tenants in those situations deserve less protections? Tenants should be protected from this ordinance regardless of who their landlord is.
Another incomprehensible part of this ordinance in its current draft is that tenants defending their rights would be obligated to go through the petition process. Why shouldn’t they be able to choose how they defend their rights? This “administrative exhaustion” requirement would be the first we know of in the state. This addition enables corporate landlord abuses of rent control laws, takes away tenants’ right to access the courts, and does so at the expense of the City of Concord, which will be forced to hear unnecessary petitions.
Finally—and this is important—we need a commitment to meaningful enforcement of this ordinance and good government by having the city collect all types of eviction notices. This Council has been asking for data on displacement and evictions year after year. This is a key piece of data that will give the City real information to enforce this ordinance and to monitor trends in displacement. Doing so requires minimal resources. The City must merely require landlords to file their notices, either through email or in person. To ensure compliance, a defense to eviction must be added when the notice is not filed within seven days of service.
To counter the above-mentioned landlord’s post on NextDoor—arguments you surely have heard—I want to reiterate that the housing affordability crisis is not just a Landlord/Tenant issue. Both sides have a stake in creating a more affordable city and stable housing for families, seniors, and children and in preventing homelessness. To quote UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute:
“Government’s responsibility is to protect the public interest, and it has a rightful role in rebalancing the dysfunctional housing market to restore fairness between renters and property owners.”
It is the role of the city Council to think about the good of the health and well-being of the whole community, not just the profit margins of landlords.
Thank you for your hard work on this ordinance.
In community,
Debra Ballinger
Interim Executive Director
United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County
BALJINDER & DAVINDER ATHWAL
, SAN JOSE CA 95161
DEEATHWAL @SBCGLOBAL .NET
1/30/2024
City of Concord
And Council
Re: Rent control
I would like to say that rising cost of living is affecting everyone weather you are homeowner, landlord or tenant. We do need to stabilize rising cost of living but not burden landlord with all the expenses especially small landlords where they cannot keep up. Our leaders do need to look deeply into the matter before they finalize the rent cap.
Mom & pops keeps their rent below market - This needs to be justified to bring to market rate.
Mom & pops don’t pass on expenses to tenants – this needs to be justified.
According to the rent registry last year – rents were raised ONLY around 5% in the city of Concord.
Landlords keep up with their property, so they don’t occur severe damages.
Landlords don’t want tenant turnover they want long term tenants.
Just cause – This should be clarified its big question mark should be spelled out. Landlord should be able to move into the property they own.
Being landlord expenses don’t go away and our rents are already below market. I had my roof replaced a couple of years ago, I had to install security gates around my property because homeless are out of control, last year alone the parking lot was repaired & fence replaced. When will I recover this cost of repairs. Pg & E just raised prices over 20%, not to mention property insurance, everything is going up.
A rent cap should be in place but for the future, and plus CPI where property owners can keep up with their rentals.
Thank you so much for reading my agendas.
Davinder Athwal
Fremont St, Concord.
From: Carrie Sherring <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization Vote
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about the draconian measures in your latest rent control measures. These new stipulations are clearly based on stereotypes and assumptions and not actual realistic data.
The major assumption is that all landlords are wealthy, greedy gougers. Though some exist, this is far from the realistic norm.
I am particularly concerned about the extreme relocation fees included single family homes rentals and new no-fault owner move in restrictions. Data show the majority of landlords are "mom and pop" owners, often renting out their former home for a variety of reasons other than greed. This includes limited time rentals for reasons such as temporary job assignments or moving in with a family member who needs caretaking. Your measures would make it far more advantageous to leave the house empty during that time, rather than offer additional housing for rental. As we all know, housing withdrawn from the rental market will drive up rents, ultimately hurting tenants.
In my case, as my elderly mother became unable to care for herself, I moved in to help her in her final years. My contractor asked to rent my house during that period. Despite having a higher household income than mine, I have charged far below market rate since it was a temporary rental, and I have been very flexible with minor lease violations.
Being a single senior myself with a very modest income, I could never afford to save up enough for the extreme relocation costs you are proposing. Although I've had an excellent relationship with my tenants, I will now have to take every opportunity to push for a voluntary move out as my only hope of being able to move home. I would likely do this through the highest legal yearly rent increases and enforcement of the smallest violations in the lease. This makes me very sad as we had a great, mutually advantageous arrangement.
Relocation costs of $3000 plus the value of 4 months rent (there is nearly always a child, senior, or disabled person in a house rental, which requires the 4th month) is simply unmanageable for mom and pop landlords, and far exceeds other cities' progressive rental measures.
Please stop erroneously assuming all renters are poor and all landlords are rich, and pass reasonable rental stipulations. These proposed measures will result in an eventual reduction of housing availability which is the last thing Concord needs. Homeowners are also your constituents and deserve consideration!
Thank you for modifying your draconian rental restrictions and voting no.
Carrie Johnson
From: Baltazar Cerda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 12:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause
To the Concord City Council,
I have always believed in members of society helping one another, but not at the expense of one part having to give up rights in order to do so.
The rules being proposed are so restrictive that they take away the freedom of the property owner and leaves the decision to government as to what can be done with a property.
How can you feel it is right to tell me I cannot move into my home if I have a need to do so without paying someone to move. It seems to me that my right are being ignored and it is okay for me to be without a home. There is no consideration being given to the owner’s situation and all of the rights are being given to tenants. It seems that you are under the impression that all landlords are wealthy and do not care about the people that rent from them and that every tenant is unable to afford a move and is treated unfairly. That is not the case and you are ignoring that.
I urge you to not pass such draconian and unjust laws.
Sincerely,
Baltazar
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 3:51 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control
Dear City Council,
I am an owner of a 4-unit small apartment building in Concord. I inherited it in 1993. As a small property owner, I have maintained this property to all the standards, codes and regulations that the City of Concord, the County of Contra Costa, and the State of California have imposed upon me for 31 years.
We make a modest income, that has augmented our retirement. In the 31 years, I can count on 1 hand the number of evictions. Our rents have been in line with the average for Concord.
Now, you want to tie our hands. You are trying to limit us, with controls on rents. I have to ask, do any of you OWN income property? What are you going to do to offset costs at your property? I am not part of a large corporation that wants to build low-income housing everywhere. We are already limited on how we can choose a responsible tenant.
The city has now decided to charge us a registration fee, based on number of units. Asking rents, sizes of units, numbers of bed/bathrooms, length of leases. WHY? What agenda is this funding? Another cost that we need to pay, yet you want to cap our rents.
Also, when it comes to Just for Cause Evictions, you have a litany of reasons, actions, and hoops that the landlord needs to perform to get rid of a lousy tenant.
So, if you or someone has actually read this letter, and it gets someone's attention, my vote is no to all of the above issues. Rent Control needs to allow the Landlord to make a reasonable income to offset the costs in Concord and in general, 3% is a joke. I am not sure that you negotiated your last raise, but I am sure you accepted it with a smile. Was it only 3 %. I President of a Board, and we don't get paid, we volunteer!
I have been online for all of the Zoom meetings. You put a 3 min. time on the public's comments. Maybe you should place a time on the council? Last meet went on for 5 hrs. That is certainly one way of getting this to pass, the long the meeting the less interest there is. Many people do work.
I am looking forward to the meet on Tuesday night. I do hope you see the way of the people living in Concord and not just the huge corporations or non-profit developers. There are still people like me living there, paying taxes and contributing to Concord.
I VOTE NO!
Thank you, Christine Black
From: Blake Stokley Properties <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 12:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: AB 1482 already in place. Further restrictions are harming residents and owners
Hello and good day,
I am a first-time homeowner in Concord, and a property manager for the last 10 years in the east Bay Area. I have seen firsthand how additional rent control restrictions have ruined cities like Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, SF, etc..
I wanted to share with you why these additional restrictions will harm the residents, and owners of properties that have worked very hard to save and invest for the "American dream" of homeownership:
1. small owners/operators will sell the property and invest elsewhere. (I'm currently discussing with owners who have invested in the community and their properties, letting me know they will have no choice but to sell with the additional rent cap and just cause restrictions). These are small investors who have worked hard and taken great care of their tenants and properties. This is causing reduced vacancy by pulling units from the market, and deferred property maintenance because material and construction costs rise with inflation.
2. This is harming our community. Don't let a few bad apples effect all residents and owners/investors in Concord. AB 1482 is already in place throughout CA. This is the answer. Go after the landlords who are taking advantage of tenants. Do not make further City-wide ordinances. Look at surrounding Cities such as Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek, Clayton, etc and look at how well kept and clean these cities are. Further restrictions on Concord rent control are unacceptable.
I'd like to avoid confusion by keeping my points above short and simple. I'm in the business and we have a great relationship with our residents and owners.
What's the answer? AB 1482. It's already here. https://caanet.org/topics/ab-1482/
AB 1482 - Statewide Rent Cap
Archives
AB 1482 took effect on January 1, 2020. AB
1482 imposes rent caps on some residential
rental properties in California. It also imposes
“just cause” eviction requirements that apply
after residents have occupied the unit for a
certain period of time. In cities that already
have a rent control ordinance in place (under
the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act), AB
1482 extends rent caps to some additional
housing that is otherwise not covered under
the existing local ordinance. The law exempts
certain properties from the rent caps and
just-cause requirements, including (1) most
single-family homes and condominiums, and
(2) housing built within the last 15 years. In
cities that already have a rent control
ordinance in place (under the Costa-Hawkins
Rental Housing Act), AB 1482 extends rent
caps to some additional housing that is
otherwise not covered under the existing
local ordinance. AB 1482 Tools Calculate How
AB 1482 Affects Your Property Are you
unsure whether AB 1482’s rent cap or just-
cause eviction pro
caanet.org
Thank you for your time, please do the right thing and DO NOT pass further restrictions. I speak from my wife and I's residence/ownership in Concord and our whole staff at Stokley Properties.
I am more than happy to meet with any/all members of the board to discuss further.
Blake Demale
VP Of Operations
Cal BRE #01975614
Stokley Properties, Inc.
Address:
2300 Contra Costa Blvd Suite #110
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
(925) 658-1415 Ext. 4
www.stokleyproperties.net
From: Papanastassiou, Andrea <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 12:29 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin, Tim <[email protected]>; Herrmann, Christopher <[email protected]>; Marcus, Justine <[email protected]>; Hood, Heather <[email protected]>; Petroski, Lianna <[email protected]>; Sparks, Cynthia <[email protected]>; Henderson, Doug <[email protected]>; Goldstein-Siegel, Eve <[email protected]>; Clarke, Jon <[email protected]> Subject: Enterprise letter, Concord Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Dear Ms. Joelle Fockler,
Please see the attached letter from Enterprise regarding the Rent Stabilization Ordinance on the Council Agenda for this evening. We would very much appreciate it if you could distribute this to the Mayor and Councilmembers for their review in advance of the meeting.
Thank you very much,
Andrea
Andrea Papanastassiou
Director
Real Estate Equity
415.400.0980 (o) | 415.429.9776 (m)
enterprisecommunity.com
Real Estate Equity operates under Enterprise Community Investment, an Enterprise Community Partners affiliate
January 30, 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, Sophia Huckabay, Housing Program Analyst, Joelle Fockler, City Clerk
Re: Coral Court and Sunset Pines
Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, Councilmember Aliano, Councilmember Hoffmeister and Councilmember Nakamura,
Enterprise is a national nonprofit that develops technical and capacity building programs, advocates for policies, and delivers the capital to create and preserve affordable housing for low-income families. We serve as a lender in the two properties Eden Housing recently acquired in Concord, Coral Court and Sunset Pines, with the intent of preserving them as affordable housing communities with support from the City of Concord. We also provided technical assistance to support RCD, BART and the City of Concord in the successful award of $21 million from the state’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program to advance Galindo Terrace, a 62-unit affordable housing project, and contribute to the Downtown Corridors Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project. We appreciate the City of Concord’s commitment to affordable housing. We have been proud to partner with Eden Housing as a lender on these properties and position the City to reach its affordable housing goals with technical assistance.
Enterprise is committed to the production and preservation of affordable housing nationwide, and we recognize that maintaining financial security and physical condition of affordable housing developments is critical to the long-term stability and affordability of the residents and the property. We count on our borrowers, the affordable housing providers, to adhere to high standards for property and asset management, to navigate complex and multi-layered regulatory requirements, and to ensure the overall successful performance of the properties.
We are concerned that the City of Concord’s proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance may have the unintended consequence of causing financial and physical distress for mission-aligned owners of these properties who are already struggling with inflationary and other pressures. We urge the Council to exempt affordable housing communities that are subject to a regulatory
From: Lywen Chew <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 12:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for Special Meeting of January 30, 2024 To the City of Concord Council members and City Clerk:
As a concerned citizen, I feel that tenants need protection from unscrupulous landlords.
Both parties in a tenant - landlord relationship have obligations to the other and any rent controls and protections must provide an equitable balance.
I became a Concord, CA landlord in February 2021, after the death of my parents.
The inherited property had been a rental for over 12 years. When I took possession, an inspection found a great deal of deferred maintenance, including dire need of exterior painting, a deteriorating roof and an old HVAC system.
There was also considerable damage caused by the tenants, including a broken dishwasher (door used as a step stool), numerous holes in the wall (the largest almost a foot in diameter), unauthorized replacement of exterior door locks without notification to the property manager, a great deal of interior and exterior dry rot caused by an unreported broken tile shower wall in one bathroom and in another bathroom, careless use of a shower curtain, a large broken mirror (42h x 84w) which was professionally removed due to safety concerns, and broken and missing closet doors.
Since February 2021, I have incurred expenses of close to $150,000.00, to maintain and repair the property and pay property taxes, insurance and HOA fees. I have collected $93,600.00 in rent, which is a LOSS of $56,400.00 since taking ownership.
The rent was raised once, in November 2023, by 5%. Hearing that the rent cap is the lesser of 3% or 0.6% of CPI and that rents may be rolled back to January 2023, is very discouraging. The insurance and property tax rose 2.9% in the last 12 months and the HOA increased by 9.4%. The figure of 9.4% is indicative of the high cost of labor and materials.
I do not know when, if ever, I will ever recoup the expenses I have incurred as I am now 67 years old.
To the members of the council who support the new proposals, I ask you to consider what actions you would have taken, if this was your property.
Additionally, regarding the "unjust eviction" I feel that an owner has a right to occupy their own property whether they are a senior, disabled or terminally ill. I do not feel an owner has a right to evict a tenant under the guise of occupying the property but their true motive is to move someone in at a higher rent. Those are matters that need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
In summary, tenants and landlords have rights and obligations. It is important to draft rules that are clear and have robust enforcement and appeal policies in place, that can be processed on a timely basis. I hope that the City of Concord works purposefully and wisely, to ensure that Concord continues to be a place where tenants can live peacefully and landlords can provide needed housing on a fair and equitable basis.
Thank you for your time.
Appreciatively,
L Chew
From: Zhen B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 1:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control Proposal- please respond
Hello Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council-
As an owner of a single rental I am extremely concerned about the rent control proposal. This is not at all what I expected from the Concord Officials when I voted in the local election.
The new proposed rules especially around the just cause eviction, relocation payments, restrictions around the owner move in, temporary relocation payments you proposed keep me in a severe anxiety state.
I urge you to exclude small landlords that only have one rental in Concord from these requirements.
I worked extremely hard and took a financial risk and denied myself many things to be able to have a rental property. And now it seems I am punished. I feel the proposal strips me and my family off our fundamental right of freedom to live in my home if need be, and will impose a huge financial burden.
The Ordinance attachment is a very lengthy document and is not easy to understand. I have a lot of questions that are not answered, and I would like to get answers before it goes into the effect. Who can answer my questions in detail? I previously emailed every Council Member asking for a reply and only received a reply from Mr Birsan and Ms Barone.
I ask you again to please not move forward with it. I feel like I have no option now but let go of my rental.
Please advise who can answer questions in detail ? Thank you
Sincerely,
Evgenia
From: Anti-Eviction Mapping Project <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 1:58 PM
To: [email protected]; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter from the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project re rent program
Dear Concord City Council Members,
The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project formally submits a letter (attached) calling upon the Members of the Concord City Council to require landlords to submit copies of eviction notices as part of the proposed rent program.
The collection of eviction notices by the City is:
• An obligation to the renters within the city,
• Supplies a critical metric to evaluate the wellbeing of your constituents, • In step with Concord’s neighboring cities in the Bay Area.
Sincerely,
Members of the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project Bay Area Chapter
January 30, 2024
T o:
Edi Birsan, Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Vice Mayor
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Dear Members of the Concord City Council,
We, the members of the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project (AEMP) Bay Area Chapter, call upon you to require landlords to submit copies of eviction notices as part of the proposed rent program.
Failure to include this requirement would significantly undermine the purpose of this program, and we urge the City Council to reconsider its decision.
The AEMP Bay Area Chapter is a data-visualization, critical cartography, and multimedia storytelling collective that documents dispossession and resistance upon gentrifying landscapes. We have years of experience analyzing and mapping eviction trends across the Bay Area, using eviction notice data collected by rent programs.
This requirement is effectively standard practice already in the Bay Area – 13 out of 15 cities with local just cause measures require landlords to provide such data. We urge the City of Concord to collect data regarding eviction notices as a minimal-effort step toward tracking rates of displacement of your very neighbors and bolstering the accuracy, efficacy and purpose of the City’s existing rent registry. Just as residents are required to register a change of address, so must there be a requirement for landlords to register an eviction notice. It should be a basic requirement of governance because it allows the City to implement effective housing policies and programs.
Such data tracking would demonstrate a gesture of due-diligence owed to Concord residents and your constituents. Neglecting to collect eviction notices demonstrates a blatant disregard for the disruptive effects of eviction. Whether such disruptions occur on a personal, community, neighborhood, or city-wide level, the effects of eviction are harmful. Collection of eviction notices would better inform the City of these harms and allow it to mitigate them. For example, we know that landlords often create fake notices to push residents to self-evict in cases where they do not have justification for an eviction. Requiring filing would be a simple step to discourage such moves, which, we know, disproportionately target low-income people, immigrants, and people who do not speak English as their primary language. How can the City Council make effective policy decisions that advance the wellbeing of Concord without such a basic metric as eviction notices? We firmly believe that collecting eviction notices is a baseline necessity to ensure that the City’s rent program, and tenant protection policies in general, are working as intended. 1
Again and with urgency, the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project Bay Area Chapter underscores the importance of collecting and tracking eviction notices as an obligation to the renters within the city, as a critical metric to evaluate the wellbeing of your constituents, and in step with Concord’s neighboring cities in the Bay Area.
Sincerely,
Members of the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project Bay Area Chapter www.antievictionmap.com
2
From: Stephanie Bergin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:59 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Stabilization and control
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote no.
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination. Flawed housing policy (rent control) is the reason why rents are too high, not because housing providers are greedy.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property, costs of maintenance and materials have gone up over 50%! If you must cap the rent increases, consider doing so in a fair manner.
Corporations and mom and pop landlords are not the same. For those of us who are very small businesses, please consider less stringent rent caps, at the very least to 5%!
The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market. The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment that will ultimately shrink available housing and make rents higher.
Stephanie Bergin
From: Karen Nemsick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Special Meeting 1/30/24 - Public Comment
Dear Mayor Birsan and Councilmembers Aliano, Hoffmeister, Nakamura, and Obringer,
I'm writing today not only at the Director, Housing Justice at UWBA but also as a Bay Area resident who firsthand sees the daily experiences of the thousands of families who rent their homes in the region. Thank you for your diligent work to craft rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies that will protect Concord families from the displacement, stress, and instability associated with high rent increases and eviction.
These policies, including rent stabilization and eviction prevention, will protect many families in Concord. This includes applying the same 3% rent cap to all LIHTC buildings and clarifying the definition of “owner” to prevent excessive evictions.
Throughout the Bay Area region, is has become considerably more difficult for families to make ends meet. According to our Real Cost Measure, over 125,000 families in Contra Costa County are paying 30% or more of their annual income on housing. When we speak with low-income parents in Concord, we consistently hear that the cost of rent is the factor putting them over the edge and the looming threat of an unjust eviction leads to chronic stress, putting parents and children at a higher risk for mental and physical health problems.
Strong rent stabilization and just cause policies will come as a huge relief to Concord families, allow children to thrive in their community, and ultimately reduce homelessness.
Thank you for delivering the policies Concord families need. These policies support Concord’s commitment to be a city where families come first. We look forward to partnering with you to educate the community about these new policies moving forward.
Sincerely,
Karen Nemsick
Karen Nemsick
(
She/Her
)
Director, Housing Justice Initiative
United Way Bay Area
|
uwba.org
415.808.4313
550 Kearny Street
|
Suite 510
|
San Francisco, CA 94108
1400 Parkmoor Avenue
|
Suite 250
|
San Jose, CA 95126
Give. Advocate. Volunteer.
Follow Us On Social Media
|
HERE
From: Brian Ibarra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 2A
Hello Concord City Council and City Staff,
My name is Brian, a renter in Concord’s district 2 and am excited for what is to come for Concord after the passing of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause. We thank the City for bringing back a revised draft tonight, after overwhelming input from tenants and non-profit tenant attorneys and community advocates asked for significant changes to close loopholes. We see some positive improvements!
Yet, there are a few critical issues that remain, which serve to undermine enforcement of this ordinance and keep it from protecting the lowest income residents in Concord such as:
• Low-income tenants should not be less protected. Affordable housing properties should not be exempted.
• Tenants Should be Protected from Fraudulent Owner Move-In Evictions • Show a commitment to meaningful enforcement of this ordinance and good government by having the city collect all types of eviction notices.
• Do not make arbitrary exemptions to the rent stabilization ordinance. • Tenants should be able to choose how they defend their rights and not be obligated to go through the petition process.
The quality of this ordinance matters as it is about helping working families, seniors, young people, immigrants and BIPOC residents to stay in their homes and not get pushed out of their communities through skyrocketing rents and unjust evictions. It is time for the City to take action to make Concord a more affordable city where all can thrive.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
Sincerely,
Brian I.
From: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:33 PM
Subject: Please include the attached comments in the public record for today's meeting.
Please include the two attached comments (one from me, the other from my husband) in the public record for today's City Council meeting.
Thank you very much, and have a great day.
Maria & John De Sousa
Good evening:
We urge the City Council to take this proposed “Rent Control idea” to the residents of Concord and put it on the ballot. Let the people decide, and respect their will, rather than have the Council Members push their radical ideas, and forever destroy Concord.
We all want Concord to be safe and well-maintained for people to live and thrive. We don’t want to follow Richmond or Oakland’s mentality. Landlords already have a very challenging business, as it is.
As we all know, we had a rent moratorium for almost 3 years (from 2020 to 23).
After the 3 years, the moratorium was lifted, and we were allowed to adjust rents keeping in mind the implemented AB 1482 laws. It is inconceivable that you want us to go back and return that money. That would mean four-PLUS years without adjusting rents, when we’re going through major inflation times. This is reckless mentality and further proves the City’s intentions to destroy the landlords business.
A lot of the rentals in Concord were built in the 50's, and major renovations are required. Whether it’s electrical updating, sewers embedded in cement slabs, roof replacements, remodelings, etc, these are major expenses that we are faced with, and cannot be ignored. With rent caps like you are proposing, there is no money left for such repairs.
We refuse to be put in a position where we cannot maintain our properties or provide basic services to our tenants.
Landlord’s voices are being ignored. Our concerns are not being addressed or taken seriously. You must hear us, and apply common sense and responsibility to your decisions.
These vicious ideas you are trying to dictate, will force us to be “Slamlords”.
It reflects the immaturity of YOUR leadership, and is a perfect example of governing abuse of power.
Good evening,
This rent control ordinance is too serious and impactful to allow the City Council to decide alone.
We must put it on the ballot and allow ALL the residents of Concord to vote on this matter. Residents need to be part of this critical decision since this will affect every homeowner in the City of Concord, and the community.
You start your meetings pledging “liberty and justice for all”, but what you are doing is the exact opposite!
Your role as council members, is to be fair and just to both sides. Not to ELIMINATE one side. If you pass this ordinance that’s exactly what will happen, as you will force a lot of small landlords out of business. You are siding with outside group pressures and influences to achieve your personal goals. This is abuse of power! 60% of CPI translates to only 2.5% increase. That is NOW! However this is not a realistic inflation rate, and as CPI goes lower, the annual rent increases going forward, will be A LOT less than that. No business can survive with these demands when inflation is at an all-time high.
2% doesn’t even cover the annual increase in property taxes, let alone all the other increases that have been hitting the landlords, like Insurance, LABOR and MATERIALS, utilities, City fees, etc, which some went up by as much as 100%.
Also, CPI does NOT include Construction Materials and Labor costs in the index basket, therefore the CPI index is not an accurate measure to use for our type of business.
Housing providers cannot provide basic services to their tenants, when expenses keep “sky rocketing”, and the City’s DICTATORSHIP says we can barely adjust rents. AB 1482 is already in place to limit the amount of rent increases, and it provides a lot of protections for tenants.
You stand in front of us and want to pass such extreme rent laws, when you know very well that what you are proposing is not ethical. There’s no “freedom” of choice, and it’s definitely not “Justice” for all. We are going on self-destruction mode here!!!
From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Cambero, Antonio <[email protected]>; Roberto Lopez <[email protected]> Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Email for January 30 Concord City Council Meeting- Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction
Kelly
Please share the following with the City Council.
Dear City Council:
I am writing once again to voice my concerns about a proposed city based rent control ordinance in Concord. These comments are my comments as a private person and the owner of a small (10-unit) apartment complex. They are not necessarily the views of any organization of which I am a member.
I am very concerned that the rent control ordinance as drafted will be a disaster. It will model Concord after Oakland, Richmond and San Francisco. This will be a failure to all concerned. It will not happen over night, but it will happen. Look at Oakland - crime is up, sports teams are leaving and now even well- intended In and Out Burger is leaving. Look at San Francisco - businesses are leaving, vacancies are up, crime is up, quality of life is down. Richmond - a whole other set of circumstances, but unable to attract new businesses. Rent control is but one issue, but certainly a leading indicator.
I am so upset that you do not see the disaster that 60 percent of CPI is. Please try to understand what it takes to provide housing and how much it costs to do so and stop punishing small private landlords for the misdeeds of large corporate landlords.
Our rents are far below market across the board as a result of COVID. Now we are being locked into those low rates with no relief. We need reasonable gross income to address the expenses, all of which are increasing much more that even 100 percent of CPI. Our property taxes alone are close to two months of rental income. Our insurance company has left the state. City required fees are increasing.
Utility costs including water and sewer are increasing faster than your intended rents, and maintenance costs are through the roof. We have had a period due to COVID where inflation was as high as 9.2 percent year-over-year and at the same time could not increase rents. We have increased rents once during this period and are now very much below market. We have two bedroom units with rents as low as $1,660 and other two bedroom units at $2,065. With two covered parking spaces, backyards and laundry in the units, market rents are easily $2,300. Please do the math. How many years will it take to bring exiting tenants up to today’s market rents, much less tomorrow’s market rent? At 60 percent of CPI, more than 10 years! And by then market rents will be perhaps 40 or 50 percent higher than they are today as market rents historically exceed CPI. Today we are 25 percent below market with our units at $1,660 per month. In 10 years if we increase rents at 60 percent of COI, we will be 40 to 50 percent below market, all the time suffering costs that are increasing faster that rents.
I have been reading about bad employers being accused of wage theft. I am feeling like what you are doing is RENT THEFT. Our tenants are fine and can afford the rent. They have disposable income that they are not reporting and you have come to the conclusion that they are suffering. They are not
suffering and do not need rent control. A number of our tenants are sending money to their families in their home countries. Others are building houses in their home countries and will return there when they retire to live in housing which is debt free. At the same time you are asking me to subsidize them as a private property owner.
Please take a step back and see what is really happening here. I feel you are listening to the proponents of rent control, and not addressing the real concern of housing providers. It being a housing provider was such an easy task, I am sure the City would build housing if its own and benefit from the massive income after expenses that you believe private housing providers receive.
Please understand what you are doing and make the annual rent increase 100 percent of CPI with a 5.00 percent cap.
James Dye
On Jan 30, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning,
Please note that there is a typo in the message that was sent this morning.
You can send in comments prior to the meeting, if received before 3:00 on JANUARY 30th they will be distributed to Council and posted on the agenda website prior to the meeting. You may also make public comment during the meeting, if you are present in person at the meeting.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: http://www.cityofconcord.org (925) 671-3032 | [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
From: Rush, Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 8:23 AM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: RESENDING - January 30 Concord City Council Meeting- Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction
Good Morning,
Concord City Council will continue its deliberations of the rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions during its meeting on Tuesday, January 30, 2024 (today).
The City Council (Council) held a public hearing on rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies on December 12, 2023 (Agenda Item 4a) which was continued to January 9, 2024 (Agenda Item 6a), and further continued to a special Council meeting being held on January 30, 2024. The public is invited to provide public comment on the revised draft Ordinance at this meeting, prior to Council deliberation.
At the January 9, 2024 meeting, Council directed staff to make various modifications to the draft ordinance, requiring the production of a revised draft ordinance, and continued the public hearing to a special meeting on January 30, 2024.
The staff report documents, revised draft ordinance and agenda for the meeting are available on the City’s agenda page.
The meeting on January 30 will be begin at 6:30 PM and will be held in Council Chambers at Concord City Hall, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord. You can send in comments prior to the meeting, if received before 3:00 on December 30th they will be distributed to Council and posted on the agenda website prior to the meeting. You may also make public comment during the meeting, if you are present in person at the meeting.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3032 | [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
From: Tram Hoang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:51 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: PolicyLink Recommends Eviction Notice Collection
Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers,
On behalf of PolicyLink, I am writing to urge you to collect eviction notices as a part of your forthcoming rent program. Across the country, regardless of geography or size of jurisdiction, we have heard tenants and fair housing advocates discuss the lack of transparency surrounding the eviction process. Through our many collaborations, especially in our work supporting local jurisdictions with the implementation of tenant protections, we know how difficult and time-intensive it is for even the most skilled staff members to locate accurate eviction data. Fortunately, collecting eviction notice information represents guaranteed access to the most up to date, complete and accurate sense of resident mobility.
Furthermore, eviction notice collection equips legal aid organizations and fair housing advocates with the information they need to protect tenants when landlords conduct unlawful evictions or take advantage of loopholes. We see this in the implementation of AB 1482, where landlords evict tenants and claim it is for owner move-in or substantial rehabilitation purposes. Without eviction notice collection, advocates are unable to react promptly to support tenants in understanding their rights, or ensure that the landlord is following through on their claims. Given that the City of Concord is anticipating minimal program staffing, it is clear that a significant portion of enforcement work will fall to these organizations. As such, the City should be equipping them with information to implement this ordinance and protect the rights of tenants.
Requiring the collection of eviction notices is a straightforward and common-sense decision. The potential benefits to local government, community-based organizations, and tenants heavily outweigh the cost and staff capacity – which is minimal, as reported by staff from similar departments in comparable cities.
Please see attached for our full letter of support for eviction notice collection.
Thank you,
Tram Hoang
Tram Hoang (pronounced “Trom”)
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Senior Associate, Housing | PolicyLink
Phone: (510) 663-4391
Email: [email protected]
Website l Twitter l LinkedIn
January 30, 2024
Tram Hoang
Senior Associate, Housing
1438 Webster Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers, On behalf of PolicyLink, I am writing to urge you to collect eviction notices as a part of your forthcoming rent program. We already know that just cause eviction protections work to uphold rent stabilization and prevent avoidable evictions – especially for Black and Brown communities that have long faced displacement, disinvestment, and exclusion. However, the key to creating these outcomes is strong implementation of the ordinanceand the program elements that are required for its success. For that reason, I urge you to require landlords to submit copies of eviction notices to the city as a part of the rent stabilization ordinance.
PolicyLink is a national research and action institute dedicated to advancing racial and economic equity for 100 million Americans living in poverty — particularly those who face the burdens of structural racism — so that all Americans can participate in a just society, live in thriving communities, and prosper in an equitable economy. PolicyLink is guided by the belief that the solutions to the nation’s challenges lie with those closest to these challenges: when the wisdom, voice, and experience of those traditionally absent from policymaking drive the process, profound policy transformations emerge. Our team has worked with dozens of groups across the country working to advance rent stabilization and tenant protection policies at local, state and federal level.
Across the country, regardless of geography or size of jurisdiction, we have heard tenants and fair housing advocates discuss the lack of transparency surrounding the eviction process. Through our many collaborations, especially in our work supporting local jurisdictions with the implementation of tenant protections, we know how difficult and time-intensive it is for even the most skilled staff members to locate accurate eviction data. Fortunately, collecting eviction notice information represents guaranteed access to the most up to date, complete and accurate sense of resident mobility.
Concord City Council should follow the best practice of eviction notice collection set by other Bay Area municipalities, and by doing so, continue to uphold its standard of consistent data collection and evidence-based policymaking. Eviction data, paired with the information collected from the Residential Rent Registry Program, will equip the City with data points it needs to better understand local housing market conditions and renter experiences. Knowing where rental units are located is not enough - the City must dig deeper to understand when, where and why evictions are happening so that it can continue to address disparities in housing access and community stability.
Furthermore, eviction notice collection equips legal aid organizations and fair housing advocates with the information they need to protect tenants when landlords conduct unlawful evictions or take advantage of loopholes. We see this in the implementation of AB 1482, where landlords evict tenants and claim it is for owner move-in or substantial rehabilitation purposes. Without eviction notice collection, advocates are unable to react promptly to support tenants in understanding their rights, or ensure that the landlord is following through on their claims. Given that the City of Concord is anticipating minimal program staffing – just 2.5 FTEs to start – it is clear that a significant chunk of enforcement work will fall to these organizations. As such, the City should be equipping them with information to implement this ordinance and protect the rights of tenants.
Good governance and policymaking are made possible by an understanding of resident experiences. If it fails to collect eviction notices, the City will squander an opportunity to deepen its awareness of local housing trends and patterns, especially those relating to housing discrimination and displacement.
Requiring the collection of eviction notices is a straightforward and common-sense decision. The potential benefits to local government, community-based organizations, and tenants heavily outweigh the cost and staff capacity – which is minimal, as reported by staff from similar departments in comparable cities.
On behalf of PolicyLink, I urge you to join us in prioritizing the needs of those most impacted by the current housing crisis by requiring the collection of eviction notices as a component of the upcoming rent program.
Sincerely,
Tram Hoang
Senior Associate
From: Adam Poe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:54 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 2A
Hello.
Please find the attached in advance of this evening’s meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
Adam
Adam Poe | Pronouns: he/him | Managing Attorney | Bay Area Legal Aid | Contra Costa County Office | 1025 MacDonald Ave. | Richmond, CA | (510) 903.2616
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and is legally privileged. The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use or disclosure is prohibited. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, please destroy the email after advising by reply that you erroneously received it. The receipt by anyone other than the designated recipient does not waive the attorney-client privilege, nor will it constitute a waiver of the work- product doctrine. Thank you.
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Genevieve Richardson
Executive Director
Serving the counties of Alameda ♦ Contra Costa ♦ Marin ♦ Napa ♦ San Francisco ♦ San Mateo ♦ Santa Clara 1735 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612 ♦ Phone: 510.663.4755 ♦ www.BayLegal.org
January 30, 2024
Dear Concord City Council:
Thank you for your hard work on the Tenant Protection Program and for your engagement of the community and impacted individuals and families. I write today in hopes this body will continue its careful consideration of community need and best practices in slowing evictions and displacement and will implement additional changes to the current version of the ordinance, as described below.
Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) provides free legal services for very low-income residents of Concord and all of Contra Costa. Our attorneys regularly see families facing eviction after receiving unreasonable rent increases, and for dubious claims of owner move-in and substantial renovation. We are concerned that absent the below amendments, among others, this ordinance will fail to slow the displacement of BIPOC families, seniors and disabled community members caused by evictions and sudden and unreasonable rent increases.
1. Tenants Should be Protected from Fraudulent Owner Move-In Evictions through the establishment of minimum occupancy standards (3 years) and by specifying who is an “owner” for the purpose of evicting current tenants.
2. Show a commitment to meaningful enforcement of this ordinance and good government by having the city collect all types of eviction notices and requiring landlords to file them with the city prior to commencing an eviction action.
3. Tenants should be able to choose how they defend their rights and not be obligated to go through the petition process. This unnecessary procedural requirement will hinder tenants’ seeking recourse from the courts to address illegal landlord practice. This “administrative exhaustion” requirement should be removed.
Our colleagues at Movement Legal and “Raise the Roof” more fully address the above in their January 29 correspondence and we additionally share their concerns regarding coverage for all low-income properties and the unnecessary carve-out of certain duplex properties from rent control protections. Thank you for your consideration of the above. Please let me know if any questions or concerns, I can be reached at 510.903.2616 and at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Adam Poe
Managing Attorney
Bay Area Legal Aid
From: Renee Zeimer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: SUPPORT - Municipal Code Amendment for Residential Tenant Protection
Dear Council Members;
I am writing in SUPPORT of the Municipal Code Amendment for the Residential Tenant Protection Program to increase "just cause" eviction protections, expand Concord's rent registry and establish a rent stabilization program.
Stable housing is by far the biggest challenge for low-income families in Contra Costa County.
The measures you are considering tonight will go a long way to addressing the problem within your jurisdiction.
I urge you to adopt the residential tenant protections under consideration.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Renee Zeimer, Chair
Contra Costa County Economic Opportunity Council
Public Sector Representative, District 2
Email: [email protected]
From: Jean Claude (JJ) B. Mallein Jr. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:57 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization
Dear Mayor Birsan and City Council,
I am a concerned housing provider in Concord and while I oppose the rent control ordinance in its entirety, I am gravely concerned with the rent rollback, rent cap and complete loss of banking.
Rent Rollback
I believe the rent roll back is inherently unfair. We have already spent the money we have received from any rent increase on ongoing operating expense increases and budgeted future expenses based on current rents.
Rent Cap
I have reviewed the historical CPI and I believe everyone is aware the target inflation rate for the Fed is 2%. By way of example, here’s a table of the current ren increase limits for the City of Antioch, which has an almost identical rent cap formula:
Over the last 10 years, 60% of CPI has NEVER gone over 3% and has been as low as .67% with a median of 2.10% and an average of 1.98%. As of today, we are trending to a cap of less than 1.56% and based on the Feds target inflation rate of 2%, the expected “average” rent cap would be 1.20%.
I am not aware of any business or investment where an average 1.98% revenue growth would be acceptable or reasonable. Money market accounts with no operating expenses and no risk are currently paying between 4.35% and 5.15%. I believe 3% would be the bare minimum acceptable and reasonable revenue growth, and I believe that 4%-5% would be appropriate and reasonable to hedge ongoing operating expense increases.
Councilmembers have received ongoing information and data from property owners regarding double digit expense increases. I just received a notice from PGE that rates “would increase by 24% compared to current rates.”
Concord’s current proposed rent cap is clearly too low to allow housing providers to make any return, let alone a reasonable return, and a “Fair Return Petition” is not a practical or realistic solution to this since housing providers would be required to pay “all City costs associated with such petitions…” If a
housing provider is compelled to file a Fair Return Petition, they are obligated to advance an unknown sum estimated to be in the thousands (likely $,5000) without any guarantee of reimbursement, and even if the housing provider prevails, they are effectively reimbursed each month over the following year. How can a mom and pop housing provider afford this. Moreover, a Fair Return Petition is a “lagging” benefit since it would only be filed after a housing provider has not made a reasonable return for the prior year without adjustment for operating expense increases in the current year, so a housing provider is never able to have sufficient revenue to cover the current operating expenses.
Rent Banking
When Concord conducted the town hall meetings and received feedback from Landlords, Landlords were unanimously against any rent control and did not even address specific rent control/rent stabilization components. This was then used as a justification to abandon rent banking in its entirety. If a housing provider is not able to “bank” rent increases, then this will guarantee annual rent increases since it’s created a “use it or lose it” situation.
Accordingly, I request that the Councilmembers adopt the following:
1. Rent Cap: fixed percentage increase between 3%-5% without any reference to CPI
2. Rent Banking: allow rent banking
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: Ali Uscilka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:56 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment
Good afternoon Madam Clerk,
Please see the attached letter of support for rent stabilization and just cause policies in advance of this evening’s meetings.
Thank you,
Ali Uscilka
Program Director | Healthy & Active Before 5
1035 Detroit Ave, Suite 500 | Concord, CA 94518
office: 925.265.6507 | cell: 801.391.1027
email: [email protected] | www.hab45.org
Healthy & Active Before 5 is a Contra Costa collaborative that advances health equity for children ages 0- 5 and their families.
January 30, 2024
To: Concord Mayor and City Council
From: Healthy & Active Before 5, CocoKids, FIERCE Advocates, CoCo Doulas, United Way Bay Area, The Black Parents Resource Center
Dear Mayor Birsan and Councilmembers Aliano, Hoffmeister, Nakamura, and Obringer,
We are writing to you as service providers and organizations who see firsthand the daily experiences of the thousands of families who rent their homes in Concord. Thank you for your diligent work to craft rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies that will protect Concord families from the displacement, stress, and instability associated with high rent increases and eviction. You have done the hard work of balancing the needs of multiple constituencies, and recognized that keeping working families housed in Concord is essential for the city’s economic and cultural well-being.
We wholeheartedly support these policies in their strongest form, to protect as many families as possible. This includes applying the same 3% rent cap to all LIHTC buildings, and clarifying the definition of “owner” to prevent excessive evictions.
As service providers, we know that it has gotten considerably harder for Concord families to make ends meet. When we speak with low-income parents in Concord, whether they are concerned about the costs of food or struggling to find childcare, we consistently hear that the cost of rent is the factor putting them over the edge.
Unpredictable and high rent increases make it nearly impossible for families to cover their basic needs without worrying about staying in their homes. The looming threat of an unjust eviction leads to chronic stress, putting parents and children at a higher risk for mental and physical health problems.
Strong rent stabilization and just cause policies will come as a huge relief to Concord families, allow children to thrive in their community, and ultimately reduce homelessness.
Again, thank you for your leadership and for delivering the policies Concord families need. These policies support Concord’s commitment to be a city where families come
first. We look forward to partnering with you to educate the community about these new policies moving forward.
Sincerely,
Michelle Mankewich, concerned community member
Oniana Jahmora, concerned community member
Paula James, concerned community member
Monica Joseph, concerned community member
From: Mihaela Gough <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Strong Support for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance Dear Members of the Concord City Council,
I am writing to you as the Managing Attorney for Centro Legal de la Raza, with extensive experience representing tenants in Contra Costa County. I have witnessed firsthand the challenges faced by tenants due to the absence of just cause eviction protections and rent control in the City of Concord. I strongly support the proposed ordinance for rent stabilization and just cause evictions, but I also urge the Council to make crucial improvements to ensure the effectiveness and inclusivity of the ordinance.
Improvements Needed on Draft Ordinance
1. Equal Protection for Low-Income Tenants and Affordable Housing Properties:
• The ordinance should not provide less protection to low-income tenants. • Affordable housing properties should not be exempted. If any exemptions are necessary, limit them to properties with current local regulatory agreements that limit annual rent increases to 4%.
2. Protection Against Fraudulent Owner Move-In Evictions:
• Allow only owners with a 51% interest in the property to file eviction actions for owner move-ins.
• Ensure that the owners in question are real individuals, not fictitious business entities.
3. Meaningful Enforcement and Data Collection:
• Demonstrate a commitment to meaningful enforcement by having the city collect all types of eviction notices.
• Monitor trends in displacement by requiring landlords to file notices, allowing the city to ensure compliance and provide a defense to eviction when notices are not filed promptly.
4. Tenant's Right to Choose Defense Mechanism:
• Allow tenants to choose how they defend their rights, without being obligated to go through a burdensome petition process.
5. Avoid Arbitrary Exemptions:
• Eliminate arbitrary exemptions, such as those for duplexes with owners next door, which may undermine the effectiveness of the ordinance.
Countering Landlord/Real Estate Voice & Influence
• Rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies are not solely tenant concerns; they address broader community issues. The City Council must consider the well- being of the entire community, preventing homelessness and ensuring stable housing for families, seniors, and children.
• The current status quo is not working, and it is imperative to recognize that rent stabilization is a positive step toward addressing the housing affordability crisis.
Twelve other Bay Area cities have already taken action.
Consumer Protections in Today's Rental Market
• The rental market has evolved, necessitating consumer protections. The rapid increase in rents, outpacing wage growth, underscores the need for safeguards similar to those present in other sectors.
• Most homeowners enjoy their form of rent control through fixed-rate mortgages, highlighting the necessity for comparable protections for renters.
Rent Stabilization Benefits Concord's Social and Economic Health • Reasonable rents contribute to residents' disposable income, benefiting the local economy.
• Families with more affordable rents can enjoy more time together, positively impacting both parents and children.
• Rent stabilization policies ensure a fair return on investment for landlords and allow for petitions in cases of extenuating circumstances or major renovations.
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to adopt a robust rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinance while considering the suggested improvements. This ordinance will not only protect the rights of tenants but will contribute to the overall social and economic health of Concord. Your commitment to this cause will undoubtedly create a more affordable and stable community for all.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
--
Mihaela Gough | pronouns: She/Her
Managing Attorney, Tenants' Rights
p: 510-244-4314 | c: 925-335-6477 | [email protected] *As of July 10, Centro Legal started a 4-day workweek. Our staff will work Monday through Thursday. Our offices will be closed Fridays. | A partir del 10 de julio, Centro Legal inició una semana laboral de 4 días. Nuestro personal trabajará de lunes a jueves.
Nuestras oficinas estarán cerradas los viernes.
SUPPORT CENTRO LEGAL!
From: Courtney Pal <[email protected]>
Date: January 30, 2024 at 2:45:43 PM PST
To: "Huckabay, Sophia" <[email protected]> Cc: Linda Mandolini <[email protected]>, Chris Johnston <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Stabilization Letter
Sophia: Please see attached for a letter from Eden, RCD, and CHW regarding the rent stabilization ordinance under consideration tonight. It has been sent individually to members of Council, and we would also like to see it included in the public communication packet.
Best,
Courtney
Courtney Pal | she/her/hers | Policy Manager
Resources for Community Development
2220 Oxford Street | Berkeley, CA 94704
RCDHOUSING.ORG | 510 841 4410 x334#
January 26, 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, Sophia Huckabay, Housing Program Analyst, Joelle Fockler, City Clerk
Re: Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinance
Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, Councilmember Aliano, Councilmember Hoffmeister and Councilmember Nakamura,
We write again to request that the affordable housing projects in Concord are not subjected to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance but instead amend the ordinance to create a specific provision for affordable housing developments that are regulated by other City or other Government entities (as defined below.)
We appreciate that in its deliberations, the Council understood that among the problems we face is the challenge of conflicting regulatory agreements from other affordable housing programs that have different expectations and requirements that pose potential challenges with the City’s proposed new ordinance. We also strongly urge the Council to consider an alternative rent increase limit and oversight process that recognizes that the rents being charged by the affordable housing developments are also below Fair Market Value and subject to underwriting requirements that the ordinance would override, potentially jeopardizing the financial structures of the properties in the City’s affordable housing program. This is a serious concern for us as owners and for our lenders and investors, all of whom relied on a myriad of program underwriting requirements and, in several cases, the City’s approval of its own loans and the financial structure of the deal. Lastly, we all want the affordable units in the City to serve the households most in need of the benefit. To that end, several of our funders have requirements that provide for the increase of rent to Fair Market Value or rents tied to Tax Credit rents when tenants’ incomes exceed the income requirements of the programs intended to benefit low- income households. We believe the ordinance should allow us to implement the regulatory remedies for this problem. We propose the following specifics changes to the ordinance:
A. Expand the Definition of Affordable Units:
“Affordable Units” shall mean Dwelling Units restricted by deed, regulatory agreements or other agreement with a governmental agency or joint powers authority, as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined under the regulatory agreement associated with the specific governmental program.
B. Provide a Different Rent Increase Cap for Affordable Units:
Annual rent increases for Affordable Units shall be limited to five percent (5%) unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or their affordable housing program designee.
C. Create a different review process for rent increases for affordable housing.
Affordable Units/Projects shall submit annual rent increase requests and budgets to the City Housing Staff or other staff designated by the City Manager for review and approval. This submittal may include a request to increase rent over the amount otherwise allowed per this ordinance. Request to increase rent above the rent increase cap shall be reviewed and approved by the City Manager or their designee within 10 business days of receipt. The owner/sponsor shall submit a justification and documentation for any rent increase exceeding the cap, and the City Manager or designee shall approve such a request if the rent increase meets any of the following criteria:
1. The rent increase is given to a household certified as over-income and the unit is regulated by any government body that has a regulatory requirement related to rent adjustments for over- income tenants. The City Manager shall defer to the prevailing regulatory agreement with respect to required adjustments for over-income tenants.
2. The household receiving the increase currently pays less than 30% of monthly income in rent, and the household would continue to pay 30% or less of monthly income in rent after the rent increase.
3. The rent increase is due to the termination or exhaustion of project-based rental assistance or operating subsidy.
4. The rent increase is required to ensure the stability and continuity of the development as affordable housing for low-income persons, as determined by the City Manager or designee.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a rent increase in an Affordable Housing Unit that is less than 5%, as allowed pursuant to [Section] of this ordinance.
D. No rent rollback: Affordable Housing Units/Projects as defined above shall be exempt from any provisions that require a reset or rollback of current rents.
We would like the Council to consider these amendments as we believe they will ensure the ongoing feasibility of the projects we have worked to create as affordable housing and provide protection to the tenants that is consistent with the Cities’ goals and the regulations of other government entities that provide financing to the City’s affordable housing projects.
Thank you for consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Linda Mandolini Dan Sawislak Sean Spear
President & CEO, Eden Executive Director, RCD President & CEO, CHW
From: Joe Summers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Joshua Anijar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Letter in Support of Rent Control in Concord
Dear Mayor Birsan and Councilmembers,
Attached, please find a letter from the Contra Costa Labor Council in support of strong rent control policies in the City of Concord.
In solidarity,
Joe Summers
--
Joe Summers (He/Him)
Campaign & Political Director
Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO
[email protected] | (707)398-1772
P.O. Box 389
Martinez, CA 94553
January 30, 2024
Mayor Birsan & Council
Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Mayor Birsan, Vice-Mayor Obringer, Councilmember Aliano, Councilmember Hoffmeister, and Councilmember Nakamura:
Thank you for the council's work towards a policy of rent stabilization and just cause for eviction. Concord’s working families have been asking for relief from skyrocketing rents and unfair evictions and we are grateful the council will be finally addressing their needs.
Twelve other Bay Area cities have passed rent stabilization ordinances to confront the affordability crisis and it is long overdue that Concord take action.
The price of rents in Concord rose 62% between 2011 - 2021, double that of inflation and greatly outpacing wages. Exorbitant and unjusti fied rent hikes are making the working class collectively poorer.
More can be done to protect Concord’s working families and that is why the Contra Costa Labor Council supports strong renter protections and stands with Raise the Roof in these endeavors. We are hopeful to see commitments in this current proposal to cap rents and make sure that single family homes are covered under the Just Cause ordinance.
Now is the time to ensure Concord seniors, children and families can stay housed. Concord working families are struggling from the impacts of in flation,
unjust evictions and high rent increases. We have been deeply disturbed to learn that the number of unhoused students in Concord's public schools increased by 15% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 school years. We can do better.
We need a strong ordinance to protect Concord families, seniors, and children from homelessness. It is the role of the city council to think about the good of the health and well-being of the whole community, this rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policy begins to do that. The Contra Costa Labor Council supports strong renter protections and we urge you to pass those safeguards.
In Solidarity,
Josh Anijar
Executive Director
Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO⧫ PO Box 389, Martinez, CA 94553⧫ (925) 357-9447Page 261 of 285
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote NO. You might not realize it but your action is going to be instrumental in the destruction of a thriving community in Concord.
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property. The relocation fees are gouging and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market. The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is a direct violation of property rights of owners and government gone very wrong.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment. You will be judged as orchestrators of destruction of Concord, California by generations to come.
The following people submitted the above email:
1. Ramen Suri
2. Radhika Oberoi
Dear Mayor Birsan 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,
The following people submitted the above email:
1. Wallace Freddie
2. Anthony Freddie
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote NO.
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers.
Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that
93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner - initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property. The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market. The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach.
I understand that rent control is intended to protect low-income tenants from being priced out of their homes. However, it is important to note that small landlords, such as those who own duplexes and fourplexes, rely on rental income to fund their daily activities. If rent control caps rents too low, it could cause financial difficulties for these landlords.
Let's work together and come out a solution that can be fair to both tenants and the small landlords.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment.
The following people submitted the above email:
1. Edward Zhao
2. Emily Tang
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote no.
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property. The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market.
The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment.
The following people submitted the above email:
1. Anton Zavrin
2. Stephanie Orloff
3. Marvin Remmich
4. Benjamin Lenz
5. Joyce Kelly
6. Piteh and Ellen Shen
7. Shawn F. Willis, Walnut Creek, CA
8. Heidi Hornberger
9. Rose [email protected]
10. Marisa Ashworth
11. Jason Ryer
12. Rita Akol
13. Warren Wen
14. Josefina P Yanga
16. Ron Navarra
17. Wing and Yun Wu
18. Melanie Charron
19. Wali Fedaie
20. Annie Chia
21. Bob Baptiste
From: Alyssa Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 2A
Hello Concord City Council and City Staff,
My name is Alyssa Kang and I am a Community Organizer for California Nurses Association. I am excited for what is to come for Concord after the passing of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause. We thank the City for bringing back a revised draft tonight, after overwhelming input from tenants and non-profit tenant attorneys and community advocates asked for significant changes to close loopholes. We see some positive improvements!
Yet, there are a few critical issues that remain, which serve to undermine enforcement of this ordinance and keep it from protecting the lowest income residents in Concord such as:
1. Low-income tenants should not be less protected. Affordable housing properties should not be exempted.
2. Tenants Should be Protected from Fraudulent Owner Move-In Evictions
3. Show a commitment to meaningful enforcement of this ordinance and good government by having the city collect all types of eviction notices.
4. Do not make arbitrary exemptions to the rent stabilization ordinance.
5. Tenants should be able to choose how they defend their rights and not be obligated to go through the petition process.
The quality of this ordinance matters as it is about helping working families, seniors, young people, immigrants and BIPOC residents to stay in their homes and not get pushed out of their communities through skyrocketing rents and unjust evictions. It is time for the City to take action to make Concord a more affordable city where all can thrive.
Thank you for responding to the community and tenants most impacted by housing insecurity.
In Solidarity,
Alyssa Kang (she/her/hers)
Community Organizer
National Nurses United
[email protected]
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
Benched Correspondence Received After
3:00 p.m. on January 30, 2024
Agenda Item No. 2.a
January 30, 2024
From: maritza llanos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 3:20 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control meeting
Hello,
My name is Maritza Llanos and My husband Isidro Llanos. We have been living in Concord for over 38 years and have worked very hard to try to live a life without having to be a debt to society. We NEVER ask for assistance in anyway, even with a lot of our Health issues etc. My husband and I have worked all of our lives very hard, two jobs sometimes three to support our Children and so that we can have, a little something at this point in our lives to supplement a little for our retirement, since we would not be getting much from anywhere else besides our social security.
My husband came here as an immigrant over 50 years ago, became a citizen and worked very hard, his whole life to be able to retire at this point in time, without having to have anyone else, give him a hand out.
We’ve always instilled in our three adult children , we have to be a contributor to society, not a debt to society. Contributor meaning, work hard so that you can live by the fruits of your labor when you retire.
You don’t have to be rich, but at least you can get by, taking care of yourself without having to ask for assistance from anyone.
No one owes anyone anything no one is entitled to a hand out, you need to work hard and earn it.
We pay our taxes on our rental just like everyone else does but feel those of us who own one condo or one residential property should not be punished and having to take care of someone else’s personal needs or circumstances.
I understand Concord is being pressured to make rules and regulation on rental control because of political agendas and reasons being the city getting sued for not having rental control however, we need to just make sure we try to be as fair as possible on both sides, especially for the moms and pops that own just one property and have been Working very hard to at least try to maintain a property for supplemental retirement.
We should not be punished because of the corporate companies or companies in general wanted to make this a business.
Why should we have to pay a tenant if we give them more than sufficient enough notice to move, due to the fact, my husband or I having health issues and needing to move back into our own property, why would we be punished and have to assist them in their cost of moving?? no one would be assisting us with my move. honestly, this is all absolutely ludicrous and I’m hoping we are able to resolve this where it would be as fair as possible for all.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Frederick Orantes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 3:49 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control is a negative
Please do not approve rent control in Concord. It is a failure for the mom and pop homeowners and historically been a disaster for the community.
Thank you
Fred Orantes
From: Kristin Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinances for Tonight’s Meeting
VOTE NO!
This is not a class issue, this is not a race issue, this is an economic issue. The separation that tenants rights orgs have inserted into this debate makes no sense. Emotion does not and cannot replace facts.
RENT STABILIZATION
- is a fancy name for rent control also known as price fixing - When called by it’s name, we can all see it for what it is… trouble - City councils such as this one often make four mistakes:
• Mistake #(1) they assume that they have one “client” (that is the poor hapless tenant), instead of recognizing the reality that as elected officials they are helping shape policy for ALL residents and this includes landlords.
•
• Mistake #(2) they assume a “open” economic system (that is a decision to take from one area does not have an impact in another), instead of recognizing the reality that it is a closed economic system - if you make a change in one place (ie hold rental prices fixed) you impact another place (ie landlords cannot pay their bills and contractors are DISincentivized to build - making housing shortages worse).
•
• Mistake # (3) they learn nothing from facts (which don’t care about your feelings). That is they ignore how rent control has failed EVERY time and EVERY where (see 15th century Florence, 17th Century France, and in modern time 1920s NY, and 1970s CA. And •
• Mistake # (4) they never have to feel the impact of the consequences that flow from their bad policy decisions.
•
• - Looking at Mistake #3 - the fact that rent control has and will always fail to “secure housing against potential homelessness”, we see clearly on this chart why rent control fails - it creates housing shortages by keeping rental prices artificially low • there’s a great article explaining this at https://www.biggerpockets.com/blog/rent-control- does-not-work-but-the-government-keeps-doing-it#
JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION
- this has the same problem that rental price fixing has. Government interference in the free market. As we just discussed, the market self-corrects. Interference leads to “unintended consequences”, including landlords pulling property from the market to avoid these interferences in their contracts. And protect their property rights (eg to have a college child move home). - Tenants are not hapless piglets that need to be coddled in rental contracting and landlords are not big bad wolves.
- Tenant demands, not governmental terms, should set housing terms in contracts.
Kristin A. Diaz
510-282-3067
From: Patty Garaventa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 5:00 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed rent control - please vote NO
Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,
I am extremely concerned about your strict rent control proposal and urge you to vote no.
I maintain my position that the development of this disastrous ordinance has been predicated on false allegations that Concord housing providers gouge renters and terminate tenancies in mass numbers. Don’t ignore the fact that your own rent registry data shows that in 2022 rent increases were at or below the state-mandated rent cap outlined in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, passed as AB 1482, and that 93.8% of tenancy terminations were due to renters voluntarily moving out and not due to an owner-initiated termination.
Your revised rent control ordinance has gone too far by capping rents so low that a housing provider will struggle to maintain the property. The relocation fees are excessive and will deter housing providers from keeping their units in the rental market.
The new attempt to require a percentage of ownership to constitute an owner move-in -- plus residency requirements and a 1:1 provision -- is more government overreach.
Please look at the data and reject this ordinance. Do not subject Concord to a damaging housing environment.
Regards,
Patty Garaventa, Member
Z Family Investments, LLC
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 7:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control in Concord
Dear City Council members of Concord:
I have been following with great distress the hearings about imposing new rent controls in the City of Concord. I am a small landlord in the city of Concord. I started investing in real estate at a very early age and worked extremely hard to build a small real estate portfolio. I am now retired and depend solely on my rentals in Concord for my retirement income. I have watched as landlords have been subjected to new fees and inspections every few years, new supplemental taxes, and various other takeaways in an apparent effort to eat away at our hard earned income. As a rule, I have refrained from rent increases for existing tenants and would only raise rents at move-out time, after upgrades and repairs for new tenants. If you impose further rules and restrictions, I will be forced to raise rents to the maximum allowed to avoid falling behind which is just one of the effects of rent control. I exchanged my properties in San Francisco to Concord to avoid the onerous rent control laws enacted there many years ago. Large developers and landlords eventually took over a large percentage of rentals in San Francisco, evicted tenants and raised rents or sold them as condominiums at great profits. I implore you to moderate your decisions regarding rent control in Concord, bearing in mind the damage you will do to the small landlord, and the inevitable net negative effects on tenants. We do not want to become another San Francisco, the city I grew up in, in many respects a now failed city.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
JM
Rent Stabilization and Just
Cause for Eviction
CONCORD CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 30, 2024
1
January 30, 2024
The City Council held a public hearing on rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies on December 12, 2023, which was continued to January 9, 2024, and further
continued to a special Council meeting being held tonight, January 30, 2024, to enable additional public input and Council deliberation.
2
Recommended Action
1. Direction from Council on the following matters pertaining to just cause, no-fault evictions for owner move-ins:
a) Percentage of ownership required to constitute an owner move-in.
b) The length of time an owner is required to reside in the unit after moving in.
3
Recommended Action
2. Introduction of a revised Ordinance amending the
Concord Municipal Code by amending Concord Municipal
Code Chapter 19.40 “Residential Tenant Protection Program” to increase “just cause” eviction protections, expand the City’s rent registry, and establish a rent stabilization program, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. 4
January 9 City Council Meeting
At its meeting held on January 9, 2024, Council provided feedback to staff on the previous draft ordinance:
• Accessory Dwelling Units: only permitted ADUs are
exempted
• Permanent Relocation Assistance Amount = 3X HUD Fair Market Rent + $3,000 (moving stipend), with 1 month of
increased assistance for protected tenants
• Any violation of the ordinance is defense to an unlawful detainer
5
January 9 City Council Meeting
(Cont.)
At its meeting held on January 9, 2024, Council provided feedback to staff on the previous draft ordinance:
• Owner Move-In: if tenant household being displaced contains a member that is disabled, senior, or terminally ill, the owner moving in must also be either disabled, senior, or terminally ill • Fair Return on Investment provisions include language similar to that of the City’s current Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance • Ellis Act is intended to be fully implemented
6
January 9 City Council Meeting
(Cont.)
At its meeting held on January 9, 2024, Council provided feedback to staff on the previous draft ordinance:
• Exempt affordable properties from rent stabilization provisions which have annual rent increase caps which are documented in agreements with, and enforceable by, the City or other governmental agencies
• Remove rent stabilization retroactivity clause and replace with a rent rollback clause that resets rents to January 12, 2023 levels with any allowable lawful rent increases
7
Affordable Housing with Existing Rent
Increase Percentage Cap
•Coral Court and Sunset Pines- 4% per year
rent increase cap
•County Agreements- 5% per year rent
increase cap
•Rick Judd Commons (under construction and not
subject to rent stabilization provisions)
8
19.40.020 General Applicability of
Chapter; Exemptions (b)(3)
Dwelling Units that are either restricted by the City or other governmental agency as affordable housing for persons or families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code to the extent that such Dwelling Units are subject to rent increase
restrictions equal to or less than five percent (5%) annually and enforceable by the City or other governmental agency pursuant to a deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement, or other recorded document.
9
Next Steps
Tonight’s Decision Important Dates
If the revised draft ordinance is introduced on
January 30, 2024:
• Staff will return to Council on February 13 for
ordinance adoption
• Ordinance to “go live” as of March 14, 2024
If Council provides additional direction and
continues the item to the February 13, 2024:
• Council introduces item on February 13, 2024
• Council adopts ordinance on March 5, 2024
• Ordinance to “go live” as of April 4, 2024
10
Next Steps Continued
11 • February 27, 2024: Staff will return to Council with a modified Rent Registry fee schedule and budget adjustments for the new staff positions as part of the Mid-Year Budget review.
• December 2024: Publish the 4th Annual Rent Registry report which will be the first report under the new program (the 3rd annual report is anticipated to be published in February of 2024).
• January 2025: Staff to make a six-month program update presentation at a Council meeting.
Questions?
12