Agenda packet — Concord City Council, February 13, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

Please also know that Council will be deliberating on the item at their meeting on February 13, but that public comment during the meeting has been closed as it occurred on January 30th.

I will share your e-mail and this response with the full Council as part of the public record for the meeting on February 13th. The staff report for the February 13th meeting will be posted on the City’s website no later than 5pm on Friday February 9th.

Again, thanks for writing in.

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: Jim and Ginny Harrington <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 4:27 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization

Dear City Manager Barone:

We strongly oppose the Rent Stabilization law that the City of Concord is trying to pass.

My husband and I are RPOs in Concord. We have worked very hard to pay off our house and have been renting it for many years. We are both retired and this has been a source of income for us. We have had the same renters for many years and have not increased the rent for quite a while because they are taking care of the property and are good renters. We don't need the government stepping in trying to

Page 72 of 262 ends

control the rental market. If this passes, you are disincentivizing anyone from having single family rental property. Rent stabilization does not make housing more affordable for new renters who will face higher market-driven prices.

James and Virginia Harrington

Page 73 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 1:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental property issues

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

I am a small housing provider (mom and pop landlord). Housing has always been expensive, when I purchased my first home in 1980, I was paying 44% of my income and 12.25% interest.

Things are the same today.

Rent is no different than all services or goods we consume. Stop paying the water bill, and you lose service, pay late and you pay a fine. We hear “Rents are to Dam High” and your response is to increase the costs of the product. Taxes go up 2% every year. Insurance is up 20% this year.

Water/sewer rates go up over 5% every year. Loan interest has doubled in 3 years.

Why is Concord raising the cost of delivering housing and at the same time placing severe limits on cost recovery?

The average household income in Concord is $107,000. The average rent is $2,450, which is 27% of monthly income. Now I ask. Why adopt policies for households making over 100k annually? I want my cable and cell bill to go down. You should pass a law.

When a rental is worn out and in need of a complete renovation, the most economical method is to vacate the property. When the tenant moved from my 2-bedroom cottage which had no major updates in 35 years. The repairs/ updates cost $68.000.00. Kitchen, bathroom, windows, furnace, flooring, and paint in and out which took 4 months. Concord wants to add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost by adding relocation fees. This will drive up costs even more!!!

Paying “RENT” is purchasing time in a property. In who’s “REALITY” does anyone get their time back? That is what Concord is asking Landlords.

Adopting onerous rent control and eviction policies will only drive up the cost of housing by driving small landlords that deliver 70% of the rental housing to sell out to new homeowners.

This will reduce the rental housing supply.

Please, for the sake of all, do not raise the cost of delivering needed housing.

Respectfully,

Clayton Engstrom

Page 74 of 262 ends

From: Cleo Constantin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control. A terrible idea

Dear Councilpersons and City Officials:

Please DO NOT vote on rent control in Concord. Implementing a more stringent rent control than the state already has is not a sound decision, and I’ll tell you why.

Studies have verified that rent control, as it may benefit some renters in the short term, only hurts everyone in the long term. It’s simple Economics 101 – a course that all politicians should be required to pass before they are elected to office. It wouldn’t hurt you all to take a refresher course.

Assar Lindbeck, a Swedish economist who chaired the Nobel Prize committee for many years, reportedly declared that rent control is “the best way to destroy a city, other than bombing.”

• Rental property owners are selling to builders for different uses, removing units from the market. Some big players are investing in other states. • Construction of new units stops as the cost/benefit makes no sense • YOU will only be creating more of a housing crisis
• Rent control is rare because history shows us it doesn’t work as intended. • Rent control is a short-term fix for current residents at the expense of long-term affordability for a much broader population—this from a Stanford economist.

Page 75 of 262 ends

From: Geoffrey Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 2:40 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject: Food for thought for the City Council on rent control ordinance

Kelly
Per our conversation I'm listing several concerns with the rent control ordinance being passed by the City Council.

I know that the ordinance is essentially completed and that the ownership groups and California Apartment Association have sent in numerous concerns about it. I'm listing some concerns that have probably already been voiced by others but need to be reviewed by the Council, plus a few that may not have been voiced:

1. The allowable rent increase is structured to always be below the CPI. Since sixty percent of CPI or a maximum of 3% will be between a .6 to a maximum of 3%, the negative could be anywhere from .4 to 2 upwards. This has a very negative effect on the profitability of a property, especially since the CPI being used to calculate the allowable increase is made up of numerous items; many of which have little movement and some that have large movement i. e. Utilities, labor, insurance etc. Thus, while the overall CPI may go up only a percent or 2 those items which are essential to a property may go up double digit like insurance rates have in the past few years. All of those items are extremely costly and make up a large portion of a property's operating expenses, thus creating a situation where rent increases are capped at a much lower rate than the "actual" operating expenses are increasing. This has a huge accumulative effect on the profitability of a property.

2. The multifamily industry has historically financed their properties on 7-to-10-year loans that of course have to be refinanced every 7 to 10 years. Many owners refinanced a few years ago when interest rates were historically low. Those loans will be coming due in the next few years and many owners will have problems refinancing those loans. This is due to several factors including a huge loss in value on a property with restrictive income increases. Buyers of residential properties often times buy a property using values created by the CAP Rate method.

This valuation is extremely affected by loss of NOI i.e. a property with a $600,000 NOI and a CAP rate of 4 would be valued at $15,000,000.00. That same property with a reduced NOI of 10% or $540,000 and the same CAP rate of 4 would only be worth $13,500,000.00. This lost value is not only important in selling the property, but also in refinancing it as well. Most lenders want a debt coverage of 125 to 150 meaning the property cash flows 125% to 150% more than the mortgage payment. Since mortgage rates are several points higher than when they last refinanced this lost NOI becomes way more important. (It is also very likely that rent controlled properties will be valued using a higher CAP Rate than a conventional property. Even a 1-point increase drastically affects the value. Using the above example, an NOI of $540,000 and a CAP rate of 5 would result in a value of only $10,800,000.00 which would require most owners to fund millions of dollars of their own money to pay off their old loan)

3. Some of the immediate side effects of the currently projected ordinance would be deferred Maintenace, staff reduction, and the selling of the property to developers that would tear down the property and build new units at the zoning maximum which I believe is much higher than the older properties. This results in a reduction of lower priced units and the new units are outside of the rent ordinance. You only have to look to San Jose to see this....in 2017 there were approximately 49,000 units covered by Rent Control. Today there are only approximately 38,000. That is a 22% reduction. Understand that owners are not in business to lose money so

Page 76 of 262 ends

this loss of affordable units would be happening rapidly, especially since the City has no major plan to increase affordable housing through building new properties at affordable rents. San Jose recognized the need to do this and has partnered with companies that build these types of properties and I believe it is prudent for Concord to do so too. i. In summary, the current projected rent ordinance has the potential to create the problem you are trying to solve more than it has the potential to improve it.

The City should be working with the ownership groups on a sustainable solution to the need for more, not less, affordable housing. There are many other issues with the current proposed ordinance, however, the above-mentioned ones are extremely important. By forcing the ownerships to very likely begin to lose money in a couple of years, the City may be tempting fate. b. Thanks
Geoff Nelson

Page 77 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 10:00 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: oppose rental restrictions

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.

Sincerely,

Dwight Cotten

Page 78 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 10:04 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: oppose additional rental restrictions

Dear Mayor and City Council,

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

The ordinance was written without economic justification. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities. Did you know Republic Services (garbage service) is increased their rates by 19.5% starting January 2024 due to SB 1383.

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

This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?

Many of “mom and pop” landlords are exchanging out of their California single family rentals to other states that don’t impose overbearing rental restrictions. Those sold units in Concord are

Page 79 of 262 ends

now owner occupied, not investor owned. Concord is losing a good number of rental units every year because of this. Do you want this to continue or get worse?

I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and remember that your own rent registry report found that rents in Concord are accessible to low-to-moderate income households and working families. Please reject the rent and eviction control ordinance.

Dwight Cotton
Single Family housing provider for over thirty years.

Page 80 of 262 ends

From: Bruce Holly Linsenmeyer <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 10:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NO on Rent Control

To the City Clerk of Concord;
We ask for your NO vote on rent control. We own two
small condominiums. This rent control will harm us and our tenants. We have not raised rents in the past
several years, but will be forced to start raising them.

Our costs are higher every year. Insurance has
doubled, our property taxes have raised, our HOA has
been raised considerably every year.

We want to keep our two small units looking nice and
being comfortable for our tenants, our fear is we will
not be able to do this.

One of our tenants was assaulted just outside of her
door, so we installed a camera for her safety. It was
not something that is legally necessary, but something
they wanted to do. If all these rent issues are passed, we would not be able to afford to do these kinds of
things.

We are a retired couple and bought our two units to
supplement our living income during retirement. As we
all know Social Security is not really enough to live
comfortably.

Page 81 of 262 ends

We are considering downsizing to one of these units
eventually. If "No cause eviction" is put in place, we would not be able to do that.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Bruce & Holly Linsenmeyer

Page 82 of 262 ends

From: Jim and Ginny Harrington <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rent Stabilization

I would also like to add the following statement:

Why would an RPO have to pay a renter to move? This is insane. If I choose to sell my rental to cover expenses that may incur (medical bills, etc.) why should I have to pay the renter? This is completely unfair to the RPO!!!
Thank you for listening to my concerns.

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 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 the February 13th 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: Jim and Ginny Harrington <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 4:26 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization
Dear City Clerk:

We strongly oppose the Rent Stabilization law that the City of Concord is trying to pass.

Page 83 of 262 ends

James and Virginia Harrington

Page 84 of 262 ends

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 7:38 PM
To: Bruce Holly Linsenmeyer <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: RE: NO on Rent Control

Dear Bruce & Holly Linsenmeyer,

Thank you for forwarding your thoughts on what policy direction you desire the Concord City Council to take when they continue with their considerations of a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance at their Tuesday, February 13th Council Meeting.

Your letter will be shared with all five Councilmembers and put into the public comment packet.

The agenda for the meeting will be posted to the City’s website by end of day this Friday (possibly sooner). Please note the Council took over 4 hours of public comment on January 30th and then closed public comment on the item, so there will not be any new public comment on the topic during the meeting.

Valerie

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

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

From: Bruce Holly Linsenmeyer <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 10:59 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NO on Rent Control

City Manager Valerie Barone;
We ask for your NO vote on rent control. We own two
small condominiums. This rent control will harm us and

Page 85 of 262 ends

our tenants. We have not raised rents in the past
several years, but will be forced to start raising them.

Our costs are higher every year. Insurance has
doubled, our property taxes have raised, our HOA has
been raised considerably every year.

We want to keep our two small units looking nice and
being comfortable for our tenants, our fear is we will
not be able to do this.

We are a retired couple and bought our two units to
supplement our living income during retirement. As we
all know Social Security is not really enough to live
comfortably.

We are considering downsizing to one of these units
eventually. If "No cause eviction" is put in place, we would not be able to do that.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Bruce & Holly Linsenmeyer

Page 86 of 262 ends

From: Avneet Kahlon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 10:08 AM
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: Re: Landlord……Calculation for thought

Dear Council members,

I am grateful for your postponing voting on rent control issue to give the matter more consideration. You are free to contact me to see our rental properties and ask any questions regarding expenses, upkeep etc. We already report rent in the city’s database. Rent control is wrong and I STRONGLY OPPOSE it. Rent control is a dis-insentive for upkeep and thus a guarantee of quality of housing stock to go down.

Regards,
Avneet
925-915-7628

On Jan 29, 2024, at 2:22 PM, Avneet Kahlon <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Page 87 of 262 ends

Hope to persuade you to NOT adopt rent control.

Thanks for your service to the city and us, residents of Concord Regards,
Avneet Kahlon
925-915-7628
1242 Redlands Way, Concord, CA 94521

Get Outlook for iOS

Page 88 of 262 ends

From: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 5:15 PM
To: Phyl van Ammers <[email protected]>
Cc: Ananthan, Stefanie <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Proposed regulations -- February 13

Thank you, Phyl. Your comments will be included in the report packet for Council to consider on 2/13/24. Have a wonderful rest of your evening!

Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager

City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3387 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519

www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com

Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.

From: Phyl van Ammers <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2024 12:57 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed regulations -- February 13

I am a resident of Concord. I own a single family house jointly with my daughter Olga Brick.

I am also employed in Concord.

I support the proposed new housing regulations.

Thank you.

Phyl van Ammers
Staff Attorney

2702 Clayton Rd., Ste. 202
Concord, CA 94519

Page 89 of 262 ends

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.

Page 90 of 262 ends

From: Linda Mandolini <[email protected]>
Date: February 9, 2024 at 7:17:19 AM PST
To: "Birsan, Edi" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Barone, Valerie" <[email protected]>, "Huckabay, Sophia" <[email protected]>, "Brown, Susanne" <[email protected]>, Courtney Pal <[email protected]>, Chris Johnston <[email protected]> Subject: Rent stabilization ordinance

Mayor Birsan,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us yesterday. As promised, I am writing to follow up on the proposed language for the rent stabilization ordinance. We are trying to solve for the challenges the ordinance poses for affordable housing projects, particularly those the City has financed. These challenges include: allowing for rent increases consistent with other funders like the county and the state, having a mechanism to adjust rents on over income tenants, and assuring consistency with the underwriting that was created to assure the long-term financial sustainability of these developments.

Ideally, as we noted previously, our ability to appeal or seek annual approvals, would also be directed to the City Housing Staff as part of our annual budget review. This would provide us a mechanism to substantiate the need for rent increases with professional staff that have expertise in affordable housing.

We are requesting that the city consider the language below. If necessary, we would also be willing to sign amendments to our existing city regulatory agreements limiting our rent increases to no more than 5%. Because our deals involve so many lenders, executing an agreement of this nature could take a few months and require the review of your city attorney, and the attorneys of our other lenders and investors. As the city staff has noted, in the case of Coral and Sunset, we have already agreed to limit our rent increases to 4%. However, projects like Virginia Lane and the other tax credit projects in the cities affordable housing portfolio, like the ones RCD holds in Concord really need the flexibility of being able to go up to 5%, which is consistent with County housing program regulations.

Proposed Exemption Language:
“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 H&S Code if any of the Dwelling Units in the project are subject to the following Rent Increase restrictions: Rent increases equal to or less than five (5%) annually and enforceable by the City or other governmental agency pursuant to a deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement, other recorded document, or (ii) for certified over income Tenants, Rent increases in an amount less than or equal to those permitted under Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) until/if AB 846 (amending Health and Safety Code Section 50199.24 (Low income housing credit: rent increases) is enacted, in which case the provision of the latter shall control, provided that Tenants are not charged Rent in excess of thirty percent (30%) of the household monthly income. The foregoing are referred to herein as the “Rent Restricted Affordable Units”. Tenant, as used for purposes of, means all individuals living in the Rent Restricted Affordable Unit (i.e. the household). Notwithstanding the language in Section 19.40.020(b) above, the Petition process set forth in Section 19.40.050 shall apply.”

Page 91 of 262 ends

Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us on several occasions and discuss our issues. We appreciate your consideration of our views. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have additional questions.

Best,

Linda

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

Page 92 of 262 ends

From: Linda Mandolini <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 7:35 AM
To: Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Courtney Pal <[email protected]>; Chris Johnston <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Rent Stabilization Ordinance

And apologies for the typo at the end of the last sentence I am working with a Rogan right arm and sometimes dictation software doesn’t do exactly what I needed to.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 9, 2024, at 7:30 AM, Linda Mandolini <[email protected]> wrote:

Councilmember Aliano,

I am writing to follow up on the proposed language for the rent stabilization ordinance. We are trying to solve for the challenges the ordinance poses for affordable housing projects, particularly those the City has financed. These challenges include: allowing for rent increases consistent with other funders like the county and the state, having a mechanism to adjust rents on over income tenants, and assuring consistency with the underwriting that was created to assure the long-term financial sustainability of these developments. Ideally, as we noted previously, our ability to appeal or seek annual approvals, would also be directed to the City Housing Staff as part of our annual budget review. This would provide us a mechanism to substantiate the need for rent increases with professional staff that have expertise in affordable housing.

Page 93 of 262 ends

Code if any of the Dwelling Units in the project are subject to the following Rent Increase restrictions: Rent increases equal to or less than five (5%) annually and enforceable by the City or other governmental agency pursuant to a deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement, other recorded document, or (ii) for certified over income Tenants, Rent increases in an amount less than or equal to those permitted under Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) until/if AB 846 (amending Health and Safety Code Section 50199.24 (Low income housing credit: rent increases) is enacted, in which case the provision of the latter shall control, provided that Tenants are not charged Rent in excess of thirty percent (30%) of the household monthly income. The foregoing are referred to herein as the “Rent Restricted Affordable Units”. Tenant, as used for purposes of, means all individuals living in the Rent Restricted Affordable Unit (i.e. the household). Notwithstanding the language in Section 19.40.020(b) above, the Petition process set forth in Section 19.40.050 shall apply.” We appreciate your consideration of our views and ongoing support for portable housing. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have additional questions.

Best,

Linda

Sent from my iPad

Page 94 of 262 ends

From: Alex Werth <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 1:34 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Answers to Council Questions Re: Eviction Notice Data

Dear Concord City Councilmembers,

At the last City Council meeting, a number of questions were raised about eviction data. The topic of both evictions and eviction data can be complex. So, in the interest of bringing clarity to this important debate, I have compiled the attached document to address each of the questions that were raised. The document is broken into two sections. The first speaks to collecting eviction data as part of the implementation of Concord's tenant protection ordinance. The second explains the data that have been cited by EBASE and Raise the Roof in past memos and public comments.

To reiterate, we feel that collecting accurate eviction data directly from landlords is needed to implement and improve upon the policies defined in this ordinance. It does not need to increase the staffing demands or the costs of implementation; simply collecting eviction notices, rather than analyzing or responding to them, is sufficient to make implementation more effective. The attached document explains why.

Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. If you have any further questions that we might be able to answer, please feel free to send them my way.

With appreciation,
Alex Werth

Policy and Research Advisor
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)

Page 95 of 262 ends

1 Q&A on Eviction Notice Data

This document is meant to address questions that were raised at the City Council meeting on January 30, 2024 regarding eviction data. The first section speaks to collecting eviction data as part of the implementation of Concord’s tenant protection ordinance. The second section covers the data cited by Raise the Roof in past memos and public comments. To reiterate, collecting accurate eviction data directly from landlords is needed to implement and improve upon the policies defined in this ordinance. It does not need to increase the staffing demands or costs of implementation; simply collecting eviction notices, rather than analyzing or responding to them, is sufficient to make implementation more effective.

Section #1 - Collecting Eviction Notices

What is the definition of “eviction”?

Matthew Desmond, author of Evicted (2016) and head of the Princeton Eviction Lab, defines eviction as “forced moves…initiated by landlords…in which tenants have no choice other than to relocate (or think as much)” (see p. 1758). Simply put, eviction occurs when a landlord takes any action that leads to the displacement of a tenant; it is not limited to when the Sheriff comes to remove a tenant from their home. Indeed, as explained below, the vast majority of evictions occur without the Sheriff. So, in order to get a true picture of eviction, other data sources must be considered.

Displacement works like a funnel. It starts with threats of eviction. Research shows that many, if not most, tenants “self-evict” as soon as they receive an eviction notice. This is particularly true among low-income people, immigrants, and people who do not speak English as their primary language–all of whom are well-represented among renters in Concord. At the next stage of the funnel, a smaller number of cases will move to the Court, where a landlord must file an eviction lawsuit (also known as an unlawful detainer or "UD”). At that stage, again, many tenants end up being displaced without a real hearing, whether through default or a mediated settlement. From there, an even smaller percentage of cases will result in an actual eviction judgment against the tenant, which is then sent to the Sheriff’s Office to be executed. The only way to understand the true scope of displacement is thus to look at the top of the funnel, and the only way to see what is occurring at the top of the funnel is to collect eviction notices directly from landlords.

Page 96 of 262 ends

2 What information is included in an eviction notice? What data would that give Concord that it does not–or cannot–already get?

The information on an eviction notice includes the tenant and landlord name, property address, type of notice (3-day, 60-day, etc.), cause of action (non-payment of rent, owner move-in, etc.), and, if relevant, amount of arrears. In most cases, eviction notices provide the only accessible source of information on these issues, which are essential to making informed decisions about policies and programs. For instance, there is generally no other source of data on the landlords who conduct evictions, which is useful for identifying frequent evictors and determining whether there are differences in the eviction practices of corporate and small landlords. Likewise, there is generally no other source of data on the cause of action, which is vital for understanding the prevalence of no-fault evictions.

Eviction notices are also especially useful because they provide address-level data, which is needed to identify problematic properties and fair housing concerns. The Court, if it provides any information at all, will generally only do so at the zip-code level, which is not fine-grained enough to make informed policy decisions. The Sheriff, on the other hand, often does provide addresses. But the Sheriff data only captures a minute percentage of overall eviction threats. If Concord does not collect eviction notices, then it will lose out on an irreplaceable opportunity to learn about all of these important issues.

How many cities in the Bay Area collect eviction notices from landlords? Which ones?

13 out of 15 cities in the Bay Area with their own just cause policies collect eviction notices from landlords, including: Alameda, Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Fairfax, Hayward, Larkspur, Mountain View, Oakland, Petaluma, Richmond, San Francisco, and San Jose. This list includes both large cities with extensive rent programs and small cities with few dedicated staff people.

San Rafael and Union City are the only cities with just cause that do not collect eviction notices.

Page 97 of 262 ends

3 Does Concord need to analyze or respond to eviction notices in order for this data to be useful? How might it be useful if the notices were just collected?

The City does not need to analyze or respond to this data for it to be worth collecting. At the last City Council meeting, the City Manager correctly stated that many cities in the region do not just collect notices, but also analyze and/or respond to them–e.g., by sending resources to each of the parties–and that these follow-up steps would require more staff time. These steps would be useful. For instance, analyzing trends in eviction notices would enable the City Council to make more data-informed decisions about policies and programs. But these steps are not required. If the City does not want to increase staff responsibilities, it would still be useful to just collect the eviction notices, without the added requirement to analyze or respond to them.

The ordinance contains important protections and remedies against the bad-faith tactics used by landlords to remove rent-controlled tenants, such as evicting a tenant under the pretext of renovation or “going out of business” and then re-renting the unit to someone else. Under the current staffing structure, however, the City is not going to proactively monitor for violations of the law. It will fall to tenants and legal service providers to identify and combat cases of abuse.

For instance, if a tenant is evicted for “renovation” only to realize that the landlord never made the improvements, they will need to be able to show that the landlord issued an eviction notice for substantial rehabilitation in order to get the restitution to which they are entitled. Likewise, if a landlord is abusing owner move-in evictions by repeatedly claiming that they need apartments for their own personal use, then a tenant will need to be able to prove this pattern. In both cases and more, the ability to enforce the protections included in this ordinance is contingent upon the City collecting eviction notices from landlords.

If the evidence shows that landlords were reluctant to self-report eviction activity before, why do we think that they will follow a requirement to submit copies of eviction notices?

Concord’s rent registry ordinance specifies financial penalties for property owners who “provide incomplete or false information” of the sort outlined below (see 19.40.110(c)). But the City does not actively monitor the data for inaccuracies or pursue enforcement. So in practice, there is no mechanism to actually compel landlords to provide accurate information. By contrast, if the City adds a provision to the tenant protection ordinance that requires landlords to submit copies of eviction notices, then that provision will be covered by the blanket remedy that states that any violation of the ordinance is a defense to an eviction lawsuit. In other words, if a landlord wants to ensure that their attempt to remove a tenant is successful, then they will submit a copy of the eviction notice as a simple, but necessary, procedural step. This is how eviction data collection is run in the other Bay Area cities that require it, because this approach provides the “teeth” to ensure widespread compliance among property owners.

Page 98 of 262 ends

4 Section #2 - Understanding the Numbers

How many eviction cases were reported by Concord landlords between July 2021 and June 2022?

According to Concord’s Rent Registry Report from 2022, landlords self-reported filing only two eviction cases (UDs) during this time period (see Table 4b, p. 6). This was out of all of the units that are subject to the rent registry, or an estimated 8,217 apartments in market-rate complexes that contain four or more units (see Table 5, p. 7).

How many evictions were carried out by the Contra Costa Sheriff during this same time period? How was that information obtained?

On December 21, 2022, EBASE submitted a public records request to the Contra Costa Sheriff for “the number of evictions/writs of possession executed by the Sheriff Department in Concord between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022.” The Sheriff responded with the information the next day. There were a total of 55 evictions carried out during that time period. However, not all 55 occurred at properties that were subject to the rent registry. So, we researched each address and removed 22 evictions in one-to-three-unit properties, since these would not appear in the rent registry. We also removed two evictions at larger properties that were not captured by the 2022 Rent Registry Report because the landlords had failed to register (see Appendixes A and B, p. 9). Through this process, we learned that the Sheriff carried out 31 evictions at properties that were captured by the rent registry, as compared to the two self-reported by landlords.

Sheriff evictions executed in Concord from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 55 Sheriff evictions executed in 1-3 unit properties (not captured by rent registry) 22 Sheriff evictions executed in 4+ unit properties that were not registered 2 Sheriff evictions executed in 4+ unit properties that were registered 31

Is 31 evictions really that many?

At the time, apartment complexes in Concord were covered by the State’s eviction moratorium, which fully expired on June 30, 2022. In other words, those evictions were carried out in spite of statewide restrictions and an unprecedented emergency rental assistance program (ERAP) that was designed to prevent evictions for non-payment of rent. As such, we expect the forthcoming rent registry report, which will cover the twelve months after the moratorium expired, to show an increase in eviction activity. But beyond that, as explained in Section #1, Sheriff evictions only represent a small fraction of the actual number of tenants who are displaced due to threats of eviction.

Page 99 of 262 ends

5 Is comparing rent registry data to Sheriff data akin to comparing “apples to oranges”?

Yes. Ideally, in order to assess the accuracy of the rent registry data, we would compare the two eviction cases that were self-reported by landlords to the actual number of cases that were filed against Concord tenants in the Contra Costa Superior Court between July 2021 and June 2022.

This would be an “apples to apples” comparison. Unfortunately, however, the Court is far more reluctant to provide data than the Sheriff, which is why we used Sheriff data.

What might an “apples to apples” comparison reveal?

According to data collected and reported by the California Judicial Council, there were 1,789 eviction cases filed in Contra Costa County between July 2021 and June 2022 (see Table 5i, p. 129). While this data is not reported by city, it stands to reason that more than two out of those 1,789 cases were filed at market-rate properties with four or more units in Concord. This shows that, while it is not possible to get exact figures, the number of eviction cases filed at properties captured by the rent registry is likely much higher than the 31 evictions actually enacted by the Sheriff during the time period in question. In other words, the extent to which landlords have underreported eviction activity in Concord is actually much more dramatic than the already concerning ratio of 2/31.

Could Concord obtain data from the Sheriff on its own?

Contrary to statements made at the City Council meeting on January 30, 2024 it is possible for the City to request and receive the same data obtained by EBASE. Public records requests can be emailed directly to [email protected]. Moreover, the Sheriff has provided reports to elected officials and the public at meetings of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors in the past. Concord is surely entitled to the same information. But as noted, depending upon Sheriff’s data is akin to focusing on the narrowest end of the displacement funnel while ignoring the rest.

Page 100 of 262 ends

From: W Francis Babitsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 3:30 PM
To: Cityinfo <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control is Bad for the Economy in Concord, CA

Dear Councilpersons and City Officials:

Please DO NOT vote on rent control in Concord. Implementing a more stringent rent control than the state already has is not a sound decision, and I’ll tell you why.

Assar Lindbeck, a Swedish economist who chaired the Nobel Prize committee for many years, reportedly declared that rent control is “the best way to destroy a city, other than bombing.”

• Rental property owners sell to builders for different uses, removing units from the market. Some big players are investing in other states;
• Construction of new units stops as the cost/benefit makes no economic sense;
• YOU will only be creating more of a housing crisis;
• Rent control is rare because history shows us it doesn’t work as intended;
• Rent control is a short-term fix for current residents at the expense of long-term affordability for a much broader population—a statement from a Stanford economist;
• I have not raised my tenants' rents for a few years. I am forced to raise rent after learning the proposed rent control law. This is to cover my upcoming high-price maintenance expenses.

Milton Friedman was an American economist who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He promoted the Laissez- faire theory. Laissez-faire means to leave alone when it comes to

Page 101 of 262 ends

economic intervention by the government. That means no taxes, regulations, or tariffs. Instead, the market is free to be led by the natural laws of supply and demand. Please look at the booming economy in Hong Kong under the British government.

Comparing Hong Kong to Berkeley, where there are restrictive rent control laws. Berkeley looks run down because landlords need money to afford the high repairs and maintenance costs of their buildings. They cannot afford to pay for repairs when they cannot raise the rent.

A small landlord like me needs the rent to supplement my retirement income. Social security benefits alone cannot meet living costs in today's environment. The proposed rent control laws will remove the source of supplement income to our monthly social security benefits. The rent control law has the domino effect of killing the hens to get the golden eggs.

Please DO NOT vote on rent control in Concord. If you must vote, please vote “NO” to the proposed rent control laws. Your “NO” vote will help the economy and thousands of renters living in Concord. Without the rent control laws, landlords do not have to rush to raise rents to cover their expected maintenance expenses.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
Wanyee Francis Babitsky
(415) 533 1628
[email protected]

Page 102 of 262 ends

From: Nancy Thornton <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 12:22 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: rent proposals

Nancy N Thornton
2280 Floyd Ln, Concord, CA 94520
C: 925-864-0035
H: 925-471-0000 * [email protected]

February 12, 2024

City Clerk
City of Concord, CA

RE: Rental proposals currently under consideration

In 2021-2022 I remodeled my art studio into a studio apartment, using my own funds. As I am an older woman, I saw this as an opportunity to create a place for a full time car giver when needed. In the meantime my intention was to reimburse myself with the rent.

In March of 2023, I rented the studio to a young woman who I thought I had vetted. She stopped paying rent in June, 2023, and I sent the first Notice to Vacate in July. I made every attempt to be understanding and to handle this problem in a friendly manner. She kept telling me she was trying to find funds, but no attempt was made to pay any back rent. She paid no rent in August. She asked for an extension of 15 days in September, which I granted her. She finally left, leaving me with a huge pile of trash on the patio and an apartment that was totally gross. I took a loss of $5000, plus the cost of trash hauling and cleaning rather than have her fight me and stay. To this day, no attempt has been made to pay me the money she owes.

Before I rented I searched the internet and wrote the most comprehensive and specific rental agreement I could. What I have learned is that it makes no difference. Destroying your property doesn’t matter, not paying rent doesn’t matter. Once you have a renter they are there to stay if they so choose, rent free, utilities free, and the cost is the landlords, not the renters.

Therefore, I have a lovely studio apartment, fully furnished, that will stand empty. There is no up side to renting anymore. The penalties for the small landlord are too heavy and possibly dangerous.

Sincerely,
Nancy Thornton

Page 103 of 262 ends

From: Sharon Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 4:33 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: No on rent control in Concord

Sent from my iPhone

Say NO to New Housing Regulations in Concord
Tell the Concord City Council to Reject Government Regulation of Private Homes The equity in our home is our security as we age. If we cannot stay in our home because of medical issues we want to rent our home to cover medical expenses. Selling is not a good option because of the tax burden. Please vote no! Sharon Anderson and
Robert Anderson
3550 Torino Way
Concord ca 94518

Page 104 of 262 ends

From: Patti Parke <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 1:44 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed rent control ordinance

Upon receiving the latest information regarding the rent control ordinance, even after previously expressing my concerns regarding the proposals, it seems so punitive to me and so unjust, that I feel I must in order to protect my rights, once again comment. I previously stated I am a retired property manager in the area for over 35 years. I do know the ins and outs of the rental market.

It is my understanding the Smith Hawkins Act protects single family homes, rented condominium units and accessory dwelling units, and units built after 1995, from rent stabilization provisions and not a gift from the rent stabilization board. I have found that the units built prior to 1995 need more maintenance and serious rehab due to age and damage from tenants over the years. These are the units that need rental increases to maintain the units, especially with the increasing costs of supplies and labor. If you want clean affordable housing, the burden should not be put on the owner to run his property into a situation where he can no longer afford to rent the unit, and perhaps, eventually, letting the property go into foreclosure. Several examples I have seen are new plumbing under a duplex, $15,000 – New roof $14,000 – One unit had mold in the walls, total outlay was $18,000. Your proposal is not sustainable.

Your suggestion of the Ordinance establishing/ holding a hearing on rent increases if the owner deemed necessary, if heard by the board that is proposing this ordinance, I fear the panel would be so one sided and blind to the requests or needs of the owner to make a fair and equitable decision.

Finally I find the most egregious of all the proposed ordinances are no fault evictions including single family homes where the owner, if they want to sell or move into their home, paying the tenant anywhere from $8,475 for a studio up to $14,862 for a single family, and if tenant is disabled be eligible for an additional month in moving costs. Honestly, I don’t have this cash laying around. Perhaps the owner is elderly and needs to sell for medical reasons, funds for assisted living, down sizing to a smaller property, college funds for their children, or any personal need. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS….how a small group of people who know nothing about the rental market and owning and maintaining property, dealing with tenants on an everyday basis can inflect such damage control is not the country I live in.

Patricia Parke-Bishop

Sent from Mail for Windows

Page 105 of 262 ends

From: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 2:22 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: FW: February 13- Concord City Council Meeting- Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction

Dear Clerk, please include in council communications as part of the public record for the February 13, meeting. Thanks much, Merle

From: Eric Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 5:55 PM
To: Merle Hall <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: February 13- Concord City Council Meeting- Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2024, 4:18 PM
Subject: February 13- Concord City Council Meeting- Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>

Good Afternoon,

On Tuesday, Feb. 13, the Concord City Council will consider a draft ordinance that would establish rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies. The major features of the proposed laws are outlined below.

In addition, city staff has learned that misinformation about the ordinance is circulating within the community, and we want to clarify that single-family homes WILL NOT be subject to the proposed rent stabilization provisions.

Also, the only aspect of the proposed regulations that would roll back (or be retroactive) to January of 2023 is the rent amount and allowable annual rent increase that multi-family rental properties built before 1995 may charge as the proposed new ordinance takes effect.

Read the proposed ordinance.

Read the Feb. 13 staff report.

View the chart indicating which types of units are covered under each provision of the ordinance.

Public comments can be emailed to [email protected] before 3 p.m. on Feb. 13 to become part of the official record and to be shared with Councilmembers prior to the meeting. Because this meeting is a continuation of the Jan. 30 meeting, and Council has collectively heard more than 12 hours of public comment on this topic, the in-person public comment period has been closed.

Page 106 of 262 ends

RENT STABILIZATION
Rent stabilization would NOT apply to rented single-family homes, rented condominium units, or rented accessory dwelling units. Rent stabilization WILL apply to multi-family rental complexes of 2 or more units built before Feb. 1, 1995.

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). • 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
Just cause for eviction WOULD apply to most rented units in Concord, including rented single-family homes and rented condominium units. Just cause would NOT apply to rented accessory dwelling units.

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. \

Page 107 of 262 ends

• 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. E • 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.

Information on past Council discussions on this topic can be found by reviewing the Council meetings of January 30, 2024, January 9, 2024, and December 12, 2023.

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.

Page 108 of 262 ends

February 10, 2024
Concord City Council

Honorable Mayor Birsan, and Councilmembers,

It has come to my attention that some of my communications to you have not been well received.

For that, I apologize. I’m particularly indebted to Carlyn and Laura H. They understand history, they have listened, they have been thoughtful, and they have advocated for fair and rational action. The rest of you are a mixed bag. Edi has at least listened. Dom and Laura N. have steadfastly avoided any chance of learning any truth that might possibly change their mind. For them, it is never too late. For all of you, I will attempt to calm down and restate my argument for exemption a little less stridently.

You are addressed as “Honorable”. It is in recognition of contributing time from your life in the service of your community. In truth, it is a fiction. Many members of any community are honorable in the sense of providing a service to their community. Included are those who contribute a major portion of their life and take chances in the form of great financial risk, to invest in the provision, renovation, and maintenance of housing for the greater good of all. They can understandably become annoyed if they feel they are being treated unfairly.

Since your last meeting, I have been hearing considerable annoyance from other landlords concerning a lack of fair treatment of landlords in the evolution of this regulation. It sounds like the process has been almost cavalier, mostly engaging tenants. But this regulation doesn’t hurt tenants. It hurts landlords. This is not an “equal time” thing. It is a one-way thing. Don’t just send out surveys that get tossed away. But warn landlords of discussions that could have a debilitating impact on their property investments. Someone should have directed staff to embark on a repetitive notification system. Hit every landlord on the registry, and every landlord not on the registry. Give them a chance to wake up and come talk to you prior to a general panic on the eve of ratification. For not having done that, you may have exposed the city to ongoing conflict.

You might want to table this thing until after the next election. Let it be a referendum on rent control.

The annoyance is consistent with my personal feeling of having been deliberately left out. In my case, I’ve been out of state for most of the last year. So, I blamed my staff for not keeping me informed. But their excuse was that they were not adequately and urgently informed. Now I’m hearing that their concern is widespread.

In my case, the annoyance stems from the fact that, in my mind at least, I’m the most dedicated housing provider you have. Not only have I been in business in this town for nearly 63 years, but I am your resident expert. I’ve not only twice been president of the Realtor Association, I spent years as a college instructor in real estate investments. I’ve bought or sold and managed thousands of units in this market. I have an understanding you will never get, and no one from the city has reached out to me.

In addition, I invested millions to save your largest disaster property, the 472-bedroom Village Green Townhomes. I took it out of bankruptcy, and completely repositioned it in the market. The city, however, became impatient with the speed of my progress and they sued me to clean it up

Page 109 of 262 ends

and to get rid of the gangs and drugs. When the court ordered mediation, it wasn’t the council that showed up, it was the police department. Now you are reversing yourselves. I’m angry.

Yes, in those days the goal was to embrace displacement as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the overall community. It took a bit of time, and a lot of money. But we did that. Now you should see how the cars in the parking lot compare to the cars in the parking lot 20 years ago … and I’m not just talking about the difference in model year. You should also see how the credit scores, and background checks, and job classifications, and household compositions compare to those from 20 years ago. Now you have a fine, secure, vibrant, and beautiful community that you can be proud of, and that provides a high quality of life enjoyed by all its occupants. Say thank you!

What you are undertaking now is just the opposite. You are encouraging retention, but it is not the sort of retention that benefits the community. It is retention that will gradually erode the physical plant and its occupants. But it is a bad form of retention. In essence, you are proposing to transfer an element of ownership, the right of possession, without transferring the responsibility that goes with ownership. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t keep rents down while costs increase and expect to keep the physical plant in good condition. In the end, you will not benefit occupants. Facilities will become uninhabitable, and occupants will live in despair.

But we digress. You said clean it up. I did. It cost a lot. The cost was supposed to be recoverable by conversion to condos. Now you say, sorry, we changed our mind. We want you to keep it as rentals but don’t raise the rent to keep up with costs. Now I lose my money, or the condition of the property reverts to a barrio grade environment, and you still didn’t reach out!?!

You are also directly interfering in my contractual relations with my tenants. Because we have condo approval, we must comply with GC 66459 which requires us to give written notice to each tenant of our right to terminate the tenancy with a 90-day notice in return for giving the tenant the right of first refusal to buy the unit. Because the 90-day notice is an obstacle to securing a desired long-term lease, we have agreed to extend the notice time for an additional 1 year. On top of that, we have agreed to extend the lease for a second year at the same rate as the first year, and we have also agreed to give a discount on the purchase of the condo. Now your ordinance will require us to pay up to $14,000 to move them out, or to let them return at the same rent after we spend 50-75k to do the condo upgrade. It trashes the whole concept bargained for by all 190 of our customers. I saw you talking about this. You didn’t understand it.

Unless you exempt us, I don’t know what we can do except to not comply. Then you would have to sue us again. But that puts the burden of proof on you to show that this is all in good faith, and good for the community and good for the housing market. You would also have to show that you aren’t illegally interfering with legitimate contractual relations between private parties. Maybe you are exempt from commercial interference, but I know I’m not. I’m not an attorney, but I can truthfully say, this just creates a mess. Please re-think my request for the exemption.

Speaking on the larger scale for all landlords, there are many reasons why you should not consider this at all.

Page 110 of 262 ends

Some concern that this has been a one-sided thing; that it favors tenants and hurts landlords is evident in the last minute 2-9-24 memo from Kelly Rush to Sophia Huckaby emphasizing that rent control does not apply to S/F homes, only multi-family units built before 1995. Mr. Mayor, you also emphasized that in an earlier email to me about your ordinance. You must understand, the fact that you are regulating units built before 1995 is, in fact, the worst thing about this ordinance. Buildings built since then don’t need much work.

Units built before 1995 are approaching 30 years old. The things in those buildings that are wearing out include plumbing, parking lots, siding, fences, roofs, floors, windows, doors, appliances, HVAC, walkways, irrigation, and more … basically everything. These repairs cost a lot of money, and it’s a lot that must be spent all at once. And the buildings built before 1995 are in fact the buildings that need renovation. You must understand that you don’t get a building renovated unless you allow the owner to increase the rent to the extent the market allows it. And you have a lot of buildings that still need to be renovated!

When we began working at VG, the rents averaged $600 per month. The market was $1,100. We kept them low to keep tenants because the place was falling apart, and low rent was the only competitive benefit we could offer. What did we do when the city forced us to jump start the renovation? We doubled the rent. A landlord does not invest in a total overhaul of a property just to increase the NOI in step with the CPI. A landlord invests to receive a return on its investment.

If you adopt this ordinance, you are guaranteed not to get more renovations, where and when, they are really needed.

You have heard from the woman who is renting her units below market because they are old, and she can’t afford to spend money on them. Now you are having her roll back her rent even further, and she will never be able to spend. Then you will hit her with violation notices at your next inspection go around. What sort of justice is that?

Staff pitches the notion that this ordinance preserves vacancy de-control. That is a figment of someone’s imagination. Who are they trying to fool? When you have regulations that hold rent for an existing occupant down below market rates year after year, and that is coupled with the mandatory right of the occupant to extend year after year, they will stay. That is not decontrol.

That is no vacancy. Worse yet, it is at the expense of market rent that could have been paid without rent control. Doesn’t that sound like the confiscation of private property for a public purpose without compensation? Expect litigation. Eventually someone will take that to the top court.

A Fair Return: That’s covered above. If you want a healthy housing stock, you will allow investors to skim the market for opportunities to make money by buying rundown properties and renovating them. Beyond that, whoever came up with the formula of increasing NOI at the rate of the CPI, when the GOI is held to half the rate of the CPI does not know math. Worse yet is that the burden is on the owner to bear all the costs of continuing to try to make its argument for a fair return. And even worse is that the argument must be made before a kangaroo court appointed by the same politicians that made the rules.

Page 111 of 262 ends

Right of Return after Re-Hab: This is more sleight of hand. It should be abundantly clear that no rehab will ever happen if you give the occupant the right to return at the same rent. The top broker in today’s market was just telling me how many owners he has dealt with who have done re-hab work, but who laugh at the idea that it will ever continue. This would eventually destroy the rental housing stock in the city of Concord.

Move out Expenses: Forcing an owner to pay move-out expenses after entering a contract that by its very nature is intended to be short term (you aren’t allowed to negotiate a lease longer than 1 year without a real estate license) is akin to cutting the rent by a third or a half on a one-year lease. No one will do that anymore. Where will new tenants find one-year leases?

Registry Fees: You say you are increasing that by 10 times, or more. You want me to pay you over $10,000 per year for this? What do I get besides headaches in return. I’ll have to hire more staff just to administer this thing. How does that benefit the Concord landlord who is already suffering under high and increasing costs and low rent relative to other markets. You recently raised sales taxes, you regularly increase staff salaries and benefits. Now you want to increase programs, and pass that off on the housing business. All the time you waste decades and millions of dollars trying to develop the NWS. People are laughing. It doesn’t make sense. Pay the cops, fill the potholes, water and mow the parks, and get rid of the rest of your programs. Most of all, toss this proposal in the garbage. Let Concord breathe a little, and you will be thanked for it.

I think that summarizes the general feelings I’m hearing out there. I’m out of the state again, but I’ll be thinking about you. Best of luck Tuesday night,

Sincerely yours,
Walnut Creek Holdings, Inc., agent of the owners of Palm Terrace Condominium Rentals

By: Merle D. Hall, owner

PS – My investor partners, mostly widows now, are calling me. I’m having to say to them that this will be the turning point in their investment. If we are not exempted, our expenses will continue to rise at a rate faster than the income, and their NOI will begin to decrease. Eventually we will not be able to cover our loan payments. Then they will have to dig into their pockets to contribute more cash … for nothing … or we will lose the property.

Page 112 of 262 ends

From: Fred Fong <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 9:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose proposed rent control measure for Concord!

To the Council Members:

Your proposed ordinance will do the opposite for renters. It will drive up rent and reduce investment into the rental market, resulting in fewer available units.

This will seriously harm the home rental market rents as fewer homes will be available.

It is also the most restrictive and punitive measure on earth, going a long way to surpass big cities in terms of harmful rent control measures. All such cities are examples of not to impose rent control, especially egregious ones such as what is proposed.

Stop!

Fred Fong

Page 113 of 262 ends

From: Christian Lenci <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 10:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Housing Ordinance - NO
Hi City of Concord - as a resident in District 5 I am writing the City Council to urge then to vote NO on the proposed rent control ordnance, UNLESS single family homes and condominiums are excluded.

While I have issues with the concept, I can understand the concern and need for rent stabilization for apartments, for people who choose to do this at scale. But for single family housing, it makes little sense. Accordingly to your/our City Clerk:

"JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION

Just cause for eviction WOULD apply to most rented units in Concord, including rented single-family homes and rented condominium units. Just cause would NOT apply to rented accessory dwelling units."

I grew up in Napa and my parents lived there. After my dad died and my mom's dementia deepened, we made the hard decision in 2020 to take her out of the only house she knew for 40 years and put her on a memory care facility. We could do this only by renting out her home. Had we decided to bring her back to her home if it didn't work out, the facility chose to not care for her anymore, or to move home for hospice care (somethung we almost did before she passed), under this proposed ordinance we would have had to pay the tenant tens of thousands of dollars that SHOULD BE SPENT ON MY MOM.

These rules are a disgrace to the City and a disgrace to any Councilmember who votes for it.

Let me be clear: I will never vote for a Councilmember who votes in favor of including single family homes or condos in this proposal.

I will also try to attend an voice my displeasure in person.

Please forward this to my councilmember and contact me with any questions.

Regards,

Christian Lenci
5252.Ambleside Drive
Concord, CA 94521

Page 114 of 262 ends

From: Jennifer Hanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 2:50 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent stabilization

Are you serious ! Heaven forbid that someone tries to make a little bit of money . This better not pass because nobody in their right mind would vote for this except tenants learning about this and trying to gain from it .I’m not even a landlord. Let’s say they’re not paying their rent or just part of it , why should it be the landlords responsibility to pay to get them out ? And the city wants an annual fee, for what ? The city just wants half or more of whatever we have . Another great idea for the city not the people .

This is insane !!!!

Page 115 of 262 ends

From: Scott Swain <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 9:26 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Edi Birsan <[email protected]>; Byron Swain <[email protected]>
Subject: New rental regulations

Hello,

I have rented a 3 bedroom 1 bath home in Concord for the past 17 years for $1600 a month from 2007 to 2016 and for $2000 a month since 2016. I have had only 2 renters and both have been great renters. I rent under market value in appreciation of the way they take care of the property. These new regulations that include a fee I will pay for the bureaucracy for overseeing these new regulations and the over the top move out fees make me reconsider renting my home.

I know Concord has numerous apartments and companies that have multiple properties that a number of probably don't treat tenants the way I do. However, I don't think it is fair for me to pay such a high price for their indiscretion. Please reconsider your decision or include provisions protecting people who do the right thing.

Scott Swain

Page 116 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 9:43 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Jenny Morimune <[email protected]> Subject: Rental Property Eviction Regulations and Fees

Dear City of Concord,

As seniors, who have been self-employed, we decided years ago to invest in rental property as a future source of income for us in our retirement years. We do not have pensions or employer contribution retirement plans to provide a monthly source of income, and we all know that social security is not enough to live on. This proposal will only add additional hardship to seniors like us.

I'm not sure you are taking into account all the risks and hardships for landlords. Many of us are not in a position to lose three to four months rent plus pay a $3,000 move out fee. The vast majority of landlords are not out to evict tenants. It costs money to lose a tenant and re-market the property.

Examples of our own personal hardship we faced in the last few years: We take care of our property and have rented to our tenants at or below the going fair market rents.

However, during the Covid Pandemic lock down and months following, we had a tenant that did not pay rent for over four months. We were told by the tenant that they would continue to "pay as they could" and add additional "back rent due" as income was earned, so we hung in there with this tenant, but ultimately the tenant left without ever paying the back rent. We lost out on over four months rent. We had no easy remedy to collect the rent that was due us. This was a financial hardship on our budget with no real recourse to the landlord (short of going to court....which is not an easy process...and good luck on collecting after getting a judgment). So we opted to move on and get a new tenant in the property. That replacement tenant had to leave short of their lease term due to "family matters". Again we were not paid the full rent that was due us and took another loss.

Vacancy: Each time a tenant moves out we have to go in, clean up, paint, make minor repairs as needed, and ready the property for a new tenant. Typically we lose an additional month of rent during the vacancy and re-marketing of the property. Hence the reason most landlords would rather have a good longstanding tenant than evict someone. In 34 years of being a landlord, I do not recall ever having to evict a tenant.

Unexpected damage or repairs: We also had a previous tenant let the backyard lawn and landscaping go due to the cost of watering which will also add considerably to our expenses when we decide to re-landscape in the future. When work or repairs are needed, the tenant does not cover these expenses, the landlord does. If you don't have a observant or responsible tenant who lets you know when something is not working right, what could have been an easy and inexpensive repair turns into a major and very expensive fix. We also experienced this with one of our tenants. The bottom line here is that sometimes you don't know the type of tenant you are getting until it is too late. Once again, the landlord has no recourse and has to saddle the additional loss.

Page 117 of 262 ends

These proposals for rental property admin/fees (just another "tax" or money grab by the city) and "no-cause" eviction will also prove to be another financial hardship unfairly put on the landlords. For example, what if our child moved back into California and needed a place with reasonable rents and wanted to rent our property from us? They are not the "owner" and I presume we would fall into the "no cause" eviction category. This does not seem fair or reasonable to us that we should pay a tenant 3-4 months rent plus a move out fee of $3,000 to vacate so that our own family member could move in (this assumes the current annual lease has expired and the tenant is currently on a month- to-month lease agreement). There are many other examples I could provide that would bring to light the flaws and unforeseen consequences of this proposal.

Respectfully we find that this proposed ordinance will hurt the landlord and the tenants of Concord. Many landlords will sell or get out of the rental market in Concord making even fewer options for renters. The added fees and cost to evict will likely cause landlords to increase rents each year to help cover the proposed future eviction expenses. Thus causing additional financial hardship to the tenants of our city.

Lastly, your email with the ordinance attached does NOT include the "Exhibit A" referenced in the attachment. Please provide a copy of "Exhibit A" and include all parts when emailing attachments in the future.

Sincerely,

Brad and Jenny Morimune

Page 118 of 262 ends

From: Chris Sartin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 10:01 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental properties

I would say good morning but the more I read, the more disgusted I am.

Please confirm: If I own a single family home in Concord, and my tenants lease is up (making it there AGREED time to move out), I am going to have to pay them a fee for them to move out?

How could any normal home owner afford this?! If you have landlords paying tenants to move out, it will be cheaper for landlords to keep their properties empty. We pay so much for upkeep and mortgage that we don’t make a penny off renting. We rent it so someone can use it. We will absolutely not be able to rent it out if this goes into effect. Another homeless family thanks to your “help”.

Please include this in your minutes since you think 12 hours of listening to your community about something this big is enough.

Page 119 of 262 ends

From: Gary Stofer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 10:02 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Why do you lie?

About the rent control measures regarding single family homes and condominiums? It say right in the measure that single family homes and condos are subject to those egregious measures for just cause evictions . It is a horrible idea to effectively prevent a home owner from moving back into his home after having it rented out!!! What are you thinking ??? We had hoped to rent our home for 1 year while we tend to elderly relatives abroad. Your measure makes is so that we could not afford to do that. We positively oppose this measure !!!

Page 120 of 262 ends

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 10:58 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed no-fault just cause regulations unfair to homeowners

February 11, 2024

Subject: “Just Cause” regulations for Single Family Homes and Condos

Mayor Birsan, City Council Members, City Manager and Staff:

I watched the public comment at the 1/31 council meeting. So many owners of just one or two rental units came forward to testify against these “no-fault just cause” regulations! Why are we targeting our retirees and those average Concord families who need to rent their homes out for a multitude of different reasons? They are not the problem. Their pleas should be heard.

Trying to help poor tenants manage rent increases and evictions from corporate landlords is a good thing. Some corporate landlords with dozens or hundreds of rentals in Concord have been abusive. These corporations have their own lawyers and administrative staff and they can respond and adapt to new regulations. Your neighbor who has to rent out their home should NOT be treated like an abusive corporation, yet that is exactly what these proposed regulations do.

Problems with proposed no-fault just cause regulations:

1. The state regulations (AB1462) exclude individual owners of single family homes and condos from just cause rules. Concord proposed regulations include them. Why not just use the scope criteria issued by the state? The state excluded individual owners of single family homes and condos from just cause rules for
good reason!

Page 121 of 262 ends

premises on a date certain! Why are there no exceptions written for situations like this, or for situations when the tenants are high income and earn much more than the landlord? Very common in single family home rentals.

3. The city never mailed notices to affected homeowners of the pending regulations. Most still don’t know about this! A thousand or more individual homeowners who never were directly informed are now forced on to a rent registry and subject to fees and fines. Unfair!

4. The proposed regulations will require an owner of one unit to pay the same registration and yearly fee as a corporation owning 200 units.

More evidence these draft regulations are unfair!

5. The regulations establish fines for failure to register, but no plans have been presented to inform affected homeowners about
these new requirements or help them in any way!

6. I have asked city staff (Sophia Huckabay) if the new rent registry data will be kept confidential or if it will be released to the public without redacting personally identifiable data (eg: landlord names, rental addresses). I have received no answer. This is concerning. I am not worried about the corporate landlords who have their own attorneys. I am worried about the retiree who has one rental unit and will now have their name, address, and likely other personal information on a rent registry accessible to anyone who asks for it. How can we proceed to approve regulations with so many unanswered questions? The regulations as written are extremely unfair to individual home owners and will harm tenants too by reducing rental supply and driving rents up further.

Let’s find positive strategies to engage small property owners as well as large owners in efforts to help lower income tenants. Why not follow the model the council used to help the homeless? Coordinate meetings with all stakeholders to develop new policies and approaches that people generally will support as fair and helpful. That is the Concord way!

Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott
[email protected]

Page 122 of 262 ends

From: Heypaula10 <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 8:28 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: No just cause penalty for single fam

Sent from my iPhone. I oppose just cause eviction penalty for SFH. Please consider your detrimental action to single family homes if you include them in your just cause eviction. Individual home owners as myself can not rent out our own homes for fear of paying a tenant up to $15,000 should an owner need to move back in or make necessary repairs on their OWN home. It would mean leaving homes empty or selling homes that would have been viable rental units . You are sacrificing many seniors only source of possible income should they need to move out. You will see more houses deteriorate, as repaired will remain undone . You will see many more houses sit EMPTY as owners will FEAR renting them out . We don’t appear to be misinformed. To what purpose would you penalize homeowners this way?
It is a Bad idea.

As a retired Realtor I am aware of many Concord homes left vacant for several years because the homeowner already just lets it sit and let it appreciate EMPTY to avoid landlord problems. This will become the new norm if you approve Just cause evictions. Why approve such an unpopular position.

Bad idea.

Page 123 of 262 ends

From: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 7:30 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> Subject: Statement denouncing the CAA's deliberate misinformation campaign in Concord

Dear Mayor Birsan, City Council and City Staff,

I am writing in response to the recent text and email campaign initiated by the California Apartment Association to all homeowners in Concord making false claims about the pending rent stabilization and just cause ordinance coming before Council on Tuesday evening.

The CAA’s talking points are riddled with deliberate misinformation. We have attached a rebuttal provided by the experienced attorneys at Movement Legal, who explain the fallacies and outright lies included in the CAA’s campaign.

This is clearly a scare tactic meant to inspire fear, obscure the facts, and derail a process of deep community engagement and informed policy debate that has stretched on for months and even years. We denounce the CAA’s actions as unethical and undemocratic.

Please see the attached statement by community groups and the legal rebuttal of their claims.

Kristi

--
Kristi Laughlin
Deputy Director of Contra Costa Campaigns
510-847-2399
Preferred pronouns: She/Her

Page 124 of 262 ends

February 12, 2024

Subject: Statement Denouncing Misinformation Campaign of the California Apartment Association

Dear Concord City Council, Staff, and City Attorney:

We know that you have received countless emails from your constituents criticizing the impact of the proposed tenant protection ordinance, especially on people who own or rent single-family homes. These emails were spurred on by an aggressive, 11th-hour campaign by the multi-million-dollar lobby group, the California Apartment Association (CAA), which sent texts to every homeowner in Concord.

While we are not surprised, given the CAA’s pattern of undermining democratic process in other Bay Area cities where tenant protections have been passed or considered, we are disappointed and dismayed for two reasons.

First, each of the CAA’s talking points are riddled with deliberate misinformation.

We have attached a rebuttal provided by the experienced attorneys at Movement Legal, who explain the fallacies and outright lies included in the CAA’s campaign.

Second, this is clearly a scare tactic meant to inspire fear, obscure the facts, and derail a process of deep community engagement and informed policy debate that has stretched on for months and even years. We denounce the CAA’s actions as unethical and undemocratic. To capitulate to those actions at this point in the process–which began in earnest during the summer of 2023–would be likewise unethical and undemocratic.

Finally, we wish to note that for the CAA to target single-family homeowners, regardless of whether or not they actually rent their properties, is indicative of their strategy of deception. It serves to shield corporate landlords–who finance the organization, control its board, and profit the most from its attempts to deregulate the housing market–behind supposed concern for middle-class property owners (See report). In using lies to whip up false concerns, it distracts our attention from the thousands of tenants who are truly suffering from excessive rent increases and fraudulent evictions. There is a crisis of economic displacement and impoverishment of working families that has been playing out for a decade in Concord and is well documented by the city’s own staff in the Housing Element.

Page 125 of 262 ends

We hope that you do not submit to the hysteria that the CAA is purposely generating in order to weaken and/or derail this ordinance. This ordinance is about a much-needed course correction in Concord aimed at stabilizing housing for seniors and working families and preventing more homelessness. Passing a strong rent stabilization and just cause ordinance this Tuesday will be an investment in the health and well-being of the whole community and a step toward creating a more diverse, inclusive and affordable city.

Sincerely,

Kristi Laughlin, Deputy Director of Contra Costa Campaigns, EBASE Rhea Elina Laughlin, Executive Director, Rising Juntos
Jennifer Morales, Community Organizing Manager, Monument Impact Betty Gabaldon, President of Todos Santos Tenants Union

Page 126 of 262 ends

Responses to California Apartment Association (CAA) Misinformation

Claim 1: Mandating private homeowners to cap rents as low as 60% of the Consumer Price Index, without receiving subsidy for their losses
This is not true for multiple reasons. Single family homes are categorically exempt from rent control, whether they are owner occupied or not. Additionally, landlords subject to the ordinance are never required to take a loss; the constitution guarantees that landlords have a right to a reasonable return under rent control. If a landlord isn't making a reasonable return on their investment, they can apply for an additional “individual upward adjustment,” an increase in rent above and beyond the normal annual increase.

Claim 2: Passing a law that would be retroactive to January 2023, new laws should always be prospective
This is also not true. The law is prospective, not retroactive. No landlord will be penalized, fined, or punished by the ordinance for any action they took prior to the law taking effect.

There is a rent rollback, which means that for tenancies in place when the law takes effect, the initial rent will be the rent in place in January 2023. This is essential so that landlords don't drastically increase rents in anticipation of the law coming into effect and thus frustrating its purpose. Additionally, this only impacts the tenant’s rent going forward.

Claim 3: Restricting a homeowners’ ability to gain possession of their unit by dictating who qualifies as an “owner”
All rent control ordinances that allow for “Owner Move-In” evictions, including state law, have a minimum percentage of the property that a person must own to qualify as an owner; this law is no different. This is a common-sense protection. Under the law, a landlord can evict a tenant at no fault for an "Owner Move-In" eviction. This allows not just the owner themselves, but also the owner's spouse, domestic partner, child, parent or grandparent, or a caretaker for the landlord or any of those family members, to move into the unit. If you didn't clarify who could be an owner, someone owning .5% of a property could perform an Owner Move-In eviction.

Claim 4: Levying a penalty of a minimum 3 months of HUD’s Fair Market Rent, plus $3,000 if you no longer want to offer your home for rent
Under just cause for eviction, there are "no-fault" and "at-fault" reasons to evict a tenant.

If a tenant is evicted for an "at-fault" cause, like not paying rent or damaging the property, the landlord doesn't owe the tenant anything at all. However, if the landlord wants to evict the tenant for a "no-fault" cause (i.e., the tenant hasn't done anything wrong) the landlord has to pay the

Page 127 of 262 ends

tenant to assist with the cost of their relocation. Covering relocation costs is standard in all just cause for eviction ordinances including the state just cause for eviction ordinance the CAA pushed to pass.

Claim 5: Rejecting existing state and local housing rental protections in favor of a more costly, overtly restrictive price-fixing scheme that could cost taxpayers millions without building one new unit of housing
This ordinance does not reject any tenant protections. State tenant protections apply to only a subset of tenants and allows for far higher annual increases, as much as 10% per year. If a tenant's rent increases by 10% per year, their rent will double after only seven years. State eviction protections have extensive loopholes and only apply after 1 year of tenancy. While state law is a useful floor for tenants without any local protections, we need to pass these local laws to give tenants the rights they need to stay housed.

Additionally, this ordinance is cost neutral. No General Fund revenues will be spent implementing or enforcing the law. Just like many City Planning Departments, the budget is paid for by a separate fee.

Some more resources on Rent Control from Local Progress:

Stable Rents, Rooted Communities

Page 128 of 262 ends

From: WARREN WEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 4:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control is a bad idea for tenants and for the city.

Dear Councilpersons and City Officials:

Please DO NOT vote on rent control in Concord. Implementing a more stringent rent control than the state already has is not a sound decision, and I’ll tell you why.

Assar Lindbeck, a Swedish economist who chaired the Nobel Prize committee for many years, reportedly declared that rent control is “the best way to destroy a city, other than bombing.”

Page 129 of 262 ends

From: Jim Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 1:09 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Ryan Taylor <[email protected]>; Bradley Taylor <[email protected]>; Amber Taylor <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control

Concord does not need rent control. Rent control dose not work for anyone. You will have fewer small family
investors, only large corporations funded by wall street.

When rent comes to local investors the money is spent
locally at restaurants and other businesses not sent to wall street. Think about $$$$100,000's of thousands (sales tax anyone?).

Let free market enterprise prevail it has worked for the last couple of hundred years just fine. Politicians do not belong in my bank account or my business. Spend your time
more wisely. Fix our roads, that wound save tenants &
landlords money by not having to fix cars & tires. Support local business & citizens by stopping crime &
homelessness. So far you have failed. I love Concord,
lived for more than 50 years. My wife & I each have owned our businesses in Concord for the last 45 years. I have seen Concord go down hill fast in the last several years.

All my adult children (and a lot of my friends & neighbors) have moved out of state because of the deterioration of the schools, neighborhoods etc. high taxes local & state.

Think a little bit about the small investor:

My insurance has gone up 68% this year
Our PG & E has gone up
Trash removal has gone up
Water bill has gone up
Our landscaping maintenance has gone up

Page 130 of 262 ends

cost of a 100 gal water hot water heater is over $6,200 (ask me how I know)
Multi-Family Rental Housing Inspection Program has gone Cost for a plumber is over $100 per hour
Cost for a handyman is over $60 an hour.

Contractors over $130 per hour.

Our gasoline is to high, & gas tax goes up.

All the above will continue to increase, but you want to limit rent to a 3% per year increase.

Supply & demand should set the rent rate not
a bureaucrat.

Are you a problem solver or a message taker?

Stop thinking about yourselves and how much money you
can squeeze out of your hard working small business
owners.

I bought my first house when I was 21 years old, could I afford it? NO but I did it anyway. It was the best
investment you could make 50 years ago.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my opinion.

Jim Taylor
DRE #00586658
Taylor-Made Service Since 1976
Cell: 925-586-6105

Page 131 of 262 ends

From: Patricia Bishop <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 1:19 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental ordinance

Please give to panel considering rental control published in Contra Costa Times 2/11/24.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 132 of 262 ends

From: Marvin Remmich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 1:44 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent ordinance.

City Council,

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

This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?

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

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

Page 133 of 262 ends

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 1:51 PM
To: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Statement denouncing the CAA's deliberate misinformation campaign in Concord

Kristi,

Last week, as in the past, City staff shared correct information related to what Council will be considering in the draft Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction regulations being considered tomorrow night.

Here is a link to the information that was shared last
week. https://www.cityofconcord.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=701

Council Meets Feb. 13 to
Consider Rent Stabilization, Just
Cause
On Feb. 13, Council will consider a draft
ordinance that would establish rent
stabilization and just cause for eviction
policies. City staff has learned that
misinformation about the ordinance is
circulating within the community, and we
want to clarify...
www.cityofconcord.org

Your e-mail and this response will be placed into the public record and shared with all Councilmembers.

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

Page 134 of 262 ends

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

Dear Mayor Birsan, City Council and City Staff,

Please see the attached statement by community groups and the legal rebuttal of their claims.

Kristi

--
Kristi Laughlin
Deputy Director of Contra Costa Campaigns
510-847-2399
Preferred pronouns: She/Her

Page 135 of 262 ends

From: Judy Weil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 2:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control for Concord

Mayor and city council members

My father and I own an 11 unit building in Concord. Our 2 bedroom units rent for $1850 per month far below the median rents quoted in the City Council recent meetings.

The rent control proposed for Concord is far too low at 3% or 60 % of CPI the lesser amount. My understanding is Concord's rent control would be the most stringent in the state. You may say you can appeal. I will and so will most of the Landlord I met at the meetings. I hope you hire enough staff for appeals.

The roll back is confusing. The amount of rent roll back to 1/12/2023 doesn't make sense. I certainly had no idea a 3% or less rent limit was coming in January 2023. My understanding is the rent roll back doesn't mean you credit tenants the rent roll back or does it ? This was after Covid when rents were stagnant.

It would be very helpful using a $1000 rent if you could work out the math for the Landlord in the council meeting.

Currently rents are soft. Limiting rents means there will be a lack of money for improvements.

Maintenance yes improvements no.

Sincerely

Judy Weil

9257884766

Page 136 of 262 ends

From: erik westre <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 2:11 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: NO RENT CONTROL

My wife and I own 4 single family homes in Concord CA as rentals for our retirement.

The homes are all 3 bed room, each housing a family.

We have always kept our rents low out of respect for the fact that folks have only so much money. 3 families pay <$2400 / month.

One new family does pay $3000 / month, still less than most rents out there for a single family home.

The proposed ordinance makes so little sense for an owner like me, I will be raising rents to market levels right away, since
you have CREATED A CONFLICT WHERE THERE WAS NONE. Your ordinance "makes me the dummy" for being nice and charging low
rents all these years. Now I need to save up for the big payout to tenants and lawyers I will need when I sell. Good job!!!

Your ordinance seems to be written by people who don't really understand how to provide housing, and don't understand the laws already
in place, and specifically punish the mom and pop landlords who have kept rents low.

Best regards, Erik Westre

Page 137 of 262 ends

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 2:19 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Ortega, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Proposed no-fault just cause regulations unfair to homeowners

Mike,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns, thoughts and recommendations with the City Council. Besides sharing it with each Councilmember, it will be put into the public packet for tomorrow’s meeting.

I’ve also added some information below on topics you brought up. Hopefully you find it useful.

o You are correct that the state excludes RENTED individual single family homes and condos from both rent control regulations AND just cause regulations and that Concord’s proposed regulations exclude RENTED single family homes and condos from rent control while requiring RENTED single family homes and condos to participate in the rent registry and would regulate them under the Just Cause regulations.

o Also, while the cost of the rent-registry program is not being adopted nor even considered on Tuesday night, the proposed approach to rent registry fees will be “PER UNIT” so a single family home would not pay the same as a 200 unit rental complex.

o As to outreach to all property owners, beyond the legal public hearing posting and advertising in newspaper required by law, including single family homeowners in Concord, the City has taken the following steps:
o Staff notified all Concord addresses (residents and businesses) through an article on page 7 of our printed/mailed Winter Spring 2024 Activity Guide: https://cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/10833/City-of- Concord-2024-WinterSpring-Activity-Guide?bidId=
o Staff also shared information via our e-newsletter on ▪ Aug. 2, 2023: https://conta.cc/3wnLieX
▪ Nov. 22, 2023: https://conta.cc/48gj4A4
▪ Jan. 17, 2024: https://conta.cc/3wfjFor
o News was shared on the City’s website through the "news & announcements":

Feb. 9, 2024, Jan. 17, 2024, Aug. 16, 2023 and on social media: Feb. 9, 2024, Jan. 18, 2024, Aug. 14, 2023

Page 138 of 262 ends

o As to what information from the rent registry will be publicly available: Currently, ownership of properties and addresses is considered a public record per the City’s Rent Registry, and this is common practice in other jurisdictions as well. City staff will be working with the City Attorney’s office to fully understand what information is considered confidential and what is considered public before the new rent registry is implemented.

Again, thank you for submitting your thoughts.

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!

February 11, 2024

Subject: “Just Cause” regulations for Single Family Homes and Condos

Mayor Birsan, City Council Members, City Manager and Staff:

Page 139 of 262 ends

need to rent their homes out for a multitude of different reasons? They are not the problem. Their pleas should be heard.

Problems with proposed no-fault just cause regulations:

2. The proposed regulations require payments to tenants as high as $15,000 or more for a no-fault tenancy termination even if it is a short term lease agreement and the tenant agrees in writing to vacate the premises on a date certain! Why are there no exceptions written for situations like this, or for situations when the tenants are high income and earn much more than the landlord? Very common in single family home rentals.

4. The proposed regulations will require an owner of one unit to pay the same registration and yearly fee as a corporation owning 200 units.

More evidence these draft regulations are unfair!

5. The regulations establish fines for failure to register, but no plans have been presented to inform affected homeowners about
these new requirements or help them in any way!

Page 140 of 262 ends

The regulations as written are extremely unfair to individual home owners and will harm tenants too by reducing rental supply and driving rents up further.

Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott
[email protected]

Page 141 of 262 ends

From: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 2:41 PM
To: Derek Barnes <[email protected]>
Cc: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Chris Tipton <[email protected]>; Emma Nyalenda <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Concord's Rent Control/Stabilization & Just Cause Proposals -- 2/13 Meeting

Hi Derek,

It was great to meet you as well!

Thank you for your email below. Your email below will be shared with the full council for their consideration and included as part of the report packet for tomorrow night’s council meeting.

As tomorrow night’s Council meeting is a continuation of the Jan. 30th meeting, Public Comment on this topic has been closed.

We added you to the Housing interested parties list after the council meeting last month, but I wanted to reiterate here that Council is scheduled to deliberate on the revised draft ordinance pertaining to rent stabilization and just cause for eviction tomorrow night at 6:30 PM in Council Chambers (same location as the Jan. 30 Council meeting).

Thank You,

Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager

City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3387 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519

www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com

Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.

From: Derek Barnes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 1:50 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Cc: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Chris Tipton <[email protected]>; Emma Nyalenda <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord's Rent Control/Stabilization & Just Cause Proposals -- 2/13 Meeting Importance: High

Page 142 of 262 ends

Greetings Sophia,

It was good to finally meeting you in the City Council meeting last month and glad we connected. East Bay Rental Housing Association (EBRHA) has over 1500 members who provide almost 50k rental homes to over 130k residents in the East Bay, including Concord and surrounding areas in Contra Costa County.

We roll up to a state association with eight (8) other affiliates, CalRHA, whose combined members own/manage about 750k rental units in CA.

As I communicated in the January 30 meeting, EBRHA has deep rental housing experience and data showing how housing policy impacts small and large rental owners/operators. Our primary focus is to provide education and resources to help rental owners/operators maintain safe, compliant, and accessible housing. We also work with municipal leaders and staff to develop effective and fair housing policies.

Although we tried to reach out to you to discuss the implications of enacting more stringent rent control and Just Cause policies (beyond what AB1482 already provides), we welcome future outreach and communication from the City of Concord to ensure we have a balanced set of provisions that offer renter protections but do not harm housing providers or drive them out of the business.

What I heard in the chamber at the January 30 meeting was deeply concerning, considering that Concord has not met its RHNA housing production goals, nor does it have adequate safety nets to provide financial support to households that need help paying rent – due to one-time emergencies or more long-term income gaps. Rent control IS NOT a long-term solution for critical housing shortages.

You’ll drive more smaller owners/operators who provide below-market-rate homes out of business.

These provisions will only exacerbate Concord’s housing problem and steer it down the path to becoming Oakland or Richmond.

Some council members may get policy ideas from the self-proclaimed housing expert Leah Simon- Weisberg. As she freely admits, Simon-Weisberg believes that small rental owners/operators are to blame for the housing crises, lack of affordability, and substandard conditions. The reality is that small owners/operators supply most below-market-rate housing. Simon-Weisberg’s sole mission is to engage a socialized and public housing agenda by driving small housing providers out of business by devaluing their investment, taking away their livelihood and income, and destroying opportunities to build generational financial stability. You are being duped into supporting a public housing scheme that has not worked in many U.S cities – proven over decades where stringent Rent Control policies have been enacted.

Over 80% of the eviction filings are due to non-payment of rent. The sheriff’s eviction data (33 evictions in 2023 of 18k rental units) shared in the last meeting indicates that Concord doesn’t have a tsunami of evictions contributing to a massive increase in homelessness. So, what problem are you trying to solve? Council should NOT enact rent control and new Just Cause provisions without:

1. A sound housing production plan you can meet.

2. A needs or means test like most government subsidy programs engage to ensure rent control units are reserved for individuals and families who need them the most — lower-income, working-class, communities of color, and immigrant families.

3. Financial assistance programs that help households pay rent when they cannot.

Page 143 of 262 ends

Concord could be the leader in adopting the above housing plan as it seeks ways to solve affordability issues. This would be a better use of your time and effort. We imploring City Council to adopt the above initiatives and reject or modify the following that they are considering in the proposed ordinance:
• Capping rent increases at 60% of CPI or 3%. Anything below a 7% cap would create hardship for many small owners/operators.
• Retroactively rolling back base rents to January 2023 levels and issuing rent refunds for any increases above the new rent cap.
• Increasing permanent relocation payments for no-fault evictions above the state’s current limits under AB1482.
• Including multi-family properties of 2-4 units in these new provisions.

As a pro-housing organization, EBRHA wants to make sure you are not installing policies and a destructive housing agenda that will lead to unsustainable enforcement, further erode our affordable housing stock, create community blight, and push more vulnerable renters out of the market — working-class immigrants, communities of color, and lower-income groups.

If you have questions, please email or reach me directly at the number below. Thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Derek Barnes
Chief Executive Officer

[email protected] I 510.368.7936 (o) I www.EBRHA.com

This message and its attachments are the property of East Bay Rental Housing Association (EBRHA). It may contain confidential and/or privileged information and include the intellectual property of EBRHA. Your receipt of this email is not a waiver of EBRHA’s privilege or confidentiality interests. Absent a written agreement signed by an authorized officer of EBRHA, this email shall not create an agreement between EBRHA and any of its recipients. The message and its contents should not be copied, forwarded or otherwise shared without the sender’s permission. If you received this email in error, you should immediately notify the sender and delete the message.

Page 144 of 262 ends

From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 2:45 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

Go ahead and please post. From the desk of the Wall street Journal in todays editorial. My comment is below in italics the op ed is below that.

We all heard the immense blowback at the last meeting and this is one of many reasons why. Rational people would wonder how NYC is going to plug the shortfall from the real estate value decline.

Additionally with all rental units being held vacant forcing people out of the city they are losing more tax of their tax base. None of this is mentioned in the carefully crafted staff report that continues to be touted by Sofia. I received an email late last week written by the city no doubt due to the outrage which looked like the city going into damage control mode from the 5 hour pillorying. I ask on behalf of the tenants, residents, taxpayers there is no good outcome for anyone so just stop.

Reed Robertson
District 2.

Regional bank share prices have tumbled since New York Community Bancorp ( NYCB
) reported surprisingly large losses on real-estate loans. Don’t blame this mini-bank panic only on underwater office buildings. Primary culprits are Albany’s destructive rent-control laws.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
The Report on Biden's Classified Document
Stash
27:37
1x

SUBSCRIBE
Add to Queue
Explore Audio Center

Page 145 of 262 ends

NYCB last month reported $552 million in credit losses, including a $185 million charge- off mostly from two office and condo building loans during the fourth quarter. These losses were bigger than investors expected. But what worries investors more is the bank’s $37 billion multi-family housing portfolio, about half of which are comprised of New York rent-regulated units.

The bank flagged that 14% of its $18 billion rent-regulated loan book is at risk of default. Its eventual losses could be bigger as rent-regulated buildings have recently been selling at a 30% to 60% discount from their purchase price. The values of rent-regulated buildings have fallen by some $75 billion, according to one estimate.

NYCB acquired the failed
Signature Bank
’s deposits and some of its loans last spring. But the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. struggled to find a buyer for Signature’s $15 billion in loans that were backed primarily by New York rent-regulated buildings. Last autumn the agency finally unloaded the loans at a roughly 40% discount. Why have these loans become toxic?
Blame Democrats in Albany, who in 2019 restricted landlords’ ability to raise rents to pay for renovations and “de-regulate” rent-stabilized units. These apartments account for nearly half of the city’s rental housing. Landlords used to be able to charge the market rate once the rent exceeded $2,800 a month and a tenant moved out. No longer.

One result is that landlords have removed rent-regulated apartments from the market and are leaving them vacant rather than spend on maintenance and improvements that they can’t recoup. Tighter supply has pushed up rents in the non-regulated market—one reason Manhattan’s average market-rate monthly rent has surged 30% over the last two years.

Lower anticipated future rents have also slashed property values. Loans for buildings that were issued at low-interest rates—the average coupon for NYCB’s rent-regulated portfolio is 3.85%—will also have to be refinanced in the coming years. Some underwater owners may walk away. NYCB’s rent-regulated portfolio could be a ticking time bomb.

Meantime, the bank needs to raise more capital to meet tougher regulatory requirements after catapulting into the league of big regional banks. Its Signature acquisition means it must comply with stricter prudential rules for banks with more than $100 billion in assets. The Federal Reserve has also proposed toughening standards for the regional banks.

Page 146 of 262 ends

Bloomberg News last week reported that NYCB is looking to transfer the risk of its home mortgages and sell assets to raise capital.

Moody’s
also downgraded the bank’s credit rating to junk, and its stock has fallen more than 50% since it reported its fourth-quarter earnings. NYCB’s travails have dragged down shares in other regional banks.

Few investors until recently appreciated the financial impact of New York’s rent- control regulations. NYCB’s troubles are a reminder that bad government policy is a source of financial instability. What other risks could be hiding in plain sight?

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 2:41 PM reed robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

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]>

Page 147 of 262 ends

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.

Page 148 of 262 ends

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?

Page 149 of 262 ends

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%.

Page 150 of 262 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Blaine Carter
(925) 963-6168

Page 151 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 2:58 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]:; [email protected]
Subject: City of Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Proposed Ordinances

Good afternoon Council member Nakamura, Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, Council member Hoffmeister, Council member Aliano, City Manager Barone, City Clerk Fockler, Housing Program Analyst Rush and Mike McDermott Turtle Creek Resident,
My family moved into our Turtle Creek home 43 years ago. I understand that we live in Council member Nakamura’s District 5. I also understand that the goal of the proposed new City of Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, as presented, is expected to include policies to enhance the quality of Concord resident life by stabilizing the community and minimizing resident displacement, while also providing property owners with the opportunity to earn a fair return on their investment.

We watched a segment of the 1/30/24 Concord Counsel meeting on TV. The City of Concord website reported that the meeting included approximately 6 hours of testimony before the public comment period was closed. It has also been stated that the Council is committed to adopting Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction policies to address tenant displacement. The numerous testimonies during the approximate 6 hours of testimony on 1/30/24 demonstrate that people have comments/opinions and questions regarding the proposed City Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance that had not and were not clearly addressed during the 1/30/24 Special Council meeting.

Sincerely.

John Primus, Turtle Creek Resident

Page 152 of 262 ends

[email protected]

P.S. I have attached an addendum with my observations, comments and questions in RED font regarding the proposed “Rent Stabilization” and “Just Cause for Eviction” Ordinances . I believe that my observations, comments and questions and those of the other Concord stakeholders should be thoroughly addressed and responded to prior to the formal adoption of any permanent new Ordinances.

Virus-free.www.avast.com

Page 153 of 262 ends

Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction City of Concord Proposal

This statement was observed on the City of Concord website “These are complicated new regulations being proposed and the Council has been discussing them for many months”.

I understand that the goal of the proposed new City of Concord regulations is to stabilize the community and minimize displacement of residents, while also allowing property owners to earn a fair return on their investments [What is the City of Concord’s determination of a property owner’s “fair return” (percentage) for their Residential Residence Investment referenced in the Rent Stabilization proposal?]

➩ Some features of the Rent Stabilization proposal:

① The Rent Stabilization limit annual rent increases to 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower. [There are nearly 60 San Francisco Bay Area CPI Expenditure Categories with 5 of them appearing to be related to housing. Which San Francisco Bay Area CPI Expenditure Category is being used in the 60% computation referenced above?] The City of Concord website description of this provision limits the annual property rental rate to increase by 2.52% for the 2023 calendar year. Data available to me from a Concord Residential Rental Property demonstrated the following average cost data for the time period of 2012 to 2023 at this property has been:
• Property Tax was 45% of property operational expense. • Hazard Insurance was 7.5% of property operational expense. • Liability Insurance was 2.5% of property operational expense. • Property Maintenance was 45% of property operational expense. ► The above items DO NOT include the costs for financing the Concord Residential Rental Property.

Page 154 of 262 ends

This ordinance proposal appears to limit the landowner’s source of investment income with NO consideration for the investment expenses. [How does this achieve the stated City objective of allowing property owners to earn a “fair return” on their investment.]

② The Rent Stabilization Controls the allowable rent increases upon the first date of occupancy but wisely does not attempt to control the dollar amount of the starting-of-occupancy rent.

③ The Rent Stabilization Includes a “rent rollback” provision that sets rents to the dollar amounts that were charged for rent as of January 12, 2023 [What is unique about this date?], 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) [Is the “rent rollback” fair to the landowner of a Concord Residential Property? What if the rental market rent declined – would the “rent rollback” occur to the previous higher rent level?]

④ The 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.
⑤ The Rent Stabilization 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 property owners could request higher rent increases, above what the Ordinance would otherwise allow, to obtain a fair return on their investment property [The “fair return” rate (percentage) on the investment property is not clearly identified in this Rent Stabilization proposal] .

➨ The major features of the Just Cause for Eviction proposal:

Page 155 of 262 ends

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.

❶ 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.

❷ 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 [What is that specified time period?] after an Ellis Act eviction.

❸ The City of Concord website states that a 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.

❹ In the case of no-fault evictions, just cause provisions in the revised draft Ordinance would require the property owner to pay three (3) times the Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Rent (FMR) [This appears to be a “Penalty” and presumably is paid to the City of Concord] and an extra $3,000 to cover moving expenses [This appears to be a fee payable to the departing tenant]. 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. [With the Residential rental rate “controlled/limited”

Page 156 of 262 ends

as discussed in the Rent Stabilization proposal, what is the presumed payment source for the Penalty and Tenant Move-out Fees]? 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.

❺ 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, pay an annual registration fee and an annual administration fee. [This appears to be a procedure and fee schedule solely for the City of Concord to control with NO benefit being provided to the property owner] This, fee is apparently yet-to- be-determined. [How much is this annual and administration fee?].

Page 157 of 262 ends

From: Joe Blei <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 3:08 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to draft ordinance that would establish rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies as it stands today

Hello:

I'm worrying to you to voice my unequivocal opposition to the draft ordinance currently before the Concord City Council that would establish rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies.

I am a long time renter in the City of Concord, and I do not see how this proposal will help anyone but a very few- perhaps ONLY the very few who plan on staying in their current rental space for a very long time. I see no other benefits to this proposal for anyone else who it would likely impact:

Landlords: most would either raise the rent so high to try to cover the potential costs of this proposal or would remove their rental from the market entirely. Both of these would have a negative impact on both the renter population as well as the city as a whole.

Renters staying 3+ years without moving: those renters who plan to stay where are they are (and are able to given life's ever changing circumstances), would benefit from rent control as well as a very hefty payment should they eventually have to move.

All other renters: this population will only see the negative effects of rising rent costs should they have to move in addition to a further exacerbation of the available rental shortage.

I agree with the general idea of rent control as well as eviction protections, but I believe this proposal is so way out of bounds that it will only hurt me as a renter and will limit my choices and chances of finding a decent rental in concord!

Thank you,
Joseph B.

Page 158 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 3:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control

Why are only old property subject to these new rules. That is unjust.

Why only property building before 1995 subject to this punitive rent control.

Is it that big corps want these old properties owners to go under and sell to big real estate company that will tear down and build more expensive luxurious apartments and charge five times as much did placing all low income housing in the area

How much are u charging landlord to register?
That seems shady. City now has a new source of revenue without it being on the ballot

This will stop investment in rental property in concord. Is that the intent?

This assumes landlords are the rich
Many property owners lost the property during Covid letting tenant not pay rent. But owners had mortgages.

Owners of rental property take risk when they rent out property

I think the solution the city needs to build city own property for those who cannot pay the current market rental rates.

When u can only change 3 percent increase when interest rates are much higher will force owners to sell.

This also discourages any upkeep on the property because landlord can’t afford to.

Please be rational and stick with the state established rent controls already in place. No need to add any extras.

Page 159 of 262 ends

From: Christopher Bocchicchio <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 11:24 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for capping privately owned rentals

Hi city council,
Resident of Concord Chris Bocchicchio at 867 grenola Dr, Concord, CA 94518. I wanted to write to give full support from my wife and I. We are home owners here and know that privately owned property should be for other families that want to own their home. Not for landlords to continue to line their own pockets.

With the housing shortage we already have, more homes need to be going for main residence not investments. Thank you for supporting this proposal.

Page 160 of 262 ends

From: Jim Basuino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

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

This ordinance is abuse. Your rent control formula is set too low and does not consider that most of us have rents under market and suffered losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you are requiring housing providers to issue refunds on rent increases we legally obtained even to renters who have already voluntarily moved out. How is this fair?

You recently allowed the Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery to impose a 6.5% increase in rates. They already have the highest trash collection rates in the county. PGE & and other utilities including water and sewer have raised their rates significantly over the past 18 months. How is this fair? Drive along Clayton Road, Concord Blvd, etc and you will see "FOR RENT" signs everywhere. The market has changed and your actions are fighting yesterday's problems.

James Basuino

Page 161 of 262 ends

From: JoAnn Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 3:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL

Attention City Council,

I ask that the City Council vote "NO" on the proposed rent control rules.

Please make changes to exclude single family homes and retroactive rent reductions. This is not a fair or sustainable plan.

Thank you.

JoAnn Moore
Cell (925) 448-5324
E-mail: [email protected]

Page 162 of 262 ends

From: Sailaja Ramireddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 3:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord rent control

No rent control please. It is getting very expensive to maintain properties. If you put control it will be very hard for landlords to survive. I believe the properties value in Concord is not going to be appreciated and this will bring down the real estate tax value which reduces income for the counties.

Please no rent control.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 163 of 262 ends

From: mike zhang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 3:52 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to the Rent and Eviction Control Ordinance

Dear City Council officer,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Rent and Eviction Control Ordinance that is currently under consideration by the City Council. While I understand the intention behind such measures is to address housing concerns, I believe that this ordinance will have detrimental effects on both landlords and tenants in our community.

As a property owner and taxpayer, I am deeply concerned about the potential consequences of the proposed ordinance. While I acknowledge the importance of affordable housing and the need to protect tenants from unjust evictions, I believe that this particular ordinance is overly restrictive and may negatively impact the rental market in our city.

One of my primary concerns is that the proposed rent control measures may discourage property owners from maintaining and improving their rental units. Rent control can create disincentives for landlords to invest in property maintenance and renovations, ultimately leading to a decline in the overall quality of rental housing. This could result in a negative impact on property values and the overall aesthetic appeal of our community.

Furthermore, the proposed eviction control measures may limit a landlord's ability to address legitimate concerns, such as non-payment of rent or violations of lease agreements. While I am empathetic to the challenges tenants may face, I believe that a more balanced approach is needed to protect the rights of both landlords and tenants.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed Rent and Eviction Control Ordinance and instead focus on solutions that promote a healthy rental market, encourage property investment, and ensure fair treatment for both landlords and tenants. I believe that open dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders can lead to a more effective and equitable solution for our community.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I trust that you will carefully consider the concerns raised by members of our community as you deliberate on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Mike Zhang
510-282-7866

Page 164 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Letter

I have attached an MSWord document and the text is below if that is what you prefer:

Mike Handlin
1440 Whitman Road•Concord, CA 94518
(925)408-4131•[email protected]

February 12, 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.

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.

Page 165 of 262 ends

Respectfully,

Mike Handlin
1440 Whitman Road
Concord, CA 94518

Page 166 of 262 ends

From: Harry Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:29 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Proposal

Hello Council Members,

I am the owner of a 208 unit multi-family community located on Clayton St. We are currently in the latter stages of an approximate $10 million rehab of the property to include the upgrade of the exterior buildings, new walkways, new lighting and new landscaping. We began this project in July of 2022 with the mindset that Concord deserves to have a property it can be proud of. Though our community was certainly still proving to be marketable, we felt the dry rot that was visible around the buildings, not to mention its generally dated look, was something that needed improving. In observing the already increasingly lower quality of properties around the city, we made the decision that we didn’t want to represent Concord in this manner.

At the time we began the project, we felt very positive that the passing of AB1482 was a productive law that would adequately curb the increasing rents. So much so that I was in support of its passage. Moreover, while a bit of a challenge, we budgeted the project with the mindset that we would be able to afford the improvements under the laws of AB1482. Thinking 1482’s approval was the final say on rent control, we moved forward. To say I am now heavily discouraged by the overly strict rent control measures proposed is an understatement. We extended ourselves greatly in order to fund this project. Had 1482 been left alone, it was already going to be a challenge over many, many years to recoup our investment. What is occurring now is going to be financially devastating to our business. I don’t know how, or when, we will recover.

Quite frankly, had I known in 2020, 2021 or even 2022 that this new law was forthcoming, I would absolutely have skipped the rehab project. Instead, I would have scheduled dry rot repairs such that the units remained only habitable. I would have also left the dated blue and mauve colors, the struggling landscaping, and the cracked walkways. In essence, instead of soon providing Concord with one of its nicest apartment communities, due to lack of affordability, I would have allowed the property to slowly deteriorate while I continued to collect as much rent as I could from it.

Please understand that, with the proposed rent control laws in place, my noted approach to property ownership will not be the exception but rather the rule. Concord already has an image problem. Can the city really afford to stand by as landlords slowly but surely move towards “slumlord” status? Due to the constraints of rent control, this will absolutely happen. I am someone living this nightmare in real time and I can tell you with absolute certainty your new controls will change everything. You will remove all incentive for property owners to ever improve their asset. Moreover, restricted rents will lead to lower quality tenants…which will lead to higher crime.

I urge you to please put your various side motivations aside and to really understand the issues at play here. AB1482 has already corrected the vast majority of rent issues that tenants were facing. To take the next step in rent control will only serve to ruin the city you claim to be trying to better.

Sincerely,

Page 167 of 262 ends

Harry Lewis
Managing Partner

Broadway Management Company, LLC
Tel: 925-820-7292
Cell: 831-905-5934
E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 168 of 262 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:31 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Concord Rent Control

Good afternoon. Please pass this along to all of the members of the Concord City Council in advance of the meeting tomorrow night.

I am writing to voice my concern over the rent control being proposed in Concord that would cap the yearly rent increase to 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (whichever is lower). The current CPI is 3.2% which would only allow for a 1.92% increase. Thi s is significantly lower than the California state rental control of 10% or 5% plus the Consumer Price Index (whichever is lower). I will explain why I feel this proposed rent control will negatively impact both landlords and tenants in Concord.

My wife and I own three (3) four-unit apartment buildings in Concord. We purchased the building at 2243 Hillsborough Ct. in 2008 and two adjacent buildings at 1681 and 1691 Haller Ct. in 2014.

I have taken the time to detail both the income and expenses fo r all three properties (see attached spreadsheets) and I hope you will review them.

Our ability to raise the rent to match the rising cost of water, garbage, insurance, pest control, property taxes, Concord licensing fees and inspections, and repairs has allowed us to improve all three of the properties with new roofs, new bathrooms, kitc hens, floors, air conditioning units, furnaces, appliances, etc.

The historic yearly rent increases for 2243 Hillsborough Ct. are detailed below:
• 0.13%, -20.35% (2008 U.S. Financial Crisis ), 24.86%, 3.9%, 0.30%, 1.22%, 5.99%, 3.58%,

3.65%, 6.99%, 3.44%, 4.54%, 1.82%, 7.91%, 3.95%

The historic yearly rent increases for 1681 Haller Ct. are detailed below:
• 4.3%, 5.01%, 8.84%, 4.83%, 6.57%, 0.96%, 3.88%, - 9.38% (tenant had to be evicted for non-payment of rent)

The historic yearly rent increases for 1691 Haller Ct. are detailed below:
• 4.33%, 4.01%, 10.25%, 4.43% 5.66%, 0.38%, 7.16%, 3.69%

All of the rent increases were to offset rising fixed costs (water, garbage, insurance, pest control, property taxes, Concord licensing fees, etc.) and repairs and were in line with other rents in the neighborhood. All of the rent increases would have also been under the CA rent control with only two exceptions.

Last year, the City of Concord raised their business license renewal 5.57%, garbage went up 11 - 12%, insurance went up 5.3%, water went up 5-47%, PG&E went up 6%, property taxes went up 2%, etc.

Page 169 of 262 ends

Imposing the proposed rent control for Concord will force landlords to find a way to cut costs and delay/defer repairs and improvements on their properties. When we purchased the buildings, the previous landlords had installed used water heaters in the bui lding with inadequate safety measures, had no working air conditioning units, had heaters that didn’t work, had no safety exterior lighting, etc. We increased rents to pay for those improvements for the benefit of the tenants and didn’t see any increased profit for ourself.

We have very few tenants move out because we take very good care of the buildings and raise their rent in small increments every year to cover our costs and keep the rent stable so they don’t have to move.

I also have some questions that I hope you can answer:

• Cap rent increases at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower. o What is the economic justification for imposing this in Concord when only 16 cities in CA have a different rent control than the state rent control law o Of the cities with rent control that don’t have a rent board, this proposed Concord rent control would be the most restrictive rent control in the state ▪ Beverly Hills – 8% limit
▪ Los Angeles – 8% limit
▪ Hayward – 5% limit
▪ East Palo Alto – 10%
▪ Palm Springs – 75% of CPI
▪ Oakland – 10%
▪ Los Gatos – 5%
▪ San Jose – 5%
▪ Santa Monica – 75% of CPI
▪ Berkeley, West Hollywood, and San Francisco set by their rent boards o CA State rent control is 10% or 5% plus the CPI, whichever is lower • Require base rents to roll back to January 2023 levels. o What is your justification for doing this? Myself along with many other landlords are still dealing with the losses incurred during the rent moratorium established during COVID.
• Issue rent refunds for any increases above the new rent cap—even to those who voluntarily vacated their units.
o What is the justification for doing this when these rent increases were legally obtained
• Increase permanent relocation payment for no-fault termination up to three months' HUD Fair Market Rent or $8,500 plus additional enhancements for households with special circumstances.
• Charge a new rent registry unit fee of up to $52 per unit.

Page 170 of 262 ends

o The current rent registry unit fee is $23 per unit. This would be a 226% increase when you are limiting landlord’s ability to raise the rent to 1.92% (60% of the current CPI rate of 3.2%)

• Garbage rates are increasing 6% in 2024 and went up 11% in 2023 • Water rates are increasing roughly 6% in 2024
• Property taxes went up 2.03% in 2023
• My property insurance rates went up 5.03% in 2023
• PG&E went up 5.5% in 2023
• Concord Business License Fee went up 5.6% in 2023
• Concord Inspection fees have gone up every year

In your Draft Ordinance, you reference HUD Fair Market Rent – How will this information be used?

TABLE 4: THE FY 2023 AND 20241 OAKLAND-FREMONT, CA HUD METRO FMR AREA

FMRS FOR ALL BEDROOM SIZES
Year Efficiency 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom FY 2023 $1,658 $1,969 $2,405 $3,144 $3,706
FY 2024 $1,825 $2,131 $2,590 $3,342 $3,954

I hope you consider the above information when making your decision and welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with you if you have any questions.

Best,

Gary Sabbadini
(925-286-4187)

Gary D. Sabbadini, DDS
1500 Tara Hills Dr., Suite 100
Pinole, CA 94564
(510) 724-4400
Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
Treasurer, California Society of Pediatric Dentistry
www.PinolePediatricDentist.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments and files transmitted with it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. Moreover, this communication may contain

Page 171 of 262 ends

the original sender's personal views and opinions, which do not necessarily reflect those of Gary Sabbadini, DDS. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, or if you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message and any copies of it from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error, and that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited without our prior, written permission.

Page 172 of 262 ends

1681 Haller Court
Partial 2014 2015 % Prev Yr 2016 % Prev Yr 2017 % Prev Yr 2018 % Prev Yr 2019 % Prev Yr 2020 % Prev Yr 2021 % Prev Yr 2022 % Prev Yr 2023 Water $660.40 $2,172.92 99.61% $2,164.49 107.39% $2,324.38 95.87% $2,228.31 97.86% $2,180.57 103.69% $2,261.07 94.47% $2,136.06 146.97% $3,139.43 147.19% $4,620.80 Property Taxes $2,563.58 $10,441.38 102.19% $10,669.64 103.46% $11,038.74 104.02% $11,481.98 104.61% $12,010.96 101.26% $12,161.86 101.13% $12,299.64 103.08% $12,678.46 102.01% $12,933.44 Garbage $455.44 $1,555.20 137.10% $2,132.20 81.08% $1,728.80 113.26% $1,958.00 125.11% $2,449.60 96.90% $2,373.60 100.00% $2,373.60 104.09% $2,470.60 112.64% $2,782.80 Insurance $1,240.00 $1,299.15 101.15% $1,314.15 101.07% $1,328.15 106.63% $1,416.15 103.25% $1,462.15 101.78% $1,488.15 115.93% $1,725.15 107.88% $1,861.15 105.27% $1,959.15 Repairs $4,235.43 $6,997.17 45.08% $3,154.06 63.52% $2,003.58 1277.27% $25,591.15 194.37% $49,741.42 7.63% $3,795.61 577.18% $21,907.50 71.27% $15,614.04 159.58% $24,916.36 PG&E $123.39 $303.75 113.96% $346.15 87.32% $302.27 95.25% $287.91 90.18% $259.64 106.74% $277.14 133.55% $370.11 80.88% $299.36 105.46% $315.70 Concord Business License $61.08 $62.04 102.45% $63.56 74.20% $47.16 108.99% $51.40 104.05% $53.48 102.77% $54.96 101.02% $55.52 103.53% $57.48 105.57% $60.68 Concord Inspection Fee $392.00 $196.00 233.16% $457.00 0.00% $1,379.00 13.92% $192.00 1156.76% $2,220.98 46.69% $1,037.04 102.75% $1,065.53 144.90% $1,544.00 Concord Rent Registry $21.00 109.52% $23.00 100.00% $23.00 Fire Permit $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 115.00% $115.00 100.00% $115.00 100.00% $115.00 Pest Control $320.00 $571.50 115.49% $660.00 63.64% $420.00 171.43% $720.00 60.42% $435.00 143.68% $625.00 40.80% $255.00 305.88% $780.00 83.33% $650.00 Subtotal $10,051.32 $23,699.11 88.87% $21,061.25 91.60% $19,293.08 222.80% $42,985.59 160.25% $68,884.82 36.81% $25,358.37 166.79% $42,295.62 90.09% $38,104.05 131.01% $49,920.93 Mortgage Expense $19,089.60 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 $45,815.04 Total Expenses $29,140.92 $69,514.15 96.21% $66,876.29 97.36% $65,108.12 136.39% $88,800.63 129.17% $114,699.86 62.05% $71,173.41 123.80% $88,110.66 95.24% $83,919.09 114.08% $95,735.97 Rent $26,950.00 $65,100.00 104.30% $67,900.00 105.01% $71,300.00 108.84% $77,600.00 104.83% $81,350.00 106.57% $86,693.00 100.96% $87,526.75 103.88% $90,925.00 90.62% $82,400.00 Rent - Expenses -$2,190.92 -$4,414.15 -23.19% $1,023.71 604.85% $6,191.88 -180.89% -$11,200.63 297.75% -$33,349.86 -46.54% $15,519.59 -3.76% -$583.91 -1199.83% $7,005.91 -190.35% -$13,335.97

Page 173 of 262 ends

1691 Haller Court
Partial 2014 2015 % Prev Yr 2016 % Prev Yr 2017 % Prev Yr 2018 % Prev Yr 2019 % Prev Yr 2020 % Prev Yr 2021 % Prev Yr 2022 % Prev Yr 2023 Water $714.43 $2,122.80 97.26% $2,064.73 111.00% $2,291.92 113.77% $2,607.54 110.14% $2,871.92 91.78% $2,635.92 102.54% $2,702.79 110.78% $2,994.02 104.72% $3,135.41 Property Taxes $7,536.40 $10,216.08 102.23% $10,443.76 103.49% $10,808.26 104.04% $11,244.58 104.63% $11,765.02 101.26% $11,913.00 101.15% $12,049.90 103.10% $12,423.56 102.03% $12,676.36 Garbage $455.44 $1,555.20 136.52% $2,123.20 73.38% $1,558.00 125.67% $1,958.00 115.89% $2,269.20 104.60% $2,373.60 100.00% $2,373.60 104.90% $2,490.00 111.76% $2,782.80 Insurance $1,298.00 $1,356.15 101.18% $1,372.15 101.09% $1,387.15 106.56% $1,478.15 103.31% $1,527.15 101.70% $1,553.15 114.87% $1,784.15 107.85% $1,924.15 105.30% $2,026.15 Repairs $17,998.15 $4,555.65 102.57% $4,672.67 583.86% $27,281.77 34.02% $9,280.04 539.64% $50,079.16 11.40% $5,711.00 611.00% $34,894.11 10.84% $3,784.00 53.55% 21,699.59 PG&E $123.39 $303.75 113.96% $346.15 87.32% $302.27 95.25% $287.91 90.18% $259.64 106.74% $277.14 133.55% $370.11 80.88% $299.36 105.46% $315.70 Concord Business License $61.08 $62.44 101.79% $63.56 74.20% $47.16 108.99% $51.40 104.05% $53.48 102.77% $54.96 101.02% $55.52 103.53% $57.48 105.57% $60.68 Concord Inspection Fee $196.00 0.00% #DIV/0! $270.00 47.41% $128.00 95.31% $122.00 0.00% #DIV/0! $2,131.06 31.06% $662.00 Concord Rent Registry $21.00 109.52% $23.00 100.00% $23.00 Fire Permit $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 115.00% $115.00 100.00% $115.00 100.00% $115.00 Pest Control $320.00 $571.50 115.49% $660.00 63.64% $420.00 171.43% $720.00 60.42% $435.00 90.57% $394.00 64.72% $255.00 305.88% $780.00 83.33% $650.00 Subtotal $28,506.89 $21,039.57 103.83% $21,846.22 202.31% $44,196.53 57.45% $25,390.08 273.68% $69,488.57 36.17% $25,134.77 217.31% $54,621.18 49.47% $27,021.63 163.38% $44,146.69 Mortgage Expense $17,842.40 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 $42,821.76 Total Expenses $46,349.29 $63,861.33 101.26% $64,667.98 134.56% $87,018.29 78.39% $68,211.84 164.65% $112,310.33 60.51% $67,956.53 143.39% $97,442.94 71.68% $69,843.39 124.52% $86,968.45 Rent $26,600.00 $64,700.00 104.33% $67,500.00 104.01% $70,205.00 110.25% $77,400.00 104.43% $80,825.00 105.66% $85,400.00 100.38% $85,725.00 107.16% $91,863.50 103.69% $95,255.00 Rent - Expenses -$19,749.29 $838.67 337.68% $2,832.02 -593.69% -$16,813.29 -54.65% $9,188.16 -342.67% -$31,485.33 -55.40% $17,443.47 -67.18% -$11,717.94 -187.92% $22,020.11 37.63% $8,286.55

Page 174 of 262 ends

2243 Hillsborough Court
2008 % Prev Yr 2009 % Prev Yr 2010 % Prev Yr 2011 % Prev Yr 2012 % Prev Yr 2013 % Prev Yr 2014 % Prev Yr 2015 % Prev Yr 2016 % Prev Yr 2017 % Prev Yr 2018 % Prev Yr 2019 % Prev Yr 2020 % Prev Yr 2021 % Prev Yr 2022 % Prev Yr 2023 Water $1,078.95 116.85% $1,260.73 90.73% $1,143.89 134.94% $1,543.59 74.38% $1,148.17 122.31% $1,404.34 104.88% $1,472.83 88.42% $1,302.28 109.11% $1,420.92 97.28% $1,382.24 108.86% $1,504.64 98.05% $1,475.35 133.76% $1,973.41 64.48% $1,272.50 146.86% $1,868.79 116.70% $2,180.80 Property Taxes $7,315.72 90.62% $6,629.42 100.46% $6,659.94 101.23% $6,741.68 108.70% $7,328.34 91.41% $6,699.14 122.17% $8,184.26 118.01% $9,658.48 110.27% $10,650.58 101.89% $10,852.06 123.00% $13,347.66 113.00% $15,082.88 101.25% $15,271.16 100.99% $15,421.88 102.89% $15,867.80 101.78% $16,150.76 Garbage $3,239.97 74.69% $2,420.00 56.28% $1,362.00 93.69% $1,276.00 113.57% $1,449.20 110.76% $1,605.16 112.16% $1,800.32 106.47% $1,916.80 102.42% $1,963.20 79.36% $1,558.00 125.67% $1,958.00 115.89% $2,269.20 104.60% $2,373.60 100.00% $2,373.60 104.90% $2,490.00 111.73% $2,782.20 Insurance $1,598.00 102.38% $1,636.00 100.73% $1,648.00 103.82% $1,711.00 103.21% $1,766.00 101.93% $1,800.00 103.17% $1,857.00 101.73% $1,889.15 101.43% $1,916.15 104.80% $2,008.15 103.73% $2,083.15 102.16% $2,128.15 106.63% $2,269.15 104.67% $2,375.15 110.30% $2,619.79 102.61% $2,688.15 Repairs $5,115.77 465.88% $23,833.57 109.58% $26,116.19 12.67% $3,309.61 28.03% $927.75 301.16% $2,794.05 633.24% $17,692.92 97.23% $17,203.58 12.64% $2,173.82 174.67% $3,796.92 155.74% $5,913.45 13.24% $783.22 1725.34% $13,513.21 40.84% $5,519.10 125.41% $6,921.56 335.70% $23,236.00 Concord Business License #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $86.52 0.00% #DIV/0! $88.12 102.59% $90.40 67.57% $61.08 102.23% $62.44 72.97% $45.56 103.51% $47.16 108.99% $51.40 104.05% $53.48 102.77% $54.96 101.02% $55.52 103.53% $57.48 105.57% $60.68 Concord Inspection Fee $160.00 102.50% $164.00 135.37% $222.00 0.00% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $255.00 0.00% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $261.00 0.00% #DIV/0! $334.00 68.26% $228.00 220.18% $502.00 12.75% $64.00 1465.63% $938.00 0.00% Concord Rent Registry $21.00 109.52% $23.00 100.00% $23.00 Fire Permit #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $47.50 113.68% $54.00 133.33% $72.00 104.17% $75.00 113.33% $85.00 100.00% $85.00 117.65% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 100.00% $100.00 115.00% $115.00 100.00% $115.00 Pest Control #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $575.00 53.91% $310.00 116.13% $360.00 0.00% #DIV/0! $590.00 47.46% $280.00 0.00% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $150.00 83.33% $125.00 0.00% #DIV/0! $320.00 79.69% $255.00 176.47% $450.00 Subtotal $18,508.41 194.20% $35,943.72 105.33% $37,861.04 39.48% $14,945.88 87.91% $13,139.58 112.05% $14,723.09 215.60% $31,743.41 102.06% $32,397.73 57.20% $18,531.23 106.55% $19,744.53 128.86% $25,442.30 87.43% $22,245.28 162.09% $36,057.49 76.33% $27,522.75 113.20% $31,156.42 153.06% $47,686.59 Mortgage Expense $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 $48,153.72 Total Expenses $66,662.13 126.15% $84,097.44 102.28% $86,014.76 73.36% $63,099.60 97.14% $61,293.30 102.58% $62,876.81 127.07% $79,897.13 100.82% $80,551.45 82.79% $66,684.95 101.82% $67,898.25 108.39% $73,596.02 95.66% $70,399.00 119.62% $84,211.21 89.87% $75,676.47 104.80% $79,310.14 120.84% $95,840.31 Rent $57,019.00 100.13% $57,092.00 79.65% $45,472.36 124.86% $56,775.00 103.90% $58,987.25 100.30% $59,166.40 101.22% $59,890.00 105.99% $63,475.00 103.58% $65,750.00 103.65% $68,150.00 106.99% $72,912.50 103.44% $75,420.00 104.54% $78,845.00 101.82% $80,283.00 107.91% $86,635.00 103.95% $90,061.00 Rent - Expenses -$9,643.13 280.05% -$27,005.44 150.13% -$40,542.40 15.60% -$6,324.60 36.46% -$2,306.05 160.90% -$3,710.41 539.22% -$20,007.13 85.35% -$17,076.45 5.48% -$934.95 -26.93% $251.75 -271.51% -$683.52 -734.58% $5,021.00 -106.88% -$5,366.21 -85.84% $4,606.53 159.01% $7,324.86 -78.90% -$5,779.31

Page 175 of 262 ends

From: Leslie Savoye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:59 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: NO RENT CONTROL!!!

(There was no additional text included in this email)

Page 176 of 262 ends

From: Richard Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 5:09 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Jones <[email protected]>; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]> Subject: NO ON RENT CONTROL

I sent this letter to the Members of Concord City Council on January 5, 2024. I graciously request that this letter be placed in the Public Record regarding my fervent opposition to the proposed Rent Control Ordinance as bad Housing Policy and its negative consequences to all stakeholders of the City of Concord.

January 5, 2024
To the Honorable Mayor and Honorable Concord City Council Members:

I encourage the City Council to reconsider their Votes to approve the Rent Control Ordinance on January 9, 2024. By enacting this Ordinance you are establishing a dangerously punitive Housing Policy which will set back Concord and all of its stakeholders indefinitely. Please note that:
• California already has Rent Control via AB 1482, limiting Rent Increases to 5% + local CPI, or 10%, whichever is lower. Rents have been moderating to flat in the Bay Area and certainly have not been remotely close to the statutory maximums allowed by 1482.

California’s Multi-Family housing is cycling back to its normal 2%-3% Rent growth per year which rarely covers annual Operating Expense inflation. • The Proposed Rent Control Ordinance is extremely bad and dangerous Housing Policy.

Countless studies have shown that Rent Control is a regressive policy that does not increase the housing supply of a community, or Housing availability and reduces Tenant movement due to artificially low rents. It further degrades the quality of the existing housing stock as Owners are disincentivized to maintain their properties due to reduced profitability. Ultimately, Concord’s Property tax revenues will decline due property re- reassessments which hurts funding for Public Schools and essential City services.

Everyone suffers.
• Banks and Lenders view Rent Control negatively which affects the ability to finance existing and new multi-family housing development, thus further reducing Housing supply.

Page 177 of 262 ends

• Rent Control is very damaging to small owners who own the vast majority of Housing stock (2-4 Units) and whose only source of income is the Rental income from these communities.

The following are my responses to the primary components of the Ordinance. • Cap rent increases at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower. Multi-family actual Operating Expenses are historically above 5% YOY and well above the published CPI which was 4.2% in August. So, as the Ordinance proposes, annual Rent Increases cannot exceed the lower of 3% (which is 60% of 5%) or 60% of CPI. As the published CPI has been trending lower, allowable Rent increases will be lower than even the than the rate of expense growth. If Housing Providers can’t even keep up with inflation they lose money YOY. Period! And if the Buildings are unprofitable, there is no “return” to the Owner, thus the concept of “Fair Return on Investment” (Ordinance language) is a complete illusion and merely a talking point concession to Housing Providers.
• Issue rent refunds for any increases above the new rent cap—even to those who voluntarily vacated their units. Require base rents to roll back to January 2023 levels.

This Clawback of Rent is a budding catastrophe. To illustrate, let’s assume an Owner of a 20 unit Apartment Community with average rents of $2,000 / Mo raised rents $100 / Mo. (5%) on all units January 1, 2023. That is $24,000 of increased Revenue by December 31, 2023. That Revenue is most likely already spent to pay the increased Operating Expenses and Capital Improvements to maintain the Buildings. The Ordinance requires that Owner to reimburse or Credit those Residents the overage Rent above the Rent Cap formula. That is revenue he doesn’t have. If he Credits future Rents for the overage, he may have an inability to pay his monthly Mortgage and thus potentially default on his Loan. Let’s add another layer, if that Housing Provider also financed his Apartment Community during 2023 and that Lender based its Loan and Mortgage payments on the 2023 Rent increases and those increases are given back to the Residents, it adds to the potential default situation. This is a completely untenable situation on so many fronts!
• Increase permanent relocation payment for no-fault termination: Up to three months' HUD Fair Market Rent or $8,500 plus additional enhancements for households with special circumstances. This is a heavy financial burden to small fixed-income Property Owners and is subject to abuse by some unscrupulous and misguided Tenants.

Page 178 of 262 ends

• Charge a new rent registry unit fee of up to $52 per unit. This is approximately $750,000 which is an additional Levy on property Ownership. • Fair Return. The Landlord has the right to obtain a net operating income equal to the Base Year (2022) net operating income adjusted by the percentage increase in the CPI since the Base Year. This is not a ‘return”; this is just receiving back a portion of actual Operating Expenses incurred for that year. The unreturned expenses are compounded and are never recaptured by the Housing Provider.

I agree with the CAA in its opposition to all added regulations. “The entire ordinance is misguided and founded on the false premise that rents in Concord are skyrocketing and unaffordable to working families despite the rent registry report having found that”:
“Rents in Concord currently support households earning between 70% to 80% AMI, which is considered to be accessible to low- to moderate-income households and is generally accessible to working families.”
“Moreover, the ordinance ignores all the facts presented to the city that emphasized that the proposed rent cap will be detrimental to housing providers and their ability to absorb increasing operating expenses while maintaining quality housing for renters. For some owners, this will mean operating at a significant loss or foregoing capital improvements.”

In closing, we are very experienced, responsible and respectful Multi-Family Housing Providers. Should the City Council approve this Ordinance on January 9, (now February 13) we will not seek to acquire another Apartment project in the City of Concord. My reaction is echoed by all the Housing providers I have talked to regarding this dreadful Ordinance. With investment in Housing by private investors, the market collapses.

I trust that you will read this anti-rent control response along with all of the other letters submitted in opposition to the Ordinance which contemplate the disastrous ramifications for the City of Concord, its Housing providers and our Residents that would be set in motion should you approve the Rent Control Ordinance. I urge the three Council Members in favor of the Ordinance to set aside any personal animous you may have for Housing Providers and do the right thing for your constituents. Vote No on Rent Control!

Respectfully;

Rich Jones
WaveCrest Capital Management, LLC
(925) 899-6583 / [email protected]
www.wavecrestcapitalllc.com / https://bracket.email/richjones

Page 179 of 262 ends

From: Paul R Cavanaugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 6:39 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Diana Cavanaugh <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Rent Stabilization, Just Cause changes

You are making a huge mistake. I own 6 single family home rental properties in the city of Concord. I sold one unit last year, I will sell an additional unit this year and I will continue to liquidate my remaining rental properties because I've seen rent control implemented before and it destroys American cities wherever it is tried. The net result of these actions will be to dramatically reduce the amount of rental property available in Concord because no investor in his/her right mind would EVER invest money in such an environment regardless of what (temporary) date you put in implementation.

It's an atrocity that you've decided to take my sole source of retirement income and burden me with an unbelievable obligation to pay a tenant $15,000 or more just to get my property back. During the real estate crash, I took VACANT properties out of foreclosure auctions, poured my own money and sweat into them, and created excellent homes for my tenants to live in. I will never do this again because you're hostile to those of us with the capability of making a difference. You want me gone? Okay I'm going and I'm taking all my resources out of Concord.

If you want to see the future of the city of Concord, just look at the burned out vacant hulks filled with squatters that dot Oakland and Berkeley neighborhoods since no responsible investor with the resources to fix them and rent them out will touch those houses. You NEED investment money to help with the housing crisis but your actions will cut this money off forever.

Very disappointed but I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends. It's so easy for you to check the history books to find out the devastation that will be coming.

~ Paul Cavanaugh

To a title search if you want to know where all my Concord properties are located.

Page 180 of 262 ends

From: Gilbert Sonet <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 6:50 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Owning Only 1 home in Concord as a senior

Hello,
Please forward to all 5 councilmembers

I am a senior citizen who owns only 1 home in Concord for 30 years and it is my principal residence.

The Just Cause Eviction No Fault is so unfair.

In the past I had to rent my house for a limited time for job purpose and for school and informed my tenant it was for a determined time.

Now I might have to rent my house for 1 year to take care of a sick family member,
Your proposal would require me to give almost 4 months of rent , and I have to pay also almost 3 months of rent for property taxes and insurance.

So the results is I will never rent my house under the new rules because 7 months of rent would be eaten + cost of repair after the tenants leave.

So for 1 year around 65% of the rent would be eaten!

This is the only home I work decades to own.

When the state of California excluded Just Cause No fault for the owner when moving back into his property that was fair. ( starting April 2024 Senate Bill 567 is already very stringent)

Why not keep the state of California wise exclusion?

or I would suggest to exclude people who own only 1 property in Concord not to be part of that just cause - No fault. when returning to live in your own house.

The unintended consequences for families will be to have less single home to rent and higher rent.

I really feel let down by the city of Concord on that matter.

Best Regards
Gilbert Sonet

Page 181 of 262 ends

From: John Tashjian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 7:21 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: Re: *Please Read- RE: Rent Control proposal*

All,

Following up again on the rent control measure that you will be likely voting on 2/13. This bill must be voted down. I attended the meeting last month and eye winessed the 80 or so speakers an overwhelming majority were opposed to this rent control measure. The only ones for it were activists that came from other cities including Antioch, Berkeley and Oakland.

As stated this bill will harm all parties involved and not help anyone. Landlords including me will be selling/ exchanging properties to more landlord friendly cities, further shrinking the supply of rental housing which will only increase prices and put more working families on the streets.

I have a business/ economics background and your proposal makes zero economic sense and will have a negative effect.

Please vote no on this bill and put it on the next ballot so the people can vote for it. City council should not have the power to make these types of reckless decisions. Do not succumb to a small handful of activists that do not understand how economics 101 works and do the right thing and vote no and abide by California AB-1482.

Thank you!

John Tashjian

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 29, 2024, at 5:20 PM, John Tashjian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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 1211 Pine Creek Way. 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

Page 182 of 262 ends

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

Page 183 of 262 ends

From: Renee Seaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 9:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Renee Seaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Ordinance re Rent Stabilization and Just Cause

Dear City Clerk,

I am submitting this statement prior to the February 13, 2024 hearing continued from February 6, 2024. Please forward a copy to all five City of Concord Council Members and the Mayor.

I want to state on the record a request the City Council Members vote against the ordinance.

2019 Cal Rental protection law: https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues

2022 California Tenant Guide PDF: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants- Guide.pdf

2023 Cal State Law protecting Renters Attys info on Cal Renter Law https://erikegelko.com/new-california-laws-landlords/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsi%E2%80%93Rosenthal_Box

The State of California Rental Protection Law provides plenty of protection for tenants. The tenants have tools listed above to support them, when needed.

The ordinance, if it is to be passed, should be split into two ordinances. One specifically refers only to Rent Stabilization (Rent Control). The other only referring to Just Cause. The one referring to Rent Control needs to take into account the average cost of PG&E, Water service, Sewage Service and Garbage Service and a reasonable amount for maintenance. Identify an average cost, add that to CPI and then address the percentage of change. Perhaps make three tiers. As to the Just Cause, single family homes not owned by corporations (excluding LLCs) and condos not owned by corporations (excluding LLCs) and ADUs should be excluded from Just Cause. Additionally, acts of God, water damage, fire and smoke damage and burst pipes should be excluded from the Just Cause ordinance. There are plenty of mom-and-pop landlords of single-family homes and small tenant complexes that would be harshly impacted by the Just Cause ordinance. This will result in higher rents for tenants when many of these non-corporation landlords have been allowing for rents below market values. Just Cause should exclude the expiration of a Lease. Shouldn’t the tenant also have the duty of an adult to anticipate the risk of needing to move at the end of the lease? Why is that burden put solely upon the landlord? The landlord has the burden of following the required laws when renting the property along with maintaining it. They are taking a larger risk of renting the property, then the tenant renting a unit.

I would like to see the City Council Members work at development of empty storefronts that are along bus service lines. For example, at Treat and Clayton, between Staples and CVS there are several empty storefronts there. The stores have been emptied for almost ten years and maybe

Page 184 of 262 ends

more. Would be great to make it multi-use. Add an urgent care clinic, and some other services at street level and then add a number of affordable apartments and some mid-level apartments or more. Tenants could walk across the street for groceries at Safeway or FoodMax. There are restaurants close by. The bus takes people to Bart. Starbucks is also across the street. Perhaps connect with innovative builders like the companies in Texas building homes from concrete.

Then locate investors willing to invest in green construction. There are a few companies, Hive 3D, another is ICON 3D homes. The U.S. Military already uses ICON 3D services.

I have much concern for those mom-and-pop landlords that have not received proper legal notice of this ordinance, and therefore have not had an opportunity to express their ideas on this ordinance. Their rights are being impacted. For some, their livelihood. What steps has the City Council taken to communicate to all those individuals that have rental units. If those individuals cannot be clearly identified, then all residents of Concord must be noticed.

Lastly, the ordinance is poorly written and confusing. Again, it should be rewritten as two separate ordinances.

I reserve the right to provide more input in the future.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Renee Seaton
Resident of Concord,
3905 Clayton Road, Unit 30, Concord, 94521
Resident since 1982

Page 185 of 262 ends

From: Rony Joseph <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 9:59 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to City of Concord Rent Stabilization

To the Honorable Concord City Council and Mayor,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rent control ordinance in Concord. While I understand the desire to address affordability concerns, I believe that rent control, as currently proposed, will have detrimental effects on our community and ultimately harm the very people it seeks to help.

My concerns are as follows:

1. Rent control has a history of causing unintended consequences:
• Reduced housing supply: Examples like San Francisco and Oakland demonstrate how rent control discourages new construction and investment in existing housing, ultimately leading to a shortage of available units. • Deteriorating housing quality: With limited rent increases, landlords may be less incentivized to maintain and improve their properties, leading to declining housing quality.
• Black market rents: Rent control can create a black market for apartments, where tenants pay premiums above the controlled rent, negating the initial benefit.

2. The data supporting rent control is questionable:
• Average rents in Concord are below HUD numbers: This suggests that affordability concerns may not be as widespread as portrayed. • Low rate of "just cause" evictions: Focusing on a small number of problematic landlords ignores the vast majority who operate ethically. • Tenant non-payment as the leading eviction cause: Rent control may offer little protection against this, as landlords may be less likely to be lenient with delinquent tenants.

3. Punishing good landlords for the actions of a few is unfair:

Page 186 of 262 ends

It is important to address unethical behavior, but broad-based rent control unfairly burdens responsible landlords who contribute to the community.

4. More data is needed before implementing such a significant policy:

Relying solely on individual complaints and advocacy groups is insufficient. A comprehensive data analysis is crucial to understand the true scope of the problem and potential consequences.

5. The proposed ordinance is overly restrictive and punitive:

Even if some form of rent stabilization is considered, the current proposal is unnecessarily harsh on landlords, potentially leading to disinvestment and reduced housing availability.

6. Allow the rent registry to gather data before enacting further measures:

The recently implemented rent registry can provide valuable insights into rental trends and identify potential issues before introducing new regulations.

7. Utilize existing state safeguards before layering additional rules:

California's existing rent stabilization laws offer protections for tenants. Evaluating their effectiveness before enacting new regulations is prudent.

8. Rent control can trap tenants in undesirable situations:

With limited rent increases, tenants may be unwilling to move, even if they find better opportunities elsewhere, ultimately hindering their mobility and well-being.

9. Reduced maintenance due to limited rent increases:

Landlords may be less likely to invest in upkeep and repairs, leading to a decline in housing quality and safety.

10. Concord risks becoming unattractive to investors:

Page 187 of 262 ends

Similar to other Bay Area cities with rent control, Concord could see a decrease in investment and development, leading to long-term economic and housing challenges.

I urge you to reconsider the proposed rent control ordinance. Instead, focus on gathering comprehensive data, exploring alternative solutions that encourage responsible landlords and address specific issues without harming the broader market.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Rony Joseph | 925-289-9565

Page 188 of 262 ends

From: Reena Joseph <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 10:03 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Request to reconsider rent control in Concord

Dear Concord City Council and Mayor,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rent control ordinance currently under consideration. While I understand the desire to address housing affordability concerns, I believe this specific proposal will ultimately cause more harm than good for the city of Concord and its residents.

My concerns fall into several key areas:

1. Rent Control's Historical Ineffectiveness: Numerous examples across the country, including those in the Bay Area, demonstrate that rent control often creates unintended consequences. It can disincentivize investment in new housing, reduce maintenance quality, and even lead to long-term rent increases. Examples include:
• San Francisco: Despite decades of rent control, San Francisco continues to grapple with some of the highest rents in the nation. Studies suggest rent control may have contributed to this issue by limiting new construction. • Los Angeles: While rent control may nominally provide stability for current tenants, the limited supply due to disincentivized construction pushes long-term affordability out of reach for many.
• New York City: Years of rent control have created a complex system with loopholes and unintended consequences, such as landlords pressuring tenants to vacate units to renovate and bypass rent restrictions.

2. Flawed Data and Punitive Approach: The data used to justify the proposed rent control seems inaccurate. Concord's average rents reportedly fall below HUD's deemed affordable levels, suggesting the issue may not be as widespread as portrayed.

Additionally, the proposed restrictions are amongst the strictest in the nation, bordering on punitive towards landlords. Such an approach risks damaging the delicate balance between tenant protection and responsible property management.

Page 189 of 262 ends

3. Addressing a Few, Punishing Many: Focusing on the negative actions of a few bad landlords to justify sweeping regulations punishes responsible landlords and ultimately harms tenants. Rather than broad bans, targeted enforcement against violators is a more effective and fair approach.

4. Gathering Comprehensive Data: Before enacting such significant legislation, I urge the council to gather more comprehensive data. Complaints from individuals, often amplified by advocacy groups, may not represent the reality for the majority of landlords and tenants.

5. Exploring Alternatives: Instead of the extreme proposal presented, consider exploring alternatives like stronger enforcement of existing state rent stabilization laws, tenant education programs, and incentives for building more affordable housing.

6. Letting the Rent Registry Work: We've invested time in establishing the rent registry. Allow it to gather data and demonstrate any widespread predatory practices before pursuing further regulations.

7. Utilizing Existing Safeguards: California's existing rent stabilization framework already offers protections. Let's evaluate its effectiveness before layering on additional rules.

8. Long-Term Tenant Harm: Strict rent control can create an "incumbent advantage," where tenants unwilling to leave enjoy capped rents while newcomers face significantly higher market rates. This long-term effect can exacerbate inequities.

9. Maintenance Concerns: Landlords facing limited rent increases may struggle to afford essential maintenance mandated by programs like Multi-Unit Inspections. This could compromise the quality of housing for all residents.

10. Deterrence of Investment: Rent control often discourages investment in new housing construction, leading to a shortage of affordable units and potential blight, as seen in other Bay Area cities like Oakland and San Francisco.

Conclusion:

I urge the council and mayor to reconsider the current rent control proposal. Instead, let's focus on gathering comprehensive data, exploring alternative solutions, and

Page 190 of 262 ends

strengthening existing laws that protect tenants without punishing responsible landlords and hindering future housing development.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Reena Joseph | 925-289-9568

Page 191 of 262 ends

From: Marianne baldetti <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 10:40 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization Ordinance: OPPOSED

Dear Mayor & City Council Members,

I believe the City of Concord’s proposed ordinance amending 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 is fatally flawed and misguided. In fact, as the City’s own housing manager, Sophia Huckabay, reported at the recent January 30, 2024 council meeting this proposed ordinance is essentially more stringent than any other rent stabilization program implemented by another city throughout the entire state of California.

I urge the City Council Members to seriously reconsider the implementation of this ordinance and, alternatively, support increased housing development throughout the city. If implemented, this ordinance will adversely impact both housing providers as well as tenants who it is directed at protecting since it will force property owners to get out of the business of rental units and sale, thereby, depleting the rental housing pool even further.

Thank you,

Marianne Simoni

Page 192 of 262 ends

From: Jo Sciarroni <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 11:46 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: HIGH PRIORITY - VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL - WE NEED LEADERS NOT FOLLOWERS!!

Dear Council Members and Staff,

FIRST: I am asking that you VOTE NO on the Ordinance presently before you. It is imparative that all affected parties have input in the decision making process. The Owners of 1 to 4 Units were not orginally Noticed nor included until the end of the process, most having no knowledge of what is coming down on them. Go back to the drawing board with everyone represented. And THINK about who is really being benefited ???

SECOND: STOP making more punitive amendments to the Rent Control Ordinance you have already decided to pass. Those amendments are NEW topics and should have Public Comments before being passes. We are watching you Text back and forth with the Attorney - Leah Simon- Weisberg from Berkeley for the wording to be included/added and her suggestions for changes during the Public Hearings with Laura Nakamura. We see her collaberating with Staff. We have witnesses to this. Isn't this against the Brown Act?? And we are listening to the Thank you from the Paid Tenant Organizers for working with them in drafting the Ordinance. Why aren't the voices of the citizenry who own properties in Concord both Residences and Income Properties who support the City with tax revenue, jobs and more NOT being heard. Is it because Mayor Birsan, who publically spoke about his family's history of many Evictions growing up, biased. Is it because Councilman Aliano is a Tenant and could personally benefit financially? Is it because Laura Nakamura is considered "the weak link" on the Council and is being used by Leah Simon-Weisberg and her Paid Organizers while she promotes her business and is enriched? The Vote is still out on the remaining two Councilwomen. But in the event their Vote is Yes, we will all know that they two, folded even knowing how this present Ordinance will be punitive and hurt the small Mom and Pop Owners/Housing Providers and in the long run also hurt the tenants. Rents that are and have been below Market will rise annually because that's the only way the small owners will be able to maintain. And investment homes will slowing be sold off to Owner Occupants decreasing the rental housing available. And forget Builders and/or Investors putting money into development in Concord, knowing that they too could be effected at some future time. Isn't this counterintuitive to the City of Concord housing goals?

THIRD: Have this Rent Control Ordinance put before the Concord Voters and let the Citizens decide!! Rather than basically three people, who appear to be bias and have no Investment Properties or Experience making such a crucial decision that affects the property and livelyhood of the Citizens of Concord. Also the patronizing comments to the Housing Providers and Owners of property in Concord at many of the Council Meetings from Mr. Birsan are not warranted nor even intelligible, especially coming from a person who apparently doesn't even understand a Lease Contract.

Page 193 of 262 ends

FOURTH; If you are hell-bent on passing this Ordinance, at a minmum, consider the following:
1) Totally Exempt the one to four unit Owners as is presently in place. 2) Increase the Allowable Rent Increases to match the State of Califormia - 5% plus CPI with a maximum of 10% per year.
3) Decrease Relocation Costs to 2 months actual rent paid plus $3000. moving expenses up to a maximum of $8,000.

Keep in mind it was not the Paid Organizers, nor Leah Simon-Weisberg, who voted you into Office.

It was the US Citizens of Concord who can also easily Vote you out!!

I caution you not to take us for granted, when you feel you've won the battle, the War will have just begun.

With respect and gratitude that you make the right decision for everyone concerned.

Jo Sciarroni

Citizen of Concord and Housing Provider
Past Concord Small Business Owner
Real Estate Broker

Page 194 of 262 ends

From: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:21 AM
Subject: Please include the attached comments in the public records for tomorrow's (02/13/24) City Council meeting

Please include the attached comments in the public records for tomorrow's (02/13/24) City Council meeting.

Thank you

Page 195 of 262 ends

To City of Concord Council Members:

The reason we are in this situation, is due to a lack of good leadership, which is destroying our Country, our State and our Cities. These “leaders” are following a self destruction ideology.

What do I mean by this?
-The governing leaders that claim they want to help the people, have been raising interest rates to the point that no one can afford to borrow, especially the first time home buyers.
-We don’t have enough housing to accommodate the demands, yet the same leadership is allowing millions of people to come into the country, further aggravating the housing challenges.
-The same governing also refuses to extract petroleum in this country (which we depend so much of at this time) and instead chooses to make us poor, and make other countries rich. We are giving all of our money to these countries that do nothing for us. -Leaders that also pass laws allowing people to walk into the stores, help themselves to goods and not pay for them, are the same mentality leaders supporting these rent control laws being proposed here in Concord.

It’s leadership and ideas like these that are ruining and devastating our country, and for Concord City “leaders” to push policies that encourage this behavior, it’s not ethical, it’s not in good faith, and is very destructive to the economy. This mindset encourages people to take advantage of others and ultimately leads to unintended results. The proposed laws will guarantee more poverty and more run down buildings across the City.

The results of all this is making people think irrationally and desperate. At the end of the day housing providers are in same shoes as the tenants, we are just trying to pay our bills and fulfill our responsibilities.

Your proposed laws and lack of good leadership will punish the housing industry in the short and long term.

It is imperative that the residents of Concord are given the opportunity to vote on this matter, so we strongly suggest this to be put on the ballot since everyone will be impacted by the outcome of these laws.

Page 196 of 262 ends

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 “Slumlords”.

It reflects the immaturity of YOUR leadership, and is a perfect example of governing abuse of power.

Page 197 of 262 ends

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!
xxx60% of CPI translates to only 2.5% increase. And 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.xxx 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!!!

Page 198 of 262 ends

From: Zhen B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 4:31 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: NO on Rent Control

Hello Mayor and the Council Members-

When a proposed solution only benefits one side of the equation and deeply hurts the other, it is not a solution, the equilibrium will not happen. I believe the rent control program you are considering, if passed, will ultimately hurt the intended beneficiaries. Please pause it and please invite both sides in equal participant representation to the negotiations table to find a solution. We all want to help solve the housing needs but this is not the way. As a small landlord with one rental home I am happy to participate in a zoom workshop to find a solution. Thank you

Best Regards,

Evgenia

Sent from my iPhone

Page 199 of 262 ends

From: Ron Navarra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 7:32 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: NO on Tonight's proposed Concord Rent Control measures!

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.

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.

Most sincerely,
Ron Navarra

Page 200 of 262 ends

From: Jean Hayek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 7:39 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: opposition to rent control

To whom it may concern,

I am against imposing rent control restrictions on landlords in Concord or anywhere else. I am a Capitalist and believe that people should own and control their own properties without the restrictions imposed by any government agencies on private property. My understanding is that there is no reason for these restrictions except for control of the government over and restrictions of people's rights. My understanding is that the loss of tenants this last year were not from evictions but from the tenants willfully leaving their residences. My ancestors were immigrants who came to this country and worked hard to own what they possessed--the American Dream--I am not for a welfare society which historically does not work--when the money runs out as it always does, the society is left with the very poor and the very rich. Look at Venezuela where many poeple have starved to death. The only country that has thrived in the world is ours before these socialistic principles have been implemented. I am against Rent control anywhere or in any fashion!!!

Jean Hayek

Page 201 of 262 ends

From: Susan Pollock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 8:37 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control

Hello,

Writing in regards to the rent control proposed ordinance. My family owns several rentals in Concord and should you pass the ordinance, we would be forced to sell which in turn just makes the situation worse as there will be less rentals on the market. And you will be creating more of a housing crisis. We suggest you do not pass the ordinance.

Sincerely,

Susan Pollock and Family

Page 202 of 262 ends

From: Alexander Babitsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 9:37 PM
To: Cityinfo <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control is Bad for the Economy in Concord, CA

Dear Councilpersons and City Officials:

Please DO NOT vote on rent control in Concord. Implementing a more stringent rent control than the state already has is not a sound decision, and I’ll tell you why.

Assar Lindbeck, a Swedish economist who chaired the Nobel Prize committee for many years, reportedly declared that rent control is “the best way to destroy a city, other than bombing.”

• Rental property owners sell to builders for different uses, removing units from the market.

Some big players are investing in other states;
• Construction of new units stops as the cost/benefit makes no economic sense; • YOU will only be creating more of a housing crisis;
• Rent control is rare because history shows us it doesn’t work as intended; • Rent control is a short-term fix for current residents at the expense of long-term affordability for a much broader population—a statement from a Stanford economist; • I have not raised my tenants' rents for a few years. I am forced to raise rent after learning the proposed rent control law. This is to cover my upcoming high-price maintenance expenses.

Milton Friedman was an American economist who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He promoted the Laissez-faire theory. Laissez-faire means to leave alone when it comes to economic intervention by the government. That means no taxes, regulations, or tariffs. Instead, the market is free to be led by the natural laws of supply and demand.

Please look at the booming economy in Hong Kong under the British government.

Page 203 of 262 ends

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
Alexander Babitsky
(415) 533 1629
[email protected]

Page 204 of 262 ends

From: Mic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:52 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Vote no on rent control please. For each council member, and for the public website posting of the transcript and the video please.

Concord Council,

Please don’t bring this housing nightmare to the residents of Concord. Please watch this informative interview and post the video and the video transcript of a mom and pop housing provider who explains why they provide better housing at a lower cost to renters than government controlled housing.

Why any city that copies Oakland's failed policies will destroy good quality affordable housing provided by mom and pops long term below market rents in Concord. He explains why only lawyers and maybe a few individual renters would
benefit from government controlled houses.

Also why is Concord such a good target for these lawfare type tactics (stealing of mom and pops money that provide good quality fair housing to the community of Concord)?
Please read all the comments in the transcript of the video of the nightmare that the City of Oakland created, and save Concord from Government control;ed housing.

Thank you,
Long Term Mom and Pop Housing Provider

58,527 views Jan 13, 2024
Siyamak sits down with Tuan Ngo, a small-scale housing
provider in Oakland. Today, he'll share with us the challenges mom-and-pop landlords currently face because of the
widespread abuse of current housing laws and regulations in

Page 205 of 262 ends

Oakland. We'll also discuss how this situation is impacting the relationship between small landlords and tenants and the affordable housing market.
"Right now it costs $50,000 to $80,000 to evict a tenant. A lot of people still have not gotten rent. Some people owe $30,000, $40,000, to $50,000 in back rent from the three-plus years during the moratorium. And the lawyers, they'll say your place was not habitable for the last few years. So they force you to settle to give up that rent, and then they want you to pay for the relocation fees and the rent in the new place for six months."

https://youtu.be/Z5GIq2PlWQw?si=wNxoBqSig8geNs6d

Page 206 of 262 ends

From: Stephanie Bergin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:31 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote No on Rent Control

Dear Mayor Birsan and Members of the City Council,

I again ask you to reconsider the 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.

The 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 alone have gone up over 50%!

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.

This will directly impact the people who are providing housing. Some numbers I ask you to consider before pushing this forward:

• Housing providers in Concord are following the state mandated rent cap and eviction regulations, AB 1482
• Also in 2022, 88% of owner-initiated tenancies were due to non-payment of rent – meaning the renter did not pay. This is legally justifiable cause for eviction. • Rents in Concord are one of the lowest in the Bay Area • “Rents in Concord are accessible to low to moderate income households and generally accessible to working families.”

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

Page 207 of 262 ends

From: CalproManager <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:14 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord rent control

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law is working effectively.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent. This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to true solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.

Sincerely,
Ellen Acosta

Page 208 of 262 ends

From: George M. Bechara <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:33 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New rental laws in concord

To all concerned
I am strongly opposed to the ridiculous proposal by the city of Conor’s regarding new landlord obligations to tenants regarding move out fees. This is insane!!! 15k dollars can move someone to Alaska!! If you want to tank the local economy and crater home prices that is a great way to go. Not only will this inflict undue burdens on small and very small(me) landlords but it will shrink the supply of rental units in the area. High interest rates have hobbled first time home buyers. This has expanded demand for rental units. This regulation will force me to sell my condo, which I used to live in but when I got married I lived in with my wife. I will take the proceeds and invest out of state with a 1031 exchange and the property taxes you collect from me will be collected by another state and municipality. This is a disaster and some of the most self defeating legislation I have heard of in a while.

George Bechara
Concord property owner.

Page 209 of 262 ends

From: Rebecca Joseph <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rebecca Joseph - Public Comment

To the Esteemed Concord City Council and Mayor:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed implementation of rent control in Concord. While I understand the concerns regarding rising housing costs, I believe the proposed solution will ultimately prove detrimental to the city and its residents. My opposition stems from the following points:

1. Misinterpretation of Rent Registry Data:

I urge the council to dedicate more time to studying the available rent registry data. Focusing solely on isolated cases of rent increases creates an inaccurate picture. Rent control often targets outliers, neglecting the reality that the majority of rental units in Concord, like countless other cities, remain well within federally defined affordability standards.

2. Addressing the True Issues, Not Fabricated Crises:

The notion that the vast majority of landlords engage in predatory practices is simply not supported by evidence. According to national surveys, less than 1% of evictions are deemed "retaliatory." Most evictions occur due to legitimate reasons like lease violations or non-payment of rent, issues rent control wouldn't address. Focusing on fabricated emergencies distracts from the real challenge: a lack of affordable housing options.

3. Avoiding Ideological Pitfalls:

Framing this issue as one of "woke ideology" and "class warfare" is not only unproductive but also ignores the complexity of the problem. Focusing on divisive rhetoric hinders constructive dialogue and risks overlooking potential solutions.

4. Prioritizing Sustainable Practices:

Page 210 of 262 ends

Instead of enacting punitive measures like rent control, the city should invest in encouraging the development of more affordable housing options. Incentives for developers to build mixed-income units, streamlining approval processes, and exploring public-private partnerships are far more effective long-term solutions. Similarly, providing safety net programs like housing vouchers and temporary rent assistance for those truly in need offer targeted support without harming the overall housing market.

5. Recognizing Unintended Consequences:

Rent control often leads to unintended consequences like reduced maintenance, decreased investment in properties, and a "black market" for rentals. These outcomes ultimately harm both tenants and landlords, hindering overall housing quality and availability. Furthermore, such policies often provide only temporary relief to a small fraction of residents while creating negative impacts for the broader community.

I urge the council to revisit proposed rent control measures and instead focus on sustainable solutions that promote the development of affordable housing, support those in need, and avoid unintended consequences. Let's work together to find solutions that truly benefit the entire Concord community.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Joseph

--
Rebecca Joseph | Class of 2027
[email protected]

Page 211 of 262 ends

From: Ms. Bonnie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:59 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: MY ONGOING CONCERN. REC'D THIS FROM ANNIE NOLEN WHO RECEIVED IT ON HER "NEIGHBORHOOD" AND FORWARDED IT TO ME!!
Importance: High

Just received this email from the City of Concord (Kelly Rush).

They seem to be in full damage control mode. Claiming the public has been subject to “ misinformation”?

The truth is Single Family Homes owned by individuals will (if the proposed regulations pass) be subject to new “just cause” eviction rules which do include up to $15,000 in moving expenses, new fees, and new reporting requirements. Regardless of what the lease says, the landlord will owe the tenant move out expenses should the landlord decide to reoccupy their home or sell it.

Grandma goes to a nursing home (hopefully temporarily) and rents her home out to keep it occupied and help her with expenses. The tenant wants a short term rental and is happy with the lease. She will have to pay the tenant the exorbitant move out fees anyway. She will also have to pay the city an annual fee.

This will seriously harm the home rental market and will drive up rents as fewer homes will be available.

I WOULD APPRECIATE A RESPONSE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 212 of 262 ends

From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 10:36 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Cambero, Antonio <[email protected]>; Lopez, Roberto <[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 send the following to the City Counsel:

Dear City Council,

I am writing to express my extreme concern about the direction you are heading in your consideration of rent control. My comments are my comments as an owner of a rental property in Concord, which my wife and I have owned for about 20 years. My comments may or may not align with the views of any organization of which I may be a member.

I feel as if I do not have a voice. I have written to you at least five times with no impact. Why are punishing the good landlords? I just read that rents are up 6.5 percent year over year statewide and CPI is about half that. And yet you want to limit rent increases not to CPI, but to 60 percent of CPI. I will suffer, my family will suffer, tenants will suffer and Concord will suffer. I have invited you to call me to discuss and not one of you have called me.

All of our rents are seriously below market. With your proposed roll back to prior rent levels you are punishing me. Please, no roll back.

Please CPI, not 60 percent of CPI.

Please a 5 percent cap, not a 3 percent cap.

HELP!

James Dye

Page 213 of 262 ends

From: Joe Stokley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 10:59 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control Public Letter- From Joe Stokley

Greetings Concord's City Council,
Please read the attached article below, from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Feb. 12, 2024.

It is one more disastrous example of what rent control will do to a city. Please vote no.

Thank you,

Joe Stokley, Jr.

BRE #0111908
Broker-Owner
Stokley Properties, Inc.

Office: (925) 658-1415
Direct: 1-(925)-878-1603

Page 214 of 262 ends

Page 215 of 262 ends

From: Raydon Shippey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:23 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent stabilization

My HOA fees constitute 23% of my rent. I have to pay my HOA a special assessment fee of $1,200 by next month. I have to pay repair bills caused by my tenant . I cannot collect those additional costs from my tenant. Single housing providers in Concord should be considered in your deliberations this evening.

Respectfully submitted.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 216 of 262 ends

From: Margaret DeWilde <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:48 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Outrageous “just cause” eviction fees

We are landlords of a single family house in Concord. Currently the rent is approximately two-thirds of the going rate for the area.

Because of the proposed extreme potential rental control policies, specifically the outrageous “just cause” eviction fees, we are looking to sell the house. This will most likely take this property off the rental market and add to the rental shortage issue. This is unfortunate for the tenant who would probably be displaced since new owners would need to raise the rent substantially to make the property financially viable.

Why are the city council members trying to burden single family home owners and hurt tenants? Penalties should be placed on people/companies who abuse renters and not on those who work with their tenants to live in a decent affordable home.

Margaret Dzikielewski
Concord resident and landlord of a single family house.

--
Margaret DeWilde
[email protected]

Page 217 of 262 ends

From: Greg Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:03 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Kelli Ross <[email protected]>; Gregory Ross <[email protected]> Subject: Concord rentals

To whom it may concern.

I purchased a four Plex off the monument corridor approximately 15 years ago. I was self-employed at the time and just trying to invest in an investment property to help me out during my retirement years which I am now into.

I have always kept my rents low so I wouldn’t go through the headaches of having a large turnover with my tenants. I’ve always kept the units up and complied with all the city inspections and paid my dues. It appears with some of the new regulations in your Proposal it also includes extra fees and yearly dues for owners like me to be having to pay, not to mention some heavy fines with tenant turnovers.

The long and short of it for me as a landlord when and if this proposal gets passed, my rents to my now happy tenants with low rents, will be increased to the maximum amount I’m allowed. So now, if I’m thinking correctly, you will not be helping tenants out with lower rents, and it will be higher rents for all.

Let’s hope you crush this proposal and keep rates down for owners like me to keep my rents lower for my tenants.

Sincerely, Greg Ross
Sent from my iPhone

Page 218 of 262 ends

From: Doug Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Tenant Protections / litigation/ URGENT

Dear Mayor Birsan and Council Members,

I would like to note a few key concerns that will cause the City Civil liability.

Owners are prepared to take immediate legal action.

1) 2.52% for 2023 is not a fair return, especially after the fact. The most recent CPI is 2.6% indicating the likely allowable increase for 2024 in 45 days will be 1.56%. I am requesting an appeal for 2023 and 2024 BEFORE any roll back. If the roll back happens before the appeal is heard, all owners will suffer great losses while the City tries to review hundreds of cases. A flat 5% and no roll back would solve all the issues.

2) The appeal process is should be zero cost for tenants AND housing providers. It is designed to discriminate against owners by charging an outrageous fee of $5000. An owner with 10 units appealing the 2.52% who is later approved for a 5% increase will end up paying more in fees than he can recoup in additional increase.

3) Discussing rolling back rents to Jan 2023 has already cost us as we haven't been able to increase tenants who got increases over a year ago due to 60 day notice requirement. AB 1482 allows for "annual" increases but had we given a notice in November for Jan 2024 increase, it would be rolled back to Jan 2023. Eliminate the roll back, with AB 1482, no owner has been allowed to give any excessive increases, especially because of the COVID rent increase moratorium prevented us from giving any increases for 2 years.

The City knows that 60% of CPI is not reasonable in any business, not even the City. Even Eden housing opposes a roll back and increases lower than 5%.

Please do the right thing and don't subject the City to unnecessary litigation.

thank you
Doug Smith

Page 219 of 262 ends

Page 220 of 262 ends

DOUG SMITH
President
Fuller Enterprises
DRE Broker License#1223373 ker License# 1223373

925-866-8429

[email protected]

https://Apartments.Fullerpm.com/

3170 Crow Canyon Place Suite 165
San Ramon CA 94583

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 01:22:47 PM PST, Doug Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor and City Council,

Page 221 of 262 ends

I am a third-generation housing provider in Concord and operate 163 affordable units on Monument Blvd (Mountain View Apartments). We have had a great relationship with the City's housing department for many years and have even been featured by the City as an example of how well an owner can maintain their property despite the aging buildings.

It is important that you all hear my concerns so I will be brief as I know your time is valuable. Over the years, we have offered some of the most affordable housing in the Bay Area. We have also reinvested millions of dollars into our building so that we can continue to offer this affordable housing to hundreds of needy families.

Over the last 20 years, our rents have increased on average only 5% per year. This was accomplished despite rents falling 30% in 2001 and not returning to that level until 2011. Yes, 10 years with no increases at all and some years with increases as high as 13%, however overall, only 5% per year. Your proposal will not prevent rents from falling again, likely 20% to 30% but they will prevent us from ever getting back to today’s rents once they do fall due to your unrealistic restrictions. Additionally, as you know, expenses never fall.

Since COVID, we have experienced massive losses ($2,843,952.00) due to over 30% of the tenants not paying rent for over 3 years. We were unable to raise rent on those actually paying rent due to State and Local restrictions.

In 2023, we finally started to recover and began raising rents while still complying with 1482 State restrictions (9.5%). While these increases helped, they only amounted to about 3% per year (2020-2023). It also only effected about 70% of the residents as our occupancy was and still is in the mid 70% range. While any increase was welcome, it did little to offset the massive increases we faced due to supply chain and ramped inflation. All costs increased but major expenses like payroll, healthcare, insurance, construction, asphalt, etc increased over 15% annually from 2020 to 2024.

Page 222 of 262 ends

My major concern is that if you roll back rents to January 2023, it will amount to about an annual increase of less than 1 percent over the last 3 years at a time when expenses have increased on average 15% per year.

Additionally, because we are sitting at 74% occupancy today, we have dropped rents 18% and are offering 1 month free. We are still losing over $80,000 per month due to the high vacancy. A roll back would be catastrophic to us.

I urge you to reconsider the roll back as we were unable to raise rents during COVID and when we could, we were still restricted to 1482 limits.

If you pass this roll back and continue to limit increases to an unrealistic amount of 60% of CPI, I am requesting my appeal be heard day 1. I also promise to appeal annually as no property built in 1959 can adequately maintain an acceptable standard at 1.2% annual increases (60% of Fed target CPI of 2% is 1.2%). The City manager is proposing a 3.95% increase for the City in 2024, why can't we get the same? I would suggest that we tie the annual rent increase to the City's annual budget increase.

Thank you for your time.

Doug Smith

Concord City Manager Proposes 3.95% Budget Increase For Fiscal Year 2024

Page 223 of 262 ends

Concord City Manager Proposes 3.95% Budget
Increase For Fiscal Year 2024
Councilors eye $78 million for operating, $20.1M for
capital; employees get $1.3M more; social worker proposed f...

DOUG SMITH
President
Fuller Enterprises
DRE Broker License#1223373 ker License# 1223373

925-866-8429

[email protected]

https://Apartments.Fullerpm.com/

3170 Crow Canyon Place Suite 165
San Ramon CA 94583

Page 224 of 262 ends

From: Cathy Simpson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:26 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Eviction Expenses

Dear Mayor and City Council,

Please do not enact these punitive eviction laws for folks with one or two rentals.

These do more harm for folks who own rentals. They are just regular folks not land barons.

After rising prices it is becoming less profitable to even have these rentals. There will be fewer rentals in the future if these laws pass!

Caterine Bruno Simpson
9253953441
Sent from my iPhone

Page 225 of 262 ends

From: Sheila Stokley <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:04 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Additional Rent Control

Please do not add additional rental controls. Please utilize and enforce the rules that are already in place, they are strong and benefit tenants and almost all landlords abide by them. Go after bad landlords, but don't punish all good housing providers.

The more stringent controls proposed will ultimately hurt the city and the tenants as well as housing providers.

Sheila Stokley
Owner/Broker
CalDRE License#01797049
Stokley Properties, Inc.
2300 Contra Costa Blvd #110
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 658-1415 (Ext 11) Office
(925) 658-1416 (Fax)

Residential Property Manager - RMP

Page 226 of 262 ends

From: Traci Wheeler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:10 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization Public Comment

Hello,
I’d like to make a comment in tonight’s meeting.

Concord absolutely needs rent stabilization!
These landlords are charging way too much money for old apartments that don’t even have heating elements in the bedrooms and noted/posted signs of toxic materials in the buildings.

Thank you for holding this meeting and making my comment a part of the official record.

Sincerely,
Traci Wheeler
Concord resident

Page 227 of 262 ends

From: Charlito Bergante <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:19 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions

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.

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.

Trash, Insurance, Utilities Increase 5%-8%
City of Concord proposed registration fees Increase $4+--$52 or 880% increase (49-5/2*100= 880%)
Fair return - file a petition and pay all the associated bureaucratic appointed by you? PG&E just announced another 21% rate hikes.

Page 228 of 262 ends

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 harassed, 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, Lafayette, 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,

Charlie

Page 229 of 262 ends

From: Carrie Sherring <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:35 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Use logic and data in rental restriction measures

Dear Concord City Council,

I am strongly urging you to vote no on the draconian rent control measures you are considering.

It is one thing to have common sense protections for tenants, but it is crucial to look at data and use logic in the extent of those protections, and not to make decisions based on stereotypes.

It is easy to verify the data showing that the vast majority of single-unit landlords are individuals, not wealthy corporations. It is very expensive to own and maintain a house in Concord, and the majority "Mom and Pop" landlords rely on the small profit from their single family rental home just to get by.

Wealth of the tenants vs the landlords is not a consideration at all in this rent control proposal as it should be.

Other landlords, like myself, have offered temporary rentals at a low rate during a time they have to be away. I had to move in with my mother to care for her in her final years of illness. I rented my home out at a very low rate with the understanding that I would return when my mother passed. If your proposal is passed, I would have no hope of being able to return home. I am a low income senior myself, and could never save enough for the excessive, unprecedented relocation fees. Further, one of my tenants has a disability, and I don't, so this city council would disallow me from ever being able to move back to my home.

Data from the IRS and other sources show available single unit rentals in California to be decreasing greatly (I'm not sure about multi-unit). Increased restrictions and lower income (or greater loss) for landlords will surely cause many rentals to exit the market. If landlords are not allowed, or can't afford to make a profit or end a lease, the resulting option for landlords will be to raise the rents as much as possible, and enforce the smallest of lease violations to encourage the tenants to leave. A big loss for both parties with your proposal.

We need more rentals in Concord, not less, to keep market prices down. It is also your duty to represent the majority of your constituents, who clearly oppose this extreme rent control. If you doubt that, put it to a vote!!

Please look beyond the false and damaging stereotypes of all landlords being rich and greedy, and all tenants as poor and oppressed, as it's just not true!! Reasonable rent control should be applied only to corporate landlords, and more rentals-not less- should be encouraged!

Vote no!!

A Taxpayer Opposing Rent Control

Page 230 of 262 ends

From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:33 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Concord considers rent control and just cause Item 5A

Subject: Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions

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.

Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482.

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.

Trash, Insurance, Utilities Increase 5%-8%
City of Concord proposed registration fees Increase $4+--$52 or 880% increase (49-5/2*100= 880%)
Fair return - file a petition and pay all the associated bureaucrats appointed by you? PG&E just announced another 21% rate hike.

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?

Page 231 of 262 ends

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 harassed, 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, Lafayette, Orinda as opposed to destroying it like Oakland, Richmond, and Antioch dominated by crime and violence. I hope you will look favorably on me as well as many hard- working housing providers throughout Concord.

Thank You,

Wallace

Page 232 of 262 ends

From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:41 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions Item 5 A.

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.

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?

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

Page 233 of 262 ends

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

Thank You,

Wallace

Page 234 of 262 ends

From: Cheryl Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Just Cause for Eviction

As a senior aged landlord of one single family home in Concord I am opposed to the new ordinance being considered - Just Cause for Eviction

This ordinance does not make sense. If I were to sign a month to month agreement with a tenant but later need to move in a disabled family member it would be financially impossible -- even if I gave 60 days notice. Yet a tenant can break a lease or a month to month agreement, especially given a 60 day notice, and walk way with no penalty.

If I sign a month to month agreement with a tenant I think that is what should be expected from both the landlord and the tenant. Its a no ties agreement. I don't expect anything other than a 30 days notice. Every time a tenant moves out the landlord loses out by having to get the house again ready to rent and finding a tenant. There are landlords that rely on the income from a rental to supplement their social security.

Why should I have to ever pay a tenant 3 months rent and moving expenses if I am following what is written in a signed lease or month to month agreement?

I think the City Council should look at ways to improve the beauty of Concord by setting standards for rental property. There are to many rentals bringing down neighborhoods - unkept yards and cars parked where flowers and lawns should be growing!

Cheryl Harbaugh
925-360-8306

Page 235 of 262 ends

Page 236 of 262 ends

From: KONTAXIS, GEORGE D <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:47 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control: Learn From the Mistakes of Others

A New York Rent-Control Bank Panic
Investors fret about NYCB’s multi-family housing portfolio.

By
The Editorial Board
Feb. 11, 2024 5:44 pm ET

Regional bank share prices have tumbled since New York Community Bancorp (NYCB) reported surprisingly large losses on real-estate loans. Don’t blame this mini-bank panic only on underwater office buildings. Primary culprits are Albany’s destructive rent-control laws.

NYCB last month reported $552 million in credit losses, including a $185 million charge-off mostly from two office and condo building loans during the fourth quarter. These losses were bigger than investors expected. But what worries investors more is the bank’s $37 billion multi-family housing portfolio, about half of which are comprised of New York rent-regulated units.

NYCB acquired the failed Signature Bank’s deposits and some of its loans last spring. But the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. struggled to find a buyer for Signature’s $15 billion in loans that were backed primarily by New York rent-regulated buildings. Last autumn the agency finally unloaded the loans at a roughly 40% discount. Why have these loans become toxic? Blame Democrats in Albany, who in 2019 restricted landlords’ ability to raise rents to pay for renovations and “de-regulate” rent-stabilized units. These apartments account for nearly half of the city’s rental housing. Landlords used to be able to charge the market rate once the rent exceeded $2,800 a month and a tenant moved out. No longer.

Bloomberg News last week reported that NYCB is looking to transfer the risk of its home mortgages and sell assets to raise capital. Moody’s also downgraded the bank’s credit rating to junk, and its stock has fallen more than 50% since it reported its fourth-quarter earnings. NYCB’s travails have dragged down shares in other regional banks.

Page 237 of 262 ends

Few investors until recently appreciated the financial impact of New York’s rent-control regulations.

NYCB’s troubles are a reminder that bad government policy is a source of financial instability. What other risks could be hiding in plain sight?

Sincerely,

George D. Kontaxis
Phone: 925-487-5877 |

Page 238 of 262 ends

From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 2:05 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions Item 5 A.

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.

Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482.

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.

Trash, Insurance, Utilities Increase 5%-8%
City of Concord proposed registration fees Increase $4+--$52 or 880% increase (49-5/2*100= 880%)
Fair return - file a petition and pay all the associated bureaucrats appointed by you? PG&E just announced another 21% rate hike.

Page 239 of 262 ends

Dominic Aliano/Eddie Birsan/LauraNakamura,
We know you have been bought and paid for the tenants' advocates and their thugs. If you have any political aspirations I would put them on hold since we will make all your bribes, quite pro quote public. If you like communism and socialism, get the hell out of this country and move to Russia or China and we'll see how you like living in that kind of society where you have no rights.

This is how communism and socialism starts with the state dictating everyone what to do, when to do, etc.

Have any of you ever read the US constitution? Obviously, the answer is no since if you had we would not be having this problem. Are you aware of the fact that you are nothing but temporary employees? You couldn't hack it in the real world. That is why you are occupying seats you do not deserve dictating to us how to run our business. Are you aware of the fact that state and federal housing projects are nothing but drug dealing and prostitution hubs?

I guess only in America, if you are an idiot, we'll make you a mayor and city council member like the three of you. If you are stupid and incompetent, we'll make you the governor like Communist Newsome, but wait it gets better and if you are a Moron like a sleepy and corrupt Joe we'll make you the president?

Thank You,

Wallace

Page 240 of 262 ends

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 2:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: MY ONGOING CONCERN. REC'D THIS FROM ANNIE NOLEN WHO RECEIVED IT ON HER "NEIGHBORHOOD" AND FORWARDED IT TO ME!!

Dear Ms. Bonnie,

Thank you so much for sending in your comments. They will be shared with the City Council along with this response and be placed into the public packet for tonight’s council meeting.

You are correct in your understanding that a RENTED single family home, under the proposed draft Ordinance, would be subject to complying with Just Cause regulations.

If you’d like to see more information on this, please click on the attached and visit our webpage: https://www.cityofconcord.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=701

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: Ms. Bonnie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:35 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: MY ONGOING CONCERN. REC'D THIS FROM ANNIE NOLEN WHO RECEIVED IT ON HER "NEIGHBORHOOD" AND FORWARDED IT TO ME!!
Importance: High

IF you READ my e-mail message...........you would have see I highlighted what was received, in YELLOW!!! SO, HERE IT IS

Page 241 of 262 ends

AGAIN.................highlighted in GREEN!!!!!!!!!! If you need it highlighted in another color.....just let me know! It isn't going to change the message!!! The following is ALL I RECEIVED!!!! It is on "Neighborhood" from whomever sent it to Annie Nolen. The message is VERY CLEAR!! This REALLY DOES PERTAIN TO ANY

SENIOR CITIZEN WHO MIGHT HAVE TO BE IN A NURSING
HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obvious to Senior Citizens THIS IS REALLY HURTING US and, as usual, the City of Concord really doesn't care...........they just want their $$$$$!! I had e-mailed Edi about this AND Edi told me it did NOT AFFECT single family
homeowners. ASK HIM what he said in an e-mail to me!! I took him at his WORD, and then received the following this morning!! I don't understand building NEW HOUSING............where is the water going to come from.....where is the electricity going to come from? Senior Citizens (and all members of the community) are being nickeled and dimed to death by the rising costs to live in Concord. You are pushing everyone out.......and still building more housing.......this HURTS THE COMMUNITY!!!!! Again.........it is obvious to A LOT OF PEOPLE........the City DOES NOT CARE...........they just want their $$$$$$$$$$$$.

Just received this email from the City of Concord (Kelly Rush).

They seem to be in full damage control mode. Claiming the public has been subject to “ misinformation”?

Grandma goes to a nursing home (hopefully temporarily) and rents her home out to keep it occupied and help her with expenses. The tenant wants a short term rental and is happy with the lease. She

Page 242 of 262 ends

Concord City CouncilFebruary 13, 2024

Concord City Council
February 13, 2024