Agenda packet — Concord City Council, March 5, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Edi E. Birsan, Mayor
Carlyn S. Obringer, Vice Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano
Laura M. Hoffmeister
Laura M. Nakamura
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Regular Meeting of the
Concord City Council
Tuesday,
March 5, 2024
6:30 p.m. - Open Session Council Chamber
1950 Parkside Drive
and/or Various
telephonic/electronic
locations
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: Council Chamber, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA.

Please note the following change to the City’s public comment procedures: Unless a Councilmember is participating in the meeting remotely pursuant to AB 2449, remote public comment will not be accepted. Public comment may be provided in-person or via email, as set forth below. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.

Spanish interpretation is available in the Council Chamber during the meeting.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The public is invited to participate in the City Council meeting using any of the following methods:

1. IN PERSON:
a.Members of the public can provide in-person comments in the Council Chamber.

Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to fill out a speaker card. The Council Chamber will have seating available for members of the public to attend in person up to full seating capacity.
2 2. REMOTE: Remote public comment will not be accepted, except when a Councilmember participates remotely pursuant to AB 2449. At the time of the posting of this agenda, none of the Councilmembers have notified the City Clerk’s Office that they intend to participate remotely pursuant to AB 2449, and therefore no remote public comment will be accepted at the meeting. If, after publication of this agenda and before the meeting begins, any councilmember determines that they will need to participate remotely due to just cause or emergency circumstances under AB 2449, their remote participation will be announced at the outset of the meeting in connection with the Roll Call item. If a Councilmember participates in the meeting remotely pursuant to AB 2449, the public may participate and provide public comment remotely, as follows:
a. Zoom:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/82300598054?pwd=5TbWPAwmHwW9HIzB6rJ1YUz83pf _Qg.ic-4zk012cec3Mx9 or Zoom Webinar ID: 823 0059 8054 and Passcode: 431436 b.Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (669) 900-6833 or (346) 348-7799 or (253) 215- 8782.
c.During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participants may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. If calling in via Zoom use *9 to raise and lower your hand. The meeting host will call on you, by name, and promote you to panelist in the webinar so you can be seen via your camera. Please enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. In order to ensure the orderly administration of the meeting using this method, providing your name is encouraged, but is not required. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date at [email protected]).

3. EMAIL:
a.Public comments can also be submitted via email to [email protected]. Please note that emailed comments will not be read aloud by staff. Any public comments received up until 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date will be:

1. distributed to the Council before the meeting,

2. posted online for public inspection at
https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/Search, and

3. inserted into the meeting record.
b.As emails containing public meeting comments are part of the official record, note that personal contact information may be published if it is included with your email.

4. TO WATCH OR LISTEN ONLY:
a.Watch on TV on Comcast Channel 28, Astound/Wave Channel 1026, and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
b.Watch the TV broadcast through the City’s website by following THIS LINK c.Watch Live Streaming of the meeting by following THIS LINK d.Join the Zoom webinar by following THIS LINK

3 OPEN SESSION

1. OPENING
Roll Call – Announcements/Consideration and Approval of Requests by Councilmembers to Participate Remotely Pursuant to AB 2449 Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Nakamura

2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
This is a 15-minute Public Comment Period for items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction that are not on this agenda. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes.

State law prohibits the City Council from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the Public Comment Period. Please see “How to Participate” above.

3. PRESENTATION
a. Proclamation – to Julie Brand-Lockshin and Danielle Aubin, BAART Programs, declaring March as "National Prescription Drug Abuse Awareness Month." Presentation by Mayor Birsan.

4. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the Consent Calendar before or during the City Council’s consideration of the Consent Calendar. Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council, provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.

If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate. Please see “How to Participate” above. a. Considering – adoption of four resolutions ordering the preparation of the Engineer’s Report for the levy of annual assessments for the City’s four Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment Districts. (Maintenance district funds) Recommended by the Director of Public Works.

CEQA: Not a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3), 15378, and/or 15061(b)(3). b. Considering – adoption of a Resolution approving the request of the City of Pleasant Hill to allow Sunvalley Mall and certain other City of Concord commercial properties to be included in Pleasant Hill Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 20, Commercial Area Landscaping and Lighting. (No fiscal impact) Recommended by the Director of Public Works.

CEQA: Not a project and/or exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15378, and/or 15061(b)(3). 4 5. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the public hearing is opened, except on public hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment.

After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the Council level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council. No public hearing shall commence after 10 p.m. unless approved by majority vote of the City Council. Please see “How to Participate” above. a. Considering – adoption of Ordinance No. 24-3 entitled, "An Ordinance amending the Concord Municipal Code by amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 'Residential Tenant Protection Program' to increase 'just cause' eviction protections, expand the City’s rent registry, and establish a rent stabilization program." Ordinance No. 24-3 was introduced by reading of the title only and waiving further reading on February 13, 2024.

Recommended by the City Clerk.

6. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda. a. Letter – to California Public Utilities Commission President Busching Reynolds re: Opposition relating to the Application of Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a/ AT&T California (U1001C) for Targeted Relief from its Carrier of Last Resort Obligation and Certain Associated Tariff Obligations dated February 28, 2024.

7. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Closed Session Announcements
City Manager or Staff Reports
Council Reports

8. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Special Meeting
Date: 3/19/2024 6:00 PM

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California law to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the hearing or in a written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the hearing.
5 In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require a copy of a public hearing notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator Tianjun Cao at (925) 671-3243 or [email protected], at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

Staff Report
Date: March 5, 2024
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: William Tarbox, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Craig Blythe, Administrative Services Manager Prepared by: Jeff Rayos, Senior Administrative Analyst
[email protected]
(925) 671-34465
Subject: Considering adoption of four resolutions ordering the preparation of the Engineer’s Report for the levy of annual assessments for the City’s four Landscape and Lighting
Maintenance Assessment Districts. (Maintenance district funds)
CEQA: Not a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3), 15378, and/or 15061(b)(3).

Report in Brief
By ordering the preparation of the Engineer's Reports, the City Council will initiate the process required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code) and Proposition 218 to reconfirm for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Downtown Landscape Maintenance District, Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, and the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District which are administered by the City.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolutions, ordering preparation of the Engineer’s Reports for the Downtown Landscape Maintenance District, Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, and the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District for FY 2024-25.

4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a

Page 1 of 16 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
March 5, 2024
Recommended Action
Adopt the attached four resolutions ordering preparation of the Engineer’s Reports for the Downtown Landscape Maintenance District, Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, and the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District for FY 2024-25.

Background
The City of Concord administers the Downtown Landscape Maintenance District, Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, and the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District.

Property owners in each district pay an annual assessment on their property tax bill for the maintenance of common area landscaping or lighting.

Each year, the City Council levies the assessments and reconfirms the Districts by a series of Resolutions and Public Hearing. The process, which is set by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code) and Proposition 218, includes the following steps:

1. Council adopts resolutions ordering the preparation of the Engineer’s Report – March 5, 2024.

2. Council accepts 2024-25 Preliminary Engineer’s Reports – April 23, 2024.

3. Council adopts resolution of intention; ordering improvements and sets public hearing – April 23, 2024.

4. Council conducts public hearing, and then adopts resolution Confirming the District and Levying the Assessments for FY 2024-25– May 28, 2024.

For districts that are required to follow both the 1972 Act and Proposition 218, the above noted process is modified by introducing a mail-in balloting procedure that begins after the items in Step 2 are approved by the City Council and concludes at the close of the public hearing in Step 3. Proposition 218 becomes applicable only when increases in the current assessment rates are contemplated. The Council may make changes to the proposed budgets at any time up to final adoption but may only do so to decrease the assessed amount. The assessment amounts are then posted to the County tax rolls and appear as a separate item on the property tax bill for each parcel.

Analysis
Downtown Landscape Maintenance District
The Downtown Landscape Maintenance District was formed in 1983 and includes 771 assessable parcels. Assessments are based on a formula that includes location, square footage, and street frontage.

Landscape maintenance services are currently provided by the City of Concord Public Works Department for FY 2023-24, with the exception of flower pots and certain medians which are maintained by a professional landscape contractor. The City does

Page 2 of 16 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
March 5, 2024
not anticipate making any changes to the provided landscape maintenance services for FY 2024-25.

A successful Proposition 218 balloting was conducted in June 2007 to increase the annual assessment in the Downtown Landscape Maintenance District. The adopted increase included an annual assessment adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 5% for each year thereafter to maintain the current level of service.

At this time, City staff does not anticipate any new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements within the boundaries of the District.

Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District The Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District was formed in 1985 and includes 401 parcels. Assessments are based on the square footage of each dwelling.

Landscape maintenance services are currently provided by a professional landscape maintenance company. At this time, City staff does not anticipate any new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements within the boundaries of the District.

Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3
The Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 is comprised of the following four specific benefit zones. At this time, City staff does not anticipate any other new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements within the boundaries of the District.

Kirkwood
The Kirkwood zone includes 468 single-family parcels. The total assessment is divided equally among each single-family residential parcel. Landscape maintenance services are currently provided by a professional landscape maintenance company.

Ygnacio Woods
FY 1995-96 was the first full year of operation for Ygnacio Woods. Landscape services for the common areas in this development of 35 parcels are provided by the City of Concord Public Works Department.

A successful Proposition 218 balloting was conducted in June 2005 to increase the annual assessment in the Ygnacio Woods Benefit Zone. The adopted increase included an annual assessment adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index to maintain the current level of service.

Balhan Terrace and Valley Terrace
These two small areas are included in Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 for the purpose of street lighting. These benefit zones, which were formed prior to Proposition 13, continue to receive a share of ad valorem

Page 3 of 16 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
March 5, 2024
property tax funds from the State. These funds and the accumulated interest are sufficient to maintain these Districts.

Citywide Street Lighting District
The Concord Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District was formed in FY 1988-89 for the purpose of funding the installation and maintenance or servicing of public lighting facilities in public places within the District. The District includes all parcels of land within the incorporated limits of the City of Concord that benefit from streetlights on public streets.

Environmental Determination
Not a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378 because this is not an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that they consist of the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. In the alternative, the activities are exempt under Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Impact
The City of Concord Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts are separate from the City’s General Fund. The impact of any proposed changes to District budgets on the assessments of individual property owners will be known at the time the Engineer’s Reports are filed. The Assessment Districts' engineering services will be paid from District funds.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted. Property owners will be notified of informational landscape district meetings which will be scheduled in March.

Attachments

1. Resolution – Downtown Landscape Maintenance District

2. Resolution – Pine Hollow

3. Resolution – Maintenance District No. 3

4. Resolution – Citywide Street Lighting

5. District Maps

Page 4 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of an
Engineer’s Report for the Downtown Landscape
Maintenance District Resolution No. 24-XX
/
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 83-132, established the Downtown Landscape Maintenance District, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.); and WHEREAS, the improvements within said District may include the installation or planting of landscaping, the installation of parks or recreational improvements, the construction of any facilities which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, and the maintenance or servicing of any of the foregoing; and
WHEREAS, in order to levy and collect an annual assessment for the Downtown Landscape Maintenance District, it is necessary for the City to comply with the Streets and Highways Code, Section 22620, et seq; and
WHEREAS, the Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 requires the legislative body to adopt a resolution which generally describes any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements and orders the engineer to prepare and file a report pursuant to Section 22565 of this Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting on March 5, 2024, received a report from the Public Works Director advising the City Council that City staff does not anticipate any new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements within the District, thus necessitating only preparation of an Engineer’s Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 et seq. the City Council determines that no new improvements or any substantial changes in existing improvements are Attachment 1

Page 5 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 2
anticipated within the boundaries of the Downtown Landscape Maintenance District, but that it will be necessary to levy and collect an assessment within said District. Thus, the City Council orders the Public Works Director to contract with an engineer to prepare and file a report in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.

Section 2. Upon completion of the Engineer’s Report, it shall be filed with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council for its acceptance or modification by April 23, 2024.

Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on March 5, 2024.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Page 6 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of an
Engineers Report for the Pine Hollow Landscape and
Lighting Maintenance District Resolution No. 24-XX
/
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 85-15, established the Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.); and WHEREAS, the improvements within said District may include the installation or planting of landscaping, the installation of parks or recreational improvements, the construction of any facilities which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, and the maintenance or servicing of any of the foregoing; and
WHEREAS, in order to levy and collect an annual assessment for the Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, it is necessary for the City to comply with the Streets and Highways Code, Section 22620, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 requires the legislative body to adopt a resolution which generally describes any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements and orders the engineer to prepare and file a report pursuant to Section 22565 of this Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting on March 5, 2024, received a report from the Public Works Director advising the City Council that City staff does not anticipate any new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements within the District, thus necessitating only preparation of an Engineer's Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 et seq. the City Council determines that no new improvements or any substantial changes in existing improvements are Attachment 2

Page 7 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 2
anticipated within the boundaries of the Pine Hollow Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, but that it will be necessary to levy and collect an assessment within said District. Thus, the City Council orders the Public Works Director to contract with an engineer to prepare and file a report in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.

Section 2. Upon completion of the Engineer’s Report, it shall be filed with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council for its acceptance or modification by April 23, 2024.

Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Page 8 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of an
Engineer’s Report for the Landscape and Lighting
Maintenance District No. 3 Resolution No. 24-XX
/
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 79-6202, established the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.); and WHEREAS, the improvements within said District may include the installation or planting of landscaping, the installation of parks or recreational improvements, the construction of any facilities which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, and the maintenance or servicing of any of the foregoing; and
WHEREAS, in order to levy and collect an annual assessment for the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, it is necessary for the City to comply with the Streets and Highways Code, Section 22620, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 requires the legislative body to adopt a resolution which generally describes any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements and orders the engineer to prepare and file a report pursuant to Section 22565 of this Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting on March 5, 2024, received a report from the Public Works Director advising the City Council that City staff does not anticipate any new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements within the District thus necessitating only preparation of an Engineer's Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 et seq. the City Council determines that no new improvements or any substantial changes in existing improvements are Attachment 3

Page 9 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 2
anticipated within the boundaries of the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, but that it will be necessary to levy and collect an assessment within said District. Thus, the City Council orders the Public Works Director to contract with an engineer to prepare and file a report in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.

Section 2. Upon completion of the Engineer’s Report, it shall be filed with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council for its acceptance or modification by April 23, 2024.

Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Page 10 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of an
Engineer's Report for the Citywide Street Lighting
Assessment District Resolution No. 24-XX
/
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 88-46, established the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq.); and WHEREAS, the improvements within said street lighting assessment district include:
initiation, maintenance or servicing of public lighting facilities in public places, and incidental expenses associated therewith. Public lighting facilities consist exclusively of pole mounted street lights within the public right-of-way of the City of Concord; and WHEREAS, in order to levy and collect an annual assessment for the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District, it is necessary for the City to comply with the Streets and Highways Code, Section 22620, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 requires the legislative body to adopt a resolution which generally describes any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements and orders the engineer to prepare and file a report pursuant to Section 22565 of this Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting on March 5, 2024, received a report from the Public Works Director advising the City Council that City staff does not anticipate any new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements within the District, thus necessitating only preparation of an Engineer's Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22622 et seq. the City Council determines that no new improvements or any substantial changes in existing improvements are Attachment 4

Page 11 of 16 ends

Res No. 24-XX 2
anticipated within the boundaries of the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District, but that it will be necessary to levy and collect an assessment within said District. Thus, the City Council orders the Public Works Director to contract with an engineer to prepare and file a report in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.

Section 2. Upon completion of the Engineer's Report, it shall be filed with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council for its acceptance or modification by April 23, 2024.

Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Page 12 of 16 ends

Attachment 5

Page 13 of 16 ends

Page 14 of 16 ends

Page 15 of 16 ends

Page 16 of 16 ends

Staff Report
Date: March 5, 2024
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: William Tarbox, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Craig Blythe, Administrative Services Manager Prepared by: Jeff Rayos, Senior Administrative Analyst
[email protected]
(925) 671-3446
Subject: Considering adoption of a Resolution approving the request of the City of Pleasant Hill to allow Sunvalley Mall and certain other City of Concord commercial properties to be included in Pleasant Hill Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 20, Commercial Area Landscaping and Lighting. (No fiscal impact)

CEQA: Not a project and/or exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15378, and/or 15061(b)(3).

Report in Brief
The City of Pleasant Hill’s Landscaping and Lighting District No. 20 includes commercial properties that are within the incorporated area of the City of Concord. Annually, the City of Concord considers the inclusion of these areas within Pleasant Hill’s Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 20.

Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the request of the City of Pleasant Hill to allow Sunvalley Mall and certain other City of Concord commercial properties to be included in the Pleasant Hill Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 20, Commercial Area Landscaping and Lighting.

4.b4.b4.b4.b4.b

Page 1 of 11 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
March 5, 2024
Background
The City of Pleasant Hill has included certain City of Concord properties within their Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 20 since 1988, as authorized by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Since Pleasant Hill Assessment District No. 20 includes properties within the City of Concord, the inclusion of these properties in the District requires the consent of the City of Concord in accordance with Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highway Code §§22500-22679).

Analysis
The City of Concord has annually reaffirmed its consent for the City of Pleasant Hill to include 17 parcels within the City of Concord in Pleasant Hill’s Landscaping and Lighting District No. 20. The owners of Concord properties in the District have expressed no opposition. On January 22, 2024, The City of Pleasant Hill approved Resolution No. 5-24 (Attachment 2) requesting the City of Concord’s consent to the ordering of improvements and assessments of costs for benefited properties in Assessment District No. 20. These improvements are generally described as the installation, servicing and maintenance of public landscaping and street lighting within the territory of the district, primarily Contra Costa Boulevard. A map showing the City of Concord properties that are located within Pleasant Hill Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 20 is included as Attachment 3.

Financial Impact
Adoption of this resolution consenting to the City of Pleasant Hill’s request to allow Sunvalley Mall and certain other City of Concord commercial properties to be included in Pleasant Hill Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 20 will have no fiscal impact on the City of Concord.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), these activities do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the Amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), “Review for Exemptions” of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that these activities may have a significant effect on the environment, and no further environmental review is required. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Page 2 of 11 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
March 5, 2024
Attachments

1. Resolution – Pleasant Hill Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 20, Commercial Area Landscaping and Lighting
Exhibit A – List of parcels within the City of Concord incorporated territory

2. City of Pleasant Hill Resolution No. 5-24

3. Map of City of Concord Parcels in Pleasant Hill Assessment District No. 20

Page 3 of 11 ends

Res No. 24-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Approving the Request of the
City of Pleasant Hill to Allow Sunvalley Mall
and Certain Other City of Concord Commercial
Properties to be Included in Pleasant Hill
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
No. 20, Commercial Area Landscaping and Lighting Resolution No. 24-XX /
WHEREAS, on July 5, 1988, by Resolution 88-99 the City of Concord authorized the City of Pleasant Hill to include portions of the City of Concord in Assessment District No. 20, Commercial Area Landscaping and Lighting; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City of Pleasant Hill to levy the annual assessment for this commercial landscaping and lighting district in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code §22500; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2024, the City of Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Resolution 5-24 (A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill Requesting Consent From the City of Concord for Ordering of Improvements and Assessments Of Costs For Benefited Property in Assessment District No. 20 (Commercial Area Landscape and Lighting)) and requested that the City Council of the City of Concord consent to the provisions of Section 2 thereof; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City of Concord to authorize the City of Pleasant Hill to include portions of the City of Concord previously included in this landscaping and lighting district for purposes of the annual levy.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by reference. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), these activities do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378 Attachment 1

Page 4 of 11 ends

Res No. 24-XX 2
because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the Amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), “Review for Exemptions” of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that these activities may have a significant effect on the environment, and no further environmental review is required. No unusual circumstances are present.

This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Section 2. The City Council consents to exercise of jurisdiction by the City of Pleasant Hill for the annual levy of assessments in Assessment District No. 20, Commercial Area Landscaping and Lighting, for Sunvalley Mall and certain other commercial properties located within the City of Concord, identified in Exhibit A to this resolution.

Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A – List of Parcels within the City of Concord incorporated territory

Page 5 of 11 ends

EXHIBIT "A"

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STA TE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
(COMMERCIAL AREA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING)
FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025

TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY OF CONCORD

PARCEL SITUS
127-032-035-9 1130 CONTRA COST A BL VD
127-032-038-3 1212 CONTRA COSTA BLVD
127-032-039-1 1200 CONTRA COSTA BLVD
127-032-042-5 1000 SUN VALLEY BL VD
127-032-043-3 1050 CONTRA COSTA BLVD
127-032-044-1 1090 CONTRA COST A BL VD
127-032-045-8 1100 CONTRA COSTA BLVD
127-032-046-6 1150 CONTRA COSTA BLVD
153-230-007-4 715 CONTRA COSTA BLVD
153-230-021-5 410 SUN VALLEY MALL
153-230-022-3 1053 SUN VALLEY BL VD
153-230-023-1 901 SUNV ALLEY BL VD
153-230-024-9 CONTRA COSTA BL VD
153-230-025-6 1001 SUN VALLEY BL VD
153-250-003-8 625 CONTRA COSTA BL VD
153-250-008-7 627 CONTRA COSTA BL VD
153-250-009-5 605 CONTRA COSTA BL VD
Exhibit A to Attachment 1

Page 6 of 11 ends

Attachment 2

Page 7 of 11 ends

Page 8 of 11 ends

EXHIBIT "A"
TO

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

REQUESTING CONSENT FROM THE CITY OF CONCORD FOR ORDERING OF

IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS OF COSTS FOR BENEFITED PROPERTY IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 (COMMERCIAL AREA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STA TE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
(COMMERCIAL AREA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING)
FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025

TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY OF CONCORD

Page 9 of 11 ends

Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill

DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM

Page 10 of 11 ends

Attachment 3

Page 11 of 11 ends

Ord. No. 24-3 1
ORDINANCE NO. 24-3

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CONCORD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

19.40 “RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION PROGRAM” TO INCREASE “JUST CAUSE” EVICTION PROTECTIONS, EXPAND THE CITY’S RENT

REGISTRY, AND ESTABLISH A RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2019, the Governor of the State of California signed AB 1482 into law. AB 1482 addresses a number of rental housing policies, including maximum rent increases, just cause eviction protections, and relocation assistance; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20-7 adding Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 "Residential Tenant Protection Program" to establish a Residential Tenant Protection Program that became effective August 28, 2020, and requires, among other things, relocation assistance for no-fault just cause evictions, and that tenants be provided a written lease with minimum lease terms; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20-10 amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 "Residential Tenant Protection Program" by adding Section

19.40.110 "Rent Registry" establishing a Rent Registry Program that became effective July 1, 2021, and requires property owners to provide information on tenancy and rents; and WHEREAS, there presently exists a critical shortage of rental housing in the City. Due to this shortage, it is very difficult to find adequate, safe, and habitable rental housing at reasonable rents; and
WHEREAS, due to the shortage of rental units, rents in the City are increasing excessively. A substantial number of persons in the City who reside in rental units spend a high percentage of their income on rent, and many have been forced to move out because they could no longer afford to pay the increase in rent; and
WHEREAS, low- and moderate-income tenants have difficulty finding affordable housing after being displaced due to a rent increase; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to promote long-term stability and certainty for tenants

5.a5.a5.a5.a5.a

Page 1 of 137 ends

Ord. No. 24-3 2
in the rental market while providing landlords an ability to receive a fair return on their property; and.

WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public meeting held on January 12, 2023 as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update efforts, the City Council directed staff to prioritize development of a just cause for eviction and rent stabilization ordinance; and WHEREAS, based on such direction, City staff solicited and received input from property owner representatives on July 26, 2023 and from tenant representatives on July 27, 2023 (collectively, “Community Meetings”); and
WHEREAS, City staff also solicited responses from a broader group of tenants and property owners through the use of online surveys, from July 31 through August 20, 2023 (collectively, “Community Surveys”); and
WHEREAS, City staff further corresponded with affordable housing providers to better understand the potential impact of rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances on these entities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public meetings on September 5, September 12, and October 10, 2023 (collectively, “Study Sessions”), received input from the public, tenants and advocates, property owners and property owner representatives, City staff and consultants, and provided policy direction on development of a just cause for eviction and rent stabilization ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2023, which public hearing was then continued to January 9, 2024, further continued to January 30, 2024, and further continued to February 13, 2024 on the proposed amendment of Concord Municipal Code Chapter

19.40 “Residential Tenant Protection Program” to increase “just cause” eviction protections, expand the City’s rent registry, and establish a rent stabilization program as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference (“Ordinance”), and declared their intent to approve, introduce, and adopt the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the

Page 2 of 137 ends

Ord. No. 24-3 3
Concord Municipal Code, will hold a duly noticed continued public hearing on February 13, 2024, to further consider the Ordinance, and declare their intent to adopt the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at such public hearings, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process, including oral and written staff reports, materials, documents, exhibits, reports, studies, memoranda, testimony, and community input received at the Community Workshops, Community Surveys, Study Sessions, and the public hearings on this Ordinance, the City of Concord Municipal Code, applicable City laws and regulations, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision and which are maintained at the offices of the City Clerk, 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/3 Concord, CA 94519 (collectively, “Ordinance Information”).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council finds that the above recitals (which are hereby incorporated by reference) are accurate and constitute findings in this matter and, together with the Ordinance Information, serve as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth in this Ordinance and further makes the following findings:

Section 2. Binding Findings. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.2(g)(1)(B), the City Council hereby makes the following binding findings within this Ordinance that this Ordinance is more protective than the provisions of Civil Code Section 1946.2 because:
(a) The just cause for termination of a residential Tenancy under the Ordinance is consistent with and more protective than Civil Code Section 1946.2; and (b) The Ordinance provides additional tenant protections that are not prohibited by any other provision of law, because it provides for earlier and higher relocation assistance amounts than those available to tenants covered by Civil Code Section 1946.2, requires certain minimum lease terms, limits the exemptions listed in Civil Code Section 1946.2 and in particular applies just cause for termination of a Tenancy to Dwelling Units regardless of when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit and protects Tenants upon commencement of the Tenancy; and

Page 3 of 137 ends

Ord. No. 24-3 4
(c) As provided in Civil Code Section 1946.2(g)(2), a residential real property shall not be subject to both a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination of a residential Tenancy and Civil Code Section 1946.2. The Ordinance intends to cover those dwelling units defined as Covered Rental Units and to the extent such units are covered by the Ordinance, such units will not be subject to Civil Code Sections 1946.7 and 1947.12.

Section 3. CEQA. Adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, because the adoption of the Ordinance does not constitute a “project,” and will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. In addition, the proposed Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), the common sense exception of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Section 4. Ordinance Information. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the Ordinance Information prior to acting on the Ordinance. The Ordinance Information is located in and may be obtained from the City of Concord Clerk’s Office, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA 94519.

Section 5. Municipal Code Amendment. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the amendment to Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.

Page 4 of 137 ends

Ord. No. 24-3 5
Section 7. Publication and Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following passage and adoption. In the event a summary of said Ordinance is published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to its adoption and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, including the vote of the Council members. Additionally, a summary prepared by the City Attorney’s Office shall be published once at least five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance and once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Concord. __________________________________
Edi E. Birsan
Mayor
ATTEST:

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
(Seal)
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//

Page 5 of 137 ends

Ord. No. 24-3 6
Ordinance No. 24-3 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on February 13, 2024, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Concord, California.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A – Ordinance (Amendment to Chapter 19.40, Residential Tenant Protection Program)

Page 6 of 137 ends

1 Chapter 19.40
Residential Tenant Protection Program
Sections

19.40.010 Binding Findings; Definitions; Citation.

19.40.020 General Applicability of Chapter; Exemptions.

19.40.030 Rent Stabilization.

19.40.040 Permitted Rent Increases for Covered Rental Units.

19.40.050 Rent Adjustment Petitions.

19.40.060 Annual Rental Registration.

19.40.070 Just Cause for Eviction.

19.40.080 Relocation Assistance For No-Fault Termination Of Tenancy; Moving Stipend.

19.40.090 Requirement to Offer Written Lease, Minimum Lease Terms.

19.40.100 Notice of Tenant Rights.

19.40.110 Procedures and Guidelines.

19.40.120 Remedies.

19.40.130 Waiver Prohibited.

19.40.140 Severability.

19.40.010 Binding Findings; Definitions; Citation.
(a) Binding Findings. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.2(g)(1)(B), the City Council hereby makes the following binding findings within this Chapter, that this Chapter is more protective than the provisions of Civil Code Section 1946.2 because:
(1) The just cause for termination of a residential Tenancy under this Chapter is consistent with and more protective than Civil Code Section 1946.2; and (2) This Chapter provides additional tenant protections that are not prohibited by any other provision of law, because it provides for earlier and higher relocation assistance amounts than those available to Tenants covered by Civil Code Section 1946.2, requires certain minimum lease terms, limits the exemptions listed in Civil Code Section 1946.2 and in particular applies just cause for termination of a Tenancy to Dwelling Units regardless of when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit and protects Tenants upon commencement of the Tenancy; and
(3) As provided in Civil Code Section 1946.2(g)(2), a residential real property shall not be subject to both a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination of a residential Tenancy and Civil Code Section 1946.2. This Chapter intends to cover those Dwelling Units defined as Covered Rental Units and to the extent such Dwelling Units are covered by this Chapter, such Dwelling Units will not be subject to Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12.

Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 24-3

Page 7 of 137 ends

2 (b) The City Council finds that there presently exists a critical shortage of rental housing in the City. Due to this shortage, it is very difficult to find adequate, safe, and habitable rental housing at reasonable rents.
(1) Due to the shortage of rental units, rents in the City are increasing excessively. A substantial number of persons in the City who reside in rental units spend a high percentage of their income on rent, and many have been forced to move out because they could no longer afford to pay the increase in rent. Further, low- and moderate-income Tenants have difficulty finding affordable housing after being displaced due to a rent increase. (2) The purposes of this Chapter are to promote long-term stability and certainty for Tenants in the rental market while providing Landlords an ability to receive a fair return on their Property. This Chapter regulates Rents and terminations of Tenancy, including requiring relocation assistance and affording a Tenant the right to return under certain circumstances. It requires Landlords to register Covered Rental Units, establishes an administrative hearing process, and provides for procedures and guidelines for the implementation of this Chapter. (c) Definitions. The following terms shall have the meaning provided below when used in this Chapter, whether plural or singular.
(1) "Accessory Dwelling Unit" shall mean an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit as those terms are defined in Code Section 18.200.180, which has received a valid accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit permit from the City or Contra Costa County.
(2) “Accommodations” shall be as defined in the Government Code Section 7060(b)(1), which, for convenience, reads as follows:
(1) “Accommodations” means either of the following:
(A) The residential rental units in any detached physical structure containing four or more residential rental units.
(B) With respect to a detached physical structure containing three or fewer residential rental units, the residential rental units in that structure and in any other structure located on the same parcel of land, including any detached physical structure specified in subparagraph (A). (3) “Allowable Annual Rent Increase” shall mean the annual rent increase as set forth in Section 19.40.040.
(4) “Base Rent” shall mean as follows: For tenancies commenced on or before April 4, 2023, the Rent in effect on April 4, 2023 plus the Initial Allowable Annual Rent Increase. For tenancies commenced after April 4, 2023, but prior to the effective date of this Chapter, the Rent charged upon initial occupancy plus the Initial Allowable Annual Rent Increase. For tenancies commenced after the effective date of this Chapter, the Rent charged upon initial occupancy. The foregoing amounts are subject to the assumption that such amounts are not in violation of this Chapter or any provision of State law. Nothing in this definition is intended to alter the

Page 8 of 137 ends

3 requirement that a Landlord provide a Tenant with valid, written notice of any change in the terms of the Rental Agreement (including any Rent decrease or Rent increase) as required by Civil Code Section 827.
(5) “Base Year” shall mean the 2022 calendar year.
(6) "City Council" shall mean the City Council of the City of Concord. (7) "City" shall mean the City of Concord.
(8) "Code" shall mean the Concord Municipal Code.
(9) "Covered Dwelling Unit” and “Covered Rental Unit" are used interchangeably and shall mean a Dwelling Unit located within the City not specifically exempted under Section

19.40.020(a) or 19.40.020(b).
(10) "CPI" shall mean Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area, or any successor designation of that index that may later be adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor for April of each year. Calculation of the CPI percentage will be determined by the City and set forth in its procedures and guidelines. (11) “Disabled” shall mean any mental or physical disability as defined in Government Code Section 12955.3. A “Disabled Tenant” is a Tenant who is disabled. (12) "Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit, as defined under California Civil Code Section 1940(c), including joint living and work quarters, that is used or occupied in consideration of payment of Rent, and applies to any dwelling space that is actually used for residential purposes, whether or not the residential use is legally permitted, including live-work spaces, mobilehomes rented to a Tenant, and any Accessory Dwelling Unit in the City. (13) "Ellis Act" shall mean California Government Code Sections 7060 – 7060.7. (14) “Fair Return Petition” shall mean a petition filed by a Landlord seeking a Fair Return Rent Increase pursuant to Section 19.40.050.
(15) “Fair Return Rent Increase” shall mean the amount by which Base Rent plus any Allowable Annual Rent Increase may be increased in accordance with an approved Fair Return petition submitted pursuant to Section 19.40.050.
(16) “Hearing Officer” shall mean an official appointed by the City Attorney to conduct an administrative hearing pursuant to this Chapter. (17) "Housing Services" include, but are not limited to, repairs, maintenance, painting, providing light, heat, hot and cold water, elevator service, window shades and screens, storage, kitchen, bath and laundry facilities and privileges, janitor services, access to exterior doors, entry systems and gates, utilities (unless separately metered and billed to the Tenant by the utility

Page 9 of 137 ends

4 company since the inception of the Tenancy, as provided in the Rental Agreement), refuse removal, furnishings, telephone, parking, the right to have a specified number of occupants or tenants, the right to have pets, utility infrastructure, and any other benefit, privilege or facility connected with the use or occupancy of any Dwelling Unit. (18) “HUD FMR Rent” shall mean the fair market rent published by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development for the applicable year for Contra Costa County.
(19) “Initial Allowable Annual Rent Increase” shall mean sixty percent (60%) of the CPI increase for the twelve-month period from April 2022 to April 2023, which equals 2.52%. (20) "Landlord" or “Owner” shall mean any person, acting as principal or through an agent, having the right to offer a Dwelling Unit for rent, and includes a sublessor, except that this term does not include the Owner or operator of a mobile home park or his or her agent, but does include the Owner of a mobile home if the mobile home is offered for rent. (21) "Landlord's Family Member" shall mean a Landlord's parent, child, spouse or registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild.
(22) “Lawful Rent” shall mean the Base Rent for a Covered Rental Unit as such Base Rent may be increased by any Annual Allowable Rent Increase and any Fair Return Rent Increase permitted by this Chapter. Lawful Rent expressly excludes any Unlawful Rent. (23) “Lawful Rent Increase” shall mean the Annual Allowable Rent Increase together with any Fair Return Rent Increase permitted for the Covered Rental Unit as specified in this Chapter. Lawful Rent Increase expressly excludes any Unlawful Rent increase. (24) “Lower-Income Tenant” shall mean a person and family whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, or as otherwise defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
(25) “Moving Stipend” is defined in Section 19.40.080(a)(2)d. (26) “Property” shall mean the real property on which the Dwelling Unit or Units are located. For purposes of the Ellis Act evictions only, “Property” shall mean the parcel on which the Accommodations are located.
(27) “Protected Tenant” shall mean any Lower-Income Tenant, Disabled Tenant, Senior Tenant, Terminally Ill Tenant, and any Tenant whose household contains School-Aged Children.
(28) "Rent" shall mean all payments and all nonmonetary consideration including, but not limited to, the fair market value of goods, labor performed or services rendered to or for the benefit of the Landlord under a Rental Agreement concerning the use or occupancy of a

Page 10 of 137 ends

5 Dwelling Unit and premises and attendant Housing Services, including all payment and consideration demanded or paid for parking, utility charges, pets, furniture, and other benefits, privilege or facility connected with the use or occupancy of the Dwelling Unit. (29) "Rental Agreement" shall mean an oral or written lease, sublease, or similar agreement between a Landlord and a Tenant for the lawful occupancy of a Dwelling Unit. (30) “Rent Restricted Affordable Unit” is defined in Section 19.40.020(b)(3). (31) “School-Aged Child” or “School-Aged Children” shall mean any TK-12 th grade student enrolled full-time in a brick-and-mortar school, or a special needs student enrolled full- time in a brick-and-mortar school, living in the Tenant’s Covered Rental Unit. (32) “School Year” shall mean the first day of instruction for the fall semester through the last day of instruction for the Spring semester, as posted on the applicable school’s website. (33) “Senior Tenant” shall mean a Tenant who is at least sixty-two (62) years of age or older as defined in Government Code Section 7060.4.
(34) “Significant Hardship” is defined in Section 19.40.070(d)(1)c. (35) "State" shall mean the State of California.
(36) “Substantial Remodel” or “Substantially Remodel” shall mean either of the following that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner that allows the Tenant to remain living in the Covered Rental Unit and that requires the Tenant to vacate the Covered Rental Unit for at least thirty (30) consecutive days: (i) the replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency; or (ii) the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws. Cosmetic improvements alone, including painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the Covered Rental Unit vacated, do not qualify as substantial remodel.
(37) "Tenancy" shall mean the lawful occupation of a Dwelling Unit and includes a lease or a sublease.
(38) "Tenant" shall mean a tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or any other person entitled under the terms of a Rental Agreement to the use or occupancy of any Dwelling Unit. (39) “Terminally Ill Tenant” shall mean a Tenant who has a terminal disease as defined in California’s End of Life Option Act as any “incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months” pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 443.1 and which is verified in writing by the Tenant’s medical care provider.

Page 11 of 137 ends

6 (40) “Unlawful Rent” shall mean any Rent charged by a Landlord to or paid by a Tenant for a Covered Rental Unit which exceeds the Tenant’s Base Rent together with any Lawful Rent Increase. In the case of a Rent Restricted Affordable Unit, “Unlawful Rent” shall mean any Rent increase imposed in excess of the Rent increase specified in Section

19.40.020(b)(3).
(d) Citation. This Chapter may be referred to as the “Residential Tenant Protection Program” of the City. The words “this Chapter” and “this Ordinance” are used interchangeably herein.

19.40.020 General Applicability of Chapter; Exemptions.

This Chapter shall apply to all Landlords and Tenants in Dwelling Units within the jurisdictional limits of the City, unless otherwise exempted by State law or the provisions of this Chapter. (a) Fully Exempt (Exempt from Both Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction). The following Dwelling Units are exempt from all provisions of this Chapter:
(1) Units in Hotels as defined in Code Section 18.20.010 which, for convenience, reads as follows:
“Hotel” or “motel” means a facility that provides guest rooms or suites, with or without kitchen facilities, rented to the public for transient lodging. These facilities typically include a variety of services in addition to lodging, such as restaurants, meeting facilities, spas or other personal services, and accessory guest facilities including swimming pools, sport courts, exercise facilities, and accessory retail sales.

This classification does not include rooming houses, boardinghouses, or private residential clubs (see “Group housing” under “Residential Facility,” and “Bed and breakfast inn”).

For purposes of this Chapter only, “Hotel” or “motel” does not include short-term rentals arrangements in which a Dwelling Unit is hired or occupied by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. (2) Institutional Facilities. Housing accommodations in a hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures published by the State Department of Social Services.
(3) Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12 inclusive, school.

Page 12 of 137 ends

7 (4) Government Owned. Housing accommodations which are owned by a public agency or authority, or which are specifically exempted under State or federal law or administrative regulation.
(5) Dwelling Units in which the Tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the Owner who maintains their principal residence at the Property. (6) Emergency shelters, and homeless shelters as defined in Code Section

18.200.070.
(7) Residential facility/ies, as defined in Code Section 18.20.020. (8) Accessory Dwelling Units.
(9) A property containing two separate dwelling units within a single structure in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy, and neither unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit. (b) Partially Exempt (Exempt from Rent Stabilization but subject to Just Cause for Eviction).

The following Dwelling Units are exempt from all Rent Stabilization provisions of this Chapter:
(1) Dwelling Units that are expressly exempt under State or federal law. This includes any Dwelling Unit that has a certificate of occupancy or equivalent permit for residential occupancy issued after February 1, 1995. For this purpose, a certificate of occupancy is the certificate issued before the Property is used for any residential purposes. (2) Any Dwelling Unit that is alienable separate (i.e., separately transferrable) from the title to any other Dwelling Unit, or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in California Business and Professions Code Section 11004.5(b), (d), or (f), including without limitation single family residences and condominiums, but excluding mobile homes offered for rent.
(3) Dwelling Units that are either restricted by the City or other governmental agency as affordable housing for persons or families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code if any are subject to one of the following Rent increase restrictions:
(i) Rent increases equal to or less than five percent (5%) annually and enforceable by the City or other governmental agency pursuant to a deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement, or other recorded document, 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

Page 13 of 137 ends

8 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 Rent Restricted Affordable Units 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.

19.40.030 Rent Stabilization.
(a) Subject to Section 19.40.020, no Landlord shall charge Rent in an amount that exceeds the Base Rent plus any Lawful Rent Increases permitted by this Chapter.

19.40.040 Permitted Rent Increases for Covered Rental Units. (a) A Landlord may, but shall not be obligated to, impose the Initial Allowable Annual Rent Increase or any other an annual Rent increase for any Covered Rental Unit, as allowed in this Section 19.40.040 after providing prior written notice to the Tenant of the Rent increase pursuant to California Civil Code Section 827, as may be amended. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Landlord shall be prohibited from imposing an Allowable Annual Rent Increase, unless the Covered Rental Unit is registered with the City pursuant to Section 19.40.060, and the Landlord is not delinquent in registry fees, accrued interest, fines, and penalties pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 (Rent Registry) and/or Section

19.40.060, as applicable.
(c) Allowable Annual Rent Increases. This Chapter shall limit annual Rent increases on Covered Rental Units to no more than sixty percent (60%) of the percentage increase in CPI published and reported for the twelve-month period ending as of April of the immediately- preceding year, provided however in no event shall the Allowable Annual Rent Increase exceed three percent (3%). In the event that the percentage change in the CPI is negative, the Allowable Annual Rent Increase shall be zero percent (0%). The Allowable Annual Rent Increase shall be rounded to the nearest one-quarter of a percent (0.25%). Nothing in this subsection is intended to alter the requirement that a Landlord provide a Tenant with valid, written notice of any Rent increase as required by Civil Code Section 827. The Annual Allowable Rent Increase amount shall be reviewed annually by the City Council.
(d) Only one Allowable Annual Rent Increase and one Fair Return Rent Increase (if and to the extent approved by the Hearing Officer) may be imposed on a Covered Dwelling Unit in any twelve (12) month period, unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter. (e) Rent Increase Following Vacancy (Vacancy Decontrol). When a Tenant has voluntarily vacated, abandoned, or been legally evicted from a Covered Rental Unit, the Landlord may set

Page 14 of 137 ends

9 the initial Rent for the next Tenant, without restriction, at the commencement of the new Tenancy.
(f) Allowable Annual Rent Increase Banking Prohibited. A Landlord who seeks to raise Lawful Rent by the Allowable Annual Rent Increase must do so within the twelve-month period between August 1 of the current year and July 31 of the following year. A Landlord who does not impose an Allowable Annual Rent Increase or any portion thereof in the applicable twelve month period automatically waives that Allowable Annual Rent Increase or the remaining portion of that Allowable Annual Rent Increase for the remainder of the Tenancy.

19.40.050 Rent Adjustment Petitions.
(a) Fair Return Petitions. Landlords who believe they are not receiving a fair return on their Property may submit a Fair Return Petition to the City to request an increase in Rent beyond that which is permitted under Section 19.40.040.
(1) Nothing in this Section 19.40.050 shall be interpreted to authorize any Lawful Rent Increase in any twelve month period for a Covered Rental Unit in excess of the amount authorized pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1947.12, as may be amended. If a Hearing Officer awards a Landlord a Fair Return Rent Increase in excess of the maximum allowable Rent increase pursuant to Civil Code Section 1947.12, the Landlord may carry forward any portion of the Fair Return Rent Increase that could not be taken to a subsequent year until the full Fair Return Rent Increase is imposed.
(2) No Fair Return Petition shall be deemed submitted or accepted until the Landlord has registered the Property and paid all current and past-due registration fees for the Property pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 (Rent Registry) and/or current Section 19.40.060, as applicable.
(3) No Fair Return Rent Increases shall become effective until all of the following have occurred:
a. The Landlord has provided written notice of the Fair Return Rent Increase for the Covered Rental Unit in accordance with California Civil Code Section 827, as may be amended;
b. After a hearing is held, the Hearing Officer, in a written decision, grants the Fair Return Rent Increase; and
c. All amounts due and payable to the City in connection with the Fair Return Petition and hearing have been paid in full.

(4) Standard for Approving a Fair Return Petition.
a. Fair Return. The Landlord has the right to obtain a net operating income equal to the Base Year net operating income adjusted by the percentage increase

Page 15 of 137 ends

10 in the CPI since the Base Year. It shall be presumed that this standard provides a fair return. The current year CPI shall be the annual CPI for the calendar year preceding the calendar year the Fair Return Petition is filed. The Hearing Officer shall make a determination whether the Landlord will receive a fair return under this standard. In evaluating whether or not the Landlord is receiving a fair return on their investment, the Hearing Officer may consider other relevant factors without limitation.
b. Base Year Net Operating Income. The Base Year and current year net operating income shall be determined by subtracting the actual operating expenses for the Base Year from the gross income realized during the Base Year. The Landlord shall provide evidence of gross income, operating expenses, and the determination of net operating income for the Base Year and current year. All figures shall be certified by the Landlord under penalty of perjury as true and correct and with respect to expenses and income used to determine gross income, as permitted pursuant to Section 19.40.050(a).
c. Rebuttal Of Base Year Net Operating Income Presumption. Any party to the hearing may present evidence to rebut the presumption of fair return based upon the Base Year net operating income, and the Hearing Officer may adjust said net operating income accordingly if at least one of the following findings is made:
(i) The Landlord’s operating expenses in the Base Year were unusually high or low in comparison to other years. In such instances, adjustment may be made in calculating operating expenses so the Base Year operating expenses reflect average expenses for the Property over a reasonable period of time. The Hearing Officer shall consider the following factors in making this finding:
(a) Extraordinary amounts were expended for necessary
maintenance and repairs;
(b) Maintenance and repair was below accepted standards so as to cause significant deterioration in the quality of services provided;
(c) Other expenses were unreasonably high or low in
comparison to prudent business practices;
(d) Costs of debt service paid during the Base Year, where the proceeds of the debt were used for capital improvements or rehabilitation in the Property.
(ii) The gross income during the Base Year was disproportionate. In such instances, adjustments may be made in calculating gross income

Page 16 of 137 ends

11 consistent with the purposes of this section. The Hearing Officer shall consider the following factors in making this finding:
(a) The gross income during the Base Year was lower than it might have been because some Tenants were charged reduced Rent; (b) The gross income during the Base Year was significantly lower than normal because of the destruction of the premises and/or temporary eviction or vacancies for a Substantial Remodel, construction, or repairs.
(iii) The Rent charged by the Landlord in the Base Year were significantly below the HUD FMR Rent for the most similar unit type. d. Determination Of Current Net Operating Income. The net operating income as of the date of filing a Fair Return Petition shall be determined by:
(i) Annualizing the Rent in effect as of the date of filing to determine the annualized gross income;
(ii) Determining the operating expenses during the immediately preceding calendar year;
(iii) Subtracting the operating expenses determined pursuant to Subsection (ii) from the annualized gross income.
e. Calculation Of Gross Income.
(i) For the purposes of determining the net operating income, gross income shall be the sum of the following:
(a) Gross Rent calculated as gross rental income at one hundred percent (100%) occupancy, adjusted for uncollected Rent as provided in Section 19.40.050(a)(4)e.(ii);
(b) Income from any laundry facilities and parking fees; (c) All other income or consideration received or receivable in connection with the use or occupancy of the Covered Rental Unit. (ii) Gross Rent shall be adjusted for uncollected Rent due to vacancy and bad debts to the extent such are beyond the control of the Landlord.

No such adjustment shall be greater than three percent (3%) of gross Rent unless justification for a higher rate is demonstrated by the Landlord. f. Calculation Of Operating Expenses.

Page 17 of 137 ends

12 (i) For the purposes of determining net operating income, operating expenses shall include the following:
(a) Reasonable costs of operation and maintenance.
(b) Utility costs to the extent they are not paid by the Tenants. (c) Landlord-performed labor compensated at reasonable
hourly rates. No Landlord-performed labor shall be included as an operating expense unless the Landlord submits documentation showing the date, time and nature of the work performed. There shall be a maximum allowed under this provision of five percent (5%) of gross income unless the Landlord shows greater services were performed for the benefit of the Tenants.
(d) Real property taxes and assessments.
(e) Reasonable costs of operation and maintenance including, but not limited to, cost associated with repairs mandated by law. (f) Insurance costs to the extent they are not paid by the Tenants.
(ii) Operating expenses shall not include the following:
(a) Mortgage principal or interest payments or other debt service costs or lease payments;
(b) Any penalties, fees or interest assessed or awarded for violation of any provision of this Chapter or of any other provision of law;
(c) Legal fees except as specified in Section

19.40.050(a)(4)f.(iii);
(d) Political contributions;
(e) Any expenses for which the Landlord has been or will be reimbursed by any discount, security deposit, insurance payment or settlement, judgment for damages, settlement or any other method or device;
(f) Avoidable and unnecessary expense increases since the Base Year;
(g) Depreciation;

Page 18 of 137 ends

13 (h) Expenses which are excessive in relation to the customary and reasonable costs of such items;
(i) The costs of capital improvements associated with the purchase and/or installation of separate meters or service unless the Landlord can demonstrate that such improvements benefit the Tenants;
(iii) Legal expenses allowed in the calculation of operating expenses shall include: attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with successful good-faith attempts to recover Rent owing, successful good- faith unlawful detainer actions not in derogation of applicable law, and legal expenses necessarily incurred in dealings with respect to the normal operation of the Property to the extent such expenses are not recovered from adverse or other parties. Attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to the administrative or judicial proceedings in connection with Section

19.40.050(a) are not allowable as operating expenses.
g. Determination of Fair Return Rent Increase.
(i) The Hearing Officer shall set the Fair Return Rent Increase in the amount required to provide the Landlord with a fair return. (ii) In determining the Fair Return Rent Increase required to provide the Landlord with a fair return, the following shall be determined:
(a) The fair return in accordance with Section

19.40.050.a.(4)(a);
(b) The gross income required to produce the fair return; (c) The rent increase needed to produce the required gross income.
(5) Notices Upon Submitting Petition.
a. Within five (5) calendar days after submission of a Landlord's Fair Return Petition to the City, the Landlord shall serve each affected Tenant with a notice of the Fair Return Petition via personal service or certified mail. b. Within ten (10) calendar days after service on each affected Tenant, the Landlord shall file with the City a proof of service, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that a copy of the petition was served upon each affected Tenant.

Page 19 of 137 ends

14 (b) Tenant Petitions. If a Landlord demands or retains Unlawful Rent for a Covered Rental Unit, a Tenant may file a petition to adjust the Rent to its lawful level. (1) Unlawful Rent. If a Tenant believes that the Landlord is demanding Unlawful Rent for a Covered Rental Unit, then the Tenant may submit a Tenant petition to the City. (2) Decrease in Housing Services. A decrease in Housing Services of a Covered Rental Unit, without a corresponding reduction in Rent, is considered an increase in Rent.

Before filing a petition with the City, a Tenant shall provide the Landlord all of the following (copies of which must be submitted with the Tenant petition):
a. Prior written notice identifying the decrease in Housing Services of a Covered Rental Unit; and
b. A reasonable opportunity to correct the issue(s).
(3) Notices Upon Submitting Petition.
a. Within five (5) calendar days after submission of a Tenant petition for rent adjustment to the City, the Tenant shall serve the Landlord with said petition via personal service or certified mail.
b. Within ten (10) calendar days after service on the Landlord, the Tenant shall file with the City a proof of service, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that a copy of the petition was served on the Landlord. (c) Petition Forms. Fair Return and Tenant petitions must be filed on petition forms prescribed by the City and accompanied by such supporting material as the City may require.

Each petition shall be made under penalty of perjury.
(d) Petition Fees.
(1) Fair Return Petitions.
a. Landlords filing a Fair Return Petition shall be responsible for all City costs associated with such petition, including, but not limited to the cost of the Hearing Officers, any costs associated with experts, inspection fees, and any other costs. The City shall provide the Landlord with an estimate of the costs at least 45 calendar days prior to the first date set for the hearing. The Landlord shall deposit with the City the full estimated cost of the hearing at least 30 calendar days prior to the first date set for the hearing. If the deposit is not timely received by the City, the hearing will be postponed, and the hearing shall not be rescheduled until such time as the deposit is received. City shall have the right to deduct costs incurred from the deposit. Upon the completion of the hearing, the City shall prepare a final invoice of hearing costs.

Page 20 of 137 ends

15 b. To the extent that the final invoice amount exceeds the amount deposited by the Landlord, the Landlord shall pay the difference to the City within 10 days of receipt of the final invoice. To the extent the final invoice amount is less than the amount deposited by the Landlord, the City shall issue a refund to the Landlord for the difference.
c. The City will not issue the Hearing Officer’s final decision until the City has received full payment of the final invoice, and no Fair Return Rent Increase, if approved, may be imposed until full payment is received by the City. (2) Tenant Petitions. There shall not be any fee charged for Tenants filing a petition for a downward adjustment of Rent.
(e) Hearing Process.
(1) Upon receipt of a Fair Return or Tenant petition and the proof(s) of service that the petition has been served as provided above, the City shall appoint a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing on the petition and to render a final decision on the merits of the petition, subject to this Chapter and any procedures, regulations, and guidelines promulgated by the City Manager.
(2) Each party to a petition shall receive sufficient advance notice of the time, date, and place of any hearing regarding the petition.
(3) The Hearing Officer may require either party to a petition to provide any books, records, and papers deemed pertinent.
(4) If the Hearing Officer finds good cause to believe that a building or other inspection would assist in resolving the issues raised in the petition, the Hearing Officer may conduct an inspection and/or request that the City conduct an inspection. Any party submitting a petition shall be required to cooperate with the City to grant and/or secure permission to conduct such inspection, within the constraints of applicable law; failure to do so shall be considered an automatic and voluntary withdrawal of that party’s petition upon written notice by the City thereof. The parties to the petition may be present during the inspection. (5) All hearings conducted pursuant to this Chapter shall be open to the parties and their designated representatives, but shall not be open to the public. (f) Assistance or Representation Authorized. All parties to a petition may seek assistance from attorneys, recognized tenant organization representatives, or any other person designated by said parties.
(g) Consolidation. All Fair Return Petitions pertaining to Tenants in the same Property shall be consolidated for determination. Tenant petitions for Rent adjustment from Tenants residing in the same Property may be consolidated at the election of the City, in its sole discretion.

Page 21 of 137 ends

16 (h) Quantum of Proof and Notice of Decision. No petition shall be granted unless supported by the preponderance of the evidence submitted prior to and at the hearing. All parties to the petition shall be sent notice of the decision.
(i) Finality of Decision. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be the final decision and shall not be appealable to the City Council. Any party disputing the final conclusions and findings of the Hearing Officer may seek review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6.
(j) Time of Hearing and Decision. The City shall not be required to accept petitions until six (6) months after the effective date of this Ordinance. The City shall endeavor, but shall not be required, to schedule a hearing on a petition within ninety (90) days after submittal to the City of the petition and the proof(s) of service. A final decision on a petition shall be made within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing.

19.40.060 Annual Rental Registration.
(a) Registration of Covered Rental Unit. On or before July 1 of each year, a Landlord shall register any Covered Rental Unit through the City’s designated rent registry portal, shall provide all required information, shall pay the required rent registry fees, and shall annually submit reports. To the extent that a Landlord has previously complied with the requirements of former Section 19.40.110 (Rent Registry), the Landlord shall on or before July 1, 2024, update the registration previously completed pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 to comply with the requirements of this Chapter.
(b) Rent Registry Fees. A Landlord shall pay the required rent registry fees as set forth in the City Council adopted Resolution Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services.

The fees will be used to finance the cost of the rent registry and implementation and enforcement of this Chapter including, but not limited to, administrative time and costs, legal fees and costs, and any other expense incurred to implement, administer, or enforce this Chapter. (c) Late Fees, Penalty For Late Payment; Penalty For Incomplete Or False Information.

Should a Landlord fail to pay all or a portion of the rent registry fees, or provide incomplete or false information, the City may recover the outstanding amounts, plus accrued interest, fines, and penalties, utilizing any remedies provided by law or in equity, including municipal tax lien procedures established by ordinance or State law. Such sums shall be calculated as set forth in the Resolution Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services and applicable law, may be applied on a per-unit basis, and may be subject to adjustment by the City Attorney or Hearing Officer.
(d) Past Due Amounts. To the extent that a Landlord owes rental registry fees, accrued interest, fines, or penalties incurred prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, such amounts shall continue to be owed and continue to accrue. See also Sections 19.40.040(b) and

19.40.050(a)(2).

Page 22 of 137 ends

17 (e) Termination Notices. Within seven calendar days of serving a notice of termination on a Tenant, a Landlord shall submit a copy of such notice of termination through the City’s designated rent registry portal.

19.40.070 Just Cause for Eviction.
(a) This Section 19.40.070 shall apply to all Landlords and Tenants in Dwelling Units within the jurisdictional limits of the City, unless otherwise exempted by State law or the provisions of this Chapter.
(b) When terminating a Tenancy For Cause or No-Fault, a Landlord must comply with all of the following:
(1) The Landlord must serve a written notice, to the Tenant that, in addition to any information required by federal or State law, the Landlord will terminate the Tenant's Tenancy because of at least one For Cause or No-Fault reason and state the ground(s) for such termination as described in Section 19.40.070(c) and/or (d);
(2) The Landlord has not accepted and will not accept Rent or any other consideration in return for the continued use of the Covered Rental Unit beyond the term of the terminated Tenancy; and
(3) The Landlord qualifies the termination as For Cause or No-Fault, as specified in this Section 19.40.070.
(c) For Cause Termination of Tenancy. If a Landlord can show any of the following circumstances with respect to a termination of Tenancy in a Covered Rental Unit, the termination qualifies as a For Cause Termination:
(1) Default in the payment of Rent.
(2) A breach in the material term of the Rental Agreement, as described in paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the Rental Agreement after being issued a written notice to correct the violation. (3) Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (4) Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5) The Tenant had a written Rental Agreement, and after a written request or demand from the Landlord, the Tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the Rental Agreement for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Chapter or any other provision of law.

Page 23 of 137 ends

18 (6) Criminal activity by the Tenant in the Covered Rental Unit or on the Property, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the Penal Code, or criminal activity by the Tenant on or off the Property that is directed at other Tenants or the Landlord. (7) Assigning or subletting the Covered Rental Unit in violation of the Rental Agreement, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (8) The Tenant’s refusal to allow the Landlord to enter the Covered Rental Unit as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 of the Civil Code, and Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
(9) Using the Covered Rental Unit or any portion of the Property for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (10) The employee, agent, or licensee’s failure to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(11) When the Tenant fails to deliver possession of the Covered Rental Unit after providing the Landlord written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the Civil Code of the Tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of the Covered Rental Unit, or makes a written offer to surrender the Covered Rental Unit that is accepted in writing by the Landlord, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that written notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d) No-Fault Termination of Tenancy. If a Landlord can show any of the following circumstances with respect to a termination of Tenancy in a Covered Rental Unit, the termination qualifies as a No-Fault termination. See Section 19.40.070(e) for Right of Return provisions.

See Section 19.40.080 for Rental Assistance and Moving Stipend provisions. (1) Owner Move Ins. Intent to occupy the Covered Rental Unit by the Landlord or the Landlord’s Family Member.
a. A Landlord may not terminate a Tenancy based on intent to occupy the Covered Rental Unit by the Landlord or the Landlord’s Family Member if the intended occupant already occupies a Dwelling Unit on the Property or if a vacancy of a similar Dwelling Unit already exists at the Property. b. The written notice terminating a Tenancy pursuant to this subparagraph shall contain the name or names and relationship to the Landlord of the intended occupant. The written notice shall additionally include notification that the Tenant may request proof that the intended occupant is a Landlord or the Landlord’s Family Member. The proof shall be provided upon request and may include an operating agreement and other non-public documents.

Page 24 of 137 ends

19 c. This subparagraph (1) only applies if the intended occupant moves into the Covered Rental Unit within ninety (90) days after the Tenant vacates and occupies the Covered Rental Unit as a primary residence for at least twenty-four (24) consecutive months. If the intended occupant moves into the Covered Rental Unit within ninety (90) days after the Tenant vacates, but before having occupied the Covered Rental Unit as a primary residence for twenty-four (24) months as required herein, and suffers a serious disability, becomes terminally ill, or suffers some other significant hardship (each, a “Significant Hardship”) requiring the intended occupant to vacate the Covered Rental Unit, this will not be considered a failure to comply with this Section.
d. A Landlord shall only be allowed to terminate a Tenancy pursuant to this Subsection 19.40.070(d)(1) if the Landlord meets one of the following:
(i) is a natural person that has at least 25 percent recorded ownership interest in the Property;
(ii) is a natural person who has any recorded ownership interest in the Property if one hundred percent (100%) of the recorded ownership interest is divided among owners who are related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild; or (iii) is a natural person whose recorded interest in the Property is owned through a limited liability company or partnership. e. Owner Move-In Protections for Senior, Disabled, and Terminally Ill Tenants. A Landlord may not evict a Tenant in order to occupy the Covered Rental Unit by the Landlord or the Landlord’s Family Member, if the Tenant has resided in the Dwelling Unit for at least three years and is either a Senior Tenant, a Disabled Tenant, or a Terminally Ill Tenant, unless the Landlord or Landlord’s Family Member who will occupy the Covered Rental Unit is either a Senior Tenant, a Disabled Tenant, or a Terminally Ill Tenant, and no other Covered Rental Units are available at the Property.
f. As used in this Subsection 19.40.070(d)(1):
(i) “Natural person” includes any of the following:
(a) a natural person who is a settlor or beneficiary of a family trust; or
(b) if the Property is owned by a limited liability company or partnership, a natural person with a 25-percent ownership interest in the Property.

Page 25 of 137 ends

20 (ii) “Family trust” shall mean a revocable living trust or irrevocable trust in which the settlors and beneficiaries of the trust are persons who are related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild.
(2) Ellis Act Evictions. Withdrawal of all Accommodations at the Property from the rental market is subject to the following conditions and requirements pursuant to the Ellis Act:
a. Landlord complies with all provisions of the Ellis Act, unless otherwise indicated in Section 19.40.070(d)(2).
b. Not less than one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the Landlord intends to withdraw the Accommodations, and after completion of all required proceedings, if any, the Landlord shall provide written notice of termination of Tenancy to all affected Tenants.
c. Landlord's notice to all affected Tenants shall contain the following information:
(i) That the Landlord is evicting the Tenant pursuant to this Section

19.40.070(d)(2);
(ii) That within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice to terminate, the Tenant may notify the Landlord in writing that the Tenant would be interested in re-renting the Covered Rental Unit if any of the Covered Rental Units are re-offered for rent at a future time and advising the Tenant to notify the Landlord of future address changes; (iii) A general description of the Tenant's rights to relocation assistance and any other rights set forth in this Chapter and the Ellis Act (relocation assistance and any additional special assistance shall be paid in accordance with Section 19.40.080);
(iv) Any other information required pursuant to Civil Code Sections 7060.4 and
(v) A self-addressed stamped postcard on which the Tenant may indicate, under penalty of perjury, whether they or another Tenant in the Covered Dwelling Unit are a Disabled Tenant or Senior Tenant. d. A Senior Tenant or a Disabled Tenant who has resided in the Covered Rental Unit for at least one (1) year prior to the Landlord's notice of intent to withdraw the Covered Rental Unit in a Property from the residential rental market, and after receiving one hundred twenty (120) days written notice, may within sixty (60) days of receipt of the written notice of termination submit a written notice to the Landlord of Tenant’s status as a Senior or Disabled Tenant,

Page 26 of 137 ends

21 in which event the notice of termination shall be extended to one year from the date of delivery of the notice pursuant to 19.40.070(d)(2)(c). e. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City adopts all tenant protections authorized by the State legislature in the following provisions of the Ellis Act: California Government Code Sections 7060.2, 7060.3, 7060.4, 7060.6, and this subdivision shall be interpreted to implement all available tenant protections in the aforementioned sections of the Government Code, as they exist as of the effective date of this Chapter. See also Section 19.40.070(e)(2) for Ellis Act right of return provisions. See Section 19.40.120(a)(3) for Ellis Act remedies, including exemplary damages.
f. Recordation of Notice:
(i) The City shall prepare a form notice consistent with Government Code Section 7060.3, and which shall specifically describe the Property where the Covered Rental Units are located, the dates applicable to the constraints and the name of the owner of record of the Property. (ii) Any Landlord withdrawing a Property containing Covered Rental Units from the rental market shall complete such notice and shall serve such notice on the City concurrent with providing notice to the Tenants of the Landlord's intent to withdraw the Covered Rental Units from the residential rental market. The notice shall be executed by the fee owner(s) of the Property, and all such signatures shall be duly notarized. (iii) City shall record the notice with the County Recorder. Such notice encumbers the Property for ten (10) years from the date the Accommodations are withdrawn from rent or lease.
(3) Government Orders. The Landlord is complying with any of the following:
a. An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the Covered Rental Unit; or
b. An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the Covered Rental Unit; or
c. A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the Covered Rental Unit. (4) Intent to Demolish/Substantially Remodel. Intent to demolish or to Substantially Remodel the Covered Rental Unit.
a. For purposes of this subparagraph, a Tenant is not required to vacate the Covered Rental Unit on any days where a Tenant could continue living in the

Page 27 of 137 ends

22 Covered Rental Unit without violating health, safety, and habitability codes and laws.
b. In order to terminate a Tenancy based on intent to demolish or to Substantially Remodel the Covered Rental Unit pursuant to this subparagraph, a Landlord must provide the Tenant with written notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.1 which notice shall be in no less than 12-point type, shall be in English and Spanish and include all of the following information:
(i) A statement informing the Tenant of the Landlord’s intent to demolish the Property or Substantially Remodel the Covered Rental Unit or Property.
(ii) The following statement: “If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the Landlord must offer you the opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the Landlord at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated. You must notify the Landlord within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within thirty (30) days of notifying the Landlord of your acceptance of the offer.”
(iii) A description of the Substantial Remodel to be completed, the approximate expected duration of the Substantial Remodel, or if the Property is to be demolished, the expected date by which the Property will be demolished, together with one of the following:
(a) A copy of the permit or permits (or a written commitment from the applicable governmental agency that such permits are ready to be issued subject only to conditions requiring the Property or Covered Rental Unit to be vacant) required to undertake the Substantial Remodel or demolition; or
(b) If the notice is issued to abate hazardous materials and the remodel does not require any permit, a copy of the signed contract with the contractor hired by the Landlord to complete the Substantial Remodel, that reasonably details the work that will be undertaken to abate the hazardous materials.
(iv) A notification that the Tenant has the right to return to the Covered Rental Unit upon completion of the Substantial Remodel at the same Rent and the same lease terms subject to any Lawful Rent Increases.

Page 28 of 137 ends

23 (e) Tenant's Right of First Return to a Covered Rental Unit; Rent Upon Return. (1) Owner Move In Right of Return. If the intended occupant fails to occupy the Covered Rental Unit within ninety (90) days after the Tenant vacates, or if the intended occupant fails to occupy the Covered Rental Unit as their primary residence for at least _twenty-four (24) consecutive months absent a Significant Hardship as provided in Section 19.40.070(d)(1)c. above, and if Tenant re-occupies such Covered Rental Unit, Landlord shall reimburse the Tenant for reasonable moving expenses incurred. Such payment shall be in addition to any relocation assistance that was paid to the Tenant in connection with the termination notice. To the extent permitted by State law, for a new Tenancy commenced during the time periods described in this Section 19.40.070(e)(1), the Covered Rental Unit shall be offered and rented or leased at the Lawful Rent in effect at the time any notice of termination of Tenancy is served, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases.
(2) Ellis Act Right of Return.
a. If within two (2) years after withdrawing a Covered Rental Unit from the rental market pursuant to Section 19.40 070(d)(2) a Landlord offers for Rent such Covered Rental Unit, in addition to any right of return that the Tenant may have pursuant to this Chapter, the Landlord shall be liable to the Tenant who was displaced from the Covered Rental Unit actual and exemplary damages provided the Tenant brings an action against the Landlord within three (3) years of the withdrawal of the Covered Rental Unit from the rental market. b. Return Within Five (5) Years. A Tenant of a Covered Rental Unit whose Tenancy was terminated in accordance with Section 19.40.070(d)(2) is entitled to receive notice of the first right to return to the same Covered Rental Unit at the Rent previously charged for the Covered Rental Unit, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases, and subject to the Rental Agreement terms in effect at the time the Tenant vacated. A Tenant may return to the Covered Rental Unit if:
(i) The Tenant has provided the Landlord a current mailing address and/or email address and keeps those addresses updated, at which to receive notice from Landlord that Covered Rental Unit is available; and (ii) The Landlord returns the Covered Rental Unit to the residential rental market within five (5) years after the effective date of withdrawal of a Property containing the Covered Rental Unit from the residential rental market.
c. Return Within Ten (10) Years. A Landlord of a Property containing a Covered Rental Unit that was withdrawn from the residential rental market within the previous ten (10) years must provide one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the previous Tenants of the Landlord's intent to return the Covered Rental Unit to the residential rental market.

Page 29 of 137 ends

24 d. Any Tenant displaced from a Covered Rental Unit in connection with the withdrawal of a Property containing a Covered Rental Unit from the residential rental market may request the first right of return from the Landlord within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Landlord's written notice of intent to return the Covered Rental Unit to the residential rental market.
(3) Government Order Right of Return. The Landlord must give advance notice to the Tenant of the Tenant’s right to reoccupy the Covered Rental Unit if and when the Covered Rental Unit is found to be in compliance with the order. The Tenant shall notify the Landlord, in writing, within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice of the Tenant’s interest to reoccupy the Covered Rental Unit and shall provide the Landlord with their contact information. (4) Substantial Remodel Right of Return. Tenant shall have the right to return to the Covered Rental Unit upon completion of the Substantial Remodel. The Tenant shall notify the Landlord, in writing, within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice of the Tenant’s interest to reoccupy the Covered Rental Unit and shall provide the Landlord with their contact information.
(5) Rent Upon Return. In each such instance, the Landlord shall offer and Tenant shall have the right return to the same Covered Rental Unit at the Rent previously charged for the Covered Rental Unit, subject to any Lawful Rent Increases, and subject to the Rental Agreement terms in effect at the time the Tenant vacated.
(f) School Year Evictions.
(1) It shall be a defense to a no-fault eviction if a School-Aged Child resides in the Covered Rental Unit, if the effective date of the notice of termination of Tenancy falls during the School Year.
(2) Within thirty (30) days of service of the notice of termination of Tenancy, the Tenant must submit a statement with supporting evidence to the Landlord if the Tenant claims to have a School-Aged Child residing in the Covered Dwelling Unit; this information is required in addition to Tenant’s return of the postcard referenced in Section 19.40.080(a)(1). The notice of termination of Tenancy shall contain a warning that a Tenant’s failure to submit such statement within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice shall be deemed an admission that the Tenant is not protected from eviction pursuant to this Section 19.40.070(f). (3) A Landlord may challenge a Tenant’s claim of protected status pursuant to this Section 19.40.070(f) through commencement of the eviction proceeding.

19.40.080 Relocation Assistance For No-Fault Termination Of Tenancy; Moving Stipend.
(a) Relocation Assistance for No-Fault Terminations.

Page 30 of 137 ends

25 (1) For a Tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the Tenancy under Section 19.40.070, if a Landlord issues a termination notice for a no-fault reason the Landlord shall, regardless of the Tenant’s income, assist the Tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the Tenant as described in Subsection (a)(3), below, and (except to the extent prohibited by applicable law) the Landlord shall notify the Tenant in writing of the Tenant’s right to relocation assistance at the time the Landlord issues the notice of termination. Each termination notice shall be accompanied by a self-addressed stamped postcard (in a format approved by the City) on which the Tenant may indicate, under penalty of perjury, whether they or another Tenant in the Covered Dwelling Unit are a Protected Tenant and under which category (i.e., Lower-Income Tenant, Disabled Tenant, Senior Tenant, Terminally Ill Tenant, School-Aged Child/ren) they claim Protected Tenant status. (2) Permanent Relocations. When relocation assistance is required by this Section

19.40.080(a)(2) to Tenants who are evicted pursuant to Section 19.40.070(d), the Landlord must make relocation assistance payments as follows:
a. Non-Protected Tenant Relocation Assistance. If the Tenancy is terminated pursuant to Section 19.40.070(d)(1)-(3) (i.e. Owner Move-Ins, Ellis Act Evictions, Governmental Orders), or pursuant to Section 19.040.070(d)(4) (i.e.

Intent to Demolish/Substantially Remodel) with the intent to demolish the Covered Rental Unit, the Landlord shall pay to the Tenant relocation assistance in the amount of three times the HUD FMR Rent for the most similar unit type based on the number of bedrooms plus the Moving Stipend. Such payment shall be calculated on a per-Covered Dwelling Unit basis, without reference to the number of Tenants in the Covered Dwelling Unit.
b. Protected Tenant Relocation Assistance. If one of the Tenants living in the Covered Rental Unit from which the Tenants are displaced is a Protected Tenant, then all Tenants living in the Covered Rental Unit are collectively entitled to receive supplemental relocation assistance in the amount of one additional month of the applicable HUD FMR Rent. Such payment shall be calculated on a per-Covered Dwelling Unit basis, without reference to the number of Tenants and Protected Tenants in the Covered Dwelling Unit.
c. Single Family Home/Condominium Relocation Assistance.

Notwithstanding anything in this Section19.40.020(a)(2) (Permanent Relocations) to the contrary, in the case of any Dwelling Unit that is alienable separate (i.e., separately transferrable) from the title to any other Dwelling Unit, or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in California Business and Professions Code Section 11004.5(b), (d), or (f), including without limitation single family residences and condominiums, but excluding mobile homes offered for rent, the Landlord shall pay to the Tenant relocation assistance in the amount of two (2) months of the Tenant’s then-current Rent plus a Moving Stipend in the amount of $2,000.

Page 31 of 137 ends

26 d. Payment Process. For permanent relocation assistance, the Landlord shall provide one-half of the relocation assistance owed to the Tenant within 15 calendar days of service of the notice of termination. The remaining relocation assistance shall be paid to the Tenant in cash no later than the date the Tenant vacates the Covered Rental Unit.
e. Moving Stipend. The Landlord shall pay to Tenant the amount of $3,000 (“Moving Stipend”), which shall be paid to the Tenant in cash no later than the date the Tenant vacates the Covered Rental Unit. Such payment shall be calculated on a per-Covered Dwelling Unit basis, without reference to the number of Tenants in the Covered Dwelling Unit.
f. Refund of Security Deposit. A Landlord must refund to the Tenant any security deposit paid by the Tenant. A Landlord may withhold any properly itemized deductions from the security deposit in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1950.5.
(3) Temporary Relocations. A Landlord must pay temporary relocation assistance to Tenants of a Covered Rental Unit who are temporarily displaced due to Substantial Remodel of Covered Rental Unit:
a. Thirty (30) Days or Fewer. A Landlord must provide the Tenant a per diem payment if the Tenant will be temporarily displaced for thirty (30) days or fewer. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant the full amount of the per diem payment when the Tenant temporarily vacates the Covered Rental Unit. b. Thirty-One (31) Days or More. A Landlord must provide the Tenant either a per diem payment or, at the Landlord’s election, comparable or superior temporary housing, if available.
c. Duration Extended. In the event the duration of the temporary relocation is longer than anticipated, the Landlord shall continue to pay to the Tenant the per diem relocation assistance payments on a weekly basis or continue to provide the Tenant with the comparable or superior temporary housing until the Tenant is able to return to the Covered Rental Unit.
d. Per-Diem Amount. The per diem payment amount shall be based on the Federal General Services Administration per diem rate for lodging and meals (M&IE total) in Concord, Contra Costa County, which is updated on a yearly basis. Per diem payments for meal shall be on a per Tenant basis. Per diem payments for lodging shall be on a per-Covered Dwelling Unit basis assuming a household size of four.
e. Rent Due. For temporary relocation assistance where the Landlord is providing comparable or superior temporary housing or making a per diem

Page 32 of 137 ends

27 payment, the Tenant shall continue to pay the Lawful Rent to the Landlord for the Covered Rental Unit.
f. Refund of Security Deposit. A Landlord shall not be required refund to the Tenant any security deposit paid by the Tenant in connection with a temporary relocation.
g. The phrase “comparable or superior” when used in connection with a Dwelling Unit or temporary housing shall mean a Dwelling Unit or temporary housing that is similar in size or larger, has the same number of bedrooms or additional bedrooms, is located in the City, has similar amenities as the Covered Rental Unit, such as parking, laundry facilities or exercise facilities, allows pets if the displaced Tenant has a pet, and as to a Disabled Tenant, is disability accessible and ADA compliant. The Tenant, in the Tenant’s reasonable discretion may waive any of these factors in deciding whether the Dwelling Unit or temporary housing offered is comparable or superior.
(b) No Waiver. In the event the Tenant accepts an offer to temporarily or permanently move to an available comparable or superior vacant Dwelling Unit owned by the Landlord at the same Rent, the Tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance pursuant to Section 19.40.080 herein, but shall be eligible for the Moving Stipend. Except as expressly provided in this Subsection 19.40.080(b), a Tenant cannot waive their right to receive relocation assistance required by this Chapter.
(c) Coordination With Other Relocation Benefits. If a Tenant receives, as part of the termination of Tenancy, relocation assistance pursuant to the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code Sections 7260-7277), then the amount of that relocation assistance shall operate as a credit against any relocation assistance to be paid to the Tenant under this Section

19.40.070.

19.40.090 Requirement to Offer Written Lease; Minimum Lease Terms. Tenants shall have the right to written leases and minimum lease terms, as provided herein. (a) One-Year Lease Term. If a prospective Tenant wishes to rent a Dwelling Unit from a Landlord and if said Landlord wishes to rent said Dwelling Unit to said prospective Tenant, the Landlord must offer to the prospective Tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of one year. Such offer must be made in writing. If the prospective Tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of one year will be considered an offer if signed by the Landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by the prospective Tenant. If the prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, such rejection must be in writing.
(b) Six-Month Lease Term. If the prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year as provided in Section 19.40.090(a), but the prospective Tenant continues to wish to rent said Dwelling Unit from said Landlord, said Landlord must

Page 33 of 137 ends

28 offer to said prospective Tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of six months. Such offer must be made in writing. If said prospective Tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of six months will be considered an offer if signed by said Landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by said prospective Tenant. If said prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, such rejection must be in writing.
(c) Shorter Term. If said prospective Tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months as provided in Section 19.40.090(b), said Landlord and said prospective Tenant may then enter into a written lease that provides for a term of fewer than six months.
(d) Renewal of Lease. If both the Landlord and Tenant wish to continue the Tenancy, upon the expiration of a Rental Agreement which has a minimum term of one year or six months, a written Rental Agreement shall be offered again in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 19.40.090(a)-(c). The Landlord shall have no obligation to re-offer a Tenant a one-year or six-month lease term if the Tenant has previously rejected such offers in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 19.40.090(a)-(c), and has a Rental Agreement with a term of fewer than six months.
(e) Existing Tenancies. Any Tenant renting a Dwelling Unit may request a written lease with a minimum term of either one year or six months, provided such Tenant has not previously received a written notice of Rental Agreement violation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 and such violation remains uncured. The Tenant shall do so via written notice to the Landlord. The Landlord shall, upon receipt of such notice, offer to said Tenant a written Rental Agreement on terms substantially similar to those of the existing rental arrangement (except as to length of term) in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section

19.40.090, as applicable.

19.40.100 Notice of Tenant Rights.
(a) A Landlord subject to this Chapter shall provide notice to the Tenant as follows:
(1) For any Tenancy commenced or renewed on or after the effective date of this Ordinance, as an addendum to the Rental Agreement, or as a written notice signed by the Tenant, with a copy provided to the Tenant.
(2) For any Tenancy existing prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, by written notice to the Tenant no later than 180 days after the effective date of the Ordinance adopting this Chapter, or as an addendum to the Rental Agreement.
(b) The notification and Rental Agreement provision shall be in no less than 12-point type, shall be in English and Spanish, and shall include the following:

Page 34 of 137 ends

29 Concord law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See Chapter 19.40 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. Concord law also provides that, a Landlord must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a Tenancy. See Section 19.40 070 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. In addition, City of Concord Municipal Code Sections 19.40.070(e) and 19.40.080 provide tenants evicted on a no-fault basis with the right to return to the Tenant’s original Covered Rental Unit if such Covered Rental Unit is returned to the market, and the right to relocation assistance and a moving stipend; see City of Concord Municipal Code Sections

19.40.070(e) and 19.40.080 for more information.

City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 provides tenants with the right to written leases and minimum lease terms. Landlords must offer tenants the option to enter into a one (1) year written lease. If a tenant declines a one (1) year written lease, the landlord must offer that tenant the option to enter into a six (6) month written lease. It is the tenant’s choice whether or not to enter into such a written lease with a landlord. If tenant rejects the initial offers of a written lease with a minimum lease term of 12 or 6 months, the tenant and landlord may enter into a written lease with a term of fewer than 6 months. See City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 for more information. (c) Manner. Landlords must provide the notice to Tenants in writing if the application and Rental Agreement are processed in writing, electronically if the application and/or Rental Agreement are processed electronically, or both if both methods are utilized. The provision of the notice shall be subject to Civil Code Section 1632.

19.40.110 Procedures and Guidelines.

The City Manager is hereby delegated the authority to promulgate procedures, regulations, and guidelines to aid in the implementation of this Chapter.

19.40.120 Remedies.
(a) Remedies and penalties.
(1) If a Landlord violates the terms of this Chapter, an aggrieved Tenant may institute a civil action for injunctive relief, actual, statutory, or direct money damages, and any other relief that the court deems appropriate, which shall include a civil penalty of no less than $2,000, and no more than $5,000, per violation, at the discretion of the court. If the aggrieved Tenant is a Senior Tenant or a Disabled Tenant, the court may award an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, at the discretion of the court.
(2) Any person who violates, aids, abets, or incites another person to violate this Chapter is liable in a court action for each and every such offense for money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered by an aggrieved Tenant (including damages for mental or emotional distress), or for minimum damages in the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental

Page 35 of 137 ends

30 or emotional distress, said award shall only be tripled if the trier of fact finds that the defendant Landlord acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of this Chapter. (3) If within two (2) years after withdrawing a Covered Rental Unit from the rental market pursuant to Section 19.40 070(d)(2) a Landlord offers for Rent such Covered Rental Unit, in addition to any right of return that the Tenant may have pursuant to this Chapter, the Landlord shall be liable to the Tenant who was displaced from the Covered Rental Unit actual and exemplary damages provided the Tenant brings an action against the Landlord within three (3) years of the withdrawal of the Covered Rental Unit from the rental market. (b) The court may award punitive damages in a proper case as set out in Civil Code Section 3294 and pursuant to the standards set forth in that code section or any successor thereto, but may not award both punitive damages and triple damages. (c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a Tenant who prevails in any such action. The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a Landlord who prevails in any such action if the court determines that the Tenant’s action was frivolous. (d) The remedies available under this Section 19.40.120 shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available to the residential tenant under applicable federal, State, county, or local law.
(e) No administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this Chapter. (f) Authorization of City Attorney to enforce the Ordinance. The City Attorney shall have the right and authority, but not the obligation, to enforce this Chapter, including bringing actions for injunctive relief, equitable relief, restitution, and/or penalties to ensure compliance with this Chapter.
(g) To the extent permitted by law, any violation of this Chapter shall be a defense to an unlawful detainer action.

19.40.130 Waiver Prohibited.

Any waiver of rights under this Chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy.

19.40.140 Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.

Page 36 of 137 ends

From: Blake Stokley Properties <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 5:09 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Feb 13th Rent Control meeting . AB 1482 already in place. Further restrictions are harming residents and owners

Hello, I'm reaching out after watching some so-called City leaders pass restrictions that they don't even understand. I come from a poor life, moving from apartment to garage to apartment, while my mom worked two jobs to make ends meet. We lived off tuna, and had very little. Struggled to pay the rent every month. At 12, I started working to help my mom pay the rent and bills. I went to work, she went to work, we made it happen with very little.

I work very hard to save and fortunately after hard work and many hours at a job, A couple years ago, I purchased my first home in Concord in which my wife and I live happily, in hopes that one day this home will help create generational wealth.

First, I want to thank Laura Hoffmeister for doing everything she can to fight for Concord homeowners' property rights.

Now, if I want to lease my home and something happens to my mother, my wife, any of my family, OR if their is a leak in my home that requires extensive renovation, homeowners are not only required to pay for the maintenance but now,

WE HAVE TO PAY TWO MONTH'S RENT + $2,000 to the tenant for "moving expenses".

Market rate for my home is $3,000. THAT's $8,000 that I'd have to come up with on top of my own personal hardship with my family or property.

Council woman NAKUMUMA, stated last night during the meeting that if homeowners end up in that situation, they have an opportunity to sell. Honestly shocked that you would say that. It's so small minded of you to not understand that this will bring properties off the rental market completely. You're basically saying to small landlords and investors, "hey, I don't care how hard you worked to invest in this home in Concord, if you can't afford to pay the tenant $8,000, sell your house and move away. Not to mention, selling a house with a tenant in there and disclosing to the new owner they need to pay $8,000 brings down the home value tremendously.

You're passing laws rules that make no sense. What is the difference if a landlord has to remain in the home 1 year vrs what you passed at 2 years, or 3 years, what's the difference?

DOMINIC ALIANO, NAKUMURA, EDI BERSIAN: I'M GREATLY DISAPPOINTED.

This is CRIMINAL. You are taking away our property rights. This has NOTHING to do with rent stabilization. This has to do with you trying to get re-elected, or your complete ignorance. I'm greatly disappointed in you three, and this City. My tax dollars are going to your wasted hours.

Correspondence Received for
Agenda Item No. 5.a
March 5, 2024

Page 37 of 137 ends

Above all this anger is really I'm sick to my stomach about this.

Carlyn Obringer, I completely disagree with your vote yes last night. I don't understand how you can say that you are going to watch it closely to see how it goes. Have you not seen how much it's helped surrounding cities for years? NO because it hasn't.

I'd really like to know WHY on some of these restrictions/requirements. Homeowners in Concord have been attacked.

Please help us understand, if you are up there confused, then we are really confused.

Blake

From: Blake
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 12:22 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: AB 1482 already in place. Further restrictions are harming residents and owners Hello and good day,

I am a first-time homeowner in Concord, and a property manager for the last 10 years in the east Bay Area. I have seen firsthand how additional rent control restrictions have ruined cities like Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, SF, etc..

I wanted to share with you why these additional restrictions will harm the residents, and owners of properties that have worked very hard to save and invest for the "American dream" of homeownership:

1. small owners/operators will sell the property and invest elsewhere. (I'm currently discussing with owners who have invested in the community and their properties, letting me know they will have no choice but to sell with the additional rent cap and just cause restrictions). These are small investors who have worked hard and taken great care of their tenants and properties. This is causing reduced vacancy by pulling units from the market, and deferred property maintenance because material and construction costs rise with inflation.

2. This is harming our community. Don't let a few bad apples effect all residents and owners/investors in Concord. AB 1482 is already in place throughout CA. This is the answer. Go after the landlords who are taking advantage of tenants. Do not make further City-wide ordinances. Look at surrounding Cities such as Pleasant Hill,

Page 38 of 137 ends

Martinez, Walnut Creek, Clayton, etc and look at how well kept and clean these cities are. Further restrictions on Concord rent control are unacceptable.

I'd like to avoid confusion by keeping my points above short and simple. I'm in the business and we have a great relationship with our residents and owners.

What's the answer? AB 1482. It's already here. https://caanet.org/topics/ab-1482/

AB 1482 - Statewide Rent Cap Archives
AB 1482 took effect on January 1, 2020. AB 1482 imposes rent caps on some residential rental properties in California. It also imposes “just cause” eviction requirements that apply after residents have occupied the unit for a certain period of time. In cities that already have a rent control ordinance in place (under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act), AB 1482 extends rent caps to some additional housing that is otherwise not covered under the existing local ordinance. The law exempts certain properties from the rent caps and just-cause requirements, including (1) most single-family homes and condominiums, and (2) housing built within the last 15 years. In cities that already have a rent control ordinance in place (under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act), AB 1482 extends rent caps to some
additional housing that is otherwise not covered under the existing local ordinance. AB 1482 Tools Calculate How AB 1482 Affects Your Property Are you unsure whether AB 1482’s rent cap or just-cause eviction pro
caanet.org

Thank you for your time, please do the right thing and DO NOT pass further restrictions. I speak from my wife and I's residence/ownership in Concord and our whole staff at Stokley Properties.

I am more than happy to meet with any/all members of the board to discuss further.

Blake

Page 39 of 137 ends

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:28 PM
To: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Planned rent ordinance

This e-mail is being shared with all Councilmembers

FYI

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: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 3:36 PM
To: Tom H <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planned rent ordinance

Tom,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will forward your email to the Council so they know of your concerns.

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 40 of 137 ends

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

From: Tom H <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 6:35 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Planned rent ordinance

Ms Barone,

The proposed rent ordinance represents an unjust taking of property. Why apply such restrictions to just rental property. Why not impose similar price restrictions to every business, gasoline, groceries, and every service industry person in Concord? On its face this would be political suicide and every business would eventually move out of Concord. Is a reduction in rental housing what you are trying to achieve with rental housing? You are trying to reverse the basic supply and demand principals of economics.

I am retired and need either rental income keeping pace with inflation, or I sell the property and move my investment to some other investment type like the stock market that has had returns of 20 to 30 percent per year recently. Why should I subsidize renters at the expense of my retirement. I worked many years and spent less than my income most years so I could have a decent retirement and now Concord wants my to subsidize a renter.

Incidentally, the ordinance does not seem to address an eviction for the sale of a property because the owner needs the cash to pay for most goods and services that have increased in cost by much more that the rent increases Concord will allow.

Hoping your council will cancel this planned for restrictions more harsh on property owners that state law already is

Tom Hendrey

Page 41 of 137 ends

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 2:13 PM
To: randolph hopkins <[email protected]>
Cc: randy hopkins <[email protected]>; Margie Wells <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Look at this!!!

Mr. Hopkins,

You are correct it is one ordinance the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance and the City’s website explains how the Rent Stabilization provisions apply and how the Just Cause for Eviction provisions apply.

As to your second question, the City Clerk is easiest to reach at [email protected].

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: randolph hopkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 1:57 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: randy hopkins <[email protected]>; Margie Wells <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Look at this!!!

Am I mistaken, I’m under the impression that there was one ordinance that was voted on under the name Rent Stabilization?

Under this one ordinance named rent stabilization, there was multiple different sections involving different circumstances. One circumstance being that multifamily properties would be locked into a fixed increase in rent based off of CPI. Another circumstance in which is spoken of in this ordinance is referred to just cause eviction, both of which were voted in under one name, and one ordinance(rent stabilization).

Page 42 of 137 ends

So, with that being said, on your cities website, it indicates that single-family homes will not be affected by the ordinance name of rent stabilization. These games that are being played with words are very misleading and in my beliefs, to be dishonest and not accurate.

I would appreciate and expect a response to my concerns.

Also, I would appreciate if you could give me the email address to the city clerk, I’m interested in receiving the paperwork and city regulations to recall council members in the city of Concord.

Thank you,
Randolph Hopkins
(925)207-8252

Sent from iPhone

On Feb 16, 2024, at 8:36 AM, Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Hopkins,

Thank you for sending in your concerns.

City staff is working to communicate accurately on the Ordinance that Council introduced earlier this week on Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction. You can read the City’s latest information on the website at this link: News Flash • Council Votes to Introduce Ordinance on Rent St (cityofconcord.org)

Your concern appears to be with what is highlighted in yellow below. This statement is accurate: There are no controls on the rent that a single family property owner can charge for renting out their home.

Please note that under Just Cause for Eviction we say very clearly that the regulations WOULD apply to rented single family homes. See blue highlight below.

Note the information below was clipped from the information in the link above for ease of communicating on the topic in this e-mail.

I hope this information is helpful.

Your e-mail and this response will be shared with all Councilmembers.

Valerie

RENT STABILIZATION
Rent stabilization would NOT apply to rented single-family homes, rented condominium units, or rented accessory dwelling units.

Page 43 of 137 ends

Rent stabilization WILL apply to multi-family rental complexes of two or more units built before Feb. 1, 1995.

Here is a brief description of major features to be included in the proposed new Ordinance:

1. Limit annual rent increases to 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower.

2. Updated 2/13/24: The City Council shall review the Annual Allowable Rent Increase amount each year.

3. Updated 2/13/24: The City will honor agreements Affordable Housing providers have with the City or other government agencies that cap their rent increases at 5% or less in their regulatory agreements or deed restrictions. All other rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions apply.

4. 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).

5. Updated 2/13/24: Includes a “rent rollback” provision that sets rents to the dollar amounts that were charged for rent as of April 4, 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).

6. 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.

7. Updated 2/13/24: If they choose to do so, tenants and property owners would be able to file a lawsuit directly with courts instead of having to first go through the City’s petition process.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 44 of 137 ends

4. Updated 2/13/24: The Ordinance allows for owners to vacate sooner than the 24 months length of time required following an owner move-in if they are experiencing a “Significant Hardship” as defined in the Ordinance.

5. In the case of no-fault evictions at multifamily rental complexes, 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 unit. 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.

6. Updated 2/13/24: For no-fault evictions, landlords of rented Single-Family Homes and Condominiums would pay the relocation assistance in the amount of two months of the tenant’s current rent plus a moving stipend of $2,000.

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: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 6:06 PM
To: randolph hopkins <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: randy hopkins <[email protected]>; Margie Wells <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Look at this!!!

I have forwarded your concerns to the city manager.

Edi Birsan
If you want to meet let me know.

Please take my independent survey
At www.PulseOfConcord.com

Page 45 of 137 ends

From: randolph hopkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 8:24:25 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Cc: randy hopkins <[email protected]>; Margie Wells <[email protected]> Subject: Look at this!!!

Look at still as of today Feb, 15 2024 at 745am the city of Concord is still lying to its residence. Saying that single-family homes will not be affected by your rent stabilization ordinance. I know the ordinance doesn’t apply to single family homes but the most damaging and dangerous part does!

You and your fellow council members are tyrants.

It needs to be listed on the city website on how to recall council members. You guys are dishonest and criminal.

Page 46 of 137 ends

Thank you,
Randolph Hopkins
(925)207-8252

Sent from iPhone

Page 47 of 137 ends

From: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 3:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: RENT STABILIZATION and JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION

Dear [email protected],

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and your question. Your e-mail and this response will be shared with all Councilmembers.

The Ordinance that Council introduced earlier this week and will take action on to adopt at their meeting of March 5th, does provide just cause for eviction protections to tenants of rented single family homes/condos in Concord (as well as multi-family rental units).

So, in response to your question: yes, if a property owner desired a tenant to move out of a single family rental, the Ordinance would require that a property owner provide an “at-fault of the tenant” or “no-fault of the tenant” reason to remove the tenant from the property. The Ordinance provides that an expiration of a lease in itself is not a reason to evict a tenant.

Although “at-fault” reasons require no payment of relocation assistance, a “no fault” reason would require the payment of a relocation fee.

However, as the Mayor pointed out during the public meeting on the Ordinance, there are no regulatory controls on the rents charged for single family homes in the Ordinance.

The just cause protections for tenants will likely have their largest impact during the term of a lease. Meaning that were a property owner to ask a tenant to leave during the term of the lease for a “no fault of the tenant” reason, the relocation payment would need to be paid to the tenant.

I hope this information is helpful.

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.

Page 48 of 137 ends

From: tbajada <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 12:44 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RENT STABILIZATION and JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION

To the City Clerk for Concord,

I just read the release regarding rent control in Concord and the just cause evictions. If the tenant has a 1-year lease term in a single-family home and upon expiration of the lease, the owner of the property (landlord) does not want to renew that lease does the landlord have to pay the just cause provisions to the tenant?

The property taxes have gone up significantly in Concord and yet the city council wants to limit the rent hikes to 3%. So the property owners are taking the hit on both ends. How does that seem fair?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Page 49 of 137 ends

From: Polly Bradbury <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2024 12:22 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Ordinance

Mayor, Council Members, and Ms. Rush,

I am a homeowner in Concord but have been working in San Jose for about 8 months. I am interested in renting my Concord house as the job position seems to be working out quite well for me and will be temporarily be moving there. My plan would be to rent my house for about 5 to 7 years and then return when I retire.

I have been trying to follow the on going debate regarding the eviction for tenants and I’m very confused as to why a homeowner has to pay a tenant to move out when the owner wants to move back into their own home? I feel something more fair for both party’s would be to insist the tenant is given 2 or 3 months notice so they have ample time to find suitable housing but in my case if I rented my house for $3000 monthly, I would have to pay the tenant $8000 to move out of MY home!

According to Kelly Rush:
relocation payments for single family homes/condominiums are as follows for all no-fault evictions (including owner move in):

1. Two months of the Tenant's then-current rent.

2. Moving stipend of $2,000.

3. No additional payment for protected tenant relocations.

I am in support of rent control for all rentals.

I can completely understand the need for restrictions and the ordinances you have been considering for multi-unit and Corporation Owned single family homes and REIT’s. The main reason for evicting someone who is not at fault is most likely financial gain and is truly not fair.

I am NOT in favor of being penalized for wanting to move back into my home.

I would like you to reconsider involving single family homes owned by individuals who wish to move back into their homes after a period of time from the ordinances under consideration.

Sincerely,
Polly Bradbury

Page 50 of 137 ends

From: Jenny Terry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 3:41 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Concord City Council Votes to Introduce Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause for Eviction

Thank you, Concord City Council.

Landlords: You will now lose 40% per year to inflation. And oh, here’s some more costs and fees for you to pay as well.

There go the property improvements we hoped to accomplish. Can no longer afford it since you will force us to lose money every year.

Rental property condition and tenant quality will go down.

No intelligent landlord will ever rent to anyone that doesn’t have PERFECT credit.

Your just cause eviction policy will make it impossible to get rid of drug dealers and problem tenants, and will harm other good tenants and neighbors.

You have just violated the property rights of all Concord residents who own real property.

If you really wanted to help people in hardship, then you establish a fund to do so. You don’t penalize good property owners who treat their tenants well, and work at establishing a good community at their properties.

Make it a great day!
Jenny Terry
925-200-3902

Page 51 of 137 ends

From: Cathy Lovallo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 5:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization

Appalled at and do not support this as written. Especially for single family homes. This will backfire and hurt property owners and renters. Are you trying to outdo the Board of Supes in San Francisco? Do NOT pass this, PLEASE

Sent from Mail for Windows

Page 52 of 137 ends

From: Marilyn Hardy <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 9:37 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: NO on RENT Ordinance

Concord City Council:

Please vote NO on Concord's proposed RENT stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance. It is grossly unfair to landlords.

The move out fees are especially burdensome. Do you think owners of rental properties all have bottomless wealth? My sister is an elder retiree who supplements her fixed income by renting out a couple of single-family dwellings and a duplex. The proposed tenant relocation fee would cost a huge percentage of her rental income.

As I understand it, the proposed ordinance doesn't recognize that a lease is for a limited time, but treats all rentals as though though they are endless. So there isn't an no-fault way for a landlord to stop renting without penalty? That's not reasonable! California has state laws to protect renters. Please let the state law govern.

Vote NO on the Concord proposal.

[email protected]
1609 Brenda Ct, Concord, CA 94521
925-689-7391

Page 53 of 137 ends

From: Kristi Branum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 4:03 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: March 5th vote on Rent Control

I must speak out and hope you hear how much I hope you reconsider and Vote NO on this. We don't need anything further than is already State law. You will decimate rental inventory if you pass this. Please do not pass this.

Respectfully,

Kristi Branum
4707 Springwood Way
Concord, CA 94521
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 54 of 137 ends

From: Steve Hong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 10:01 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Thank you!

Dear Councilmembers:

Thank you for voting in favor of protecting our most vulnerable.

I imagine there may be anecdotal or fanatical stories about how this is a mistake from those who purchased property as primarily an investment opportunity. (The idea that the CAA represents "housing providers" is such a cynical lie).

However, just as Chinese American in San Francisco needed brave politicians (many were not) like you to overcome the forces of greed and racism to vote for legal protections for the Chinese American population to own homes outside of Chinatown, I truly believe that you all are showing to be the politicians the least of those in Concord need. People of Concord who want to pay their rent and who want to contribute to the health of Concord, those who make Concord a vibrant and diverse place.

Thank you for leading with morality rather than fear of the political cost.

I hope and pray that these protections for renters will be finalized on March 5th. --
Peace and Justice,
Rev. Steve Hong (he/him/his)
Ygnacio Valley Presbyterian Church

Page 55 of 137 ends

From: Laura Eberly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 1:39 PM
To: Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: I'm with you on rent stabilization and just cause!

Dear Councilmember Aliano,

I'm writing as a D3 constituent and homeowner. Thank you for passing the rent stabilization and just cause ordinance that will ensure lasting housing stability for over 40,000 renters in Concord and their families! I appreciate your leadership in passing this ordinance because while I am now privileged to own a home, I was only able to do that because as a renter in Oakland for many years I was protected by similar ordinances. We have just started renting out my mother's house in our neighborhood in Concord, and I am grateful (as the smallest of small landlords) to ensure our tenants have those protections as well.

Again, I appreciate your leadership and for taking steps to help make Concord a more affordable and inclusive city where seniors and working families can live. We have seen 13 other Cities in the Bay Area take proactive steps to stop excessive rent increases and displacement. I am glad that after many years of advocacy by people like me and other Concord renters, tenant advocates, and community allies, you are officially adopting the ordinance on March 5th. So many community members have sought relief and protections in recent years. This can’t come soon enough.

Thank you,
Laura Eberly
--
Pronouns: she/her/hers
mountaintopcoaching.com/

Page 56 of 137 ends

From: Danny Vera <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:30 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization

Dear Concord City Council,
Thank you so much for passing this rent stabilization and just cause ordinance that will ensure lasting housing stability for over 40,000 renters in Concord and their families! Again, I appreciate your leadership and for taking steps to help make Concord a more affordable and inclusive city where seniors and working families can live. We have seen 13 other Cities in the Bay Area take proactive steps to stop excessive rent increases and displacement. I am glad that after many years of advocacy by people like me and other Concord renters, tenant advocates, and community allies, you are officially adopting the ordinance on March 5th. So many community members have sought relief and protections in recent years.

This can’t come soon enough.

May God bless you all and keep you all in good health always.

Thank you,

Sincerely,
Danny Vera

Sent from my iPhone

Page 57 of 137 ends

From: Debra McManus <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Thank you!

Dear Dominic,

I want to personally thank you for voting for this rent stabilization and just cause ordinance that will ensure lasting housing stability for over 40,000 renters in Concord and their families.

As a Concord resident and someone who has worked for stabilizing Concord tenants for seven years, this ordinance has been a long time coming. I’m grateful for your leadership in moving it forward.

My husband and I own a home. We support this ordinance even recognizing that at some point if we can no longer age in place, we would likely rent our home. I heard a few homeowners concerned about the just cause part of the ordinance for this same reason, but we support fairness and stability for anyone who rents, especially considering the high cost of living that most drastically impacts lower wage earners.

As we see many single-family homes being rented in our neighborhood, we can generally figure out which are owned by the ‘mom and pop’ landlords and which are likely owned by a corporation. We recently met a neighbor who lives in a nearby condo complex. She owns her condo, but knows which ones are rentals, including one condo that has been vacant for some time and has had squatters living in it. Broken windows, poaching electricity and noise have made her living situation untenable and she feels unsafe. However, the investor owner lives out of the country.

The so-called ‘mom and pop’ landlords on our block show pride in their properties and one across the street from us rarely raised the rent on her aging tenant. But the CA Realtors and CAA sent out so many alarming and inaccurate alerts about the ordinance that she said she was considering selling in the near future. Her relationships with her tenants are solid and she’s fair. I sincerely doubt this ordinance will impact her or her income in spite of this divisive narrative.

Again, I appreciate your leadership and for taking steps to help stem displacement in Concord, ultimately helping keep seniors and working families here so they can continue to be part of our community. I am glad that after many years of advocacy, you are officially adopting the ordinance on March 5th. This can’t come soon enough.

In community,

Debra

--
Debra Ballinger
Interim Executive Director
United Latino Voices
Need to meet? https://calendly.com/debrabmcmanus

Page 58 of 137 ends

From: Anne Shafizadeh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 1:50 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord City Council to Adopt Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause for Eviction on March 5, 2024

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO COUNCIL
NO to rent. control

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:03 PM Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon,

At its meeting on Tuesday, March 5, the Concord City Council is scheduled to consider the adoption of an ordinance on rent stabilization and just cause for eviction, which it introduced on February 13.

The ordinance would amend Concord’s municipal code on Residential Tenant Protection Program by increasing the “just cause” eviction protections, expanding the City’s rent registry and establishing a rent stabilization program.

If approved by a majority vote, this ordinance would take effect 30 days after final adoption, on April 4, 2024.

For more information, you can view the press release here.

Members of the public who wish to make a public comment on this matter during the March 5 Council meeting that starts at 6:30 p.m. may do so in person at the Council Chamber, 1950 Parkside Drive, or they may submit their comments in writing to [email protected]. Comments received by 3 p.m. on March 5 will be distributed to all Councilmembers in advance of the meeting and will be part of the official record.

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 59 of 137 ends

From: Carlene <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 3:50 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control meeting held March 5th
To City Council Members:

RE: Proposed rent control standards
Dear Concord Council Members,
It has been brought to our attention that on Tuesday, March 5th, 2024, you will be making a decision on the issue of rent control. We have owned one condo for over 30 years and are now using it to supplement our income in our retirement. We have only had to evict tenants 2 times in all those years, have had long term tenants, have kept what we charge for rent at a resonable amount so the tenants want to stay in our condo, saves both us and them the cost of moving. To be informed that if we want to sell the condo, renovate the condo or maybe move into it ourselves, we will be obligated to pay the tenants 2 months rent plus an additional $2,000 to help with their moving costs should they not want to move? Since when did landlords become responsible for the money management of their tenants? It's up to them to save money should they themselves want to move or should we decide, as owners of the property, that we need our property vacated by giving them a 60 day notifcation. We shouldn't owe them money to vacate our property. If the tables were turned and they choose to move out and we then have the expense of re-renting our property, are the tenants going to pay us for the costs of re-renting? Are they going to have to register with the city and pay an annual fee? We pay our property taxes on the condo, they do not have any hold on it other than we are allowing them rent it from us. It is our property, not theirs. This is utter nonsense and you are targeting and monetarily punishing landlords all over the city.

Please do your do diligence and if you insist on a form of rent control make it work for everyone not just the renter. Think about the property owner who is willing to rent out their property in Concord. You really should reconsider this and possibly table the entire idea.

Thank you,
Carlene Visperas
5361 Meadow Wood Place
Concord, 94521
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 5.a
March 5, 2024

Page 60 of 137 ends

From: Ammar Bhaiji <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 2:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RC is Detrimental to Renters
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

Do you want to control more housing or create more housing? The latest research shows that rent control disproportionately benefits wealthier renters while increasing rents for the most vulnerable. You know these facts, yet there are three of you that prioritize wealthier and more stable renters over struggling renters and housing providers. Here’s a summary of just five of the many reasons that you heard from the public.

Entrenching Advantage for Existing Tenants: Rent control often benefits existing tenants who have secured rent-controlled units, particularly if they have been in the unit for a long time. These tenants may enjoy significantly below-market rents that are subsidized by the newer tenants in the building.

Limited Access for New Renters: Rent control can create barriers for new renters, especially those with lower incomes or who are new to the area. With a limited supply of rent-controlled units and restrictions on rent increases, these tenants may struggle to find affordable housing options, leading to increased competition and potentially higher rents in the unregulated market.

Economic Segregation and Mobility Constraints: Rent control can discourage lower-income tenants from moving to areas with better job opportunities or amenities because they fear losing their rent-controlled status. This can perpetuate economic segregation and limit upward mobility for those who cannot afford to buy or rent in more desirable neighborhoods.

Subletting and Secondary Markets: In some cases, rent-controlled tenants may sublet their units or engage in secondary rental markets, charging higher rents to new tenants while enjoying the benefits of their below-market rent. This can further exacerbate housing inequalities and make it harder for lower- income individuals to find affordable housing.

Impact on Housing Stock: Rent control policies can lead to a decline in the quality and quantity of available rental housing as landlords may have less incentive to maintain or invest in their properties.

This can disproportionately affect lower-income tenants who may be forced to live in poorly maintained or substandard housing.

Overall, while rent control aims to protect tenants from excessive rent increases, it can inadvertently create inequities within the rental market, benefiting those who already have access to affordable housing while limiting opportunities for those in need of affordable accommodation.

Let the people decide by ballot initiative! Let the residents of Concord vote on this in November instead of making such radical changes to the housing sector in Concord. We support Councilmember Obringer’s call for this to be put on the ballot.

1. This ordinance is a prime target for a lawsuit that will deplete the city budget

2. This ordinance will need annual review

Page 61 of 137 ends

3. This ordinance should sunset as no crisis lasts forever

4. This ordinance creates more bureaucracy that automatically makes housing less affordable Thank you for your consideration of the unintended consequences of this proposed ordinance.

Much appreciated,
Ammar Bhaiji

Page 62 of 137 ends

From: Paul Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 2:58 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: No Rent control

Please vote no on rent control. All economists agree rent control does not work. It increases rent rather than controls.

————————————
Paul Kang
[email protected]
Tel: 408-385-1892
Fax: 408-228-6109

Page 63 of 137 ends

From: Val G <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 4:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:

Title: RC is Detrimental to Renters
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

This can disproportionately affect lower-income tenants who may be forced to live in poorly maintained or substandard housing.

Let the people decide by ballot initiative! Let the residents of Concord vote on this in November instead of making such radical changes to the housing sector in Concord. We support Council Member Obringer’s call for this to be put on the ballot.

This ordinance is a prime target for a lawsuit that will deplete the city budget This ordinance will need annual review
This ordinance should sunset as no crisis lasts forever This ordinance creates more bureaucracy that automatically makes housing less affordable Thank you for your consideration of the unintended consequences of this proposed ordinance.

Page 64 of 137 ends

Bottom line the more you make it o
difficult for landlords the less landlords you will have and the less rental property... I already sold my rental units in San Francisco to owner occupants, taking three units off the market probably permanently. If you were really interested in helping renters you would be trying to attract more landlords into the housing provider business instead of these ill-conceived rent control measures that in every single case rent control is shown to decrease rental units and increase rents. I was an appraiser for 28 years and saw this happen in Berkeley and San Francisco. Stop stealing people's property rights and really help renters by helping landlords to succeed, you'll have more landlords more rental property and the market will lower rents. Besides that the cost of taxes, insurance and repairs are skyrocketing, landlords in a lot of cases, would make more money buying a treasury bill than owning income property.

The harder you make it on us more of us are going to find other places for money, our time and our efforts.

Much appreciated,
Linda Killar

Page 65 of 137 ends

From: Rick Loughran <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 7:27 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rent Control
Rent control is unfair to landlords who voluntarily kept their rents way under market voluntarily over the years.

Now, their reward is they are stuck with the extremely under market rents ( no, a fraction of the inflation rate will not get the these landlords anywhere near market rents for decades) At the same time, all tradespeople and general expenses to take care of properties go straight to FREE MARKET PRICING! Better way: let landlords be a participant in the free market, with the extra revenue generated by increasing below market rents, the State of California can earmark that extra money (from the extra income taxes paid)to pinpoint help directly to those who truely need help; in other words, why should those who are easily able to afford market rents benefit from severely below market rents? Think section 8 for Californians, who must prove that they NEED the assistance.

Now, landlords are not feeling picked on, and are now equal participants in our free market, can take better care of their buildings, which is a positive for all.

As a result, relations between landlords and tenants/politicians will be better, now that we ALL are a part of a free market!
Example of typical rent and financials on the entry level in the area: If renting a 2 bedroom 2 bath for $2500.00, two people making $18.50/per hour.

AFTER paying income taxes on the $18.50, AND then after paying the $2,500 for rent, would have approximately $4,000.00 net cash to spend!! These days, this is almost a worst case scenario for renters. Really, not all that bad for an economic starting point.

The media and politicians have a way of continually making the public at large think affordability is much worse than what is actually true.

Affordability/jobs:

Historically lower paying jobs, such as the fast food industry in the area, are paying usually more than the $18.50 in the example above. (Chick fil at $20 to $24.75/hr for regular employees; Chipotle, Panda, etc, very similar, AND, new State law =$20 minimum wage at fast food franchises.

Do 15 minutes research; check Craigslist for apartments, Craigslist and other sites for entry level jobs, do the simple IRS/State tax returns, you will see the above is true! It’s overkill to have a blanket rent control when very few really need assistance. AND, for those who really need assistance, ALL OF SOCIETY should chip in equally, like section 8 via taxes.

Also, if rent control was enacted, why not include in that law that ALL TRADESPEOPLE MUST reduce charges for their services to landlords to the same percentage of the market rents that a given landlord is basically stuck at due to rent control?
Example: if landlords rents are basically stuck at say 50% of the market, plumbers MUST BY LAW discount their charges by the same 50%. Sounds fair, right? You can pass that law, or propose, along with any rent control: Call it “The “Fairness for the Cost of Upkeep of Rent Controlled Housing“ ordinance. Fair is fair; just don’t impose one without the other.

Alternatively, the city that imposed the rent control could reimburse the landlord for 50% of all costs; the council should think this is equitable/fair.

A 75 gallon water heater 9 years ago was $1,100 installed; in2024, $4,500! No, the prices don’t go up ANYWHERE NEAR the proposed 1/2 of th inflation rate! The prices in ALL COSTS go straight to the market!
Handyman used to be $30hr, now $100 is common.

Plumber used to be $75hr; now $250.

Insurance has quadrupled.

Appliances, water bills, page, etc… on and on… those who must pay market prices for their business should have the right to charge market prices.

I have other ideas that might be helpful/interesting. Feel free to contact me anytime.

Thank you

Page 66 of 137 ends

On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 05:53:53 PM PST, Rick Loughran <[email protected]> wrote:
(Re sending of email few minuets ago to correct a couple of spelling errors) Rent control is unfair to landlords who voluntarily kept their rents way under market voluntarily over the years.

Now, their reward is they are stuck with the extremely under market rents (no, a fraction of the inflation rate will not get the these landlords anywhere near market rents for decades) At the same time, all tradespeople and general expenses to take care of properties, go straight to FREE MARKET PRICING! Better way: let landlords be a participant in the free market, with the extra revenue generated by increasing the below market rents, the State of California can then earmark that extra money (from the extra income taxes paid)to pinpoint help directly to those who truely need help; in other words, why should those who are easily able to afford market rents benefit from severely below market rents? Think section 8 for Californians; those who benefit from rent control must prove that they NEED the assistance.

Result of replacing rent control with a California "sec ": landlords are not feeling picked on, and are now equal participants in our free market, can take better care of their buildings, only those who need help get help, which is a positive for all.

AFTER paying income taxes on the $18.50, AND then after paying the $2,500 for rent, the household would have approximately $4,000.00 net cash to spend!! These days, this is almost a worst case scenario for renters. Really, not all that bad for an economic starting point.

The media and politicians have a way of continually making the public at large think things are much different than the above facts/affordability.

Jobs: we all see that fast food(and countless similar jobs) are paying usually more than the $18.50. (Chick fil at $20 to $24.75/hr for regular employees; Chipotle, Panda, Costco, etc,...are very similar, AND, a new State law =$20 minimum wage at fast food franchises.

Do 15 minutes research; check Craigslist/Zillow for apartments, Craigslist and other sites for entry level jobs, do the simple IRS/State tax returns, you will see the above is true! It’s overkill to have a blanket rent control when very few really need assistance. AND, for those who really need assistance, ALL OF SOCIETY should chip in equally, like section 8 via taxes.

Also from a fairness point of view, if rent control was enacted, why not include in that law that ALL TRADESPEOPLE MUST reduce charges for their services to landlords to the same percentage of the market rents that a given landlord is basically stuck at due to rent control? Example: if landlords rents are basically stuck at say 50% of the market, plumbers MUST, BY LAW, discount their charges by the same 50%. Sounds fair, right? You can pass that as part of the law, or propose similar, along with any rent control: Call it “The “Fairness for the Cost of Upkeep of Rent Controlled Housing“ ordinance.

Fair is fair; just don’t impose one without the other.

Alternatively, the city that imposed the rent control could reimburse the landlord for 50% of all costs; the council should think this is equitable/fair.

Exmpale Costs:

A 75 gallon water heater 9 years ago was $1,100 installed; in2024, $4,500! No, the prices don’t go up ANYWHERE NEAR the proposed 1/2 of the inflation rate! The prices for ALL COSTS go straight to the market!
Handyman used to be $30hr, now $100 and more is common.

Plumber used to be $75hr; now $250.

Insurance has quadrupled.

Appliances, water bills, pg&e, etc… on and on… those who must pay market prices for their business (landlords) should have the right to charge market prices. Very simple.

I have other ideas that might be helpful/interesting. Feel free to contact me anytime.

Page 67 of 137 ends

Thank you

On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 05:31:18 PM PST, Rick Loughran <[email protected]> wrote:

Rent control is unfair to landlords who voluntarily kept their rents way under market voluntarily over the years.

Now, landlords are not feeling picked on, and are now equal participants in our free market, can take better care of their buildings, which is a positive for all.

The media and politicians have a way of continually making the public at large think things all much different than the facts.

Additionally, we all see fast food paying usually more than the $18.50. (Chick fil at $20 to $24.75/hr for regular employees; Chipotle, Panda, etc, very similar, AND, new State law =$20 minimum wage at fast food franchises.

Alternatively, the city that imposed the rent control could reimburse the landlord for 50% of all costs; the council should think this is equitable/fair.

Plumber used to be $75hr; now $250.

Insurance has quadrupled.

Appliances, water bills, page, etc… on and on… those who must pay market prices for their business should have the right to charge market prices.

I have other ideas that might be helpful/interesting. Feel free to contact me anytime.

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

Page 68 of 137 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 12:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stablization
Dear Council,
Once again, I am writing to implore you all to understand that the small apartment owners in Concord are going to struggle if this ordinance passes. How do we pay for all that there is, without raising rents accordingly. The 5% that has been in place has given each of us a chance to keep our heads above water. Now you are taking that away. I don't understand why you are giveing into the corporate run apartments. I have been a sole owner for 32 years. It also contributes to my retirement income, meager as it is. You are going to take a wonderful city and turn it into a low-income housing community. How long will any of you stay once that happens?
I ask that you vote NO.

Thank you, Christine Black

Page 69 of 137 ends

From: Velio Bronzini <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 1:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control
You folks that are making decisions on behalf of housing providers should all be fired. You nothing about being in business. Rent control is going to create slum, run down properties.

Let me tell you how.

A groundskeeper was 180.00. NOW 300.00 A plumber was. 80.00 now $180.00 they will gouge you and if you don’t like it they tell you to call somebody else.

The cost to set two new toilets, I mean just set, I provided the supply lines and the angle stops, he put new wax ring and bolted them down $700.00 I told him he was a thief, ( one hours work) and this was not brain surgery, We argued, told me next time call somebody else.

We get applicant after applicant that do not qualify, if you think that rent control seems like the way to fix the housing shortage, you’re very sadly mistaken, what will be accomplished is you will see more run down properties.

Velio A Bronzini
Housing provider.

Sent from my iPad

Page 70 of 137 ends

From: Martin Ristad <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 7:38 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Residential Tenant Protection Program
The City of Concord’s tentative approval of the ‘Residential Tenant Protection Program is very disappointing, because it will truly will do nothing to lower rental costs in Concord. Unfortunately, it will do the opposite, by creating a very expensive bureaucracy. With its increasing costs, combined with very inflexible regulations will be imposed to Concord’s rental market. If you believe this program will benefit the citizens of Concord, let them decide by allowing them vote on it.

Our country’s economy is based on the law of supply and demand. The Tenant Protection Program will not permit rent to be adjusted based on costs. Relying on the City’s arbitrary values as a basis for a rent correction. The program also will prevent landlords from being able manage their private property as they see fit. When rental agreement expires, if there is no just cause and landlord doesn’t believe the tenant should remain in their property, the landlord is required to make an exorbitant payment to the tenant. The payment appears to create a tax liability for the tenant. The payment will likely result in the landlord issuing a 1099 to the tenant. More than one City representative has suggested the remedy for this situation; ‘raise the rent an excessive amount’ to get the tenant to leave. This suggestion is unbelievably hypocritical because it violates one of the programs goals, rent control.

The City’s bureaucratic cost increases and complex regulations will cause apartments to be converted into condominiums and rental homes will become owner occupied. Reducing the supply of rental units because of Concord’s bureaucratic regulations.

The California’s AB 1492 Tenant Protection Act contains the same provisions found Concord’s Tenant Protection Program. There is no need to have two parallel rental programs creating confusion.

If you truly believe housing and affordable housing is a human right, you can implement a solution to high cost of housing and the homelessness problem.

Utilize the $5.4 million, obtain resources from the
Federal Government to purchase rental units in Concord. This action will cut out the ‘middle person’ allowing for true rent reduction. The City will be able to house the homeless.

The homeless population in California, is estimated at 181,399 which is 27% of the total in the country.

California makes up 12% of the total population. The $5.4 million earmarked for the Homeless Strategic Plan while well intentioned it is not likely to succeed. To date, federal, state, county and cities have attempted to address the homeless problem by investing billions of dollars to correct it. Unfortunately accomplished much; the homeless population continues to increase.The root cause of homelessness in California is the shortage of housing.

Both high rental costs and the high number of homelessness have a common denominator. a significant housing shortage. If the City of Concord truly desires to accomplish affordable rental costs a reality and reduce the homeless population it is essential the number housing units must increased.

The old naval weapons station land is the best option. To date two master developers have been selected and rejected for reasons that should have known in your vetting. This solution will take time so it is critical it becomes a top priority.

Regards,
Martin Ristad
Sent from my iPhone

Page 71 of 137 ends

From: Cheryl Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord City Council to Adopt Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause for Eviction on March 5, 2024
Please ask the City Council to consider my comments below before voting on the Just Cause for Eviction ordinance.

I am still very confused as to why Concord would pass an ordinance suggesting that they make the terms of a lease between a tenant and landlord. For example, if I know I can only rent out a single family home for 9 months, based on known future circumstances, and I give a tenant a great reduced rent because of the situation, does Concord penalize me for that? Do I have to leave my single family home empty because of this ordinance? Please confront the council members with this situation. Also, this ordinance is unfair to people who may depend on rental income during retirement - unfair to people who may have family members that need to sell a house in the future to close an estate.

Thank you,
Cheryl Harbaugh
925-360-8306

Page 72 of 137 ends

From: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 10:52 AM
To: Avneet Kahlon <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Cc: Rami Kahlon <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Physical harm a possibility with landlord unable to evict a tenant Hi Avneet,
Thank you for reaching out with your questions and comments regarding the draft Ordinance.

I am very sorry to hear about the situation with your tenant and can imagine that this is a very stressful situation. Under the current draft ordinance, there are for cause reasons for eviction under which one or more may apply to your current situation with tenant A. I am including a link to the draft ordinance for you to review these included reasons. All for cause reasons for eviction can be found under section

19.40.070(c). As for your tenant in unit B, there are currently no provisions in the draft ordinance that address if a tenant breaks the lease. This would likely be something that is decided in a court. It is always suggested that you consult an attorney for legal advice regarding your legal rights for your lease.

Link to Ordinance
To address both situations, I would suggest that you first reach out to ECHO Housing to speak with a Housing Counselor. They will be able to provide you with further information about the current laws and possible options that you may have in addressing the situation.

ECHO Housing
22551 2nd Street #200
Hayward. CA 94541
(925) 732-3919
As you provided, the new ordinance provisions have not yet been adopted by Council, but will be presented during the Council meeting held tomorrow, March 5, 2024. You will be able to attend in person or listen in online. Please let me know if you need further information about the Council meeting location, time and how to participate if needed. If the Ordinance is adopted at the meeting tomorrow then it would not go into effect under April 4. 2024. This date is subject to change depending on what it discussed and decided during the Council meeting.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out as provided below.

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

Page 73 of 137 ends

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

From: Avneet Kahlon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 10:29 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> Cc: Rami Kahlon <[email protected]>
Subject: Physical harm a possibility with landlord unable to evict a tenant To Ms. Kelly Rush and Council Members,
I am aware that Rent Stabilization has been voted on and is just about to be finalized. I am not in favor of it. Please see what limitations it places on me as a landlord.

One tenant, A, at our duplex is having anger management issues, owns a gun and just yesterday had two guys (from the neighborhood) come to the front lawn yelling and asking why he flashed his gun at him. We have been provided with video and audio recording. Police was called and the yelling guys were handcuffed and taken away. The other tenant, B, of the duplex is now scared and wants to move out, breaking their new one year lease after having lived there only four months. The new tenants are section 8 tenants and good fit for the place. How can I enforce the term of the lease if safety from their neighbor of attached unit is their concern?????
If a tenant is allowed to short a lease term, do they pay me? How does the lease enforcement work in reverse?
I am of mind to evict tenant A for creating noise(previous occasions) and endangering neighbors (gun discharge previously, not reported) and now frightening a new tenant to leave. We will be without rent when tenant B leaves and when and if we can evict tenant A.

Rent stabilization ordinance will cost me loss of rent at unit B, no-fault eviction costs, loss of rent at unit A, and fear for safety of my tenants B.

I am also reaching out to Kelly Rush on Monday on what my options can be. Seems unfair and an over reach of the council members that city who has not helped me buy or pay for properties gets to have a say that I need to pay a tenant if I want them out.

Regards,
Avneet

Page 74 of 137 ends

From: Rita Akol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 10:57 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control Opposition
I oppose the rent control caps being discussed for Concord. I am a senior, widow resident of Contra Costa County and I own a rental property in Concord. My husband and I purchased it in 2016 as part of our retirement plan. We did not evict all tenants as we could have when we purchased the property. All rents were under market value. Instead we improved the property including renovating units, painting, and making it more safe for the tenants. 3 of the 4 tenants are still 20% under market value due to limitations and caps during Covid.

It’s difficult for me to understand the thought process that rents can be increased 3% or a portion of CPI; whichever is lower. The costs of things are rising but we aren’t allowed to even keep up with CPI. The City has increased costs of inspections and added rent recording as an additional cost too.

Again, I strongly recommend the rent caps not be put into effect.

Rita Akol
Sent from my iPhone

Page 75 of 137 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 11:55 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: FREE MARKET CAPITALISM...

Importance: High
City Council,
Please refrain from socialism (rent control) and let - FREE MARKET CAPITALISM - be the option for multi-housing owners. That is what this country was founded on. Take time to study these principles, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness .

Bottom line to make it simple:
• Let the free market decide rent pricing.
• To high: no tenants
• To low: owner / landlord can’t cover expenses…
• For more information / education, please
see: https://www.thoughtco.com/socialism-vs-
capitalism-4768969
Rex & Kay Mattson

Page 76 of 137 ends

From: DL M. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 7:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Rent ordinance
Please share the attached letter with members of the city council at Tuesday's meeting.

Thank you
Deborah Muccino

Page 77 of 137 ends

March 1, 2024
Dear Concord Mayor and City Council Members:

I am requesting the Concord City Council postpone taking its final vote on the draft ordinance to establish rent stabilization and just cause evictions at its March 5th meeting, and in the interim make a concerted and sustained effort to reach out to the public to advise them of the proposal (which includes provisions affecting single family homes and property rights) and proactively seek input with the goal of addressing all concerns, and, as necessary, adapting the legislation to address the concerns raised.

As it seems this proposed ordinance, if passed, could entail significant costs to a large segment of the Concord population base, as well as potentially impact future decision making on what many homeowners consider their major investment, it is necessary to ensure their interests be given adequate, thoughtful review. That review cannot occur if a majority of homeowners are not even aware of the proposed legislation.

More and more, many public interests are ignored, unconsidered, or simply pushed to the side as a variety of special interests groups who have a vested interest in promoting a particular viewpoint become the primary drivers of much of the legislation which passes.

In the past, such matters would have been heavily covered by local reporters and the potential ramifications thrashed out in plain sight for all who might be interested to see. Weeks or months of coverage, letters to the Editor, and even published editorials would be the norm. There have been many, many times when such coverage created momentum for legislation to either succeed, fail or be amended - the critical piece being that the public was informed.

Unfortunately, with the failure of local newspapers all over the country, important civic information simply does not get widely transmitted or reliably received by the public at large. This seems to be the case with this draft ordinance.

Thus, as we no longer have such coverage, the public's right to know and participate under the Brown Act has suffered.

As you know, the Brown Act was designed to make public officials accountable for their actions to the public they served. Integral to that accountability is the ability of the public to be notified of meetings and topics to be discussed so that the public could participate in the decision making process.

Knowing this, it could reasonably be argued that cities and counties have a higher duty to reach out to the general public (especially pertinent on issues which affect basic property rights), as the 72 hour agenda posting alone which the council relies on as fulfilling its Brown Act requirements is clearly inadequate in today's climate.

Page 78 of 137 ends

In this particular case it seems a large majority of the very people who would be impacted by this legislation (homeowners) were never aware of, or adequately represented in the many talks which included various tenants rights organizations and the CA Apartment Association but which did not include any entity representing homeowner interests.

There is also the fact that any proposed legislation which eventually might get published on the city’s websight is crafted in legalistic terms via a legislative format. This alone makes it inaccessible to the majority of the public. There simply isn't a translative mechanism in place which succinctly and comprehensively explains the meaning of a proposed law and also adequately conveys it to the public-at-large. Thus, the average citizen is even further disadvantaged.

Finally, I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the possibility that the provisions of the Brown Act might eventually be used as a valid challenge to legislation which is passed without adequate participation by those affected, as the conditions for adequate notification and public participation have drastically changed since the Brown Act was enacted in the 1950's.

At that time, the local newspaper was the primary source of consistent, reliable information which the general public accessed in common on a daily basis. Posting of physical agendas at City Hall developed as common practice as an ancillary act to fulfill the official terms of notification. However, that was framed around an existing and uniting news system which reliably and regularly informed the community in plain terms of all topics of local importance.

I submit that we are in a very different climate today, where physical posting of the agenda without the added benefit of thorough local news coverage fails to provide the level of notification and engagement envisioned by the Brown Act.

I only became aware of this issue by chance in the past few days due to viewing some posts on NextDoor, yet found the issue both extremely impactful as well as very confusing. It is a lousy way to learn of something that has so much potential to change the very future of this city and all its residents. It seems to me that the City Council has a duty and obligation to grapple with this reality as it engages in its business.

Sincerely,
Deborah Muccino

Page 79 of 137 ends

From: JOSEPH FIELD <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: concord rent control

CONCORD RENT POLICIES OR GOING TO FORCE SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERS TO SELL

AND GET OUT OF THE RENTAL
MARKET.

YOU WILL BE CREATING MORE OF A HOMELESS PROBLEM NOT
SOLVING ANYTHING.

THANK YOU
JOE FIELD 925 -686-4513

Page 80 of 137 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 8:19 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Proposal

Title: Rent Control is Detrimental to Renters
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

1. Entrenching Advantage for Existing Tenants: Rent control often benefits existing tenants who have secured rent-controlled units, particularly if they have been in the unit for a long time. These tenants may enjoy significantly below-market rents that are subsidized by the newer tenants in the building.

2. Limited Access for New Renters: Rent control can create barriers for new renters, especially those with lower incomes or who are new to the area. With a limited supply of rent-controlled units and restrictions on rent increases, these tenants may struggle to find affordable housing options, leading to increased competition and potentially higher rents in the unregulated market.

3. Economic Segregation and Mobility Constraints: Rent control can discourage lower- income tenants from moving to areas with better job opportunities or amenities because they fear losing their rent-controlled status. This can perpetuate economic segregation and limit upward mobility for those who cannot afford to buy or rent in more desirable neighborhoods.

4. Subletting and Secondary Markets: In some cases, rent-controlled tenants may sublet their units or engage in secondary rental markets, charging higher rents to new tenants while enjoying the benefits of their below-market rent. This can further exacerbate housing inequalities and make it harder for lower-income individuals to find affordable housing.

5. Impact on Housing Stock: Rent control policies can lead to a decline in the quality and quantity of available rental housing as landlords may have less incentive to maintain or invest in their properties. This can disproportionately affect lower-income tenants who may be forced to live in poorly maintained or substandard housing.

Page 81 of 137 ends

6. This ordinance is a prime target for a lawsuit that will deplete the city budget

7. This ordinance will need annual review

8. This ordinance should sunset as no crisis lasts forever

9. This ordinance creates more bureaucracy that automatically makes housing less affordable
If you think capping a person’s income is a great idea, then it should be applied equally and fairly. Any person receiving California taxpayer’s money should be subject to the income cap like landlords. All state, county, and city employees along with all subcontractors hired by a government agency would have their salaries capped also. Think of the money the State can save by not paying “excessive” salary increases year after year. Taxes would remain the same or maybe decrease slightly since the State would not need to issue bonds and increase the deficit.

Thank you for your consideration of the unintended consequences of this proposed ordinance.

Much appreciated,
Craig Hopkins

Page 82 of 137 ends

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:46 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FAQ for rent control ordinance

Hi Edi,

Thanks for replying to my comment. Yes you explained this loophole earlier to me. Just hit the tenant with an unaffordable rent increase and force them out.

I have owned a couple rentals in Concord over the years (thankfully I sold my rental home before this new law). Like many individual landlords with just one rental, I had a good relationship with my tenant.

Taking care of small problems and big ones. I would never want to slam them with a giant rent increase to force them out. How would I explain it? How would they react? Really sounds like a divisive, manipulative solution to me. Not in the spirit of Concord.

I have suggested simply extending the tenancy termination notice from 2 months to 4 months would be the best solution for tenant and landlord for no-fault evictions. None of this “just cause” nonsense would be necessary. 4 months is ample time for most people to find new housing without undue stress.

Why are we making things so complicated and risky for the average homeowner renting out their own home? Personally I would never rent my house with these rules in place. This law as written is a lawyers dream and a homeowners nightmare.

Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott
Cell: 925-451-1072
[email protected]

On Mar 4, 2024, at 2:23 PM, Birsan, Edi <[email protected]> wrote:

Mike,
A single family home by a person does not have a rent increase cap.

So at the end of the lease you give notice of a major rent increase.

No need to get involved why.

Of course I urge landlords to talk to their tenants way in advance so that this means is not needed.

On Mar 4, 2024 1:28 PM, Michael McDermott <[email protected]> wrote:

Page 83 of 137 ends

Mayor Birsan, City Council Members, City Staff;

I was not expecting this answer from city staff. We are being told that the owner of a single family home cannot evict a tenant when they are taking the unit off the rental market by selling their home. Instead, they need to sell the home with the tenant in place, and it is the responsibility of the new owner to evict the tenant on the basis of owner move in.

Who wants to buy a house with a tenant in it that the new owner has to evict? This could seriously damage housing values in our city.

This is craziness. Can you now understand why people who attempt to follow these rules are so upset? Council has taken regulations intended for permanent rental housing in apartments built for that purpose, and simply added single family homes without considering the implications.

This is so embarrassing for our city. Please read this email exchange. The buck stops with you. I am not blaming city staff. They are just doing what they have been told.

Mike McDermott
[email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Rush, Kelly" <[email protected]>
Date: March 4, 2024 at 12:06:51 PM PST
To: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Cc: "Huckabay, Sophia" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: FAQ for rental control
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your response. As drafted, there are no differences in the “no fault” causes that are allowed between single family homes/condos and multi family homes/apartment units. The “no fault” list included in the ordinance applies to all covered units under the ordinance.

In the scenario you provided, it would be likely that a home would be sold and the new owner (if they wish to move into the unit) may select to serve a no fault eviction (owner move in) if they will be using the residence as their primary residence rather than renting. Under the draft ordinance, this would require that the new owner retain the unit as their residence for a minimum of 24 consecutive months.

You may view the particular language regarding this cause in 19.40.070 (d)(1).

If you have any correspondence regarding this current policy in the draft ordinance, it is always suggested that you submit comments to the City Clerk for inclusion in the agenda packet. Also, as provided, this item is to be presented again at Council tomorrow night March 5, 2024. If you would like to attend the meeting and provide public comment there, you may do so. The meeting will begin at 630pm in Council Chambers at the Civic Center.

Page 84 of 137 ends

Thank you again.

Kelly Rush
Housing Program Analyst

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Re: FAQ for rental control
Hi Kelly,
Thanks again for your responsiveness.

As I see it, the purpose of an FAQ is to take more complicated rules and express them in common language and apply them to common events in order to improve user understanding and application.

Unfortunately we have approved a set of regulations which were designed to apply to multi-unit permanent apartment units, and we are now also applying these regs to single family homes owned largely by individuals. These units are frequently not permanent rental units.

The sale of an apartment building typically does not involve the termination of tenancies. However selling a single family home almost always involves tenancy termination. In order to help the average homeowner understand the new law, the FAQ should be describing the most common circumstances for no-fault terminations - including home sales.

Perhaps then staff should recommend council revise the ordinance if that is what is necessary to clarify the FAQ?
Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott
[email protected]

On Mar 4, 2024, at 9:32 AM, Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mike,
Thank you for your email. We are very happy to hear that the FAQ’s are helpful.

Page 85 of 137 ends

Also, thank you for your recommendation for question #3. However, the cause you identified is not a no fault cause for eviction under the ordinance. I am including a copy of the draft ordinance below. All no fault eviction causes are listed under 19.40.070(d) which include the following causes,

19.40.070(d)(1) – Owner move ins

19.40.070(d)(2) – Ellis act evictions

19.40.070(d)(3) – Government orders

19.40.070(d)(4) – Intent to demolish/substantially remodel Ordinance Link

Thank you.

Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: http://www.cityofconcord.org  (925) 671-3032 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 7:51 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject: FAQ for rental control

Page 86 of 137 ends

Hi Kelly,
I appreciate the creation of the FAQ that the city shared today on Nextdoor. I think it will answer a lot of questions for people.

I do have one important recommendation.

The answer to question 3 is incomplete. It is missing probably the most common reason for no-fault evictions: sale of the home or condo.

Here is my recommended revision:

You DO have to assist a tenant who is asked to relocate either temporarily or permanently for a no-fault, just cause reason. The most common no-fault, just cause reasons a tenant is asked to relocate temporarily or permanently from a single family home or condo include owner move-in, sale of the home or condo, majorhome/condo repairs which don’t allow the tenant to safely occupy the home/condo during construction and government order.

Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott
[email protected]

Page 87 of 137 ends

City of Concord
Frequently Asked Ques�ons
Related to Rented Single Family Homes/Condos and the City of Concord’s Rent Stabiliza�on and Just Cause for Evic�on Regula�ons as introduced on February 13, 2024 and being considered for adop�on on March 5, 2024 (FAQ sheet created on March 1, 2024)

Please note that if Council adopts the Ordinance on March 5, it becomes eﬀec�ve on April 4, 2024

Q 1: I rent out a single family home (or condo) I own in Concord. Does the new Ordinance control how much I can charge for rent?
A: No, the Ordinance does not control how much you charge for rent.

State Law (Civil Code 1947.12) does impose rent increase caps for rented single family homes if they are owned by (a) a real estate investment trust, (b) a corpora�on, or (c) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corpora�on. In these instances, State Law limits rent increases to the lesser of 5% + regional CPI (Consumer Price Index) or 10%.

Q 2: Do the Just Cause for Evic�on protec�ons in the new Ordinance apply to the single family (or condo) home I rent out in Concord?
A: Yes, they apply.

Q 3: I’ve heard that I must pay my tenant to move out (as a Just Cause protec�on), is that true? A: It depends.

You DO NOT have to pay a tenant who moves out voluntarily, or who is served a termina�on no�ce for an at-fault, just cause reason. The most common at-fault, just cause reasons a tenant receives a termina�on no�ce include: non-payment of rent, viola�on of a major clause in the lease, or crea�on of a nuisance or criminal ac�vity.

You DO have to assist a tenant who is asked to relocate either temporarily or permanently for a no- fault, just cause reason. The most common no-fault, just cause reasons a tenant is asked to relocate temporarily or permanently from a single family home or condo include owner move-in, major home/condo repairs which don’t allow the tenant to safely occupy the home/condo during construc�on, and government order.

Q 4: I f I must ask my tenant to relocate, how does that work? A: A temporary displacement of 30-days or fewer requires the property owner to pay the tenant a per diem rate for lodging and meals based on the Federal General Services Administra�on per diem rate of lodging and meals in Concord, Contra Costa County. Currently the daily lodging rate is $165 per household (assuming a household of up to four) and the meals and incidentals rate is $74 per tenant.

Page 88 of 137 ends

City of Concord FAQ Sheet
Rented Single family Homes/Condos
Created March 1, 2024

If the temporary tenant reloca�on is greater than 30 days, the owner, at their sole discre�on, may choose to either (a) pay the tenant the per diem rate for lodging and meals as described above, or (b) relocate the tenant to a comparable or superior unit in the same neighborhood.

In all temporary reloca�ons, the tenant retains the right to return to the rented home at the same rental rate with any legal rent increase applied. During the temporary reloca�on, the tenant must con�nue to pay their rent.

If the tenant is evicted permanently, the Ordinance provides that reloca�on assistance payments of two �mes the current rent plus $2,000 must be paid to the tenant.

Q 5: My lease has ended, and I’d like my tenant to move out. May I require that? A: No, you may not require a tenant to vacate your house/condo at the end of the lease. The new City Ordinance requires you to oﬀer your tenant a new lease; however, the Ordinance does not control what rent you charge under your new lease.

Q 6: Do I have to register my rented single family home/condo with the City of Concord? A: Yes. Star�ng in July 2024 you will be required to register your rented single family home/condo with the City’s rent-registry and will be required to pay a fee of $29 per rented single family home/condo.

The registry is not yet set-up to accept single family home/condo rentals, but you can go the City’s housing webpage in June and you will be able to register.

Q 7: If I issue a termina�on no�ce to the tenant of my single family home/condo, do I need to ﬁle the termina�on no�ce with the City?
A: Yes. You must ﬁle the no�ce with the City within seven calendar days of serving the no�ce on the tenant. Eventually you will ﬁle such no�ces through the rent registry portal. However, between April 4, 2024 and June 1, 2024, you will need to e-mail a copy of your no�ce to [email protected].

Q 8: Where can I go to read the City’s oﬃcial summary of the Ordinance and the full 30-page Ordinance? A: Please go to the City’s web page cityofconcord.org/housing. Both the published summary and the full Ordinance can be viewed from this page. Addi�onally, the City’s website for the March 5 Council mee�ng includes the Ordinance council is considering for adop�on.

Q 9: Why is Council adop�ng the Rent Stabiliza�on and Just Cause Ordinance and why are they applying it to single family residences/condos?
A: The Council is trying to reduce the displacement of residents within the community and believes this is best accomplished by including rented single family homes and condos under the Just Cause protec�ons within the Ordinance.

Q 10: Who should I call if I have a ques�on?
A: Please call Kelly Rush, Housing Program Analyst, at 925/671-3032, or e-mail Ms. Rush at [email protected].

Page 89 of 137 ends

From: Nick C. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:16 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: New rent control law that will make the housing shortage even worse

I know that you guys are trying to help tenants but I don’t think you’re understanding how much less attractive this bill is going to make it for landlords to make additional housing available in Concord.

Thank you for considering.

Sincerely,
Nick

Page 90 of 137 ends

From: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:19 PM
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]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 3 Families Being evicted from Single Family Home Rentals on Detroit

Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice-Mayor Obringer, and Council Members Hoffmeister, Aliano and Nakamura,

I am writing to share the attached letter which details the disturbing evictions of three families who are each renting single-family homes at 1200 Detroit Ave. The 60-day notices to vacate were issued without any reason given and the tenants were current on their rent. These evictions are seemingly being rushed by the owners before the new TPO takes effect, and the homes are owned by Discovery Homes Holdings LLC., part of the Seeno real- estate conglomerate.

We hope you read this letter to get the full picture of why the TPO is so important to help give families like Maria ( a single parent and survivor of domestic violence with three school-aged children) more protections. It is critical that single-family homes be included in the just cause ordinance.

So, while she may not reap the benefits of this ordinance, we thank you for not abandoning the countless families like hers by maintaining equal protections and adequate relocation assistance for our neighbors who rent single-family homes and condos.

Sincerely,

Kristi

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

Page 91 of 137 ends

March 4, 2024
T o: Edi Birsan, Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Vice Mayor
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Cc: Valerie Barone, City Manager
Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
Kelly Rush, Housing Program Analyst
Single Mother of Three Being Evicted Without Cause: An Illustration of the Importance of Covering Single-Family Homes in Concord’s Tenant Protection Ordinance Dear Concord City Councilmembers,
At its meeting on February 13, 2024, the Concord City Council deliberated about whether or not to maintain just cause eviction protections, including relocation assistance for no-fault evictions, for tenants of single-family homes and condos. According to the City’s own data, one third of all renter households–more than 17,700 residents–live in these types of units. 1 Under current law, these families are excluded from most tenant protections. 2 Still, in conjunction with a concerted pressure campaign organized by the California Apartment Association (CAA), which targeted local homeowners, Councilmembers Obringer and Hoffmeister pushed to remove single-family rentals from the tenant protection ordinance. While the majority of the Council did not support that move, the Council dramatically reduced relocation benefits for single-family tenants who are evicted for no fault of their own.

This debate focused on the potential impacts of new regulations on single-family rental owners, or homeowners who might eventually rent out their properties. But it ignored the importance of these protections for the more than 17,700 residents, including countless children, struggling to 2 Under AB 1482, tenants of single-family homes and condos are only entitled to rent stabilization, just cause, and minimal relocation assistance if the property is owned by a corporate entity. In fact, a rising percentage of such properties are corporate-owned. In practice, however, tenants of corporate-owned single-family rentals are routinely denied protections because, under AB 1482, there is no entity responsible for enforcement and oversight.
1 City of Concord. February 1, 2019. 2019 Rental Housing Data Book, pp. 3-4.

Page 92 of 137 ends

maintain a toehold in the community due to corporate speculation, rising rents, and unregulated evictions.

Indeed, at the same time that this debate was occurring, Discovery Homes Holdings LLC, a company owned by Albert Seeno III, was rushing to carry out no-fault evictions against three families who rented single-family homes on Detroit Avenue. Due to delays in passing the current ordinance, these families lack local just cause protections, which might mitigate the impact of displacement. These vulnerable community members are facing the imminent risk of being forced out of Concord, thus exacerbating the fair housing problems that this ordinance is meant, per Housing Element Law, to address. Meanwhile, the Seeno real-estate conglomerate, which could clearly afford to help these families with relocation assistance, is expediting these evictions to evade the moral and legal responsibilities that come with the City’s new just cause measures.

This heartbreaking story reveals just how important it is to ensure that Concord’s tenant protection ordinance covers single-family homes and condos, more and more of which are being converted to rental investments by large corporations like Discovery Homes.

Three Families Facing Eviction
On January 23, 2024, Baywood Property Management issued eviction notices to the tenants of three single-family homes on the in the Monument neighborhood.

The notices did not list a cause for eviction. They simply stated that the tenants had 60 days to vacate their homes. According to the County Recorder, the homes were purchased in 2022 by Discovery Homes Holdings LLC. As a subsidiary of Discovery Builders Inc., Discovery Homes is one of nearly 120 businesses or shell companies owned either directly or indirectly by Albert Seeno III (including Baywood Property Management). 3
At the same time that the City Council was debating whether to include single-family rentals in its tenant protection ordinance, the notices issued by Discovery Homes cast the lives of three of our neighbors into chaos. One family left as soon as they received the notice. This is consistent with the fact that most tenants “self-evict” when they receive a 30- or 60-day notice, whether or not it is actually valid, because they do not understand their rights or are scared to engage with the court system. This is particularly true in neighborhoods with large numbers of immigrants and people who do not speak English as their primary language–communities like the Monument.4
Of the tenants that remain, Maria, a survivor of domestic violence, is a single mother of three children. Her children all attend schools in Concord. This is consistent with the fact that, across 4 Sabiha Zainulbhai and Nora Daly. January 20, 2022. “Informal Evictions: Measuring Displacement Outside the Courtroom.” New America.
3 According to an analysis of business filings submitted to the California Secretary of State, Albert Seeno III directly owns 80 companies and indirectly owns another 39. These companies are further tied to other entities that are owned by other members of the Seeno family, which controls a vast real-estate empire in Northern California.

Page 93 of 137 ends

the U.S., tenants of single-family rentals are 63% more likely to include children than tenants of multi-family properties. 5 Maria’s family has lived in the home for three years. As a survivor, she struggles with depression and relies upon disability benefits. As a result, she has been severely cost burdened in Concord’s skyrocketing rental market. Still, she was current on her rent at the time that she received a no-fault 60-day eviction notice.

Maria’s disability, which has been aggravated by the stress of impending displacement, makes it difficult for her to conduct routine tasks, like shopping, without assistance. Nevertheless, she has begun to search for a new home in Concord–to no avail. Without any relocation assistance from Discovery Homes, which is part of a massive real-estate empire, Maria–a disabled woman of color with children on a fixed income–is confronting multiple social and economic barriers to fair housing that are well documented by the City of Concord’s Housing Element. 6 If she cannot find a new rental by April 1, then she will be forced to leave Concord–uprooting her children from their schools–in order to move to Southern California or T exas, where she has more family support. If this occurs, she fears that her former abuser will try to regain custody of her children. Maria’s story illustrates that eviction does not just mean that tenants simply pick up and move to another place; for the most vulnerable, eviction is a dangerous and devastating process, leaving scars and economic disadvantages that can impact the generations to come.

Corporations and Outside Investors Are Scooping Up Concord’s Single-Family Homes The debate about the ordinance has erroneously identified single-family rental owners as “mom and pop” proprietors. In fact, according to a comprehensive analysis of property ownership that was conducted by the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, 67% of single-family rentals and 81% of condo rentals–amounting to over 4,000 and 2,000 homes, respectively–are controlled by speculative investors who live outside of Concord. 7 The corporate control of single-family homes as an investment asset is a growing problem across California and the country. Since the foreclosure crisis, large corporations have snatched up millions of homes–many of which were stripped from households of color–only to rent them back to families who are increasingly locked out of homeownership by soaring competition, costs, and interest rates and decreasing production.8 Between 2001 and 2021, the number of single-family rentals in the U.S. 8 Sofia Lopez, Samantha Kattan, and Jordan Ash. Mary 20, 2022. The National Rental Home Council:

How America’s Largest Single-Family Landlords Put Profits over People, p. 3. 7 The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project performed this analysis by combining data from Regrid, a national parcel ownership database, with data from the Secretary of State, which lists the business address for the corporate entities that are listed as the owners in Regrid. See the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project.

September 11, 2023. Property Ownership and Consolidation in Concord, p. 2. 6 City of Concord. 2023. City of Concord Housing Element (2023-2031), Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
5 Nationally, 39% of single-family tenants have children in the home as opposed to 24% of multi-family tenants. Ingrid Gould Ellen and Laurie Goodman. November 2023. Single-Family Rentals: Trends and Policy Recommendations, p. 3.

Page 94 of 137 ends

increased by 31% to 14.3 million. 9 This trend has been harmful to low- and middle-income families. One study after another has found that corporate ownership is associated with aggressive evictions, excessive rent increases and fines, neglected maintenance, and competitive purchasing tactics that lock potential homeowners out of the market. 10 Concord is not immune to these problems. Indeed, the second-largest owner of single-family rentals in the city is Invitation Homes. Founded by the Blackstone Group in order to capitalize on the foreclosure crisis, Invitation Homes owns over 82,000 single-family rentals, making it the largest single-family home landlord in California and the U.S. The company has used its profits to vigorously lobby against tenant protections. In 2018, it spent over $1 million to defeat California’s Proposition 10, which would have expanded rent control. And during the pandemic, when it raised rents by double digits across the Sunbelt, garnering record profits, it campaigned against the CDC’s eviction moratorium. 11 These practices have not gone unchecked. Invitation Homes recently agreed to a $3.7 million settlement with Attorney General Bonta, who accused the company of systematic rent gouging in excess of the statewide rent cap (AB 1482). 12 Discovery Homes Holdings LLC, which owns the homes on Detroit Avenue, is part and parcel of this trend; it is one of nearly 120 corporate entities owned by Albert Seeno III. Corporations like Invitation Homes and Discovery Homes should not be given a free pass to evict and displace low-income families from Concord.

Concord’s Tenant Protection Ordinance Could Make the Difference Between Housing and Homelessness for Families Like Maria’s
In February, Maria approached Baywood Property Management to ask for more time to look for a new home. The company refused. While there was no reason for eviction listed on the notice, the manager told Maria that the owner intended to demolish all three of the homes. While the company has a legal right to do so, it should also have a responsibility to help Maria secure a soft landing, and the City of Concord should have an interest in ensuring that these rights and responsibilities are enforced. Sadly, however, because Discovery Homes is rushing to remove the tenants before the tenant protection ordinance takes effect, it can do as it pleases without concern for the impact on Maria and her children.

Conversely, if Maria’s home were covered by the ordinance, then Discovery Homes would need to state its intention to demolish the home on the eviction notice and obtain a demolition permit ahead of time to ensure that its intentions are real. It would need to wait until June in order to proceed with the eviction, minimizing the disruption to Maria’s children. And it would need to provide financial assistance to increase the family’s chances of finding replacement housing. 12 Liam Dillon. January 8, 2024. “Nation’s Largest Single-Family Home Landlord to Pay $3.7 Million in California Rent-Gouging Case.” LA Times.
11 Lopez, Kattan, and Ash, pp. 6-7.
10 Lopez, Kattan, and Ash, p. 2.
9 Alexander Hermann. July 18, 2023. “Eight Facts about Investor Activity in the Single-Family Rental Market.” Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Page 95 of 137 ends

This assistance might even include extra aid to address the added challenges confronted by low-income and disabled tenants like Maria in the rental market. While the amount of this aid is minimal to corporations like Discovery Homes, it can mean the difference between housing and homelessness for people on fixed or limited incomes like Maria.

While the City Council may not be able to help Maria’s family in this critical moment, we thank you for not abandoning the countless families like hers by maintaining equal protections and adequate relocation assistance for our neighbors who rent single-family homes and condos.

Sincerely,
Alex Werth, Policy & Research Advisor
Betty Gabaldon & Lupe T olento, Organizers & Founders of T odos Santos T enants Union

Page 96 of 137 ends

From: Jenny Terry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:22 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Concord City Council Votes to Introduce Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause for Eviction

Hello again, Concord city council:

Take a look at new investment property real estate listings from last week. Investment property owners have already started dumping. Way to bring down property values for everyone in the city. And you haven’t even passed your monstrosity yet.

Does the city receive any revenue from property taxes? Reduced property values = reduced property tax income.

Something this important, you would think that you would honor the many requests to put this proposed ordinance on the ballot, and let your constituents decide. After all, it’s their city, and their property.

No politician should have the power to take away a citizen’s real property rights and gift them to a person who has no financial risk, blood, sweat or tears invested in said property.

If tenants are now to share in my property rights, and my rental income is to be reduced to a negative every year, then tenants should absolutely share in the costs of property maintenance.

No politician should have the power to steal my only source of retirement income.

No politician should have the power to destroy my ability to improve and maintain my real property.

But you plan to do just exactly that.

Make it a great day!
Jenny Terry
925-200-3902

From: Jenny Terry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 3:41 PM

Page 97 of 137 ends

To: 'Rush, Kelly' <[email protected]>; 'Huckabay, Sophia' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Concord City Council Votes to Introduce Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause for Eviction

Thank you, Concord City Council.

Landlords: You will now lose 40% per year to inflation. And oh, here’s some more costs and fees for you to pay as well.

There go the property improvements we hoped to accomplish. Can no longer afford it since you will force us to lose money every year.

Rental property condition and tenant quality will go down.

No intelligent landlord will ever rent to anyone that doesn’t have PERFECT credit.

Your just cause eviction policy will make it impossible to get rid of drug dealers and problem tenants, and will harm other good tenants and neighbors.

You have just violated the property rights of all Concord residents who own real property.

Make it a great day!
Jenny Terry
925-200-3902

From: Rush, Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:51 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Concord City Council Votes to Introduce Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause for Eviction

Concord City Council Votes to Introduce Ordinance on Rent Stabilization, Just Cause for Eviction

Page 98 of 137 ends

Concord, Calif. (Feb. 14, 2024) -- At its Feb. 13 meeting, the Concord City Council voted to introduce an ordinance that would establish rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies for Concord rental properties. In a 4-1 vote (Hoffmeister opposed), the Council approved language for the new law, which would take effect 30 days after final adoption.

In January 2023, the Council expressed its desire to protect the tenant community from displacement, and added a policy into the City’s Housing Element to move forward with considering rent stabilization and just cause policies.

Since January 2023, Council has held seven public meetings on this topic and has heard from hundreds of property owners and tenants. At its meeting on Feb. 13, the Council introduced the ordinance; its major provisions are outlined below. Changes made at the Feb. 13 meeting are identified as updates.

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 two 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.
• Updated 2/13/24: The City Council shall review the Annual Allowable Rent Increase amount each year.
• Updated 2/13/24: The City will honor agreements Affordable Housing providers have with the City or other government agencies that cap their rent increases at 5% or less in their regulatory agreements or deed restrictions. All other rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions apply.
• 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).
• Updated 2/13/24: Includes a “rent rollback” provision that sets rents to the dollar amounts that were charged for rent as of April 4, 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.
• Updated 2/13/24: If they choose to do so, tenants and property owners would be able to file a lawsuit directly with courts instead of having to first go through the City’s petition process.

Page 99 of 137 ends

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.
• Updated 2/13/24: The Ordinance allows for owners to vacate sooner than the 24 months length of time required following an owner move-in if they are experiencing a “Significant Hardship” as defined in the Ordinance.
• In the case of no-fault evictions at multifamily rental complexes, 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 unit. 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. • Updated 2/13/24: For no-fault evictions, landlords of rented Single-Family Homes and Condominiums would pay the relocation assistance in the amount of two months of the tenant’s current rent plus a moving stipend of $2,000.

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.

NEXT STEPS
Following the Feb. 13 introduction of the ordinance, staff expects to return to Council on Tuesday, March 5 for ordinance adoption. The ordinance will take effect 30 days later on April 4, 2024.

All landlords are required to register their rental units annually with the City on or before July 1 and pay a yet-to-be-determined fee, which will be used to finance the cost of the registry and implementation and enforcement of this policy.

Page 100 of 137 ends

Thank you.

Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst

City of Concord | Website: http://www.cityofconcord.org  (925) 671-3032 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519

www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com

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

Virus-free.www.avast.com

Page 101 of 137 ends

From: Lee Ginsburg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 8:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Let the People decide on rent Control and just cause

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

Please keep in mind this rent control measure would not allow owners to even cover the additional cost of utilities, taxes let alone maintenance. Therefore this measure will ensure rundown properties to come if the owners cannot recoup their cost.

This will have the biggest effect on mom and pop investors that own the majority of affordable housing units. These owners have worked day and night for many years to own their rental properties and many have planned their retirement around the potential income. Why a mom and pop landlord should subsidize a renter is beyond my thought process.

I personally know several people who are currently renting a rent control unit while owning investment property themselves. If rent control helped people in need and had to qualify periodically I would have a different mindset.

Page 102 of 137 ends

Rational thinking and ChatGPT produced this content.

1. This ordinance is a prime target for a lawsuit that will deplete the city budget

2. This ordinance will need annual review

3. This ordinance should sunset as no crisis lasts forever

4. This ordinance creates more bureaucracy that automatically makes housing less affordable
Please keep in mind this rent control measure would not allow owners to even cover the additional cost of utilities, taxes let alone maintenance. Therefore this measure will ensure rundown properties to come if the owners cannot recoup their cost.

Thank you for your consideration of the unintended consequences of this proposed ordinance.

Much appreciated,

Lee Ginsburg CRS, SRES, SFR Top 1/2% Nationwide
Real Trends Top 1000 Agents in US
Office: 650-358-3959 - Cell 650-888-5662

Page 103 of 137 ends

DRE# 01391378
Intero | A Berkshire Hathaway Affiliate

"It is Better to Own Real Estate and Wait Than Wait to Own Real Estate"

What's Your Home Worth?
Get three automated Estimates - Instantly.

No cost, and no obligation.

Click here to Check me out on YELP:

Page 104 of 137 ends

From: Eric Harvey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:21 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Thank you for passing tenant Protections!

Dear Mayor Birsan and Councillors Hoffmeister, Obringer, Aliano, and Nakamura,

I want to thank you for passing tenant protections and rent control in Concord! My wife and I are now Concord homeowners, but we rented in Concord for years before we bought our house and we have been forced to move on our landlord’s whim with no recourse. This causes a lot of hardship and disruption, and I am happy to see you are addressing the imbalance of power and options.

I have seen the landlords’ lobby making a lot of noise online in response to these new protections, but I am glad you are seeing past their melodrama to the reality of life for renters. Dramatic increases in rent may seem like welcome profits to landlords in the short term, but in the long term the soaring cost of living eviscerates communities by making it impossible for people with normal jobs to survive and thrive.

The long-term health of Concord as a community relies on the ability for everyone to find a place here, not just people with high incomes.

Thank you again. This is truly encouraging.

With gratitude and respect,
Eric J. Harvey

--
————————————
Eric J. Harvey, Ph.D.

Bible and the Ancient Near East
Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies
Brandeis University

www.blindscholar.com

Page 105 of 137 ends

From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:50 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]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: Failure of Rent Stabilization Policies

To Joelle, and Valerie go ahead and post this.

I have sent Kelly's cliff notes version of the rental ordinance to many local and national banks. We've had enough banks go belly up in the area recently, I thought as a common courtesy to let them know what's up on parkside drive. As you would guess they were aghast at Kellys email, and wouldnt expect them to lend anymore in the city. Its hard to blame them, the Op-ed about new york community bank(See previous email below has dropped another about 40%) on more uncovered huge losses.

And to the Editor of the pioneer welcome to the party.

A city ginning up a staff report trying to justify seizing private business and turning its back on its on voters is something that needs to be discussed, at length. There is far more collateral damage than property owners and banks that are to scared to lend in the city(See Maria Ramos and anyone seeking permanent tenancy in the city.)

Reed Robertson
District 2

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:45 PM reed robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Page 106 of 137 ends

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
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.

Page 107 of 137 ends

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.

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

Page 108 of 137 ends

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:12 AM Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Your comments will be inserted into the record, posted to the website, and sent to the City Council for review prior to tonight’s meeting.

Joelle Fockler, MMC | City Clerk
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3390 |  [email protected]

From: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 8:22 PM
To: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>; reed robertson <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Brenda Kain <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>; Ramireddy Info <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Myers, Lori <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Failure of Rent Stabilization Policies
Dear Ms. Brown,
As part of our ongoing conversation, regarding the upcoming discussion and potential vote on additional rent stabilization ordinance for the City of Concord, I would like these comments included in the public record.

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

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

Additionally, the historical evidence for economic models on rent control are well- established. While they may serve some benefit to renters in the short term, in the long run, they have negative consequences that include a shortage of available inventory, reduction in the quality of rental units leading to the erosion of surrounding real estate

Page 109 of 137 ends

property values, which ultimately to a reduction in city property tax revenue, the emergence of shadow markets, and the risk of expediting, gentrification.

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

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

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

The study showed that in the two decades following rent control policies passed in San Francisco a reduction in affordable inventory occurred resulting from a combination of tenants remaining in oversized properties, as well as landlords, pulling inventory off the market. The study further discusses decrease in local property values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 110 of 137 ends

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

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

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

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

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

As one can see the shortages of an adequate supply of housing is not the fault of small business landlords. Rather, it is the result of restrictive policies, enacted by city council members, such as these now serving who are either shortsighted and uninformed in their policy making decisions, or acting out of political expediency to further their political careers.

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

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

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

Page 111 of 137 ends

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 112 of 137 ends

From: Zhen B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 5:14 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: No on rent control

Hello Mayor and the Council Members-

I urge you to exclude small landlords with 1 rental and especially those landlords who themselves rent from the just cause requirements to allow them to be able to return to their homes.

I would like to thank Council Member Hoffmeister for objecting to this unfair rent control ordinance.

Thank you

Evgenia

Page 113 of 137 ends

From: Jim Basuino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 5:03 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: 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.

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.

The ordinance was written without economic justification. The city chose to ignore data that demonstrates that local owners will be operating their Concord properties at a loss and will suffer hardship due to increasing operating expenses and liabilities.

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

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

James Basuino

Page 114 of 137 ends

From: Greg Brumley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 9:51 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control & Just Cause Eviction ordinance

Attached is a letter I wish to have placed in the City record related to this evening's meeting.

Greg Brumley
925-250-1425
[email protected]

Page 115 of 137 ends

Greg Brumley
Brumley Properties LLC

Concord CA 94519

3/5/24 VIA E-Mail

Re: Proposed Rent control and Just Cause Eviction ordinance

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a lifelong Concord resident of 63 years, and my family has been providing rental housing in Concord for the past 61 years.

I am writing to urge you to change course and re-think your proposed ordinance. I have been following the discussions over the past many months, and the provisions of your ordinance have increasingly become punitive and unreasonable. The vast majority of property owners that will be negatively impacted by your ordinance are your Concord constituents.

The State law AB1482 already protects our neighbors that live in rental housing and properly corrected any past abuses that were occurring. Your punitive ordinance will have the opposite effect of what is needed in Concord, by reducing the available housing stock in our City, and causing the deterioration and blight of our neighborhoods. When rental housing providers cannot increase rental income to keep pace with the increase in property expenses, proactive maintenance like painting, paving, fencing, landscaping, roofing, will all need to be reduced or eliminated. It is a simple economic reality.

The Just Cause Eviction provisions are very punitive to single family homeowners in Concord and should not be included in any reasonable city ordinance. This creates burdens on all property owners that should not exist, and minimizes the

Page 116 of 137 ends

options we all need as we wish to age in our homes and protect our family’s financial well-being.

I urge you to change course. Follow the suggestion of Councilmember Obringer and put this ordinance to a vote and seek the confirmation of your constituents.

Refusal to allow the Concord citizens to support and confirm your decisions on such an important matter, simply displays an arrogance which must be challenged.

I love our City and cannot support anyone in our City government that refuses to support the idea of listening to the voters. This proposed ordinance will negatively impact the quality and desirability of life in our City. Put the ordinance to a vote.

Regards,
Greg Brumley

Page 117 of 137 ends

From: Mary Ann Quinn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:02 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction
Importance: High

To Whom it may concern,

I am writing to ask you to please reconsider the Just Cause Eviction, it seems that once again government is asking the Middle Class to support others. I was a single mother of two, I raised my children on my own with no financial assistance. I struggled every day, but I was eventually able to buy a home in Concord and put my daughter thru college.

I give in anyway I can, I have empathy but at a certain point enough is enough. My retirement plan was to rent my home for additional income (that I will need to not be on the streets), if I have to move back into the home somewhere down the road there is no way I could afford to pay two months rent plus a moving allowance.

This is just taking things too far, how does this make any sense, I am already hearing conversations of people taking their property off the rental market before this goes into effect and putting it on the market. I worked very hard for my money and my life, why should I have to pay for this? No one ever paid for my moving or gave me two months rent when I went to move, which believe me was multiple times.

At the very least this should be voted on by the people of Concord

Thank you for your time.

Mary Ann Quinn
Accounting Manager
Thomas Properties, Inc.
(925) 945-6266 extension 118
(925) 787-3131 Cell

Page 118 of 137 ends

From: Lisa Justice <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:31 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Thank you, Concord City Council!

Dear Concord City Council,

Thank you so much for passing this rent stabilization and just cause ordinance that will ensure lasting housing stability for over 40,000 renters in Concord and their families! I, as a Concord homeowner, personally really appreciate your leadership in passing this ordinance because I have been concerned about the increasing number of unhoused people in Concord, especially since the pandemic. This ordinance will make it harder for people in Concord to become unhoused in the first place. It supports a strong and flourishing community and solidifies Concord's identity as a wonderful community for families, children, and seniors.

Again, I appreciate your leadership and for taking steps to help make Concord a more affordable and inclusive city where seniors and working families can live. We have seen 13 other Cities in the Bay Area take proactive steps to stop excessive rent increases and displacement. I am glad that after many years of advocacy by people like me and other Concord renters, tenant advocates, and community allies, you are officially adopting this ordinance during the Second Reading on March 5th and will be implementing it in April.

Thank you,

Sincerely,
Lisa Justice

Page 119 of 137 ends

From: Jim Basuino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control - Consider Insurance, PGE, and trash increases

I just received notice that the insurance on my apartment building in Concord is going up by 10%. I received a notice from garbage company that the rates are increasing by

6.5%. How can you justify rent increases of less than 3%. I have been an ethical housing provider and have many older and long term tenants at rental rates hundreds of dollars less than market.

You do not understand the rental business.

You do not understand inflation.

Please vote NO on the rent control issue!

Page 120 of 137 ends

From: Christina J Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:33 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City

Dear Concord City Council,

This can’t come soon enough.

Thank you,

Sincerely
Chris

Page 121 of 137 ends

From: east ocean <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:46 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: Email for March 5 Council Meeting: Rent Control Ordinance (Agenda item 5A)

Mayor Birsan and Concord City Councilmembers,

As a Concord voter, homeowner, and housing provider, I wish to express my dismay and complete opposition as you now ratify the rent control and 'just cause' provisions, in exuberant excess of CA state law AB1482. This legislation causes more harm than does intended good. If you insist on ramming it through, I suggest modifications:

1. Raise the rent cap to 7% and provide an annual review. 7% allows housing providers a fair rate of return, and is much less than the increased costs they face.

2. Exempt housing providers with 4 or fewer units. Small 'mom and pop' businesses do not enjoy the same economies of scale as large companies, and pay proportionally more to maintain and improve their properties.

3. Exempt housing providers with below market rents until they exceed HUD's FMR or Concord's own rent registry data. Your legislation purportedly is based on this data, so why not delay enforcement until it is actually needed? It is unfair to penalize providers who charge low rents.

4. Tie relocation fees to renter's current rent, not HUD's FMR. This is particularly injurious to small 'mom & pop's. Instead of awarding more money to protected classes, allow them more time to move.

5. Increase housing supply. The solution to 'high' rents is to add supply, not constrict providers. What is Concord's vacancy rate? If you have sufficient quantity or an excess of housing, rents will fall. Support local small providers and construction of new housing.

6. Reduce the frequency of MFIP inspections. With little funds due to rent control, providers cannot keep up with yearly visits, new fees, and penalties for non-compliance.

Today is Election Day. Ironically, you unilaterally enact this measure without a vote by Concord citizens. I support Councilmember Obringer's proposal to put this to a vote. When people learn more, you may be surprised by the response. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Tammy Chen

Page 122 of 137 ends

Concord City CouncilMarch 5, 2024

Concord City Council
March 5, 2024