From: Tahirah Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:47 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Subject: Comment Letter: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance
Dear Concord City Council,
I am writing on behalf of Public Advocates. Attached, you will find our comment letter in advance of the Council meeting tonight. We look forward to engaging with you at that meeting.
Sincerely,
Tahirah Dean
Tahirah Dean
Staff Attorney at Public Advocates
SF office
857-225-4656
| [email protected]
www.publicadvocates.org
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone. Thank you.
Carlyn Obringer, Vice-Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Pablo Benavente, Councilmember
February 4, 2025
Re: Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance
Dear Concord City Council Members,
We are writing to urge you to reject proposed amendments to the city’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance. This ordinance was adopted less than a year ago after a mutli-year community process. A robust and meaningful rent stabilization and just cause policy was essential to meeting Housing Element obligations. The current policy that includes an annual review of allowable rent increases (currently 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower) and protections for tenants in single family homes is aligned with the community’s needs as well as the city’s obligations set out in state law. There is no need or justification to amend the policy.
Public Advocates is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice. We have worked closely with Concord residents, advocates, and City staff on important fair housing efforts to ensure the stability of currently underserved populations and future generations by advancing the development of critical programs adopted in Concord’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.
As an organization that has reviewed and helped to write similar policies across California, we strongly support preserving the ordinance as it currently stands. All renters need protections against arbitrary and unfair evictions regardless of whether they reside in a multi-unit building, single-family home, or condo. It is estimated that 43% of Concord renters live in single-family homes or rented condos, so removal of just cause protections from these renters would dramatically undermine the Just Cause ordinance’s goal of protecting renters from displacement. We also note that the existing ordinance balances the needs of landlords by preserving their ability to evict tenants for “no fault” reasons such as if the owner wishes to move into the unit, as well as for “at fault” reasons such as nonpayment of rent or lease violations. Tenants that live in single-family homes and rented condos must continue to be protected from evictions that lack just cause.
Including just cause protections for renters in single family homes is also consistent with the City’s commitment to providing additional protections above and beyond state law in the 6th Cycle of the Housing Element.
“To further protect tenants from displacement, increase household stability, and preserve housing that is affordable to lower-income-earning households, the City will adopt ordinances to establish regulations for rent stabilization and just cause for eviction. These ordinances will include additional protections for residents, above and beyond those provided under State law.” – pg. 44 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element
If a jurisdiction fails to implement a housing element program, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has the authority to revoke its certification of the jurisdiction’s housing element until the Department makes a determination of compliance.1 The Department may consult with the public and consider any written comments from any public agency, group, or person, regarding the action or failure to act by the jurisdiction in determining whether the implementation substantially complies with legal obligations.2 Reducing protections that have already been committed to would be inconsistent with the city’s Housing Element.
Finally, any consideration of changes to the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance should take place during the annual review of the ordinance, which was scheduled for March of this year. This expedited review of the policy is unfair because not enough time has been allowed for us to see the positive impact of the existing ordinance, and it circumvents public process. The expedited review is a burden on tenants who have had to make last-minute changes to their work and family schedule to write or speak about their concerns.
The city is stronger when all families have stable, affordable housing. We urge Council to uphold the current rent cap of 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower, and the existing just cause for eviction protections.
Sincerely,
Tahirah Dean
Staff Attorney, Public Advocates
CC: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
1 Gov. Code 65585(i)(1)(B)
2 Gov. Code 65585(i)(2)
From: Maribeth Ristad <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:56 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Just cause
Good Afternoon,
This email is in regards to this evenings rent stabilization council meeting. Both my husband and I strongly believe that introducing rent stabilization is not the answer to a system that our country is based on, which is capitalism. By imposing rigid and arbitrary controls on rent with little regard to costs in a free market has proven not to be a rational solution. Rather it reduces the supply as the return on investment is reduced, this is basic economics. We strongly disagree with this ordinance, and hope there is a change.
Also, I believe there is an enforcement issue- how do you enforce if the City website says one thing and the paper copy mailed to property owners states something different(i.e. privacy)? This is hard for people to comply if they don’t know.
Best,
Maribeth Ristad
Sent from my iPhone
From: Amie Lam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:58 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Feb 4 City Council - Public Comment
Dear Concord City Council,
I am a worker in Concord, and I am very sad to hear that Council is considering roll-backs to tenant protections and weakening the ordinance.
This ordinance just went into effect 10 months ago, after many years of community efforts to pass the policy. Renters have been on the front lines of this 8-year long struggle for protections from unjust evictions and skyrocketing rents. It has not been sufficient time to fully implement this policy and to let it work.
Concord is more united and stronger when all families have stable, affordable housing.
I urge Council to uphold the current rent cap of 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower, and the existing eviction protections.
All renters need tenant protections regardless if they reside in a multi-unit building, single-family home, or condo. 43% of Concord renters live in single-family homes or rented condos and must be protected from unjust evictions.
I ask not to exempt single-family homes and rented condos from the just cause ordinance. Instead of diluting sound policies that protect immigrants, seniors, and working families, our City Council should instead focus on ensuring community safety, belonging, and stability for Concord’s immigrants and renters.
Best regards,
Amie
I'd like to express general strong support for the Concord rent control ordinance, particularly the portions actually regulating rent charges. I'd hope changes to those portions which affect tenants' pocketbooks will be minimal. However, I am not expressing an opinion on the portions of the current law regulating properties which are currently explicitly excluded from the rent stabilization program portion of the law.
James Rankin
1080 San Miguel Rd Trlr 73
Concord, CA 94518
From: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Laura Nakamura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Subject: Letter re: item #3A for tonight's Council Meeting Dear Council Members,
Attached, please find public comment from EBASE r egarding item 3a on tonight's City Council agenda.
EBASE opposes exempting single family homes and rented condos from the ordinance's just cause for eviction protections and supports maintaining the current level of allowable rental increases.
The attached letter addresses why Just Cause protections should apply to all rental units and gives a needed reality check about this rental market in Concord where corporate landlords and out-of-town investors dominate, which makes basic regulation increasingly necessary in order to protect tenants.
Thank you,
Kristi Laughlin
--
Kristi Laughlin
Deputy Director of Contra Costa Campaigns
1814 Galindo Street, Suite 220 Concord
510-847-2399
Preferred pronouns: She/Her
Dear Concord City Councilmembers,
Since Concord’s rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance was developed and passed, we have unfortunately seen deep-pocketed opponents spreading misleading information about its impact on the owners of single-family homes and condos. In February 2024, for one, the California Apartment Association (CAA)–a multi-million-dollar lobby group for corporate real-estate interests–sent a text message to every homeowner in Concord that was riddled with erroneous claims about the ordinance, which even the City had to step in and counter. Then, in March, local realtors continued to leverage the CAA playbook to misinform homeowners as part of their unsuccessful attempt to overturn a thorough democratic process by referending the ordinance as soon as it passed.
This strategy is meant to induce fear and panic among homeowners, most of whom will never be impacted by this ordinance, in order to fuel opposition to tenant protections in Concord. In the process, what gets obscured is the reality that it is corporate landlords and out-of-town investors who now own the vast majority of rental units in the city, including single-family homes and condos.1 We urge you to be more discerning about these fear-based tactics and to not let the hype eclipse the very real needs of thousands of Concord renters for very basic protections from unjust evictions. While most landlords are ethical people, there are those unscrupulous actors who make practices of evicting tenants who ask for repairs, or raise issues about mold or pests, or stand up for their rights.
In the remainder of this letter, we wish to remind you of the facts of single-family and condo rentals in Concord: who lives in them, who owns them, and what this ordinance truly means for each party.
Tenants of Single-Family Rentals Deserve the Same Protections as Their Neighbors
According to the agenda report, an estimated 43% of renters in Concord live in single-family homes or condos (hereinafter “single-family rentals,” or SFRs). Using U.S. Census data from 2023, that amounts to an estimated 19,500 residents, including countless children.2 Indeed, families who rent often seek single-family homes, if possible, to provide more space–including outdoor access–for their children. Hence, across the United States, tenants of single-family 2 According to American Communities Survey 1-Year Estimates from 2023 on www.data.census.gov, there are approximately 45,000 renters in Concord.
1 See the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. September 11, 2023. Property Ownership and Consolidation in Concord.
homes are 63% more likely to include children than tenants of multi-family properties.3 More detailed demographic data about SFR tenants in Concord is not available. But we know from a decade of supporting local renters that they share many of the same characteristics as multi-family tenants–i.e., SFRs are home to many low-income and immigrant families, who are disproportionately represented among renters in general. These are community members who are working tirelessly every day to maintain a toehold in Concord amidst stagnant wages, ongoing economic aftershocks from the pandemic, and the rapid increase in the cost of living, including rent. On top of that, many are now forced to live with extreme fear due to a climate of increasing hostility and uncertainty as federal officials do everything within their power to make them feel unsafe and unwelcome.
Tenants of SFRs are tenants. They are no different from their neighbors who rent in small apartment buildings or large complexes. If anything, they are in an even more precarious position because, in practice, they have no protections against unaffordable rent increases.4 Why should they be denied protections against unjust or no cause evictions that are given to other renters? Under Concord’s Housing Element, this policy is meant to affirmatively further fair housing among low-income, immigrant, disabled, senior, and other vulnerable renters.
Removing SFRs would be an admission that the City only cares about the fair housing rights and general wellbeing of 57% of renters, not the other 43%. There is nothing fair about that.
Most Single-Family Renter Owners Are Outside Investors
Since the beginning, the debate about the ordinance has incorrectly identified SFR owners as “mom and pop” proprietors. In fact, according to a comprehensive analysis of 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.5 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.6 Between 2001 and 2021, the number of single-family rentals in the U.S. 6 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. 5 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 ownership entities that are listed as the proprietors in Regrid. See the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, September 11, 2023, p. 2.
4 Renters of single-family homes and condos are excluded from Concord’s rent stabilization ordinance due to the Costa Hawkins Act. While, in theory, they may be covered by the 10% rent cap in AB 1482 if their landlord is a corporation, in practice this measure is never enforced. 3 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.
increased by 31% to 14.3 million.7 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.8
Concord is not immune to these problems. Indeed, the second-largest owner of single-family rentals in the city is Invitation Homes.9 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.10 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).11 While the CAA’s scare tactics have been designed to whip up concern among everyday homeowners in Concord, in effect, most of those residents will never be impacted by this ordinance. Instead, it is non-local, speculative, and often corporate investors, like Invitation Homes, who are being asked to abide by the same set of fair rules and guidelines as owners of larger properties.
The Ordinance Is Modest in Scope
In essence, the ordinance simply says that all renters deserve the same protections against eviction, regardless of the type of home that they rent. They deserve to know that, if they pay their rent and meet the other terms of the lease, then they will not be arbitrarily evicted. They deserve to know that, if the landlord needs to evict them for one of the allowable just causes, then they will have a reasonable amount of time and support to move and that the landlord will abide by commonsense checks to ensure that they actually follow through. Without relocation assistance, many low-income tenants will automatically face displacement from Concord or even homelessness. This is because market rents are out of reach and landlords often require tenants to pay three times the monthly rent in order to move in–an impossible expense for working families. The City has already inserted a deep disparity into this ordinance by reducing the amount of relocation assistance given to SFR tenants. Please do not make that disparity even worse by fully removing reasonable protections for almost 20,000 of our neighbors.
Sincerely,
Alex Werth, Research & Policy Advisor
11 Liam Dillon. January 8, 2024. “Nation’s Largest Single-Family Home Landlord to Pay $3.7 Million in California Rent-Gouging Case.” LA Times.
10 Lopez, Kattan, and Ash, May 20, 2022, pp. 6-7.
9 The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, September 11, 2023, p. 10. 8 Lopez, Kattan, and Ash, May 20, 2022, p. 2.
7 Alexander Hermann. July 18, 2023. “Eight Facts about Investor Activity in the Single-Family Rental Market.” Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4.
We maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.
We support a discussion on re-evaluating the unsustainable and restrictive rent cap. In addition, the city should review the just cause ordinance and remove requirements that hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for Concord renters.
Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. We as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process.
The email above was submitted by the following individuals:
Raj Saini
Viswanath Jakka
Koti Ancha
Cara Heilmann
Anton
Matthew Kassel
Sudheer Kumar G
Nagesh Kanumury
Joyce Kelly
Maricruz Manzanerez
David and Shirley Mills
Melinda Kell
Meina Young, President of Business and Housing Network (BAHN) Rama Vadakattu
Julie Gutzwiller, CFO/COO, Bridge Partners
Jonathan Emrich
John Goodwin
Svitlana Plakhti
Bernice Chau
Surya Turaga
Akash Kakumai, Roblox
Armen and Michelle Tajirian
Frannie and James Kell
Wallace Freddie
Michael Wan
Karen Candito
John Okeefe
Christina Dean
From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 1:22 PM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Gentry, Mindy <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]> Subject: Map of recent Prop 33 results by voting precinct in Concord
This e-mail is being shared with all Councilmembers and Being Placed in the Record for the Feb 4 Council meeting
Carlyn,
You asked for information on how Concord voters voted on Prop 33 this past election.
To refresh memories, Prop 33 would have expanded local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property and was placed on the state ballot by initiative.
The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) at the State described Prop 33 as follows:
Proposal
Allows Local Governments to Expand Rent Control. Proposition 33 eliminates Costa-Hawkins.
Under the proposition, cities and counties can control rents for any housing. They also can limit how much a landlord may increase rents when a new renter moves in. The proposition itself does not make any changes to existing local rent control laws. Generally, cities and counties would have to take separate actions to change their local laws.
Limits State Ability to Regulate Rent Control. Proposition 33 prevents the state from taking future actions to limit local rent control.
Yes/No Statement
A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
Attached is a PDF of the LAO’s analysis and here is the link to the webpage I got this pdf from:
https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=33&year=2024
Also attached to this e-mail is a map showing visually percentage of Yes votes by voting precinct in Concord. Our GIS staff created this map for Council in response to a request from the Mayor.
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!
November 5, 2024 Ballot
Page
1 of 3
PROPOSITION 33
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.
ANALYSIS OF MEASURE
BACKGROUND
Rental Housing Is Expensive in California. Renters in California typically pay about 50 percent more for housing than renters in other states. In some parts of the state, rent costs are more than double the national average. Rent is high in California because the state does not have enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. People who want to live here must compete with other renters for housing, which increases rents.
Several Cities Have Rent Control Laws. Some local governments in California have laws that limit how much landlords can increase rents from one year to the next. These laws often are called rent control. About one-quarter of Californians live in communities with local rent control.
Examples of places with rent control are the Cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose.
State Law Limits Rent Increases. In addition to local rent control laws, a state law prevents most landlords from increasing a tenant’s rent by more than 5 percent plus inflation (up to a total of 10 percent) in a year. This law lasts until 2030.
State Law Limits Local Rent Control. Another state law, known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), limits local rent control laws in three main ways. First, rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes. Second, rent control cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995. Third, rent control laws generally cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in. Instead, rent control can only limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters.
PROPOSAL
Allows Local Governments to Expand Rent Control. Proposition 33 eliminates Costa- Hawkins. Under the proposition, cities and counties can control rents for any housing. They also can limit how much a landlord may increase rents when a new renter moves in. The proposition itself does not make any changes to existing local rent control laws. Generally, cities and counties would have to take separate actions to change their local laws.
November 5, 2024 Ballot
Page
2 of 3
Limits State Ability to Regulate Rent Control. Proposition 33 prevents the state from taking future actions to limit local rent control.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Effects on Renters and Landlords. If Proposition 33 passes, local rent control laws probably would expand in some communities. This could have many effects on renters, landlords, and rental properties. The most likely effects are:
• Some renters who live in properties covered by rent control would spend less on rent.
Some renters who live in properties not covered by rent control would spend more on rent.
• Some renters would move less often.
• Fewer homes would be available to rent. One reason for this is that some landlords would sell their properties to new owners who would live there instead of renting it out.
• The value of rental housing would decline because potential landlords would not want to pay as much for these properties.
The size of these effects would depend on how many properties end up being covered by local rent control and how much rents are limited. These things would be decided by future actions of local governments and voters.
Reduced Local Property Tax Revenues. A decline in the value of rental properties would reduce the amount of property taxes paid by landlords. This would reduce property tax revenues for cities, counties, special districts, and schools. With time, these property tax reductions likely would be at least tens of millions of dollars each year (annually). This is less than one-half of 1 percent of all property tax revenue. About half of the reduction would be property tax revenues that would have gone to schools. In some years, the state might give more money to schools to cover their losses.
Increased Local Government Costs. If local rent control laws expand, local governments could have increased costs to carry out these laws. These costs could range from a few million dollars to tens of millions of dollars annually. These costs likely would be paid by fees on landlords.
November 5, 2024 Ballot
Page
3 of 3
YES/NO STATEMENT
A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT
• Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.
BALLOT LABEL
Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.
?×
?×
%&p(
%&p(
A¿
East
St
Grant
St
Bancroft Rd
Galin
do
St
Far
m
Bureau
Rd
Alberta Wy
O livera Rd
Salvi
o St
Meadow Ln Denk
ingerRd
West St
Detroit Av
Concord
Av
Rolli
ngWoods
W
y
Landa
na
Dr
Bates Av
Ygnacio
Valley Rd
Solano
Wy
Monument Blvd
Olive DrTurtle
CreekRd
Crystyl Ranch
Rd
Myrtle Dr
Kir
kerPass Rd
Pine Hollow Rd
Aye
rsRd
E Olivera Rd
Arnold Industria
l Wy
Treat Blvd
PortChicag
o
Hw
y
Clayton Rd
Concord Blvd
Oak Grove Rd
Bailey Rd
Cowell Rd
Willow
Pass Rd
Election Results 2024 - Proposition 33 I
0 3,000 6,0001,500
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CityManager\ElectionResults2024\ElectionResults2024.aprx Map Created: 2/3/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
Percentage 'Yes' Votes
≤30
≤40
≤50
≤60
Above 60%
No Data
Overall Approval:
40.2%
Residential Tenant
Protection Program
Single Family Homes and Condominiums
SOPHIA HUCKABAY , HOUSING MANAGER
FEBRUARY 4, 2025
1
Purpose
Council directed staff to bring back two topics related to the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program:
1. Single family homes and condominiums
2. Allowable annual rent increase (rent increase cap)
formula
2
Background
March 5, 2024 - adoption of amended Residential Tenant Protection Program
April 19, 2024 - Program went into effect
January 28, 2025 - Council directed staff to agendize tonight’s discussion
February 28, 2025 – Rent Registry deadline
3
Topic 1:
Single Family Homes and Condominiums
Rented single family homes and condominiums are not
subject to the rent stabilization related regulations of the Program
Program regulations related to annual rental registration, just cause for eviction, and minimum lease terms apply to rented single family homes and rented condominiums
4
Topic 1:
Single Family Homes and Condominiums
• Requires approved “just cause reason” for terminating tenancy • Requires payment of permanent relocation assistance and a moving stipend (2 months of tenant’s current rent + $2,000 moving stipend)
• No additional month’s rent for protected tenants is required • No payment for temporary relocations that result from the “no fault” eviction of an intent to demolish/substantially remodel the unit
5
Topic 1:
Single Family Homes and Condominiums
• Owner Move-Ins: requires an owner to move into the unit within 90 days of tenant vacancy; owner must occupy for at least 24 consecutive months, thereafter, as their primary residence
• Property owners required to record notice that removes the single family home from the rental market for 10 years (Ellis Act) • If property owner returns unit as available for rent following a “no fault” eviction for an owner move-in, Ellis Act, or a government order, tenant retains the right to return at terms in effect at the time of vacancy
6
Topic 1:
Single Family Homes and Condominiums
• Requires rental property owners of single family homes and rented condominiums to register annually and pay the Rent Registry fee (currently $29 per unit)
• Property owners must offer tenants a written lease with a minimum term of either 12 or 6 months prior to offering a shorter lease term
7
Topic 2: Rent Increase Caps
8 Concord
60% of CPI, or 3%, whichever is less
Current rent cap: calculated to be 2.52% until July 31, 2025 If Council continues to utilize this formula, the rent cap will be
2.25% from August 1, 2025 –
July 31, 2026
CA State
5% plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI), or 10%, whichever is less Current rent cap is 8.8% until Summer of 2025
Next Steps
If Council directs changes to the Program, staff will prepare a draft ordinance amending the Residential Tenant Protection Program based on the direction received.
9
Direction to Staff
Council directed staff to bring back two topics related to the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program:
1. Single family homes and condominiums
2. Allowable annual rent increase formula
10
Questions?
11