Concord City Council
February 4, 2025

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Carlyn S. Obringer, Mayor
Laura M. Nakamura, Vice Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano
Pablo Benavente
Laura M. Hoffmeister
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Regular Meeting of the
Concord City Council
Tuesday
February 4, 2025
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.

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. 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

2 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/84119829781?pwd=R96FHriBFEyM2PCtE7heOjSE- u3c9Q.VPO70R4S_nlj0ZXX or Zoom Webinar ID: 841 1982 9781 and Passcode: 578626. 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 Channels 29 and 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 5. INTERPRETATION OR WRITTEN TRANSLATION:

OPEN SESSION

1. OPENING
Roll Call – Announcements/Consideration and Approval of Requests by Councilmembers to Participate Remote Pursuant to AB 2449.

Pledge of Allegiance – Vice Mayor 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 Submit Public Comments” above

3. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – a referral from Council to agendize for discussion and possible direction to staff on two aspects of the current Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program:

1. Whether/to what extent Concord Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program should apply to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums; and

1. To access interpretation or written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link:

Para accesar a la traducción durante la reunion, por favor escanee el Código QR o haga clic en el enlace:
https://attend.wordly.ai/join/SYMQ-8840

2. Choose Language and Click Attend
Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir

3. Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device.

Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcipción en el dispositivo.
4 2. Whether/to what extent changes should be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase as defined in CMC Section 19.40.040. Report by Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager.

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

4. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda.

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

6. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 2/11/2025 6:30 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.

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: February 4, 2025
To: City Council
From: Valerie Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Prepared by: Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3387
Subject: Considering a referral from Council to agendize for discussion and possible direction to staff on two aspects of the current Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program:

1. Whether/to what extent Concord Municipal Code (CMC)
Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program
should apply to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums, and

2. Whether/to what extent changes should be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase as defined in CMC Section

19.40.040.

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

Report in Brief
On March 5, 2024, the City Council (“Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 24-3 amending Concord Municipal Code (“CMC”) Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program (“Program” or “Ordinance”) to increase “Just Cause” eviction protections, expand the City’s Rent Registry, and establish a Rent Stabilization Program. The Ordinance went into effect on April 19, 2024.

3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a

City Council Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
February 4, 2025
2 At its January 28, 2 025 meeting, the Council directed staff to bring back two topics for discussion and possible direction to staff:

1. Whether//to what extent CMC Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program should apply to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums, and

2. Whether/to what extent changes should be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase as defined in CMC Section 19.40.040.

Recommended Action
Discuss and provide direction to staff on two aspects of the current Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program:

1. Whether/to what extent CMC Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program should apply to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums, and

2. Whether/to what extent changes should be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase as defined in CMC Section 19.40.040.

Background
On March 5, 20241, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 24-3 amending CMC 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. The Ordinance went into effect on April 19, 2024. The full regulations for the Residential Tenant Protection Program can be viewed on the City’s website here. The Ordinance’s Just Cause for Eviction (but not Rent Stabilization) provisions apply to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums. With respect to Rent Stabilization, CMC Section 19.40.040(c) provides that “[t]he annual allowable rent increase amount shall be reviewed annually by the City Council.” At its January 28, 20252 meeting, the Council referred two aspects of the Residential Tenant Protection Program regulations to be agenized for discussion and possible direction to staff: 1) the application of just cause for eviction protections to rented single- family residences and rented condominiums and 2) should changes be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase.

Assembly Bill 1482 (2019)
The following information is being provided as it may be relevant to Council’s discussion and understanding on how state rent stabilization and just cause for eviction protections apply statewide and to the Concord residential rental community absent more restrictive local regulations.
1 https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1122&doctype=1 2 https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1197&doctype=1

City Council Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
February 4, 2025
3 Generally, the State’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482, as amended by SB 567) imposes the following:
• Rent Cap: Annual rent increases are capped at five percent plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI), or ten percent, whichever is less (i.e. the lesser of 5% + CPI, or 10%);
• Just cause for eviction tenant protections requiring a property owner to have a “just cause” in order to terminate a tenancy; and
• Relocation assistance due to tenants for “no fault” evictions in the amount of one month of the tenant’s current rent.

Single-family residences and condominiums offered for rent (but not mobile homes) are exempt from the State’s rent increase cap and just cause for eviction protections if they received their certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years. In addition, subject to certain notice requirements, single-family residences, condominiums, and mobile homes that are, “alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit” are exempt unless the owner is any of the following:
• A real estate investment trust;
• A corporation;
• A limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation; or • Management of a mobile home park.

Analysis
Single Family Homes
The City has an estimated 7,8003 single-family residences and condominiums offered for rent and approximately 18,0004 total rental units. Consequently, it is estimated that up to approximately 43% of Concord’s rented housing-units are single-family residences or condominiums.

Unser State law, as reflected in the Ordinance, single-family residences and condominiums offered for rent are not subject to the Rent Stabilization provisions (CMC Sections 19.40.030 through 19.40.050). However, the annual rental registration, just 3 This figure was obtained from the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office on June 6, 2024, based on either the homeowner not filing a homeowners’ property tax exemption for the property, or the registered mailing address for the property differed from the property. This number assumes all these units are rentals and is likely an over-estimate of rental properties. 4 The City’s rental inventory is derived from the City's previous Rent Registry inventory list that applied to four or more rental units, and information obtained from the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office on June 6, 2024 (See Footnote 3 above) for single family homes, condominiums, duplexes and triplexes.

City Council Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
February 4, 2025
4 cause for eviction protections, and the minimum lease term requirements within the Program (CMC Sections 19.40.060 through 19.40.090) do apply to single-family residences and condominiums offered for rent.

The following is a summary of the provisions of the Program that apply to single-family residences and condominiums offered for rent:
• Requires that an approved “just cause” reason be provided when terminating tenancy.
• For permanent relocation, a relocation payment equal to two months of tenant’s current rent plus a moving stipend of $2,000 is required fora “no fault” just cause eviction. These include owner move-in, Ellis Act eviction, and compliance with a government order.
• Payment for temporary relocations that result from the “no fault” eviction due to an intent to demolish or substantially remodel the unit is not required. • When a tenant must relocate due to an owner move-in, an owner must move into the unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates and the owner must occupy the unit for at least 24 months thereafter. The tenant retains the right to return to the unit with the same rental terms in effect at the time the tenant vacated, if the property owner does not comply with these provisions and the tenant chooses to return to the rented unit. If the tenant elects to move back into the unit, the property owner must reimburse the tenant for reasonable moving expenses, in addition to any permanent relocation payments previously paid. • Fully implements the Ellis Act requiring property owners to record, with the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office, a notice that removes the covered rental unit from the rental market for 10 years. If the owner attempts to return that unit to the market within 10 years, tenants retain the ability to sue for damages (if within the first two years), and the right to return to that unit at same rental terms in effect at the time the tenant vacated.
• For evictions due to government orders, if the tenant returns to the residence when it is found to be in compliance with the government order, tenant retains the right to return at same rental terms in effect at the time the tenant vacated. • Requires the property owner to register annually with the City’s rent registry. o The current registry fee for a single-family residences and condominiums offered for rent is $29.
• Landlords must offer tenants the opportunity to secure a written lease with a minimum term of either 12 or 6 months prior to offering a shorter lease term.

City Council Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
February 4, 2025
5 A copy of these regulations is included as Attachment 1, and a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the application of the regulations to single-family residences and condominiums offered for rent is included as Attachment 2.

Council should also be aware that the current deadline is February 28 for all properties subject to the rent registry to complete registering their rental properties and pay their fees.

Rent Increase Cap
CMC Section 19.40.040 (Permitted Rent Increases for Covered Rental Units) provides that the Annual Allowable Rent Increase amount shall be reviewed annually by the Council. A landlord who seeks to raise rent(s) by the Allowable Annual Rent Increase must do so within the 12-month period between August 1 of the current year and July 31 of the following year.

Currently, the CMC defines the Annual Allowed Rent Increase to be set at no more than sixty percent (60%) of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published and reported for the 12-month period ending as of April of the immediately preceding year, provided that in no event shall the Allowable Annual Rent Increase exceed three percent (3%) (i.e. the lesser of 60% of CPI, or 3%)5. In the event that the percentage change in the CPI is negative, the Allowable Annual Rent Increase is zero percent (0%).

The City’s Annual Allowable Rent Increase for rental units subject to rent stabilization through July 31, 2025 is 2.52%. If Council chooses to continue using the current formula in the CMC (the lesser of 60% of CPI, or 3%), the Annual Allowable Rent Increase from August 1, 2025 through July 31, 2026 would be 2.25% (which is 2.28% rounded to the nearest .25%).

In comparison, state law caps annual rent increases at five percent plus the CPI, or ten percent, whichever is less (i.e. the lesser of 5% + CPI, or 10%). Under the state law formula, rents can be increased by 8.8%, which is in place until the April 2025 CPI is released in Summer of 2025.

Attachment 3 provides the rent increase caps across California for jurisdictions that have adopted local rent stabilization programs. This information is from January 2024.

The CPI index used is for all urban consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published by the U.S. Department of Labor for April of each year and can be found here6.
5 The Allowable Annual Rent Increase is rounded to the nearest one-quarter of a percent (0.25%). 6 www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/consumerpriceindex_sanfrancisco.htm

City Council Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
February 4, 2025
6 Next Steps
If the Council directs changes to the Program, staff will prepare a draft ordinance amending CMC Chapter 19.40 based on the direction received. The introduction of the ordinance would be subject to a public hearing during a future City Council meeting and would necessitate a second reading if adopted. The ordinance would take effect 30 days following its adoption.

Staff would include an analysis of impacts to program administration and costs within the staff report presented for first reading of the Ordinance amendments.

Financial Impact
The Residential Tenant Protection Program was designed, per Council direction, to provide for full cost recovery and is based on collecting fees through the registration program for all rental properties in Concord—multi-family and single-family rentals. The full fiscal impact of changes to the Ordinance depends upon what changes are directed by Council. Staff will analyze the program administration and fiscal impacts of directed changes to the program within the staff report presenting revised Ordinance language at a future public hearing.

That being said, the following is known: As of the date of preparing this staff report, 846 property owners have registered their rented single-family homes or condominiums and paid a rental registry fee of $29 per unit. Should Council remove single family homes and condominiums from the requirement to register their units, the City would refund these fees, which equates to $24,534. Additionally, launching the City’s adopted program has been staff intensive and a significant change to the program before a full year of implementation will result in the Program not achieving full cost recovery this fiscal year.

Adjusting the rent cap has no fiscal impact.

Public Contact
The City Council meeting agenda was posted. Notice was sent by e-mail to all individuals on the interested party list, to all property owners who have already registered their units and provided an e-mail address, was posted to Nextdoor, the City’s webpage, and published in the City’s e-newsletter.

Attachments

1. Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40, Residential Tenant Protection Program

2. Frequently Asked Questions for Single Family Homes and Condominiums

3. California Rent Increase Caps - January 2024

4. Attachment 4

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.

Attachment 1

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

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

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

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-12th 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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;

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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

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.

I rent out a single-family home or condominium I own
in Concord. Does the new Ordinance control how much
I can charge for rent?
1 No, the Ordinance does not control how much you charge for rent for single-family homes or condominiums.

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 corporation, or (c) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.

In these instances, State Law limits rent increases to the lesser of 5% + regional CPI (Consumer Price Index) or 10%.

Do the Just Cause for Eviction protections in the new
Ordinance apply to the single family home or
condominium I rent out in Concord?
2 Yes, Just Cause for Eviction protections do apply to single-family homes and condominiums.
3 I’ve heard that I must pay my tenant to move out (as a Just Cause protection), is that true?
It depends. You DO NOT have to pay a tenant who moves out voluntarily, or who is served a termination notice for an at-fault, just cause reason. Some of the most common at-fault, just cause reasons for why a tenant receives a termination notice include: non- payment of rent, violation of a major clause in the lease, or creation of a nuisance or criminal activity.

You DO have to assist a tenant who is asked to relocate permanently for a no fault, just cause reason. The no-fault just cause reasons that require a permanent relocation assistance to be provided to the tenant include: owner move-ins, Ellis Act evictions, compliance with government orders and intent to demolish the unit. Please note: an intent to substantially remodel the unit is also one of the approved just cause reasons provided in the ordinance but this DOES NOT require a relocation assistance to be paid to the tenant.

Single Family Homes/Condominiums

RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Attachment 2

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
My lease has ended, and I’d like my tenant to move
out. May I require that?
No, you may not require a tenant to vacate your house or condominium 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.
5 If I must ask my tenant to relocate, how does that
work?
4 If the tenant is evicted permanently for a no-fault just cause reason, the Ordinance provides that relocation assistance payments of two times the current rent plus $2,000 must be paid to the tenant.
6 Is selling my home a just cause for eviction?
No, a sale of a home is not listed as a no fault just cause for eviction.

However, the ordinance does allow for the property to be removed from the rental market through the Ellis Act or for owner or relative move in once they have purchased the property, subject to certain requirements in the Ordinance for each type of cause.

To get more information on the requirements or to view all allowable causes for eviction, both for cause and no fault can be found in section 19.40.070 of the Ordinance.
7 If I issue a termination notice to the tenant of my single family home/condo, do I need to file the termination
notice with the City?
Yes. You must file the notice with the City within seven (7) calendar days of serving the notice on the tenant through the Rent Registry Portal or by email to [email protected]. The Rent Registry Portal can be accessed at www.cityofconcord.org/938/Residential-Rent-Registry-Program

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Do I have to register my rented single-family home or
condominium with the City of Concord?
Yes. No later than February 28, 2025, for Fiscal Year 2024-2025, you will be required to register your rented single-family home/condominium with the City’s Rent Registry and will be required to pay a fee of $29 per rented single family home/condominium. The Rent Registry portal can be accessed at https://cityofconcord.org/938/Residential-Rent- Registry-Program.
10 How can I contact the City of Concord’s Housing
Division if I have questions?
Please call our Tenant Protection Ordinance phone number at 925-671-5070 or email us at [email protected]. You may also visit our website at www.cityofconcord.org/rentprogram for more information on the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
8 The City of Concord and its Housing Staff cannot provide you with legal advice.

Anyone who is seeking housing counseling services should contact ECHO Housing.

Contact information for ECHO Housing can be found below.

ECHO Housing
22551 2nd St # 200,
Hayward, CA 94541
(925) 732-3919
Can the City of Concord provide legal advice?9

Rent Increase Caps in California
City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI cap Max Cap Min Cap (floor) Current Allowable
Rent Increase
(12/18/23)
State of CA - AB 1482 Tenant
Protection Act 5% + local CPI 10% N/A varies per region Alameda City 70% of CPI 5% 1% 2.90%
Antioch 60% of CPI 3% N/A 1.68%
Baldwin Park 100% of CPI 5% 1% 3.80%
Berkeley 65% of CPI 7% 0% 4.40%
Beverly Hills
(Chapter 6 tenancies) 100% of CPI N/A 3% 3.20%
Commerce 5% + local CPI 10% N/A 8.80%
Concord 60% of CPI 3% 0% 2.52% (2024-2025)
Culver City 100% of CPI 5% 2% 4.25%
East Palo Alto 80% of CPI 10% 0% 4.20%
Fairfax 60% of CPI 5% 0% 1.68%
Hayward 5% 5.00%
Inglewood
(5+ units) 100% of CPI 10% 3% 3.80%
Inglewood
(1-4 units) 5% + local CPI 10% 8.80%
Larkspur 5% + local CPI 7% 7.00%
Los Angeles City 100% of CPI 3% 3.20%
Attachment 3

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI cap Max Cap Min Cap (floor) Current Allowable
Rent Increase
(12/18/23)
Los Angeles County
(Unincorporated) 100% of CPI 8% 0% 3.00%
Los Gatos 70% of CPI 5% N/A
Mountain View 100% of CPI 5% 2% 5.00%
Oakland 60% of CPI 10% 3% 2.50%
Oxnard 4% N/A 4.00%
Palm Springs 75% of CPI
Pomona 100% of CPI 4% N/A 4.00%
Richmond 60% of CPI 3% 0% 3.00%
Sacramento 5% + local CPI 10% 9.20%
San Francisco 60% of CPI 3.60%
San Jose 5% 5.00%
Santa Ana 80% of CPI 3% 2.54%
Santa Monica 75% of CPI 3% 0% 2.80%
West Hollywood 75% of CPI 3% 0% 2.50%
Average 81.5% 5.0% 5.9% 1.1% 4.2%
Count (out of 29 listed
jurisdictions) 20 4 25 14 26

From: Melissa Cahn
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 2:10 PM
To: Concord City Council Email
Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Melissa Cahn
President
Feasible Properties Management, LLC
3 E 3rd Ave, Suite 200
San Mateo, CA 94401
(206) 595-1895
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Attachment 4

From: David Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 2:20 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Sincerely,
David Lee
Braddock and Logan

From: Aunjel Perry <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 2:36 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control

To whom it may concern.

Regarding the email below here’s my suggestion.

Yearly rent increases should not be allowed. Tenants do not get a guaranteed yearly pay increase.

Keep rent affordable in Concord so cost of living goes down and people can live more comfortably.

It’s hard enough to survive out here these days, don’t be part of the problem. Thank you

Sincerely,

Aunjel Perry

Concord City Council to Reconsider Rent Control Ordinance

At the request of newly elected Councilman Pablo Benavente, the Concord City Council voted 4-1 to discuss the city's newly implemented and problematic rent control ordinance. The City Council is seeking your feedback on the following provisions:
• How the ordinance should apply, if at all, to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums, and
• Whether changes should be made to the allowable annual rent increase cap from what is currently defined in the ordinance.

Concord rental housing providers and operators are encouraged to attend the Concord City Council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 4, at 6:30 p.m. and testify about their experiences and concerns.

The Feb. 4 meeting presents an opportunity to amend the ordinance to limit its scope, potentially exempt some rental homes, and/or modify the rent cap. The California Apartment Association and housing providers continue to emphasize that limiting increases to 60% of CPI is not sustainable and must revert back to the statewide cap of 5% plus CPI.

If you agree that the rent control ordinance is punitive, and a rent cap of 2.8% (current allowable rent cap in Concord) hinders your ability to provide rental housing, then attend this meeting because the city wants to hear from you.

To get involved
• What: Concord City Council on potential rent control modifications • When: Tuesday, Feb. 4, at 6:30 p.m.
• Where: Concord City Hall – 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord • How: Speak in person. You may watch online, but testimonies are limited to in-person only.

The agenda and staff report will be released by Friday, Jan. 31. In the meantime, please email the City Council supporting their vote to reopen the discussion on this punitive ordinance.

Suggested Email to City Council
To: [email protected]
Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance 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.

Problems reading this email? View it online.

About CAA • Media • Contact
toll free: (800) 967-4222 • Email us
Preferences
© 2025 California Apartment Association
All rights reserved.

From: Tom Coleman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 3:19 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Ordinance

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is s a f e.”

Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,

As housing providers we applaud the courage of some of the council to look at this situation with sober consideration for what it actually means to sustainably provide decent housing. Today’s costs related to any housing are escalating incredibly fast. A rent cap any more regressive than the state’s will guarantee that rental housing will gradually go away.

Furthermore, regulating single family homes is totally unfair to mom and pop seniors who have managed to keep a family home they can rent, to enable a secure retirement! 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.

Terri and Tom Coleman
from my iPhone

From: Murthy Sama <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 3:48 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council,

Agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4, 2025. The city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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 to City Council members being open to reconsideration. As housing provider(s) welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Regards

Murthy Sama

From: CalproManager <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:25 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: [email protected]

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.

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:38 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Concord City Council to Reconsider Rent Control Ordinance

Please below for a message from a Concord housing provider. I was asked to forward this to you.

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

Find out how we're working for you.

CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening

From: Kevin Schaefer <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 5:07 PM
To: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord City Council to Reconsider Rent Control Ordinance I believe: that the rent control ordinance is punitive, and a rent cap of 2.8% (current allowable rent cap in Concord) hinders your ability to provide rental housing, then attend this meeting because the city wants to hear from you.

I I believe we have a 4 to 5,000,000 shortage of housing in the United States and that number comes from the United States government itself. One of the big obstacles to housing in America are building apartments like to see City Of Concord. They charge you thousands of dollars to come in and write up repairs that don’t necessarily have to be anything to do with the health and safety of the tenant. Ridiculous. I’m trying to replace a 67 square-foot deck for example it’s 67 ft.² and 8 feet off the ground.The permit was $700. They made me get an engineer report which cost $3000 per deck. The permit was $700. They made me get a engineer report which cost $3000 per deck. This is insanity. Nobody’s gonna wanna own property in Concord. Common sense regulation needs to be implemented. You see the revolution that’s going on in the United States, where the hand of the city of Concord and other cities in America, too broad too heavy, too excessive and needs to be changed.

The register for tenants is ridiculous. I have tenants that don’t have documents and they’re scared to death to have anything be public. I got calls today. That immigration came and did a raid at one of my complexes. You’re just helping the abuse of normal hard-working people what is wrong with you resend the registry and all the paperwork that you’re making people fill out. It’s ridiculous.

From: Sridhar Kunisetty <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 8:01 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please Reconsider Support of Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4, 2025. The city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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 to City Council members being open to reconsideration.

As a housing provider, I welcome this change in your decision-making process.

regards
Sridhar

From: Sailaja Ramireddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 8:16 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

From: Sailaja Ramireddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 8:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

From: Ram Sripathi <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 9:14 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,

Agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4, 2025. The city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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 to City Council members being open to reconsideration. As housing provider(s) welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Regards

Ram Sripathi

From: Krishna Palvadi <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 9:37 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordiance Dear Mayor and City Council,

Agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4, 2025. The city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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 to City Council members being open to reconsideration. As housing provider(s) welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Regards
Krishna Palvadi

From: Ravi Mannem <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 9:28 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council,

Agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4, 2025. The city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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 to City Council members being open to reconsideration. As housing provider(s) welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Regards,
Ravinder Mannem

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:00 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control

Please do not add condominiums and single family rental homes to rent control measures that mandate lower rates than the state mandated 5% plus inflation.

HOA fees are going up far in excess of inflation as buildings age with insurance, supplies, labor and interest costs also skyrocketing.

Rents are already well below the cost of ownership due to interest expense alone. A $500,000 dwelling at 7% is near 100% of current rents in the Concord market, just for interest expense.

It is difficult to be a housing provider when costs exceed rent control limits and rental income. Something has to give and usually maintenance, repair and upgrades are deferred and housing stock deteriorates.

Steve Moore
Marnicore, LLC

From: Sanjay Gongalore <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 12:36 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,

I agree with your decision to reconsider the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4, 2025. This ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

Please re-evaluate 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 to City Council members being open to reconsideration.

Regards,
--
Sanjay Gongalore

From: Bay Area Rentals <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 7:38 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Kind regards.

NOTICE: This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you.

From: Barbara Cahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 7:44 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Sincerely,
Barbara G Cahn
Feasible Properties, LLC

From: Brett Starczewski <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 8:04 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Sincerely,

Brett Starczewski

Brett Starczewski, CPM
Executive Vice President
Castle Management Company
12885 Alcosta Blvd. Suite A.

San Ramon, CA 94583
O (925) 328-1240 X 236, C (925) 719-7139
[email protected]
Website: www.castlemanagement.com

From: Aryeh Aslan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 8:12 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Thank you,
Aryeh Aslan

From: Gayle Ansell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 9:48 AM
To: Cityinfo <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control

Please read my letter attached
this program needs to be stopped
as with the insurance issues and the
fires is not the time please
Gayle Ansell

From: Amber Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a property owner and landlord of a single family residence with an attached ADU in Concord. I agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4. I maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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.

Respectfully,
Amber S. Martin

--
Amber S. Martin

From: Emmanuel Pun <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:22 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,

We agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on February 4. We continue to maintain that the city’s current 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.

We would also like to bring to your attention that the rents we are currently charging are significantly below the current fair market value. We urge the city to consider allowing housing providers the opportunity to adjust rents to fair market value or a reasonable rate of
adjustment before rent control is put into effect. Without this flexibility, housing providers, faced with all the restrictive ordinances, will find it increasingly difficult to continue operating in this environment.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and to the City Council members who are open to reconsideration. As housing providers, we welcome this change in your decision-making process and are hopeful for a more balanced approach moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Emmanuel Pun
-- PUNS & ASSOCIATES INC
Consulting Structural Engineers
280 La Prenda
Millbrae, CA. 94030
Cell : 415-218-5710

From: Ron Navarra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:45 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Concord Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Sincerely,
Ron Navarra

From: luyang liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: City of Concord
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.

From: Rao Panuganti <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Rao Panuganti
Phone #: 408-655-3371

From: Jack Garland <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:49 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Jack Garland

From: Venkat R <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 12:12 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance 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.

Regards,
Venkat Ravikanti

From: Mark Just <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 12:19 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

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.

Thanks,
Mark Just

Mark Just|LEDG Capital, LLC
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 565, Los Angeles, CA 90024 [email protected] | C: (310) 625-8519

From: Grace Baek <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 1:26 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance 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.

Best,
Grace

From: sherry topete <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 8:10 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE

DEAR MEMBERS OF CITY OF CONCORD COUNCIL, AS A MOM & POP OWNERS OF RENTAL

PROPERTIES IN CONCORD IT WAS REALLY DISTRESSING TO FIND OUT THIS ORDINANCE HAD

PASSED,
OUR RENTS ARE BELOW OF WHAT TODAY'S STANDARDS ARE.

WITH THE BIG BLOW ON HOW PROPERTY INSURANCE HAS SKY ROCKETED AND YEARLY INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES, PGE AND SO ON. WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RAISE RENTS VERY CONSERVATIVE AND CONCIOUSLY FOR OUR TENANTS. MOST OF OUR TENANTS HAVE

BEEN RENTING WITH US MORE
10+ YEARS.

ITS A GUT PUNCH TO US PERSONALLY .

PLEASE RECONSIDER THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD
NOT BE A BLANKET RATE ON ALL OWNERS.

WE WORK HARD TO MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECONSIDERATION,

RAFAEL AND SHERRY TOPETE, MGR/OWNERS
R. TOPETE PROPERTIES
Agenda Item No. 3.a
Benched Correspondence
February 4, 2025

From: Jim Basuino <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 9:29 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,
I agree with your decision to discuss the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4. The city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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.

Specifically, it is unjust that the city council grants an increase in garbage rates in excess of 10% while limiting rent increases to 60% of CPI. Water rates, utilities costs, and interest costs continue to rise in excess of CPI. Also, not allowing rent increase banking essentially forces many landlords to impose rent increases when they would otherwise not.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. As a housing provider, I welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Jim Basuino

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 12:15 PM
To: Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Gentry, Mindy <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; McDonald, Suzanne <[email protected]>
Subject: Tenant Protection Ordinance Item for Feb 4--requested information

This e-mail is being shared with all Councilmembers and benched for Tuesday Night’s Council meeting

Councilmembers,

The City is beginning to receive e-mails from residents about next Tuesday night’s Tenant Protection item. Of e-mails received to the Council e-mail box, almost all of them either exactly match the e- mail below or closely match it. As of my writing this e-mail, we have around 40 of them. They will all be posted to the website for the meeting and distributed to the Council prior to next week’s meeting (along with any others that come in on time).

I’ve also attached a memo on the cost and staffing related to implementing the Tenant Protection Ordinance that was shared with Council during the Ordinance development phase. Recently, Councilmember Benavente asked for this information.

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: Krishna Palvadi
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 9:37 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordiance

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is s a f e.”

Dear Mayor and City Council,

Agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4, 2025. The city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

I 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 to City Council members being open to reconsideration. As housing provider(s) welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Regards
Krishna Palvadi

City of Concord
Community Development Department Memorandum
DATE: February 27, 2024
TO: Valerie Barone, City Manager
FROM: Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: Rent Registry Fee Summary
The Council introduced a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance on February 13, 2024, and anticipates second reading on March 5, 2024, which will result in an Ordinance go-live date of April 4, 2024. While the tenant protections and regulations go-live as of April 4, 2024, the City has delayed accepting tenant and property owner petitions until October 2024, to allow time for the hiring and training of new staff to assist with the implementation of the program.

Council has directed staff to ensure that the program is full-cost recovery.

Consequently, implementation of this more robust set of regulations will require an increase to the City’s rent registry fees.

In short, in FY 2024-25, the program is anticipated to cost $684,000 and program revenues are projected to be $690,000.

The proposed fees for property owners to be part of Rent Registry in FY 2024-25 are:
 Partially covered unit (i.e., a unit subject to Just Cause for Eviction regulations only):
o FY 2024-25: $29 per unit
 Fully covered unit (i.e., a unit subject to both Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction regulations):
o FY 2024-25: $47 per unit

ANALYSIS
Below is information outlining the City’s projected costs to implement the new program and anticipated revenues, based on the proposed rent registry fees.

Rent registry fees are collected on a fiscal year basis, so the fees Council is being asked to adopt as part of its mid-year budget actions will apply to the rent registry for Fiscal Year 2024-25.

Attachment 7

Program Costs
Total FY 2024-25 program operating costs are projected to be $684,000. Table 1 below shows the components of the costs and the text below Table 1 more fully describes each cost center.

TABLE 1: PROGRAM COSTS
Cost Center FY 2024-25
Staff (equates to 3 full time
staff members—but only

2.5 are staff additions)
$459,000
Rent Registry Software
Administration (the
purchase, start-up and
implementation of the new
rent registry software)
$ 140,000
Hearing Officer (this will
be provided through a
contract with an
independent, professional
hearing officer(s))
$ 25,000
Outreach and Education
(costs associated with
translating materials into
languages other than
English and mailings)
$ 20,000
Tenant/Landlord
Housing Counseling
(costs associated with
tenant counselors and
tenant legal support
contracts)
$ 40,000
Total $ 684,000
Staff:

City staff time would be required to administer the rent registration program and the rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policy provisions. These activities include, but are not limited to, compliance monitoring, processing petitions, work with a program administrator, drafting communication and conduction outreach/training with the public, responding to public inquiries, managing program contracts, and managing hearings and production of related reports. Staff will also be required to process rent registry payments, conduct follow up, perform collection efforts and process property liens when required.

These new responsibilities require the addition of two and a half new staff positions: a full-time Housing Program Analyst position, a full-time Administrative Secretary position,

and a half-time Account Clerk II position. Additionally, the two existing Housing staff (the Housing Manager and the Housing Program Analyst) will allocate 25% of their time to the rent registry and tenant protection programs.

In other words, three full-time equivalent staff positions are necessary to run the new programs, and 2.5 of the 3 positions will be new staff additions. New staff would need to be hired shortly after program adoption.

Rent Registry Software Administration:

The Rent Registry software administration will be more expensive in FY 2024-25 than the following years, as it includes start-up costs. Specifically, staff and the new software provider will need to design, deploy, train, and integrate data from the previous rent registry software as part of launching the new software. Once the new Rent Registry software is up and running, only the cost to maintain the software system and program would continue. As a result, it will cost the City $140,000 in FY 2024-25 and $90,000 in the following four years. The contract to purchase the new software system will be before Council on March 26, 2024.

Hearing Officer:

The City Attorney is working to identify and contract with professional, independent hearing officers to serve this function for the City of Concord. Hearing Officers will only be paid when assigned to resolve an appeal. The cost on average for an assigned hearing officer is anticipated to be approximately $5,000 per petition case. Based on information compiled from comparable jurisdictions, staff anticipates receiving five petitions in the first year (FY 2024-25), with an average of 38 petitions annually thereafter. These numbers translate to an estimated costs of $25,000 in the first year and $190,000 thereafter.

There are no costs to the tenant to file a petition; the costs are carried by the program.

Property owner petitions require the establishment of a reimbursement account with the City upon filing of a petition. The original amount collected will be $5,000, and all costs for hearing the petition will be paid from the reimbursement account. If the account drops below $1,000 dollars, the petitioner will be required to add funds to the account.

No decision will be rendered until the full costs of the decision are paid by the property owner. Any funds still in the account after completion of the hearing will be returned to the property owner. Property owner petition costs and revenue are not factored into the cost or revenue for the program as they are required to be full cost recovery at the time they occur.

Outreach and Education
A new ordinance will require the creation of various documents and resources for public use including, but not limited to, petition and other legal forms, program and resource flyers, training materials for the rent registry, community workshop materials, a program handbook, frequently asked questions and a dedicated webpage. Many of these items will be translated into Spanish. A citywide educational program flyer will be mailed to

every residential mailbox as the new regulations begin and in subsequent years information will be included annually the City newsletter that is mailed to all Concord addresses—as well as other standard forms of communication with the community.

The $20,000 cost projection relates to the cost of translation services, material production costs, and mailing costs.

Tenant/Landlord Housing Counseling
Staff anticipates a significant and on-going need for program education, housing counseling, and legal services. The City has existing contracts for tenant and landlord counseling and for tenant legal advice through ECHO Housing. Based on information collected from comparable jurisdictions, staff anticipates that ECHO Housing will receive a significant increased volume of requests for providing tenants and property owner counseling, including increased requests for legal support to tenants. Consequently, staff anticipates increasing expenditures in this category from the current annual contribution of $10,000 to $40,000 a year.

Program Revenue/Cost to Property Owners
Total FY 2024-25 revenues are anticipated to be $684,000.

To establish appropriate fees for those units covered by both rent control and just cause for eviction protections, i.e., “fully-covered units,” and those units only subject to just cause for eviction protections, i.e., “partially-covered units,” staff evaluated how the program will be administered.

The costs of program administration are proposed to be allocated among three layers: a general “program” layer (calculated at 55% of costs), a “just cause for eviction” layer (20% of total costs), and a “rent stabilization” layer (25% of costs). Such allocations correspond with the amount of resources anticipated to be spent administering each component of the program. Table 2 illustrates this concept and identifies key example tasks associated with each program component. This list is not exhaustive; the tasks below are identified for illustrative purposes only.

TABLE 2. FEE LAYERS AND EXAMPLE ASSOCIATED TASKS
Program Layer (55%)—Applies to all units in the program (approximately 18,100 units)  Departmental administration and management
 Database development and maintenance
 Rent Registry administration (software and software management costs)  Public education and outreach
 Housing counseling and legal services
 Billing and collection of the Rent Registry Fee
 Preparing reports

Just Cause for Eviction Layer (20%)—Applies to all units in the program (approximately 18,100 units)
 Administration of permanent and temporary relocation
 Assistance provisions
 Administration of Ellis Act provisions
 Administration of eviction-related complaints
Rent Stabilization Layer (25%)—Applies to only those units subject to rent stabilization (approximately 9,200 units)
 Administration of petitions and hearings
The FY 2024-25 Program Costs translate into the following Rent Registry Fee ranges:
 Partially covered unit:
o FY 2024-25: $29 per unit
 Fully covered unit:
o FY 2024-25: $47 per unit
Based on these fees, it is anticipated that the City will collect approximately $690,000 in FY 2024-25. Staff will evaluate actual costs and actual revenue prior to proposing fees to the Council for Fiscal Year 2025-26; FY 2025-26 fees will return to Council next year in 2025 as part of the next mid-year budget update.

From: Avneet Kahlon <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 2:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Reconsider rent Cap rate and who it is applicable to

Dear Council Members,

I have been a rental property owner and empathize with city having tried to rein in rent increases. I take pride that our tenants stay with us long term. Three of my tenants, 13+ years! We did/do not pass rent increase every year. Now we will be forced to.

However, the mechanism of rent "cap in name of control" used is and will continue to be detrimental to city's real estate stock. Think falling apart cities like Berkeley, Richmond, etc.

A higher rent cap would still be incentive for big apartment owners to keep their properties well maintained and provide good housing to Concordians. Eg. FPI is Foreign Portfolio Investment. If corporate entities, FPI, large number of unit owners ( say greater than 20) etc. have rent cap, general rent for other property owners will be set by that market.

The rent cap should not be applied to owners of 4plex or smaller units as they are owned by individuals and costs of maintaining are higher due to lack of scale/number of units.

I will try to attend the Tuesday meeting to represent my concern.

Regards,
Avneet

From: eric haynes <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 3:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Subject: 2-4-2025 Agenda Item 3.a.

I would like the council to consider some alternatives for Single Family Homes and Condominiums/Townhomes. Our concern should be for individuals that have moved up from a home into another home and kept their old house as a rental to provide extra income, or so that they have a place left in the area to move back into if they needed to move out of the area for work or other reasons and then need to come back.

We need to consider exemptions for individuals that will sign under penalty of perjury law that they own no more than 3 properties, anywhere. I think they should also be required to provide proof of residency in Concord at least 120 days prior to the property being rented out. I understand the city would potentially not have resources to investigate the validity, but at least it gives the city a tool if a citizen can prove the landlord lied.

Of coarse this would need much discussion to work through or if this can be legally done, but something needs to be adjusted to protect the good landlords that have been caught behind the eight ball by accident.

Thank You

--
Eric Haynes

From: Leslie Baxter <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 11:41 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: February 4 City Council Agenda - Item 3.a., Residential Tenant Protection Program

Dear Mayor, City Council Members and Staff,

This is not the time to alter the Residential Tenant Protection Program. More data is needed before any reasoned discussion can be had about how well the Ordinance is being implemented. The City cannot even know the practical reach of the Ordinance until after the deadline for landlords to register their units, on February 28. Even after the first year rollout, it will be impossible to find trends that would justify a change in the law. The City Council is slated to review the first-year data in March. That makes sense, but changing an Ordinance that has no significant track record does not.

The City Council enacted the Residential Tenant Protection Program to benefit all of Concord; Stable housing means stable families and communities. Councilmember Benavente's concern in placing this review on the Agenda may be that some unknown number of individual landlords renting (now or in the future) a single family home or condo feel that the just cause for eviction provisions of the Ordinance will overburden them. The just cause provisions of Concord's Ordinance do apply to "mom and pop" landlords, whereas the State's just cause for eviction protections exempt 'mom and pop' owned, i.e. not owned by a REIT, corporation, LLC, owned by a corporation or mobile home park. Any discussion of whether the Ordinance should be amended to include the State exemption is premature. The Staff Report admits that we only have a rough estimate of how many of Concord's rented housing units are homes or condos. There is no public data on how many of those units are owned by 'mom and pop' landlords. We won't begin to know that until landlords register their units on or before February 28, assuming that such information is even collected upon registration. The Staff Report offers no data suggesting that 'mom and pop' landlords renting homes and condos are extraordinarily overburdened by the relocation payments and moving stipends. The entire question is premature.

The City Council should not change the Allowable Annual Rent Increase. The Staff Report does not indicate that the rent increase terms are inappropriate. The annual procedures for calculating rent adjustments are firmly within the parameters applied by other California cities. Knowing that the current Allowable Annual Rent Increase is 2.52% gives tenants financial stability and control.

Discussing rent rates with only a weeks' notice merely invited the California Apartment Association to orchestrate a deluge of form letters, attacking the Residential Rent Protection Program as a whole. The City Council owes those Concord renters an assurance that the Ordinance will continue to protect them, as promised. The City's duty to renters is especially acute now, as federal ICE agents enter rental complexes in Concord and instill terror into the rental community. Renters are

hunkered down in silence, and may feel unsafe in voicing their opposition to changes to the Ordinance. Please bear this in mind, and remember your duty to provide long term stability for Concord renters, especially when they are under attack from hostile forces.

Best regards,
Leslie Baxter

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 11:39 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: February 2025 meeting

Please share this information with all city council members especial with Pablo Benavente my local representative.

Thank You
Larry Ribarich

September 08,2023
To: Concord City Council
CC: Pablo Benavente (My local representative)
From: Larry Ribarich Concord rental Property Owner
Regarding rent control discussions to Feburaryr Meeting regarding review of rent control issues.

I have been al small property owner in City of concord a 4 Plex since 1981. In all these years I never had to do an eviction or had a court case filed against me in all these years. I have many long term tenants over 10 years all below market rents. In the past 5 years due to changes in the City of Concord approach to rent control see in 2024 my bottom line in reserves for repairs and operating costs diminish to an all time low with minuscule financial reserves. Pressure on property owners with these new regulations;
1-limited rent increase at 2.52% plus roll back to July 2024 2- Rent Registry fees at $47 per unit my new cost at $188 3- Penalizing owners for renovations at a minimum of $10,000 per tenant 4- Narrowing allowable reasons for reclaiming possession of my property from renters 5-Increase fees per unit annual inspections
All these have passed to me it will put me out of business and out as a rental property owner.

City council has to understand the basis costs to operate our property with no cap on raising annual costs to operate as follows:

A) Property taxes rise annually at 1.25+%
B) Property insurance has raising 20% in last year and now new rate increase for 2025 C) PGE costs for building electric and natural gas to heat hot water has increased over 20% D) Garbage service increase every year at 18+%
E) Sewer rate fee increases on semiannual rate
F) Water costs have increased every year at 8+% with new rate increases proposed for 2025 G) A to F are just increases in flat rate and none of these costs include building maintenance due to tenant wear and tear or abuse to property when needed.

My development has 10- 4 Pex buildings with different owners all facing the same issues. As well as holding rent increases below 5%

There has to be a better way for the City of Concord approach to tenant issues other than property owners subsidizing the solution

Regards,
Larry Ribarich
925-260-7360

From: Lien <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2025 9:43 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Reconsider tenant protection ordinance

Hi,

Please reconsider the tenant protection ordinance in Concord for single family homes and condominiums. Most of us are hard working individuals/ families in the middle class who saved a long time to be able to purchase a rental unit or are using rental units to replace our income because we had to quit a 9 to 5 to take care of our children.My husband and I purchased a small 2 bed 1.5 bath unit and plan to rent it but the added cost of the annual fee and the stress of eviction fees we may need to pay to the tenant has caused me to think twice. We will not be making any money on this unit if we rent it. The HOA alone is $425 and will be going up every year. We don’t own the condo out right so we’re paying a mortgage. We also have to pay insurance, property tax, fees anytime someone moves in and out including cleaning, replacing things that are broken and handyman/ construction fees. We haven’t rented the property out yet but just to get it on the market we had to put in a lot of money to update the kitchen, add new light fixtures, add new windows and a sliding door, glaze the tile and tub, buy new appliances, buy curtains and blinds, fix and paint walls, and pay to clean the unit. There has been so many landlords selling in Concord already that the ordinance is doing the opposite of what it was intended to do. Landlords are selling so there are less rental units. Costs of rental units have increased so landlords will be increasing the rent.

Please reconsider.

Thank you,
Lien

From: Ken H <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 6:55 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control in Concord

We were going to buy student housing across the street from DVC, but with a 2.8% cap on rent increases my money is better left in a CD at 4% with no headaches, backed up toilets, heat, updating the property to 2025 standards.

The State has a law that’s 5% above CPI.

That starts to make sense. But the S&P 500 returns over 8%. Year after year.

What happens next?

People looking to invest in Concord will invest where they get a better return.

How about this. Commercial mortgage on a rental property is 7%.

When does your math work? What’s a reasonable return before Concord violates the US Constitution on effectively taking possession of a property without compensation?

Or will housing stagnate, become dilapidated and abandoned.

I understand 25% of the housing in Oakland is owned by the City. Abandoned by the owner because it required repairs the landlord couldn’t pass on to the tenant.

But the City kept raising taxes. Garbage, water, gas. All going up double digits.

And now Oakland is effectively bankrupt and has no money to care for all the housing it owns.

Will Concord become Oakland East?

I see No new apartments being build and the housing stock falling into disrepair. Let Oakland be your guide.

It’s your City. Landlords are out numbered what 8:1 when it comes time to vote.

If getting elected is more important….

I don’t own in Concord or Oakland. Anymore.

Ken

From: Judy Weil <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2025 6:35 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

I agree you your decision to open discussion of Concord's rent control ordinance. My gross rents have not increased in 2 years. My expenses have increased. My trash and recycling form 2023 to 2024 went up 15%.. My water costs increased 27% and insurance 4%. Far above the 2.8% rent cap. While I have been trying to improve the building I cannot afford to continue to own in Concord without reverting back to the statewide cap of 5% plus CPI on rents.

Sincerely

Judy Weil

925 788 4766

Royal Rd Concord CA.

From: Linda Giffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2025 12:19 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Robert Giffin <[email protected]>; Cole Giffin <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Support of reconsideration of Rent Control

We are a small family business that owns 32 units in Concord. We strive to provide a safe and clean building for our residents. We have owned these properties for over 25 years. Clearly the Council has no experience in what it takes to run apartments. In 2024 we were required to upgrade our entire electrical system with an expense just under $100,000. As the building ages more and more upgrades are required which is very costly. It takes years to recoup these expenses with normal rent increases. To limit our ability to raise rents for these expenses is unreasonable. We have always maintained reasonable rents and the majority of our tenants are long term residents. We are not the evil landlords that you make us out to be.

It’s shocking to me that you are even able to legally enforce rent control. Would you like someone dictating to you what you can charge in your businesses?

I am grateful that we finally have someone in the council with some common sense and that understands the issue. Thank you Councilmember Pablo Benavente for you help.

We are unable to attend the meeting but wanted our voice to be heard.

Sincerely

Robert and Linda Giffin
RLSC Properties LLC
925-787-3492

From: Ashok Chigullapally <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2025 2:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance 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.
-Ashok

From: Bob S <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 6:45 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: February 4 Concord City Council meeting on Rent control Dear Concord City Council

I am sending this email in regard to the Council meeting on February 4 to discuss rent control for single family homes.

Unfortunately, I will not able to attend this meeting in person, however, I would like my voice to be heard.

I will attend the zoom session, but not sure if there will be opportunity for our voices to be heard during the zoom meeting.

I am writing you to implore you to reconsider Just Cause eviction and rent control for single family homes.

We, Concord home owners are not corporate investors. Our house is our bread and butter and livelihood.

Just cause eviction clause impacts us negatively when dealing with bad tenants.

In addition, this law has adverse affect on our property values bringing it down.

Please reverse this law and give us back control to our properties.

Regards,
Babak Mosleh Sadri

From: Sara Emrich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 8:54 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council,

As housing providers we applaud the courage of some of the council to look at this situation with sober consideration for what it actually means to sustainably provide decent housing. Today’s costs related to any housing are escalating incredibly fast. A rent cap any more regressive than the state’s will guarantee that rental housing will gradually go away.

Furthermore, regulating single family homes is totally unfair to mom and pop seniors who have managed to keep a family home they can rent, to enable a secure retirement! 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.

Thank you,
Sara Emrich, MSN, AGACNP-BC, RNFA
Neurosurgery Nurse Practitioner
Cell: 925-408-6015

From: Weil, Jeffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 11:50 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Reasonable rent limits, ie 5-7%, apartment insurance, repairs, PG&E are skyrocketing costs

To: [email protected]
Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance 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.

My eight-unit apartment house on Galindo, a block from retail, walking distance to Bart, with a pool and carports has most of the units renting for only around $1,700/month. Many tenants have been here long-term, and it took me many years of saving up to purchase this rental property. My property insurance is going way up, PG&E keeps going higher and higher, and the cost of repairs only go up as well. Having a reasonable 5-7% cap on rents so I can at least cover my expenses and not lose money every month should make more sense than forcing small business folks like me to subsidize renters. That might be the government responsibility, but it should not be put on the small business person. Would you force the corner grocery store to sell milk at a loss? Force the gas stations to sell
gas below their cost?
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.

Jeffrey S. Weil
[email protected]

From: Cheryl Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 1:16 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: February 4, 2025 City Council Meeting

As a owner of one single family residence in Concord I oppose the Just Cause for Eviction ordinance. This residence has been in our family for nearly 60 years. We take pride in maintaining this residence like a owner occupied home. It provides income for our family in our retirement years as a supplement to Social Security.

As a common sense type person this ordinance has made no sense. While we have had only 3 renters over 15 years it does not make sense that when we enter into a contract, through a lease, that our obligation goes beyond the term of the lease. There may be many reasons why a landlord may ask a tenant to vacate after the lease - eviction for cause or otherwise. Even if a tenant needs to break a lease do we expect them to pay the landlord 3 months of rent, and the cost to re-rent the house? Absolutely, not. There may be many reasons why a landlord wants to rent out their home for a specific period. For example, in our family case, we may need to move back to our Concord home for medical reasons since we're in that age bracket. In our plans for the future what if we only want to rent out this home, for example, for another two more years. Does this mean we have to prepare to pay the Just Cause for Eviction penalties? That doesn't make sense. I could go on and on with examples, but I'll stop here.

If the City Council members want to do something more beneficial for the City of Concord and its residents I would suggest we focus on how landlords should be required to maintain their properties with some pride. There are to many run down front yards and homes that need TLC. I would like to see an ordinance that makes landlord's responsible for some type of minimal front yard landscaping that is maintained--not just keeping a whole yard of weeds cut down. Tenants should not be allowed to park cars in the front yard where landscaping should exist.

I believe that Concord's new regulations should not apply to a single family residence.

Thank you for listening.

Cheryl Harbaugh, co-owner
3343 Winthrop Street
Concord

From: Brian Ibarra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 2:13 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: Protect Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction!

As a renter and worker in Concord, I am deeply concerned to learn that the City Council is considering rolling back tenant protections and weakening an ordinance that has only been in effect for 10 months. This policy has not had sufficient time to be fully implemented or to demonstrate its effectiveness. Concord thrives when all families have access to stable, affordable housing. I strongly urge the Council to maintain the current rent cap of 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower, and to preserve the existing eviction protections.

Tenant protections are essential for all renters, whether in multi-unit buildings, single-family homes, or condos. It’s important to note that 43% of Concord renters reside in single-family homes or rented condos, and they deserve the same protections against unjust evictions as everyone else.

Exempting these housing types from the just cause ordinance would leave a significant portion of our community vulnerable and unprotected.

At a time when immigrant families are under attack, rolling back renter protections should NOT be a priority for the Council. Immigrant renters have been at the forefront of the fight for fair housing protections during this eight-year struggle against unjust evictions and soaring rents. The Council’s rushed review process risks exacerbating housing instability for immigrant tenants, particularly in a political climate that already threatens their safety and security daily.

Rather than undermining policies safeguarding immigrants, seniors, and working families, the City Council should focus on fostering community safety, belonging, and stability for all Concord residents. Now is the time to strengthen protections, not weaken them.

Brian Ibarra

Concord Resident

From: Eduardo Torres <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 3:47 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: re: Review Aspects of Tenant Protection Ordinance - 2/4/25 Eduardo Torres (
He/Him/El)
Northern California Regional Coordinator
Cell (925) 584-1969

Tenants Together - California’s Statewide Organization for Renters’ Rights https://tenantstogether.org
Tenant Rights Helpline
888-495-8020

Dear Concord City Council and Manager,
After an eight-year effort from a broad group of Concord residents to finally pass a rent stabilization and just-cause eviction ordinance less than a year ago, we have learned that the City Council plans to review this hard-fought set of tenant protections already. As advocates with extensive experience in local rent stabilization and tenant protection policy-making across the state of California, we are writing to you with questions and concerns about the intent and content of this proposed review.

While the ordinance requires an annual review of the rent cap (currently 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower), we were previously informed that the hearing for review of the law would happen on March 25th, a year after the law was passed. However, the new meeting is scheduled for this coming Tuesday, February 4th. We are concerned that the public has not been adequately notified about the reasoning behind accelerating this timetable, or the new date, and working people in particular will have difficulty making arrangements to speak on this accelerated timeline.

Tenant protections have been a priority for Concord residents since 2016 in light of widespread exploitation, unfair evictions and unreasonable rent increases. These issues disproportionately impact immigrant communities and people of color (although they are a concern for all Concord renters). Immigrant renters especially have been on the front lines of this 8-year long struggle for protections from unjust evictions and skyrocketing rents. Now, the Council's rushed review process puts immigrant tenants at risk of housing instability in the midst of a hostile political climate that already threatens their material safety on a daily basis. Instead of diluting sound policies that protect immigrants, seniors, and working families, our City Council should instead focus on ensuring community safety, belonging, and economic stability for Concord’s immigrants and renters.

According to the official notice, the first question under consideration is “How should the Ordinance apply, if at all, to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums?” Given that the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act already prevents rent stabilization from being enacted on these properties, we assume that the revocation of just-cause protections is under consideration here. It is increasingly standard practice to apply just-cause to all rental properties in cities that have them. In recent years, the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles have moved to make these protections universal, which has greatly simplified the regulatory environment around eviction process and practices for tenants, landlords, and courts alike. Landlords remain free to file evictions under just-cause as long as a legal cause is specified. Just-cause is particularly critical to curbing illegal forms of retaliation against tenants for lawful actions such as reporting inhabitable living conditions, an issue which has especially affected Concord tenants. For many years, we have heard from Concord tenants that they have been evicted without cause in retaliation for asking for basic repairs to their units or reporting serious habitability problems such as black mold and pest infestations. This is as grave an issue in single-family properties and condominium rentals as it is in any other housing type, and the rights to habitable living conditions under law as mandated by the State of California make no distinction on this front.

The second question under consideration per the official notice is “Should changes be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase Cap from what is currently defined in the Ordinance?” The Concord rent stabilization ordinance was enacted less than ten months ago and implementation and enforcement mechanisms in place for an even shorter time period. This is simply not an adequate period to conduct any sound analysis on economic impacts that are measured by serious policy research over longer periods of time. We see no compelling reason to diverge from the prior agreement for annual policy review, which is already an uncommonly stringent standard for a policy that was carefully crafted and enacted after eight years of deliberation.

Finally, we will note that Concord’s rent stabilization and just-cause policies were a crucial component of the 2023-2031 Housing Element that was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in order to

fulfill the city’s obligations to mitigate displacement risk and keep working-class families housed. Concord’s current policy is in line with the standard practiced by other California cities who have in recent years moved to tighten, not weaken, the rent increase formulae in their existing ordinances or in many cases adopted ordinances with a similar rent increase formula to Concord’s for the very first time. We ask that the City continue to maintain the anti-displacement obligations that they have already committed to the State.

We are happy to support the Council and City Manager’s office with any clarifying questions on rent stabilization and just-cause standards and practices in California.

Sincerely,
Eduardo Torres, Northern California Regional Coordinator Deepa Varma, Program and Campaign Director
Shanti Singh, Legislative & Communications Director
Tenants Together, California’ s statewide organization for renters’ rights

From: Mark Orcutt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 4:36 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Item 3A

Dear Members of the Concord City Council,

The East Bay Leadership Council (EBLC) is a nonprofit organization representing employers across Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. EBLC’s mission is to advance economic vitality and enhance the quality of life in the East Bay.

I’m writing today to express EBLC’s support of agendizing a discussion of the current Residential Tenant Protection Program. We have previously expressed concerns with the current system and believe that further examination is both timely and necessary to ensure balanced solutions that work for current and future residents of Concord.

We look forward to engaging with the Council and staff as this process moves forward and contributing to discussions on this important matter.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,
Mark Orcutt
President & CEO
East Bay Leadership Council

From: Murthy Sama <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 4:42 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Comments

Dear Council Members,

I want to thank you for considering to revisit the rent control ordinance. This is very important.

My Story:

I own a multi-family property in the City of Concord.

Insurance
In 2022, one of the tenants negligence caused fire in her unit. Luckily she carried insurance, and worked with my insurance company to make the claim, and the costs came close to 80K as we had to get the unit to the studs. My insurance company was fully compensated by the tenants insurance company.

After that, my insurance company refused to renew my insurance. The only policy was 450% higher – insurance jumped from about 7K to 35K. I am in dire situation of not knowing how to bridge the gap, as rent increases only give us about 5K for a year as our rents are low.

City of Concord Fees – Inspection / License / Rent Control Fees Unless you one has been living in a cave, you would understand that all costs are sky rocketing….even bare minimum increases by utility companies, and city fees cannot meet the rent increases. City of concord has new policy of inspections and they are going crazy with unlimited number of inspections costing us thousands of dollars. How much ever you keep updated, they keep on finding some minor issue and keep coming back so that they can bill us. This has become a major expense and scary one too.

Interest Rates:

Commercial properties do not get 30 year fixed interest rates. Now that the cheap rate periods have ended. The mortgage interest portion alone can double up with new rates. Not all have full paid off properties, and with the higher rates and no opportunity to increase rates, as owners we are in trouble.

The state has a rent control program that is quite protective to the tenants, and having another at city level is punishing owners for investing in the City of Concord. Request to please abolish the city level plan and have just the state level limits which are quite limiting too.

Regards

Murthy Sama
510-676-0985

From: Rita Akol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 4:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control
I am a landlord in Concord and am unable to attend the Feb 4 meeting to review current rent policies for Concord.

My hope is that you reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions. The current rent cap is unsustainable and this is a request to restore it to 5% plus CPI. - Insurance increased 50% for my rental
- Landscaping maintenance increased 20%
- The City of Concord has required us to register our units for a fee per unit - Fire extinguisher maintenance costs increased 15%
- PGE increased 18%

These are just examples and don’t take into account labor and material increases which are the major costs for landlords.

Thank you for revisiting these policies.

Rita Akol

Sent from my iPhone

From: Teri Darrenougue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 2:32 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item Feb 4, 2025 - Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for reconsidering the Rent Control Ordinance as it applies to single-family homes.

I am the landlord/owner of a single-family rental house in Concord, and I was dismayed when the Rent Control Ordinance was put forward and subsequently voted in. I lived in Walnut Creek at the time, so I was not eligible to sign petitions opposing the ill-thought-out ordinance.

For me, this ordinance meant two things: 1) I'd have to jump through a lot of hoops (which proved to be true, taking at least 10 hours of my time constantly checking in to see if the Rent Registry was open and then trying to figure out how to correctly register my unit), and 2) when the current tenants move out, I will be putting my house on the market for sale, as my friends did. They sold their rental house in Concord when they heard Concord's City Council was considering this ordinance and urged me to do the same because this ordinance is too onerous.

Too onerous! And I am a very good landlord. Over the years I have done minimal rent increases, I take care of the property, quickly responding to the tenants' concerns and requests, and we have had a very good relationship. But I do not want to own a rental property in a city that has put so many restrictions on landlords and left the door open for possible abuse by tenants, putting my retirement years in financial jeopardy.

I am thankful that the current city councilmembers are open to reconsidering this ordinance, in particular pertaining to single-family homes.

Very truly yours,
Theresa Darrenougue
Property owner of 1254 Hale Drive, Concord, CA

From: Doug Kell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:47 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE

Dear Mayor and City Council;

Thank you for your decision to have a further discussion February 4th on the city’s rent control ordinance. This ordinance is unjustifiable and should have been rejected.

The proposed rent cap is unsustainable and restrictive. The CPI does not take into account such things as property taxes which increase every year with higher assessments like school bonds, Concord sewer assessments, street lights, etc.

The CPI also does not take into account the huge increase in landlords cost of property insurance due to all the fires. Many property owners, including me, have been cancelled. Property insurance now costs three or four times what it used to be, if you can even find a company willing to write a policy!

Limiting rent increases to 60% of CPI won’t allow me to make a reasonable return on my investment. It needs to revert back to the statewide cap of 5% plus CPI.

My wife and I are not the rich, greedy landlords the media likes to portray. We only own two rental properties in Concord. They provide our retirement income. We have a good relationship with our three long term tenants and keep the properties in good condition. We don’t need the new proposed registration, fees, reporting, and restrictions (and fines for making a mistake).

Trying to read and understand the Rent Control Ordinance is a big headache.

It seems we need a lawyer to interpret it! We are elderly and trying to manage the properties ourselves. Trying to deal with this ordinance is just too much.

We feel we should be exempt from the rent control ordinance so that , as housing providers, we can continue providing housing for Concord renters.

Thank you for your consideration.

Douglas Kell
[email protected]
(925) 285-2477

From: Negar Moshir Fatemi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 10:17 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Requesting to Reconsider Rent Control Ordinance

Greetings,

As the representative of multifamily homeowners in the Concord and Antioch area, the City rent control ordinance just makes it so difficult for landlords to maintain the rental properties.

The properties have been struggling since Covid. The residents got into the habit of not paying rents and it's gotten worse with rental increase caps. Inflation in expenses has outpaced rent increase caps.

Our aim is to provide safe and comfortable homes for our residents with reasonable rents but we can't provide free housing for people.

Thanks for your consideration.

From: Larry Casagraande <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 5:04 PM
To: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Single Family Housing Rent Control

Correction…not rent control for SFR, I meant “Just Cause Eviction”

Thanks,

Larry

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 4:48 PM McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your comments. They will be inserted into the record, posted to the website, and sent to the City Council prior to the February 4th Council meeting.

Wendy McAuley
Executive Assistant | Office of the City Manager & City Council City of Concord | www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3038 | [email protected]

From: Larry Casagraande <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 1:44 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Single Family Housing Rent Control

Concord City Council -

My name is Larry Casagrande and I own a rental property in Concord. I’ve always had good tenants and I do NOt routinely raise rents. My philosophy is once you get a great tenant, you keep rents slightly below market rates to keep the tenant long term.

I do not agree with nor support your current rent control for single family homes in Concord! While apartments raise rents annually, many single family landlords do not! Please don’t punish the law abiding landlord for the few outliers out there who run multi-unit apartments!

Thank you,

Larry Casagrande

From: Ron Navarra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 5:14 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Concord Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4. I maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected. It’s at least unfair to small time fair and honest landlords like me who will most certainly not do business in Concord because the increasing cost of ownership alone makes it difficult to do business let alone your added burden of control. Let free market effect both owners and renters. I have always stayed and maintained rent within reasonable market rents. For example: how is fair that my taxes, insurance and maintenance continue to go up yet you, government, limit any increase I might have to consider passing on to my tenants?! I know that if I ask or demand too much I’m left with an empty rental. Lets us, the landlords an renters work it out. DON’T make decisions based on the few, small amount of landlords that might possibly make all landlords look bad.

Failure to fairly understand the owners point of view will only lead to less investment by small businesses in Concord.

BTW, when the last time you saw or read articles or research focused on the impact of owners verses renters? We deserve fair and equal consideration! I 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.

Sincerely,
Ron Navarra

From: Julie Gutzwiller <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 5:35 PM
To: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

Wendy, if helpful, here is link to data compiled by an economist identifying the negative impact of rent control on multifamily permits and thereby supply in St Paul and Minneapolis https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jay-parsons-a7a6656_housing-multifamily- apartments-activity-7197235865625010179-
CICZ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop.

Jay Parsons on LinkedIn: #housing
#multifamily #apartments | 11 comments
We&#39;re in the latter stages of the
nation&#39;s biggest multifamily
construction boom in 40+ years, and
it&#39;s amazingly sad to see how St. Paul,
Minnesota… | 11 comments on LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com

Thank you again,
Julie

From: Joel Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 4:27 PM
Subject: Review and Adjustment of Concord’s Rent Control Policy Dear Mayor Obringer and Honorable Council Members,

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the rent control ordinance enacted by the City of Concord in 2024. While I recognize the intent behind this policy, it has created significant challenges for rental property owners, tenants, and the overall housing market. The current allowable rent increase limits are unsustainable and fail to align with California state law, which permits an increase of 5% plus the percentage of CPI. The city’s policy does not account for the rising costs landlords face, including property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and inflation. By capping rent increases below the state standard, Concord is discouraging investment in rental housing and inadvertently reducing the quality and availability of rental units. Without the ability to adjust rents reasonably in line with expenses, property owners are placed in an untenable financial position that ultimately harms both renters and landlords alike.

I urge the Council to reconsider and amend Concord’s rent control ordinance to match state law.

Aligning with California’s statewide rent stabilization measures would strike a fairer balance between protecting tenants from excessive rent hikes and ensuring that property owners can maintain their investments responsibly. As elected representatives, you have a duty to implement policies that work for the entire community—not just a portion of it. I respectfully request that the Council take immediate action to address this issue and revise the ordinance to reflect a more equitable approach.

Furthermore, the Council is well aware of how active we, as rental property owners, are in our advocacy efforts. We are engaged, organized, and capable of making a significant impact when it comes to policies that affect our properties and livelihoods. Flawed policies such as this will not go unchallenged, and we will continue to make our voices heard through all available channels to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all stakeholders.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and to seeing the Council take steps to correct this flawed policy.

Sincerely,
Joel

Joel Kelly
Bay Apartment Advisors | President

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 8:14 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control, etc. Please distribute to Council members

Good Morning:

After being raised in Concord, and graduating from Clayton Valley High School, I found myself needing a supplement to my $600/social security check.

I chose to purchase an old four-plex in Concord in 2012. I am now sorry that I chose Concord.

The endless work that goes into being a landlord, can only be understood by a fellow landlord:

Landscape: Weeding, sweeping, removing dead plants, repairing sprinkler systems, installing tan bark.....

Laundry room: Cleaning out dryer lint, left by tenants. Sweeping, cleaning machines, maintaining machines when they break..

Hiring roto rooter when a tenant runs out of toilet paper and uses paper towel instead. Landlord must show up at any hour and pay the bill.

Upgrading outdated electrical sub-panels in 4 units plus laundry room Replacing broken hot water heaters at great inconvenience and expense.

Replacing broken furnaces at great inconvenience and expense.

Replacing refrigerators and stoves at great expense, when no longer functional.

Cleaning up/painting/replacing carpet after tenant vacates. Tenants usually get full security deposit refund. Everything is considered "Normal wear and tear. " Financial loss when units are between renters.

Collecting rent, banking, record keeping, submitting all receipts to CPA and paying expensive fees.

Posting vacancies on the internet, fielding inquiries, reviewing credit reports, and applications.

Showing the property to interested applicants at their convenience.

Drafting a long lease, all while trying to abide by strict guidelines and laws. Meeting new tenants to sign lease and do walk-thru.

The list goes on and on.......

In 2023, my total income from this complex was :

Rents collected: $65,406
Expenses: -$39,737

Profit: $25,669

I was only able to keep 40 cents out of every dollar!

Now the City of Concord has enacted a rent control ordinance that will barely keep up with increases in yearly expenses:

Property Taxes
Insurance
Utilities

I wish I had bought a four-plex in Benicia, a "Landlord Friendly" town. They require NO:

Yearly Rent registration
Yearly inspections (paid for by Landlord)
Outrageous rent control restriction

It's time for the City of Concord to remove this Rent Control Ordinance and follow the guidelines set by the State of California.

Additionally, I firmly believe that the proliferation of Air b n b's has removed a large number of rental properties from the long-term rental market.

They are not required to register, receive inspections, or adhere to any rent control measures. I personally know of a single family home near Mt. Diablo Hospital, that looks normal from the outside, but is actually housing 4 single air b n b units. I have been inside one of the units. It is beautiful and expensive, but probably operating under the radar of the City of Concords rental requirements.

From: Emerald Properties <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:21 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting Note
To City Clerk:

Good Afternoon,
With reference to the City Council discussions on Tuesday February 4th, relative to Residential Tenant Protections, please forward my comments, shown below, to City Council prior to 3:00pm on February 4th.

Good evening, Concord Mayor, City Council members and staff, I’m John Sullivan. For almost 40 years we have owned and operated, what is now an older, and larger apartment community, consisting of 300 apartments, here in Concord.

Older apartments – high maintenance costs, faced with the need for updated kitchens, bathrooms, etc. plus huge Insurance increases, roofing and painting, etc. make it impossible to live with this 60% of CPI Rent Increase Regulation. We need at least a 5% rent cap to properly maintain and upgrade this nice complex to standards befitting our city.

Will everyone have to pay 5%? No. A tenant who moves in say in November, does he automatically receive a 5% increase a year later? No. This market doesn’t always increase by 5% each year.

Anyhow, having spent a small fortune renovating and upgrading his apartment, we don’t want him to move. Typically, he gets a 2% or 3% or no increase.

Long term Tenants Not Paying Full Rent – Having owned this property so long we have several Tenants who pay $500-$800, many over $1,000 below market price. We value them as good tenants and want them to stay. Many of them are older residents.

Affordable Housing – This is our contribution towards affordable housing. Please, please increase this cap to 5% at least, so that we can continue to help these people and continue to maintain this property.

Again, as a longtime Housing Provider in Concord, I know many of my colleagues who own Rental Properties here in Concord and who also give concessions to older tenants as I do. Please don’t derail that concept and don’t force them to neglect the upkeep and maintenance of their properties.

Thank you,
John Sullivan
510-538-9496

From: Joey Flegel-Mishlove <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 10:00 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Subject: EBHO Supports Maintaining Current Rental Ordinance Protections

Dear City Clerk and Councilmembers,

Attached, please find public comment from East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) regarding item 3a on tonight's City Council agenda. EBHO opposes exempting single family homes from the ordinance's just cause for eviction protections and supports maintaining the current level of allowable rental increases.

Thank you,
Joey Flegel-Mishlove

--

Joey Flegel-Mishlove (he/him)
Policy Associate

EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
[email protected] | (414) 899-4452
538 9th Street, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612
Join us or renew your membership to continue EBHO's 40 years of working towards an East Bay where everyone has a safe, stable, accessible, and affordable home!

February 3, 2025

Carlyn Obringer, Mayor

Laura Nakamura, Vice Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Pablo Benavente, Councilmember

Re: EBHO Maintains Support for Residential Tenant Protection Program in its Current Form Dear Concord City Councilmembers,
On behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO), we write to express our conviction that Concord’s current Residential Tenant Protection Program is a fair, just, and necessary ordinance; and that staff should not be directed to exempt single-family homes from the ordinance’s Just Cause for Eviction protections, nor to alter the Allowable Annual Rent Increase currently defined by the ordinance.

EBHO is a nonprofit, membership-based organization working to produce, preserve, and protect affordable housing opportunities for low-income communities across Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Many of our 400+ individual and organizational members live, work, or provide affordable homes in Concord. We were proud to collaborate with the City of Concord as well as numerous community groups on creating Concord’s Residential Tenant Protection Program which was formally adopted in March, 2024. The City Council worked diligently with community members to craft an ordinance that offers critical protections to tenants while maintaining Concord’s status as an excellent city in which to develop, own, and lease residential property.

We must be clear as the City explores potential amendments to this ordinance, that the discussion is about two distinct protections offered by the ordinance which impact distinct sets of landlords and tenants:
 The Cap on Allowable Annual Rent Increases does not apply to single family homes. Under current law, there are no restrictions on how much the owner of a single family home or condominium may raise the rent for their property in any given year. Landlords of single family homes or condominiums claiming that the Rent Increase Cap is “unsustainable and restrictive” are misstating the impacts of the Ordinance on their particular properties.

 The Just Cause for Eviction protections do apply to all properties in the city that are not fully exempt from the Ordinance. These protections are distinct from the Rent Control portion of the Ordinance and require that when a renter is forced to leave their home, the landlord must either have a legally justifiable reason for forcing the renter to move; or, if the landlord is unable to provide such justification, they must provide some amount of financial support to that renter in finding a new home.

Both of these protections, in their current forms and applied to their respective audiences, are appropriate, just, and critical to maintaining a safe and stable living environment for all Concordians.

Eviction is a traumatic experience that has been linked to significant negative outcomes in health, economic stability, and educational outcomes for youth. Of course, eviction’s most devastating consequence is homelessness. With eviction listed as one of the leading causes of homelessness in Contra Costa County’s 2023 homelessness Point-In-Time Count, our city has the responsibility to do everything it can to prevent unjust evictions in our community.

Forty-three percent (43%) of homes that are rented in Concord are single-family residences or condominiums.

Exempting these properties from our Ordinance’s Just Cause for Eviction protections would strip tenants and families in 7,800 homes of their protections, stability, and certainty that they will be able to stay in their homes.

There is no reason the owners of single-family homes should not have to meet the same standard for displacing someone from their home as other landlords. These property owners still have the right to evict someone for several well defined reasons, short of this, it is reasonable to require landlords to provide some assistance to tenants forced to move for reasons completely outside of the tenant’s control. We urge the Council not to direct staff to amend the applicability of this section of the Ordinance.

With regard to the Rental Increase Cap provisions of the Ordinance, we maintain that there is no evidence at this time to suggest the Cap is unreasonable, unjust, or harmful to the economic wellbeing of the Concord Community. While the Ordinance was formally adopted in March, 2024, it did not go into effect until April, 2024.

Furthermore, the staffing to enforce the Rental Increase Cap provisions of the Ordinance was only put into place in October of 2024. Altogether, the Rental Increase Cap has only been an enforceable policy for about four months. In this time, no evidence has been collected or presented to suggest the City erred in setting the Rental Increase Cap at its current level, or that that Cap has had any harmful impacts on our community. If the City wishes to adjust this Cap, it should be based on real evidence, collected after the Ordinance has been in effect for a meaningful period of time, demonstrating that the current Cap level has had a harmful impact on our community.

While we understand that some landlords are concerned about the Cap on Rental Increases, we do not believe those concerns have manifested into real harms for our community. We are mindful of the fears and economic precarity that many of our community members face, but note that landlords maintain a right to a fair return on their investment under the California Constitution and are offered a process to increase their rents above otherwise allowable levels to collect this return under the Rental Ordinance. Tenants, meanwhile, who are on average much lower-income, more likely to be immigrants, and more likely to be people of color, are offered no such guarantees of financial stability or increases in wages to keep up with the cost of living. It is up to you then, as the decision makers in our community, to ensure that tenants too are able to maintain some basic levels of affordability and stability. We can do so by guaranteeing that, as long as they play by the rules, no tenant will face a sudden, forced, or unexpected displacement from their home.

Sincerely,
Joey Flegel-Mishlove Megan Nguyen
Policy Associate Policy Manager

From: Linda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:37 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions

Dear Sir,

As a property owner in Concord, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause eviction provisions implemented by Concord city government.

Rent control and just cause eviction provisions will not only push the investors away and also punish the good tenants, and most importantly, they will make the difficult rental market even worse.

Thanks,

Linda

Sent from my iPhone

From: Dan Pan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:30 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: please reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions

Dear Staff of Concord:

The current rent cap is unsustainable. Please consider to restore the rent cap to 5% plus CPI to align with state housing policies. Housing providers have been hit hard by COVID. We are still operating our rental properties without any profit. This is not sustainable.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best!

Dan

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Holly Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 8:13 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Feedback on Potential Changes to Rent Control Ordinance

Hello City council
Happy New Year! Thank you for your effort to reconsider the Rent Control Ordinance.

I have the following comments, Thank you!

1. For the properties rental income far below HUD standard, suggest to align with the state law rent cap to 5% plus CPI

I am a realtor at east bay, I have been working on buying multiple families for my client for a few years. Most of the concord multiple families built around 1960-1970 and categorized as Class C property. As I know, the typical 2 bedroom/1 bath, 700-800 Sqft apartment rent is around $1600- 1700/month, some even lower, only above $1000. 3% rental caps will make the property owner can't survive with the increased expense(insurance, pg&e, water and sewer, property tax and maintenance).

You can see the expense below for fourplex(4 unit):

Property tax : over $1000/month

Utility (Water/Garbage/PG&E)= over $1000/month
Insurance(tripped): $300/month
Repair: 150/unit/month , 150 x4 =$600/month
City inspection: few hundred to thousands depend on the unit number and how many times pass the inspection.

Total expense is over Rental income

Income: 1600 x4 = 6400/month
Mortgage: 600K mortgage with the historial lowest rate 3.5% is even over $3000/month. Now the rate is 7%

2.The rental control will push investors to leave Concord. My clients and myself will not consider buying investment property at Concord anymore as losing money here.

This will increase the rental house shortage at Concord

3. Suggest to align the rent cap with State law: rent cap to 5% plus CPI or put a different rent cap, one is for the rent above HUD fair market value and one is below.

4. Suggest not include Single family home and Condo to the rental ordinance to align to state law

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

Regards,
Holly Chen

Regards,
Holly Chen
408-887-7323
Realtor | MSCS | BBA
CalBRE# 02002483 | NMLS# 1647786
[email protected]

From: BC <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 5:01 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions.

Please reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions.

The goal of rent control is to make housing affordable for renters and not be evicted to be replaced by a resident that can pay more.

The problem of unaffordable rent is a function of market demand. This is Economics 101 with demand outpacing supply. There are more renters than there are units. The City Council should look to relaxing regulations to allow for more building / more housing in Concord. Not regulating the existing rental units in the guise of social charity.

To be a landlord is an investment of money as well as time in maintenance and/or management. A landlord is not there to house a stranger at a loss. I know a handful of landlords that have sold their property because of this rent control ruling. It plainly takes away the landlord's goal of a profitable outcome.

Fine. That is their decision. But I thought the City's goal was to provide affordable housing? Now the once tenant occupied housing is likely sold to a homeowner since investors wont be so keen on investing in Concord. End result is less housing for renters.

The rent cap is not sustainable either with the cost of everything going up. Now the current president's tariff agenda will likely cause building material and other imported goods to go up. Inflation is higher than the City's rent cap! What is a landlord suppose to do? Be charitable and keep sustaining people who cannot afford to live in Concord?

I have learned from this experience. Previously, I charged enough to cover my expenses. But I see that with the current rent control provision, that this can work against me. I am going to be raising rent (which is currently $300/mo below market) to the allowed limit annually just so I can catch up to current market rents. I am sorry but if my tenant asks why or says she cannot afford it, I will have to tell her that the City Council thought it was in her best interest.

Just stop it. The City Council is wasting of taxpayers dollars. Listen to the locals. (And not the paid protestors that attend the meetings) Restore the rent cap to match California law in all aspects.

Signed

Bernice Chau
housing provider

From: Brent Watson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 11:32 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council meeting, February 4, 2025

City Clerk: Please distribute my letter prior to tonight's meeting. Thank you.

Good Afternoon:

When a city gets a reputation for being "Unfriendly to Landlords, " landlords and investors avoid it like the plague. You will see no new rental projects in the future. Investors will chose other cities or other states that are "Landlord Friendly. " Those friendly cities get a good reputation and investors will want to invest there. More investment means more available rental units, means lower rental prices. Lets change Concord from "Unfriendly" to "Friendly. " Stop the strict rent control ordinances, inspections, and rent registrations.

Additionally, if the goal of strict rent ordinances it to make Concord rentals more affordable, it is only helping a handful of renters: those that are already living in long term rentals. Their rents eventually become cheaper compared to other towns, and they probably never move. This creates a gridlock in the market. No new vacancies for young families and new people to the City.

The rental ordinances implemented by the State of California go far enough..........

Please consider eliminating the strict ordinances, and lets follow the lead of most cities in the State.

Thank you, B. Watson

From: Biao Louie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 11:33 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions

Dear City Representative,

As a property owner in Concord, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause eviction provisions implemented by Concord city government.

Rent control and just cause eviction provisions will not only push the investors away and also punish the good tenants, and most importantly, they will make the difficult rental market even worse.

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Bill

From: Jizeng Jin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 11:31 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions

Dear City Representative,

As a property owner in Concord, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause eviction provisions implemented by Concord city government.

Rent control and just cause eviction provisions will not only push the investors away and also punish the good tenants, and most importantly, they will make the difficult rental market even worse.

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Jizeng

From: Thomas V . Pugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 11:14 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control Meeting
To whom it may concern,
My name is Tom Pugh and I am writing you to request that the Concord City Council reconsider the current rent control and just cause provisions. While I understand the intent behind these measures is to make housing more affordable for tenants, I believe they will ultimately harm the long-term economic health of the community.

The implementation of prohibitive rent control limits the ability of property owners to respond to market conditions and adequately maintain their properties. As a multifamily property owner in Concord, it is incredibly difficult to afford capital investment into properties to maintain a safe, clean, and well-functioning living environment without the ability to recoup those costs in the future. The financial burden becomes unsustainable, leading to the deterioration of rental properties and, ultimately, a decrease in the quality of housing available to renters. Moreover, rent control measures discourage future investment in rental properties, which could exacerbate the housing shortage in Concord. Investors are less likely to purchase or develop properties in areas with restrictive rent control policies, which may reduce the overall supply of rental units in the long term. This could, ironically, drive up costs and lead to less affordable housing options for the very individuals rent control is meant to help.

I am requesting that the City of Concord restores the cap on rental increases to 5% plus CPI, aligning with state law. While I empathize with those struggling to find affordable housing, I believe that rent control is not the solution to the city’s housing crisis. This is a well-documented economic issue that has failed to solve the root issue of affordability time and time again. A more comprehensive approach, including increasing housing supply, easing zoning restrictions, and incentivizing the construction of affordable housing, would be far more effective in creating a sustainable, long-term solution.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions and thank you for your consideration.

Best,

Tom Pugh
Vice President
MLG Capital

From: Karen Nemsick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:15 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting 2/4/25 - Public Comment
I am the Director of Housing Justice at United Way Bay Area. We are supporting and will continue to support non-profits in Concord who work with residents to make sure they are aware of their tenant protections and to make sure the policies are helping as many people as possible.

We are very disappointed to hear that Council is considering roll-backs to tenant protections and weakening the ordinance that just went into effect 10 months ago. It goes against best practices to review and change major policies without giving them time to take effect and have their intended impact.

The City’s Housing Element documented that economic displacement was happening in Concord and that the city needed to take meaningful action to address this displacement of mostly Black and Brown residents. Rent protections are evidence-based policies that are widely applied in the Bay Area to reduce poverty and prevent homelessness
Concord is stronger when all families have stable, affordable housing. 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.

We urge the Council to reject carve-outs, uphold tenant protections, and keep the rent cap unchanged. Now is the time to protect working families, not destabilize them.

Sincerely,
Karen Nemsick
Director, Housing Justice

Karen Nemsick

(

She/Her

)

Director, Housing Justice Initiative

United Way Bay Area

|

uwba.org

415.808.4313

550 Kearny Street

|

Suite 510

|

San Francisco, CA 94108

Give. Advocate. Volunteer.

Follow Us On Social Media

|

HERE

From: snickerdad <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:26 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City rental ordinance

I would suggest that the council make major changes to this ordinance. I believe you are driving home owner away from Concord because landlord are have thier hands tied by this ordinance.

Julian Gelber
Salem St
Concord, Ca.

Sent from my Galaxy

From: Gracie Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:30 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]> Cc: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Subject: CITY COUNCIL: Our tenants are counting on you! DO NOT ROLLBACK PROTECTIONS! Dear Mayor Orbinger, Vice Mayor Nakamura, Councilmembers Aliano, Hoffmesiter, and Benavente:

I am alarmed to hear that Council is considering roll-backs to tenant protections and weakening the ordinance that just went into effect 10 months ago. There has not been time to fully implement this policy and to let it work. Best practice is to allow such a hard-won ordinance a minimum of 12 months before considering amendments. Concord is 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. Do NOT exempt single-family homes and rented condos from the just cause ordinance.

Rolling back protections for renters should not be Council’s priority in a time of attacks on immigrant families. Immigrant renters have been on the front lines of this 8-year long struggle for protections from unjust evictions and skyrocketing rents. The Council's rushed review process puts immigrant tenants at risk of housing instability in the midst of a relentless political climate that threatens immigrant safety daily. 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.

DO NOT CONSENT TO THE SUFFERING OF YOUR NEIGHBORS by displacement, eviction, or lackluster rent caps...

Very best,

Gracie Harris (she/her)
e: [email protected]

From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:35 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Request for Changes to Rent Stabilization Ordinance Joelle

Please add the following to the information for the City Council meeting this evening. This is a corrected version of what I sent to Kelly and Sophia last night. Thank you.

Dear City Council Members,

Thank you for considering changes to the recently enacted rent stabilization ordinance. These comments are my comments as a private person and the owner of a small (10-unit) apartment complex. They are not necessarily the views of any organization of which I am a member.

Changes are sorely needed, so I am hoping writing to you will bring change.

My wife and I have two issues with the ordinance as enacted:

1. The 60 percent of CPI limit is a disaster. We have long term tenants (some have lived in our property for over 20 years) and ALL of our rents are below market. Now we are being locked into those low rates with no relief. We need reasonable gross income to address the expenses, all of which are increasing much more than even 100 percent of CPI. Our property taxes alone are close to two months of rental income. Our insurance company has left the state. City required fees are increasing. Utility costs including water and sewer are increasing faster than your intended rents, and maintenance costs are through the roof. We have had a period due to COVID where inflation was as high as 9.2 percent year-over-year and at the same time we could not increase rents. We have increased rents once during this period and are still very much below market. We have two bedroom units with rents as low as $1,660 and other two bedroom units at $2,065. With two covered parking spaces, backyards and laundry in the units, market rents are easily $2,300. Please do the math. How many years will it take to bring exiting tenants up to today’s market rents, much less tomorrow’s market rent? At 60 percent of CPI, more than 10 years! And by then market rents will be perhaps 40 or 50 percent higher than they are today as market rents historically exceed CPI. Today we are 25 percent below market with our units at $1,660 per month. In 10 years if we increase rents at 60 percent of CPI, we will be 40 to 50 percent below market, all the time suffering costs that are increasing faster that rents.

Summary: we need a rent control ordinance which allows annual increases of CPI plus a percentage, NOT CPI less a percentage. Please understand and make this change. I believe CPI plus 2.00 percent is doable for most housing providers and is fair to all parties.

2. Four of our 10 units are subject to a long term-contract (through the year 2059) to provide below market rents to tenants with income which is at or below 60 percent of the median income for the area. The name of this program is the HELP program. There are other properties in Concord which also participate in this program. There are not many other properties, but there are some other properties. These four units have rent caps for one-bedroom units and rent caps for two-bedroom units. The rent caps are far below market. I had written to the City Counsel in the past asking that these units be exempt from the rent control ordinance. Provisions were put in the ordinance to exempt certain below market rate units and I was told by staff that our four below market rate units were also exempt under the new ordinance. Staff then read the HELP agreement more carefully and informed me that our four below market rate units were not exempt from the rent increase limits under the new Concord rent control ordinance. I believe this is not fair as we are making a major contribution to affordable housing by being a part of the HELP program and should not be further limited by the City rent control ordinance on these units. I do not know why the ordinance has the language that it does which effectively makes our below market rate units non-exempt. I think language needs to be added specifically exempting HELP housing units.

Summary: we need the rent control ordinance to specifically state that units under the HELP program are exempt from the rent increase provisions of the rent control ordinance

We sincerely appreciate your help.

We are already suffering. Our rent increases under the ordinance are half of what they otherwise would have been and I see this as a result of the 60 percent provision of the current ordinance. Going through a rate of return petition (as provided for in the current ordinance) is not the solution as we had depressed income and high expenses in the year the ordinance wants us to use as the base year to determine what a target rate of return is.

Further, rate of return petitions take time and cost money and there is no guarantee of success.

All the best,

James Dye
1181 Detroit Avenue

From: Toby Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:40 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comments for tonight's Open Session Council on Rent Control Good evening. My name is Toby.

I know people who believe in rent control have good hearts. I also know they are NOT informed.

Let’s focus-on-facts and not feel-good-fiction. Let’s help renters. Use your brain, not just your heart.

Do NOT add rent control to SFR. And change the rent increase rules.

Over one hundred cites with rent control have been studied. The results are not in dispute. Rent control reduces the number of rentals and reduces their quality.

1. Rent control in San Francisco reduced the number of rentals by 15%.

2. Rent control in New York City reduced housing quality.

I know that is NOT what you want for Concord.

Decreasing the supply pushes up prices:

1. When we killed millions of sick chickens, egg prices increased 37% in 2024.

2. When issues decreased oil supply, gas prices increased 50% in 2022.

If rent control is extended to SFR, then landlords will sell their rentals, or stop maintaining them, because their costs exceed their income. Rent control does NOT benefit most renters.

California is the most regulated state in the nation. Even California does NOT mandate rent control on SFR. The state knows that lower income earners can live in an apartment instead of a SFR.

There are 21 rent control cities in California that allow a bigger rent increase than Concord. There are only two cities below Concord. If you decide to follow your feel-good-fiction, then at least match the Calif state rent increase method to mitigate the damage you are doing.

After reading the Residential Tenant Protection Program, the one thing I learned, is that if it is applied to SFRs, then I will advise my family and friends is to sell their rentals.

Concord is on the wrong side of the facts, and the wrong side of history.

Do you want fewer rentals in Concord?
Do you want poorly maintained rentals in Concord?
Do you really want that to be your legacy?

Do NOT add rent control to SFR. And change the rent increase rules.

Solve the rental problem. Do the work to increase the supply of rentals and rents will go down.

1. Reform Concord’s zoning regulations.

2. Reduce building fees.

3. Reduce unhelpful expensive regulations.

4. Speed up the approval process.

Please, fix the rental problem. Don’t make it worse.

From: John McGehee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:42 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Allowable Annual Rent Increase as defined in CMC Section 19.40.040

Dear Board of Supervisors,
I am a modest owner of residential rental property in Concord, specifically a 6-plex and a 4-plex.

I have always participated in the Inspection Program, which requires registration of units and a per- unit annual fee.

The new rent control ordinance has hit me hard, and seems unnecessarily punitive.

Most of my tenants have been with me for 5 years or more, and pay below "market rate. " For the rent they pay, they are provided with WATER, GARBAGE, PARKING, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE, and of course I must keep the properties INSURED.

- The CCWD rates have recently increased by 3.5%
- The MDRR rates have recently increased by 10.14%
- INSURANCE on one property increased by 25%, and I was forced to find a new underwriter - INSURANCE on the other property will not be renewed, and I will need to find a new underwriter in March
- GROUNDS MAINTENANCE charges have increased by 16%
None of these entities are limited in their ability to raise rates by the Concord Rent Control Ordinance.

With these dramatic increases in operating expenses, and a restriction on rents, I am looking to sell my rental properties - probably to a large real estate firm - and end my years as a small landlord in Concord.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

John McGehee

From: Jean Claude (JJ) B. Mallein Jr. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:07 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Residential Tenant Protection Program

Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers,

We request that you direct staff to reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions.

The current rent cap of 2.52% is already too low to even keep up with all the utility and insurance increases we have experienced over the past year not even including the constantly rising cost of labor and materials to maintain a property. Specifically, we have received the following utility and insurance increases:

1. Refuse: 5.36% increase year over year

2. PGE: 15.89-21.44% increase year over year

3. Water: 12.02% increase year over year

4. Insurance: 21.79 -270.10% increase year over year or $11,792/year increase

Yes, we have a property that the insurance carrier left the California market, and the only carrier we could find was a 270.10% increase or $11,792/year increase. We don’t have any choice for insurance since our lender sets the requirements, and with the 2.52% rent cap, we can’t even cover half of this insurance increase let alone all the utility expense increases. We cannot raise rents enough to cover this increase, and it’s nonsensical to spend an unknown and uncapped amount for “all city costs associated with such petition” (money that we don’t even have since we are operating at a loss) to petition for a higher rent increase when we can’t even recover the costs of the petition and “operating expenses” don’t include mortgage interest, which is the single largest operating expense that we have.

The current 60% of CPI is so artificially low that our properties are operating at a loss. Owning property in Concord is now an unsustainable business.

Housing is not a right, just like food is not a right. While we can appreciate a reasonable rent cap such as 5% plus CPI, the current rent cap is not sustainable. Concord is not placing price caps on grocery stores to make sure that food remains affordable. Property owners, just like grocery stores, need to make a reasonable return on their investment to operate a sustainable business. Rental property owners should not be responsible to subsidize the housing decisions made by the Council; this should be borne by the City of Concord and all stakeholders (property owners and renters) alike. If we cannot raise rents enough to keep up with rising expenses, we can’t operate a business.

In addition, based on the current CPI hovering around 2.4%, then next annual rent cap under the current ordinance will be 1.44% or less, which will be detrimental to operating and maintaining our properties. If we cannot raise rents to adequately cover increasing operating expenses, we will be forced to leave the Concord market and invest where we can make a reasonable return. Concord used to be an investment market that balanced annual operating returns and appreciation, but with these rent control measures, we have witnessed rental property prices fall of a cliff and we have lost thousands in equity alone. If something doesn’t change, we are better of investing in a property market that values it’s housing stock or just invest in a money market paying 4.5% without any risk.

We demand Concord restore the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, re-aligning with state law.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

JJ Mallein
Housing Provider

Warning: This email, including any attachments, may contain confidential or privileged information and is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please do not retain, read, copy or disseminate any part of it and delete it from your computer. Please also notify the sender immediately by return message.

From: Ellen Rea <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:25 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comments for Rent Control Open Session Council Good evening. My name is Ellen. I have been a landlord in Concord since 1987.

I have two single family rental properties and I would like to give you the full perspective of the costs of being a responsible, non-corporate landlord.

I must start with saying that when a tenant pays their rent, this money does not go into a cookie jar to be saved.

Costs include gardening, painting, and keeping up all of the heating, air conditioning, and plumbing systems.

Additionally, there are the expenses of homeowner’s insurance, earthquake insurance, and property taxes.

Whatever money may be left from these expenses is saved for the inevitable repairs and emergencies.

Once a tenant moves, I incur considerable expense in updating, painting, and replacing items for the next tenant.

This is not a get rich quick scheme in any way, shape or form.

The scenario I describe is a best case scenario.

I have experienced many nightmare cases.

This includes tenants that willfully destroy property. One washed car parts in the toilet, thus breaking the toilet, and flooding the bathroom to a cost of over $8,000.

I had another tenant who was a lawyer, seemingly a good tenant, who turned out to be a drug addict, who caused over $10,000 in damage to my home as a result of his manic episodes.

Another tenant turned out to be mentally ill and defecated throughout my home.

I have, at personal expense, repaired these homes to make them safe and attractive.

Your proposed additional costs and restrictions will make it impossible to maintain rental homes in Concord.

This will decrease homes available for families who want to be part of this community.

If the City Of Concord wants to have well maintained properties, you will NOT add rent control to Single Family Residences.

And if you do, you must at least use the state of California allowable rate increases instead of what Concord uses now.

I am afraid that the alternative will be landlords who cut corners, homes in disrepair, and a serious shortage of homes available.

From: Maryam Iqbal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:29 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]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Keep tenant protections, don't rollback

Hi there,

I am a current renter in Concord and I am extremely anxious to hear that Council is considering roll- backs to tenant protections and weakening the ordinance that just went into effect 10 months ago.

There hasn’t been time to fully implement this policy and to let it work. I urge all of you 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. Don’t exempt single-family homes and rented condos from the just cause ordinance, there is no good reason to and the priority right now should be to help immigrant families. The Council's rushed review process puts immigrant tenants at risk of housing instability in the midst of a relentless political climate that threatens immigrant safety daily. Instead of diluting sound policies that protect them, seniors, and working families, you should all be focussing on ensuring community safety and stability.

I support tenant protections and urge you all to reconsider. Thank you

Best,
Maryam

From: Astrid Z. Mallein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:46 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Residential Tenant Protection Program
Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers,
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. We request that you direct staff to reconsider rent control and just cause eviction provisions. 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.

Housing providers, like all other businesses, need to make a reasonable return on their investment to operate a sustainable business. Rental property owners should be treated like all other business and not forced to subsidize the housing decisions made by the Council. If we cannot raise rents enough to keep up with rising expenses, we can’t operate a business.

The current rent cap of 2.52% is already too low to even keep up with all the utilites and insurance increases we have experienced over the past year not even including the constantly rising cost of labor and materials to maintain a property. The current 60% of CPI is so artificially low that our properties are operating at a loss.

Based on the current CPI hovering around 2.4%, then next annual rent cap under the current ordinance will be 1.44% or less, which will be detrimental to operating and maintaining our properties. If we cannot raise rents to adequately cover increasing operating expenses, we will be forced to leave the Concord market and invest where we can make a reasonable return.

We respectfully ask that Concord restore the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, re-aligning with state law.

On behalf of all Concord housing providers we appreciate your time and consideration.

Astrid Mallein
Concord Housing Provider

From: Dan Sakaguchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:48 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: Don't roll back the tenant protections we need now more than ever!

I was horrified to learn last week that Council is considering roll-backs to tenant protections and weakening the ordinance that just went into effect last year. Please uphold the current rent cap and eviction protections that tenants have been asking for for years!

As we're facing a barrage of repressive executive orders and outright attacks on immigrant and working class communities, this feels like a move in the opposite direction we need. Concord's residents need more protections, not less, in the face of these attacks.

It's also absurd that the city is planning to revise its policy when it was JUST passed ten months ago! The city barely has any data on the effects of this policy, and it is far too soon to have any sort of meaningful debate on this policy. Give this policy a chance to get off the ground, and wait to have any discussions about changes until then.

Finally, please don't remove single family homes from these tenant 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. It's already egregious that single family homes can't be covered by rent control, and we need Concord's leadership to fill this void.

Dan Sakaguchi

From: Ali Uscilka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:09 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Item 3a

Good afternoon Mayor Obringer, Councilmembers, and City Clerk,

I am writing on behalf of Healthy & Active Before 5, a children’s health non-profit based here in Concord. Our collaborative is comprised of early childhood and health organizations whose programs serve over ten thousand low-income children and their families.

We were surprised to learn that the city was considering weakening the tenant protections passed less than one year ago. We have been fighting for these policies alongside Concord families for years, because housing security is so essential to children’s health and because the current housing affordability crisis demands the kind of bold, compassionate, and thoughtful leadership from city officials that this body demonstrated last year.

Rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies are the gold standard for keeping working families housed. Because nearly half of Concord renters live in single family homes or rented condos, last year’s Council took the smart and reasonable step of including those units in many of the protections. We applaud you for recognizing that it wouldn’t be fair or effective to leave some renters out.

Now, despite providing no data that shows a need to change the policies, you’re risking going backwards at a time when low-income families in Concord need your support more than ever. Immigrant residents, so many of whom rent their homes, are navigating threats of family separation and bracing for a weakened safety net due to federal policies. The last thing they need is to be faced with an impossible rent increase or forced moveout without relocation assistance through no fault of their own.

Rather than rushing to revise these important policies, we should be putting more time and resources into making sure that Concord families are aware of their rights and how to access the programs you’ve put in place. Healthy & Active Before 5 hosted a training last fall for local pediatricians, childcare providers, and other local service providers to enlist them in helping us

inform Concord families of the housing protections available to them. We distributed hundreds of flyers and posters at preschools and health clinics. Our partners were thrilled to learn about these policies because they know that more families will be able to stay in their homes because of Concord’s strong rent stabilization and just cause policies. Changing the policies at this time would fuel confusion in the community and create an undue burden on city staff and community partners alike who are working diligently to share accurate information.

Please give these policies a chance to work, leave the current rent cap and relocation assistance measures in place, and come back after a full year with the data needed to review the policies’ impact.

Thank you,

Ali Uscilka
Program Director | Healthy & Active Before 5
1035 Detroit Ave, Suite 500 | Concord, CA 94518
office: 925.265.6507 | cell: 801.391.1027
email: [email protected] | www.hab45.org

Healthy & Active Before 5 is a Contra
Costa collaborative that advances health equity for children ages 0-5 and their families.

From: Nancy Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:24 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control meeting tonight
I realize comments are due by 3pm - I have to tell you that word is just getting out now that this is on the agenda for this evening!
I would very much like to have the council members spend a bit more time on the rental laws in our city. Maybe another meeting, and or a few more days for comments?

My comments are:

1. Drop the annual charge for registering/owning a rental in the city of Concord. I think this city an do better.

2. Please remove single family homes and condos from all of the new rental laws.

3. Allow the market to determine the value of rentals - supply and demand will always win out.

These new rules are creating stress for owners.

These new rules are fiscally irresponsible - causing financial stress for owners too.

Maybe you can change up rules to apply for owners who have 5 or more properties (SFR, condo or apartments) in the city.

Most owners that I know only have one or maybe two properties.

These owners are considering selling right now, to avoid the harsh new rules - which is not good for renters who need a place to live until the mortgage interest rates come down enough for them to be able to purchase their own place.

And owners are freaking out that they may have to pay over $10,000 to get their tenants out of their rentals, after the lease has expired.

wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

The city of Concord can do much better - lets spend our time in making this a great city (new businesses, small businesses, local owned businesses, teaching folks how to start a business, run a business, etc. Lets continue to improve our streets, parks and recreational offerings. and let's frigging develop the Naval Base and Victory lane.

and BTW, the low income housing issue is the next issue - awful! For now, I'll stick to the rental issue and we can debate the pros and cons of low income housing in the 94521 and 94518 zip codes another time.

Thank you !!!

Nancy Bennett
510-381-9288

Nancy E. Bennett, Realtor
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY – EAST BAY
#5 Team Nationally (U.S. & Canada) 2016
Agent Leadership Council, Mentor, Faculty Member and Community Sponsor [email protected]
www.BennettBetter.com
CalDRE #01399870
Direct 510-381-9288

From: michael johansson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:25 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord’s horrible new rental control ordinance - Council Meeting Feb. 4, 2025

Tonight (Tuesday) Concord City Council will be considering possible changes to Concord’s horrible new rental control ordinance, which makes it almost impossible for individual homeowners like you and me to rent our home out if we need to. It also adversely affects renters, who are already experiencing rent increases and reduced rental availability. Yes this ordinance is that bad, and it looks like the majority of the council now are seeing the light and are willing to consider major changes, but they need to hear your voices! Please go to the council meeting tonight and encourage them to remove individually owned homes and condos from the ordinance! The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chamber at Concord City Hall, 1950 Parkside Drive. This is a regular public Council meeting, and members of the public are invited to attend and provide public comment in person at the meeting, or by sending a letter/e-mail prior to the meeting. The agenda will outline how to participate in the meeting:
https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1264&doctype= 1 Here is the text of the message I delivered to the City Council recently on this subject: Mayor Obringer, city council members, city staff; First I would like to congratulate mayor Obringer for her re-election to council representing district 2 and her outstanding service to our community. I would also like to congratulate council member Benavente for his election to represent district 4. I would like to comment tonight on probably the worst mistake our council made in 2024. That is the decision to include individually owned homes and condos in the scope of the rental control ordinance. This ordinance imposed costs and possession restrictions on individuals no different from large corporations like Blackstone. It assumes individual owners behave like large profit focused corporations and can keep their rentals forever. They don’t. Unlike big corporations, individual home owners have changing life circumstances. They may need to sell. They may need to move back into their home, and when they die, their children will need to sell. What about Grandma in the nursing home using rental income from her home to pay expenses? What about the young couple relocating due to a work opportunity who need to rent their home now, but hope to return to Concord some day? Individual homeowners owners like you and me, who NOW cannot rent their homes out temporarily, even if the renter agrees to lease for a few months or a few years.

Lease terminations even when the homeowner dies are no longer legal under this crazy new law. In April you will have an opportunity to reconsider this decision. Councilmember Benavente, you may be the swing vote on this. council members Obringer and Hoffmeister have said this ordinance goes too far and needs to change. I am hoping council members Nakamura and Aliano see the light too, but if not, this decision will come down to you. I would encourage you to read the ordinance carefully, especially starting on page 16, where the so-called just cause rules are defined for individual homeowners. Did you know the ordinance prevents evictions even when homeowners need to sell their homes? Imagine putting your house on the market with the tenant living in it, and having to tell the prospective new owners they will have to do the eviction, pay the high moving expenses, and hire an attorney to manage the process? It makes selling impossible and therefore it makes renting impossible. As homeowners learn about this horrible ordinance, they are leaving

their homes vacant. New tenants suffer as rental availability is being reduced and rents are being increased. Big companies like Blackstone who have permanent rentals are laughing all the way to bank. Individual home owners like you and me who may want to rent their homes out for shorter terms or may need to sell are in a world of hurt. Please do the right thing and replace this unjust ordinance with something that treats both tenants and individual homeowners fairly.

Copied from Mike McDermott Nextdoor submission for action by Concord residents who agree to its message to the City Council.

DO THE RIGHT THING
Regards
Mike Johansson

From: jim yan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Regarding rent control discussion
Dear City Council Members. I’m a mom and pop rental property owner in concord. I own a 6 unit apt building in concord. Like many of the other buildings near by, my building was built in the 1960’s. Many systems and the parts of the exterior structures are nearing their end of usable lifespan and need upgrades and repairs. Since you passed the rent control last year, I’m having very hard time to come up with funds to make the most essential repairs. I have always kept my rents low because I understood the difficulties many Bay Area tenants are facing to be able to afford to live here. Unfortunately, for many mom and pop landlords like myself, we don’t have extra funds or other deep pocketed resources to pay for many of the essential upgrades or maintenances. I myself reply on my 9 to 5 job to make my ends meet. One single capital system failure like a major roof repair or a Waterheater’s system replacement would mean whether I can pay this month and/or next few months mortgage payment or not. As you know, the fed reserve hiked interest rates so much in the past few years. Most of our mortgage rates are fixed for only a few years to the historical low rate from a few years ago. Like many other small property owners, my mortgage was refinanced in 2022 when the rates was historically low. In 2 years my mortgage will reset to the current super high rates. It would mean my mortgage payment will be at least double from my current payment. There is no way I will be able to make the payment if mortgage rates stay this high with my current rent I’m collecting. This really cause me lose sleep at nights sometimes. The rent control is prohibitively restrictive to small property owners. It’s not doing good to the community either. If owners like myself not having the funds to make necessary repairs, what’s going to happen to the neighborhood and the tenants who live here? We all want to take care of our tenants because like us, they are all part of our community. But I think an overly restrictive rent control policy is not the best way to help the community including the tenants. The original state rent control policy which sets rent crease cap at 5%+cpi is already doing good for protecting tenants.

Please reconsider this prohibitively restrictive rent control currently in place in concord and have a better, more balance rent control policy. It’s better for us in the long run, for the landlords, for the tenants and for the community over all.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Regards,

Jim yan
Owner of concord rental property

Sent from my iPhone

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Concord Rent Control

Please see the message below from a D2 housing provider.

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

Find out how we're working for you.

CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening

From: mikelley kineticprop.com <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 1:53 PM
To: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control
Ms. Antonio,

Greetings. My thanks to you and everyone at CAA who is staying on top of the Concord Rent Control issue. I don’t have a formal letter but want to add our name as appropriate.

On behalf of the property owner, we manage Lincoln Arms Apartments. These 2 buildings have 58 units. We are Not “low income” but we have historically been among the lower cost rentals in Concord. We have run a tight ship. Now that Covid is over we began to refocus on our deferred maintenance. Then came rent control.

This is obviously a bad law based on horrible economics that only serves to reduce our ability to pay our bills while every other expense continues to increase, impacting apartment repairs.

Feel free to submit/use these comments as you choose.

Sincerely,

Mike Kelley
On behalf of Lincoln Arms Apartments
3201 – 3203 Clayton Road, Concord.

Michael Kelley
Kinetic Properties
4546 B-10 El Camino Real,
#401
Los Altos, CA 94022

650-948-6700 – p
DRE: 00913918

From: Jamie Tyrrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:55 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Meeting February 4, 2025
Hello,

Please see my attached letter regarding the expansion of rent control in the city of Concord at tonight's meeting.

Thank you,

Jamie Tyrrell

--
Jamie Tyrrell
RentalZebra.com
[email protected]
(888) 851-6583 x4
CA Lic 01880112

Jamie Tyrrell on behalf of Rental Zebra
559 W Main St
Merced CA 95340
[email protected]
888-851-6583 x 4

February 4, 2025
Attn: Concord City Council
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Changes to Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I regret that I am unable to attend the upcoming public meeting regarding the proposed changes to the rent control ordinance. However, I feel it is critical to express my strong opposition to any modifications that would impose further restrictions on rental property owners.

As a property owner and housing provider, I am deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of increased rent control measures. Such policies can lead to reduced investment in rental properties, discourage necessary maintenance, and ultimately limit the availability of affordable housing. Rather than solving the issue, stricter rent control often exacerbates housing shortages and deteriorates the quality of rental units.

I urge the City Council to vote NO on any proposed changes that would expand rent control. A balanced approach that encourages housing development, incentivizes maintenance, and supports both landlords and tenants is essential for the long-term health of Concord’s rental market.

Please ensure that my opposition is entered into the public record. I appreciate your time and consideration of this urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Jamie Tyrrell
Partner, Rental Zebra LLC (property manager)
Partner, Kibby Road LLC (property owner)

From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:40 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor Obringer 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.

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

Worse, the city never had any evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482.

Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law is working effectively.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.

This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction.

1. Trash increased by 6%, Insurance increased by 35%-40%, Utilities Increased 5%-8%.

2. City of Concord proposed registration fees Increase from $49 to $52 or 61% increase

3. Fair return - file a petition and pay all the associated bureaucracy appointed by you?

4. PG&E just announced another 21% rate hike.

Yet, we are only to increase the rent by 60% of CPI or 2.6% annually? Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy?

We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair? Mark Twain once wrote, “you're never wrong for doing the right thing. ”. But I would add that doing the right thing often takes great courage and integrity.

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

Thank You,

Wallace

From: Anthony Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 1:33 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor Obringer 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.

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

Worse, the city never had any evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482.

Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law is working effectively.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.

This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction.

Trash increased by 6%, Insurance increased by 35%-40%, Utilities Increased 5%-8%.

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

Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated

proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy? We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair? Mark Twain once wrote, “you're never wrong for doing the right thing. ”. But I would add that doing the right thing often takes great courage and integrity.

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

Thank You,

Anthony

From: Joshua Drewes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:39 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: Tenant Protections Review
Hello all,

I'm reaching out to voice my opinion about your upcoming review of the rent control ordinance passed under a year ago. Please do not lower the rent cap or erode eviction protections! The peace
of mind that reasonable housing brings, and the ability for families to budget into the future are absolutely irreplaceable. This is especially true given our economic uncertainty.

The ordinances 60% of CPI/3% (whichever is lower) cap is a reasonable solution that gives relief to tenants while leaving profit on the table for landlords. This is certainly true because when landlords are feeling too damaged by the rent levels they can petition for higher rates and a better return on their investments.

It's good news for the city, too! The money that families save in rent will circulate through Concord's economy, benefiting local businesses as well as the tax base. But most importantly, it will allow Concord to retain tenants, which is how community and culture are built. The longer folks can afford to live in the city, the deeper their roots will grow.

Best,
Josh Drewes

From: Alyssa Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:47 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]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Protect Concord tenants and families
Good afternoon,

My name is Alyssa Kang and I am a Community and Political Organizer with California Nurses Association/National Nurses United. CNA represents over 100,000 direct care nurses in the state and many of our members live and/or work in Concord and Contra Costa County. I am horrified to hear that Council is considering roll-backs to tenant protections and weakening the ordinance that just went into effect 10 months ago. An ordinance that Concord tenants, families, advocacy organizations, unions and other community supporters fought and organized for 8 years to achieve. This action seems rushed and premature considering that there has not been enough time to fully implement this policy and a hearing for review was already scheduled for March 25th.

Nurses know that housing security is fundamentally a health issue and witness firsthand how housing inequity and insecurity only worsen conditions for their patients, especially immigrant, low- income and communities of color. Housing is a healthcare issue and housing, just like healthcare, should be a fundamental and basic right for all. This is why members and staff of CNA have joined with others from the Raise the Roof Coalition on multiple occasions to call on Council to invest in substantive solutions like the current ordinance. I once again applaud the Council for passing the ordinance but now urge you 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. We urge you not to exempt single-family homes and rented condos from the just cause ordinance.

Rolling back protections for renters should not be Council’s priority in a time of attacks on immigrant families. Immigrant renters have been on the front lines of this 8-year long struggle for protections from unjust evictions and skyrocketing rents, and have won improvements that benefit all tenants in Concord. The Council's rushed review process puts immigrant tenants at risk of housing instability in the midst of a relentless political climate that threatens immigrant safety on a daily basis. Instead of diluting sound policies that protect immigrants, seniors, and working

families, City Council should instead focus on ensuring community safety, belonging, and stability for Concord’s immigrants and renters, which would make this city more inclusive especially for our most vulnerable and marginalized communities.

I hope we can count on your leadership and urge you to uphold the current ordinance. Concord is stronger when all families and community members have stable, affordable and secure housing.

In Solidarity,

Alyssa Kang (she/her/hers)
Community and Political Organizer
National Nurses United/California Nurses Association
[email protected]

NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.