Concord City Council
February 25, 2025

From: Lynn Luo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 2:47 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please stop rent control in Concord
Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further expansion of local rental regulations. These policies place unnecessary financial burdens on property owners, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately lead to reduced housing supply and higher rents—the exact opposite of what they intend to achieve. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, enacted in 1995, already provides clear exemptions for single-family homes and condominiums from both rent cap requirements and just cause eviction regulations. There is no need for Concord to impose additional, conflicting restrictions that create confusion, legal challenges, and financial disincentives for housing providers. Furthermore, rental property owners bear all major costs associated with maintaining housing, including property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs, while tenants do not. Yet, the current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), fails to account for the rapidly rising costs of ownership. This artificial cap makes it unsustainable for landlords to continue offering rental units, particularly for small property owners. A critical consequence of local rent control is the deterrence of real estate investment. When investors see a city implementing restrictive rent control policies, they become unwilling to develop new housing or purchase rental properties in that area. This reduction in available rental housing creates a supply shortage, leading to higher rents for tenants. Instead of keeping housing affordable, rent control shrinks the market and drives up costs over time.

Additionally, the just cause eviction requirement further burdens landlords, making it difficult to manage their properties efficiently. By restricting a property owner’s ability to address problem tenants or reclaim their property for legitimate reasons, the city is discouraging responsible landlords from participating in the rental market. This pushes more small property owners to sell their units or convert them into owner-occupied housing, further reducing rental availability. We have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall. The defeat of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanding rent control. The City Council should respect this decision and prioritize policies that encourage housing development rather than discouraging it. Expanding rent control will only result in fewer rental properties, higher rents, and a worsening housing crisis in the long run. I urge the City Council to eliminate or significantly roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord must align with state law, support property investment, and encourage a fair and sustainable housing market that benefits both landlords and tenants. Thank you for your time

and consideration. I encourage the Council to adopt policies that promote housing growth and investment, rather than deterring it through restrictive and counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,

Wenlin Luo
Concord resident

From: Debbie Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concerns About the Rental Market and Housing Crisis I hope this message finds you well.

As an Account Manager overseeing more than 100 individual properties in Contra Costa County, I work closely with property owners, many of whom are individuals rather than large corporations.

Recently, I’ve observed a growing trend of property owners considering removing their homes from the rental market, with many ultimately deciding to sell.

When small property owners feel compelled to sell due to financial pressures and increasing regulations, their homes are often removed from the rental pool entirely. This significantly reduces the availability of rental housing. These independent landlords play a critical role in providing housing to a diverse range of tenants, including voucher holders, veterans, and immigrants. They are dedicated to maintaining clean, safe, and affordable housing options. However, strict policies and rising costs are making it increasingly unsustainable for them to continue as landlords.

The unintended consequence of these challenges is a shift in the market, where large corporations dominate. Unfortunately, this often leads to a more impersonal approach to property management, where tenants are treated as numbers rather than individuals, and the focus shifts solely to profit margins.

There must be better ways to address the housing crisis without pushing out small property owners who are integral to supporting our communities.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this perspective. Please feel free to reach out if you’d like to discuss this further.

Best regards,
Debbie Diaz
Account Manager
Best Property Management
Cell-925-382-5298 Office-925-809-3420
Cal BRE #01956703

When you're interested in buying or selling Real Estate, why not call the best If you're satisfied with our service, please let us know by clicking on a link below and leaving a review.

-----Original Message-----
From: Madeira Fountaine <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 1:12 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Rent registry

Hello,

Regarding the upcoming 2/25 meeting on rent registry and its application to single family homes.

Why is there no public comment allowed?

This whole process has been a burden for a “mom and pop” type landlord from the beginning. We have ONE rental and are being asked to jump through hoops for no apparent reason other than a money grab by the city. There is no service being offered to us for the annual fee other than “to fund the program” per staff in your rent registry office.

By applying this program to single family homes, you will drive out landlords that are fair, equitable, and reasonable. Please reconsider including single family homes in this registry. Madeira A.

Fountaine RN, MSN, PHN

From: Mark Vanderpool <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 12:25 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject:

Dear Ms. Hoffmeister,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the rental restrictions that were put in place last year.

These new restrictions are making it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for landlords to maintain profitable rental properties in Concord. With rising costs for taxes, materials, insurance, labor, maintenance, and other expenses, many landlords are being forced to reconsider their investments in the city. While state-level rental restrictions were implemented with good intentions, local regulations should not make it harder for landlords to manage their properties.

The majority of rental properties in Concord, particularly single-family homes, townhomes, and condos, are owned by “mom-and-pop” landlords. These owners, often working long hours, rely on rental income to support their families or fund their retirement. Many of them have owned their properties for years, putting in tireless effort to maintain and prepare them for tenants. The income from these properties is often vital for their financial security in retirement.

I attended several council meetings last year, and the last one on February 4, 2025, where many people shared their concerns about rising rents. While I understand the challenges renters face, it is important to recognize the hard work and sacrifices that landlords make to maintain their properties. Many landlords, like myself, have worked multiple jobs for years, spending countless hours and resources to ensure their properties are well-kept, even during times when they are vacant. The time they spent working on the rental, takes away from family time but is a sacrifice they decided to make.

When I was younger, I chose to live farther from my work to avoid higher rent, as many people do.

However, it is important to remember that housing is not a right; it is a commodity earned through hard work. A fair market will reflect supply and demand, allowing rents to adjust naturally.

Landlords are, in many ways, small business owners. If the city imposes restrictions on what they can charge, similar regulations should be considered for all businesses in Concord—restaurants, auto repair shops, gas stations, and retail outlets. The market, not government-imposed restrictions, should determine fair pricing.

In conclusion, I urge the Council to reconsider and reverse the decision made last year. I believe doing so would be in the best interest of both landlords and tenants in Concord.

Sincerely,
Mark Vanderpool Thank you,

Mark (MVP) Vanderpool
925-890-0900
"with honest answers to your questions" DRE License # 00756470

From: Janice Andrews <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:54 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control review for 2/25/25
Hello City Council Members:

Here's my thoughts and comments to you on the rent control:

Please reconsider NOT to expand the Tenant Protection Program to include single-family homes and condominiums.

Please reconsider that the council increase the annual allowable rent increase amount to match California state law which is 10%, or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower. (July 1 my HOA's went up $112.44 per month!)
As the deadline approaches for filling out the application for my little 1 bedroom / 1 bathroom it infuriates me that I am in this situation. When I think about what the city of Concord has done to us landlords blows me away. You have created a situation that me and lots of other landlords got put into without any justification. I never in 25 years have had a tenant that filed a complaint. I can’t believe that I am being penalized deeply for something that I NEVER did. You didn’t give us landlords one option! Even just a time frame of 6 months notice and there would be no fees.

Something!!! You gave us NOTHING!! Paying for someone to move out (of my legally owned real estate) is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous! Why don’t YOU pay for these people to move? Let them apply to the city for help. This is my place!! I pay the mortgage and the taxes! Not my tenant or the city council. Me! You handcuffed me/us for no reason. Your main agenda should have been to deal with the problem landlords with complaints. The City NEVER talked about how many and actual numbers of tenants that were affected by bad landlords. What system you were using to deal with these bad landlords, etc. Majority of us landlords have no complaints or problems and are kind. We provide a need. I DO NOT and SHOULD NOT have to pay a tenant ANYTHING to move out of MY property especially if/when I am willing to give them up to 6-12 months notice. Maybe find out the reason from the landlord and come to a resolution. Penalizing all landlords is just Crazy!! Renters have no idea the costs of owning a home. This was pushed through without giving us landlords time to get our tenants out (with notice) and put our rentals on the market. There needs to be a clause for landlords that want to sell their property and a reasonable amount of time given to tenants WITHOUT any penalties. Don’t take that right away from us. We’ll work with you on this, but you need to be fair to us also. A better system would be dealing with the landlord and tenant together when there is a problem. Bring them both together in an arbitration type setting and come to a solution. Hear them both out. I don't need to be a part of that and penalized for their issues. Deal with them!

Sincerely,
Janice Andrews

From: Gail Weber <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 4:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Tenant Protection Program
February 19, 2025
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you as a small property owner of one townhouse in Concord and am asking that you reconsider your inclusion of this small subset in your Rental Ordinance. Please know where I am coming from. I have always been a liberal voter and am not coming from a far-right background or point of view.

There are legitimate concerns that "large realty groups and corporations" have sometimes imposed unfair rental increases, failed to address tenant concerns, and not maintained buildings. Many have legitimately earned the title, "slum landlords."
"Mom and Pop" owners of single family homes/condos are a substantially different group. We took on major risk and liability to purchase our property. We are not "slum landlords" and know it is imperative to protect our major investment by maintaining that investment. We are responsible for mortgage payments, ever increasing property tax fees, and skyrocketing insurance and HOA fees. The cost of repairs/maintenance has also greatly increased. We are not making the high profits seen by "large realty groups."
Considering all of this and coming from my liberal background, it feels very undemocratic that with me taking on all the "risk" other people can take away my rights to manage this investment. The people voting on this are not sharing in my risk, liability, or expenses.

If I was now an initial investor, I would not buy property in Concord. This works against adding to the rental housing supply which can raise rents: counterproductive. The decision to include single family homes/condos in this Rental Ordinance was overreach, and I am asking for that decision to be reevaluated.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
G. Weber

From: Lisa Kemper <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 4:40 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Reconsideration
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Lisa Kemper and amy husband and I are the owners of a rental property within Concord.,
My husband and I are individual owners who were lucky enough to be able to keep our first home while upgrading to a larger home within Concord as well. We are a middle income family who are just trying to keep things afloat and have one child in college and another one about to enter college. While I understand the concerns surrounding housing affordability, I’ve seen firsthand how extreme rent control measures can harm us property owners, pushing us to sell our property. When these homes are sold, they are often removed from the rental market entirely, exacerbating the housing shortage. Last year there were 244 2 bedroom rentals available in Concord on Zillow. This year at the same time there are only 179 rentals listed for rent. That is a significant decrease.

There are better ways to solve the housing crisis. Continuing to put a burden on us small landlords who keep our rent well below market is going to make this crisis even worse.

I ask that you limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law. Your rent registry data already shows that state law is working in Concord and that mass evictions or rent gouging are not happening in the city. I encourage you to vote Yes to reevaluate this program.

Regards,
Lisa Kemper

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 5:09 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Regarding concord rent control cap

Hi Councilmember Hoffmeister. I want to write to you to express my opposition to the current rent control policy. Right now the rent increase cap is set as 60% of api. I have a small apt building on monument Blvd. My existing rents are low because the tenants have been there for long time. My two bedroom currently rents for $1600. The rent increase cap is unfairly punishing to us small building owners who kept rent low. The past couple of years many expenses have gone up very significantly. The property insurance went up by 120%, because my original insurance carrier State Farm pulled away from California. I had to be insured by non accredited insurers because most of the major carriers left California apt market. The premium went up by 120%. The utilities have gone up very significantly also. Pge has hiked the rates so much and it kept getting more expensive. Also many of my building’s systems are near the end of their usable lifespan. Contractor nowadays charge exorbitant prices comparing to 5 years ago. All these very high increases in expenses are making my building losing money constantly. The fact that I kept the rent low before the rent control was imposed is really hurting us greatly. This is not sustainable. The rent control measure doesn’t take into account that many existing units’ rent are way below market. Also the state rent control law is already protecting tenants. Please lift this draconian rent control measure so that we small owners have a bit of breathing space.

Thank you.

Regards,
Jim yan

Sent from my iPhone

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 8:13 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on Residential Tenant Protection Program and Rental Registry

To whom it may concern, we wanted to provide our comments to the city council regarding the residential tenant protection program.

While we recognize the intent to protect tenants is very important, we wanted to provide some background on why we feel that they should not apply to single-family homeowners like ourselves.

We used to live in our home in Concord several years ago until we had to relocate due to work. We decided to keep the home and rent it out for the foreseeable future.

We are not a big company, we are regular, every day people who happen to own 1 rental home in Concord. Some of the requirements for this new program are extremely detrimental and would be a huge financial burden for us. Providing two months rent and $2000 upon move out for example is a significant amount of money that we don’t have just lying around and seems disproportionately burdensome to us as the owner.

One idea for consideration may be having these protections apply to people who own three or more rental homes in Concord that would be more likely to be professional investors versus just mom and pop people like us who have just 1 property.

We are hopeful that you will not extend these requirements to single property owners.

Thank you for your consideration,

David Fischer

From: THEO KOURY <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 8:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Repeal Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Honorable City Council Members,

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the rent control ordinance currently in place in the City of Concord. As the owner of a four-unit rental property, I have witnessed firsthand the detrimental impact of this policy on my ability to maintain my property and provide quality housing for tenants. I respectfully urge the City Council to repeal this ordinance to allow for a more sustainable rental market.

The 2.5% cap on rent increases does not come close to covering the rapidly rising costs of labor, materials, and general maintenance. Without the ability to adjust rents in accordance with inflation and increased operational expenses, landlords like myself are unable to afford even the most basic maintenance needs, let alone necessary upgrades. As a result, rental properties across the city are at risk of deterioration, ultimately diminishing the quality of available housing for Concord residents.

Additionally, the excessive and unsustainable relocation fees place an overwhelming financial burden on landlords, further exacerbating the challenges we face. Many property owners are now experiencing significant financial losses, with some facing the real risk of bankruptcy. This untenable situation not only impacts landlords but also threatens the overall stability of the rental market in Concord.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that Concord residents overwhelmingly voted against Proposition 33, signaling a clear rejection of rent control policies. This vote underscores the public’s recognition that rent control is not a viable solution to housing affordability issues and, in fact, creates unintended negative consequences for both landlords and tenants.

Given these pressing concerns, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider and repeal the rent control ordinance. Instead, I urge you to explore alternative solutions that balance tenant protections with the economic realities faced by property owners. Sustainable housing policies should encourage property maintenance, investment, and the availability of quality rental units, rather than impose restrictive measures that lead to long-term market decline.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I would welcome the opportunity to further discuss this matter and explore constructive solutions that benefit both tenants and landlords alike.

Respectfully,

Theo and Katherine Koury
1449-1455 Carleton Drive

February 11, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
I would like to follow up with the council regarding the February 4 meeting. Please forgive the length of this letter, however there were many false or inaccurate statements continuously repeated by pro-rent control activist that need to be addressed.

False Statement #1: “It’s too early, it’s only been 10 months. ” Clarification: It’s not too early. It is the time to review as agreed by council last year to reevaluate the 2.5% rent cap. City Manager even made that comment during last week’s meeting that this would be the time to reevaluate the rent caps. Additionally, when the council passed the ordinance last March, council agreed in one years’ time the 2.5% rent cap would be reevaluated. Council members Hoffmeister, Obringer and Mayor Birsan are on record stating if the economic conditions changed the rent cap could be adjusted at that time.

False Statement #2: “There’s not enough data to determine if the ordinance is working. ” Clarification: There are numerous data points showing the ordinance is already negatively impacting the quantity and quality of Concord’s rental housing stock fueling a sell off and defraying maintenance, therefore reducing both quality and quality of the rental housing stock.

The true rate of inflation is questionable depending which source is quoted. It has been estimated the inflation rate is between 2.9 and 4%. Yet this seems unrealistically low when you consider a dozen eggs is now $12.99, a box of ten Kcups is $11.99, 80% ground beef is $8.99 lb.,12oz package of Bacon is $13.99 lb. If basic groceries costs increased at such inflationary rates, what do you think has happened to the cost of lumber, sheetrock, electrical wiring, flooring and roofing materials along with the skilled labor to install them? Building materials have increased 30-40% emerging from pandemic. The cost of skilled labor has seen similar rate increases. A roof replacement with basic 30-year composite shingle for a 2000 sq’ ft. home five years ago was approximately $15,000 dollars. That same roof replacement cost today is $28,000. That’s an 87% increase in replacement cost. As many housing providers expressed at Tuesday's meeting most owner do not have large cash reserves to pay for these types of major repairs and certainly won’t be able to keep pace with inflation for costs of repairs with an artificial price cap of 2.5%. The notion providers will pay a non-refundable $5000 deposit to go through a hearing officer in order to request an increase for a capital improvement is unrealistic. During council meetings back in 2018 the housing staff presentation showed 80% rentals in Concord are owned by 1 individual owning 4 or less units. The average “mom & pop” will not go through such an expensive process with no guarantee of a successful outcome.

Another critical data point is hazard insurance premiums have skyrocketed with continued wild fire devastation in California. Many carriers have stopped underwriting policies in the state and the carriers who remain have free reign to raise premiums. Recently Farmers Insurance announced rates in CA will increase 33%. PG&E published a new round of rate increases of 15%, while Contra Costa Water announced a 12% rate increase. The city’s rent registry fee increased from $4.97 per unit to $47. That’s a 1000% increase!

The “data” is undeniable clearly indicating the artificially created 2.5% cap does not even come close to keeping pace with the real rate of inflation and is therefore unsustainable for most housing providers. Many owner have said “enough is enough, time to sell in Concord, ” with many more to follow.

A highly critical data point council needs to consider is the significant reduction of rental housing units over the past ten months. The council can verify with local real estate professionals such as Contra Costa Association of Realtors that since the passage of the ordinance sales of rental properties consisting of single family homes and condos, have jumped by 11% over the year prior as a direct result of the ordinance. Property owner’s fearful of losing money or having to pay the excessive “relocation fees” are proactively liquidating investments in Concord and placing those resources elsewhere. This fact was echoed by multiple realtors who spoke at the meeting informing the council of numerous rental listings being sold to now owner occupied units.

The sale of rental units in Concord is consistent with the 2019 study by professor of economics Rebecca Diamond Stanford University who examined the financial effects of San Francisco’s thirty year experience under rent control titled “The Effects of Rent Control, Landlords, and Inequality:

Evidence from San Francisco.” https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20181289 In this study one of the consequences of San Francisco rent control was a 15% reduction in number of rental units as housing providers withdrew units from the market or converted to condominiums sold as owner occupied units. This effect occurred over thirty years, yet Concord’s ordinance has fueled a similar rate in less than one year driven primarily by the excessive and punitive “relocation fees. ”
One of the most significant data points that should not be overlooked is the fact in the last general election Concord voters for a third time overwhelming rejected Prop 33 which promoted state wide expansion of rent control. The Contra Costa Election office’s results show Districts 1, 2,4,5 all unanimously rejected Prop 33 by a 60% margin. Even District 3 containing the highest number of renters only won by a 10% margin. In other words, the district with the highest density of low- income voters passed with a slim margin whereas almost half of its voters rejected rent control.

District 4 saw one of the highest rejection rates of 68% in the top three precincts and a 64% rejection rate overall. I walked every neighborhood canvassing the district speaking with residents.

The three leading reasons for voting the Mayor out of office were increased crime, homelessness and passing of rent control. The Seno matter was not a factor for the average voter who knew nothing about the subject. Most residents in the district indicated they own investment properties or their families do, and fully reject the pit falls of rent control. This was a powerful motivator to unseat a 12 year sitting incumbent Mayor. District 5 was a close runner up with an overall 65% rejection rate with a 71% rate in the one of the largest precincts. When pro-rent control activist say “you need to represent the entire city, not just your district, ” please know that you are representing the entire city when you consider out of 35 precincts out of 43 total, rejected rent control with only 8 approving . You are representing the entire city.

False Statement #3: “The rent registry isn’t completed. We don’t even know how many corporation own property in Concord. ”

Clarification: This statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of owning a business.

Most small business owners including myself are incorporated for tax purposes. Building materials and capital improvements like that $28,000 roof replacement are amortized over several years by tax preparation specialists. However, the single most valuable reason for being incorporated is to limit liability creating a firewall between the business and one’s own personal assets. Should a catastrophic event occur the LLC, or S-Corporation shields the owner’s personal assets. However, that doesn’t mean incorporated individuals are rich property owners. As you heard multiple times during Tuesday’s meeting many housing providers operate the business on a thin margin month to month using the monthly rent to pay the mortgage with the goal of achieving positive cash flow to set aside for paying property taxes and save for maintenance projects.

False Statement #4: “The call for review is an attack on immigrants. ” Clarification: Besides not understanding how businesses run or effects of supply and demand on price, the fact that 75% of the housing providers who spoke were immigrants themselves seems to have been lost on the pro-rent activists. Non-U.S. born housing providers spoke one after another of how they arrived in this country not speaking the language, yet overcame many challenges working multiple jobs to buy property to generate income for when they retire.

False Statement #5: “Until this ordinance was passed renters in Concord had no protections. ” Clarification: Completely False. For the past five years renters in Concord have been protected by the 2019 law AB 1482- The Tenant Protection Act which includes both rent-stabilization and Just Cause Eviction. It has been recognized as the strongest tenant protection law anywhere in the United States. In late October a small group of housing providers met with then Rep Tim Grayson at his office in Todos Santos. When asked why he co-authored the bill now Senator Tim Grayson, informed me “We had to do something during Covid to protect renters. We specifically wrote this bill to give municipalities cover so they wouldn’t have to do what Concord did. No one in Sacramento is happy about what happened here. ”

Conclusion: So how do you as a Council move forward? The council has three choices at this point:
1: Do nothing: Despite “ample data” indicating the ordinance as its currently written is having a decisively negative impact on the quantity and quality of the rental housing stock. There is clearly a problem which will only be exacerbated the longer it is allowed to remain status quo and council will likely face the political consequences as the former 12 year sitting Mayor.

2. Amend the Ordinance: In order to stop the hemorrhaging of the rental market sell off the council could make modifications to the ordinance so it aligns with the state’s law by matching the state rent cap of 5% plus CPI given the significant inflationary costs in the state for building materials, skilled labor, utilities and hazard insurance have risen significantly. Single family homes and muti- family or 4 or less should be removed. Don’t hurt the “mom & pops” they were never the problem.

The punitive relocation fees in Just Cause should be eliminated, or significantly reduced as these are fueling the sell off. Most importantly, a waiver should be added to the ordinance stating that with proper notice of (ie. 120 days) a housing provider is not required to pay this fee. As it is written

now the relocation fee is a money grab for tenants and “soft extortion” of the housing provider. For example when the lease has reached its completion date, the owner is now at the discretion of the tenant to move. Tenant says “I don’t want to move. But if you pay me the relation fee, I’ll agree to move. ” This should not be allowed to happen. With proper advance notice any owner should be allowed to reclaim their property without having to pay two months’ rent, plus $2000 which in most cases equates to approximately $7000 up to $9,000.

2. Repeal the Ordinance: Early data indicates unintended consequences to the rental market which is not in the city’s best interest. The Tenant Protection Act offers the strong tenant protections in the country including rent-stabilization including Just Case Evictions. Districts 1,2,4,5 unanimously voted they did want rent control in Concord for a third time. While this may not be popular with the 2000 “yes” votes in the Monument, these individuals are protected with strong tenant protections in the country under AB1482. Council members will face less political pressure by acting on the will of their constituents potentially and thereby avoiding the same fate as the former Mayor.

In closing, I feel if the council takes the approach of amending the ordinance it can achieve equity for all parties. The relocation fees are still required for housing provider who wants to break a lease without giving a tenant ample notice to find new housing, but are not mandatory with sufficient advance notice. The rent cap is aligned with the state’s law which is legitimized given the significant inflationary costs of the state at this time. You will create a win/win for all parties. Tenants keep a strong level of protection that are aligned with AB1482, housing providers will feel less anxious and perhaps curtail the sell off of the rental stock, and most of all council members will be acting on the will of their constituents and the vast majority of city residents.

I welcome the opportunity to meet with the council as a group or individually for discussion in further detail.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Best Regards,
Blaine Carter

From: Asria Almuhana <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 4:55 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: No Rent Control
Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to support the city's decision to review the rent control ordinance. Rent control is a bad policy because it can lead to a decrease in the quality and quantity of available rental housing, discourage new construction, and ultimately make housing less affordable in the long run by creating a mismatch between supply and demand, even though it may seem to help current tenants in the short term by keeping rents artificially low; this is due to landlords having less incentive to maintain properties or build new ones when profits are capped by rent control regulations. More details as below,

1. Concord has a lot of open spaces for development, rent control scares away developers.

2. Rent control discourages home owners from building more ADUs.

3. Rent control comes with Just Cause Eviction which makes it impossible to evict bad tenants, a lot of people are afraid of renting. It creates bad situations like San Francisco where on the one hand there's a housing shortage and on the other hand there are 60 thousand vacant units in the city because the housing providers are scared of the risks.

4. When bad tenants stay, good tenants will eventually leave. This is bad for the business and the community. It creates dangerous and declining cities like Oakland. Your neighbor Antioch is another Oakland in making: Destroying the police department in the name of racism and strict rent control and just cause eviction has resulted in much more crimes in Antioch.

Concord can and must do better. The first step to take is to repeal the rent control ordinance.

Asria

From: qasim said <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 5:49 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: rent control,
Honorable City Council Members,

I am writing to support the city's decision to review the rent control ordinance. Rent control is a bad policy because it can lead to a decrease in the quality and quantity of available rental housing, discourage new construction, and ultimately make housing less affordable in the long run by creating a mismatch between supply and demand, even though it may seem to help current tenants in the short term by keeping rents artificially low; this is due to landlords having less incentive to maintain properties or build new ones when profits are capped by rent control regulations. More details as below,

1. Concord has a lot of open spaces for development, rent control scares away developers.

2. Rent control discourages home owners from building more ADUs.

3. Rent control comes with Just Cause Eviction which makes it impossible to evict bad tenants, a lot of people are afraid of renting. It creates bad situations like San Francisco where on the one hand there's a housing shortage and on the other hand there are 60 thousand vacant units in the city because the housing providers are scared of the risks.

4. When bad tenants stay, good tenants will eventually leave. This is bad for the business and the community. It creates dangerous and declining cities like Oakland. Your neighbor Antioch is another Oakland in making: Destroying the police department in the name of racism and strict rent control and just cause eviction has resulted in much more crimes in Antioch.

Concord can and must do better. The first step to take is to repeal the rent control ordinance.

Qasim Almuhana

From: FD <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 10:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control is bad for both tenants and landlords

Dear City Council members,
Rental control and just cause eviction policies are bad because of the followings:

1. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing:
• Rent control limits landlords’ ability to charge market rates, reducing their incentive to invest in or maintain rental properties. Over time, this can lead to a decline in the quantity and quality of available rental housing.
• Some property owners may convert rental units into condominiums or owner-occupied homes to avoid rent restrictions, further reducing supply.

2. Decreased Property Maintenance and Quality:
• With limited rental income, landlords may cut back on property maintenance and upgrades, leading to deteriorating living conditions. This can negatively impact tenants, despite lower rents.

3. Distorted Market Incentives:
• Rent control can create a mismatch between tenants and housing units. For example, long- term tenants might stay in units that no longer suit their needs because of below-market rents, reducing turnover and availability for others.

4. Increased Housing Shortages and Higher Rents for New Tenants:
• Since rent control often applies only to existing tenants, landlords may increase rents for new tenants to compensate for income lost from controlled units, raising overall market rates.

5. Discouraging New Construction:
• Developers may avoid building new rental properties if they fear future rent control regulations, limiting the growth of the rental supply. This is especially problematic in areas already experiencing housing shortages.

6. Administrative and Legal Costs:
• Just-cause eviction laws can increase the time and expense of removing problematic tenants, potentially discouraging landlords from renting out units or making it harder for them to manage their properties effectively.

7. Unintended Consequences for Tenants:

• While rent control protects current tenants, it can make it harder for newcomers or lower- income individuals to find housing, as fewer units are available and landlords may become more selective.

So please stop rent control and just cause eviction policies.

Thanks,

Frank Diane

From: Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 6:25 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinance Honorable City Council Members,
My name is Min Liang, a resident of Concord. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recently adopted rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinance in our city. While these measures aim to protect tenants, they often lead to unintended consequences that can exacerbate housing challenges. Key issues include:

1. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing:
• Disincentive for Landlords: Rent control can limit landlords’ ability to charge market rates, reducing their motivation to invest in or maintain rental properties. Over time, this may lead to a decline in both the quantity and quality of available rental housing. • Conversion to Non-Rental Units: Some property owners might convert rental units into condominiums or owner-occupied homes to avoid rent restrictions, further decreasing the rental supply.

2. Decreased Property Maintenance and Quality:
• Limited Funds for Upkeep: With restricted rental income, landlords may cut back on property maintenance and upgrades, leading to deteriorating living conditions for tenants.

3. Distorted Market Incentives:
• Mismatch Between Tenants and Units: Rent control can create situations where long-term tenants remain in units that no longer suit their needs due to below-market rents, reducing turnover and availability for others.

4. Increased Housing Shortages and Higher Rents for New Tenants:
• Compensatory Rent Increases: Since rent control often applies only to existing tenants, landlords may increase rents for new tenants to offset income lost from controlled units, raising overall market rates.

5. Discouraging New Construction:
• Developer Hesitancy: Developers may avoid building new rental properties if they anticipate future rent control regulations, limiting the growth of the rental supply. This is particularly problematic in areas already experiencing housing shortages.

6. Administrative and Legal Costs:
• Challenges in Managing Tenancies: Just cause eviction laws can increase the time and expense of removing problematic tenants, potentially discouraging landlords from renting out units or effectively managing their properties.

7. Unintended Consequences for Tenants:
• Reduced Housing Opportunities: While rent control protects current tenants, it can make it harder for newcomers or lower-income individuals to find housing, as fewer units are available and landlords may become more selective.

Research indicates that rent control can lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of housing, as well as increased rents in uncontrolled areas. Additionally, studies have shown that such policies can discourage new construction and lead to the withdrawal of existing rental units from the market.

In light of these considerations, I urge the City Council to reconsider the implementation of rent control and just cause eviction policies. Instead, focusing on strategies that encourage the development of new housing and the maintenance of existing properties may offer more sustainable solutions to our housing challenges.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Min Liang

From: Chao2 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 7:48 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Against rental control
Honorable City Council Members,

Rent control and just cause eviction policies are bad because of the followings:

1. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing: Rent control limits landlords ability to charge market rates, reducing their willingness to invest in rental properties. Over time, this leads to a decline in available rental housing, making it harder for tenants to find suitable accommodations.

2. Lower Property Maintenance & Quality:With restricted rental income, landlords may struggle to cover maintenance costs, leading to deteriorating property conditions and reduced overall housing quality.

3. Disincentive for New Development: Rent control discourages new housing construction by making rental investments less attractive, further exacerbating housing shortages.

4. Unfair Burden on Small Property Owners: Many small landlords rely on rental income to cover mortgage payments, property taxes, and maintenance. Rent control policies disproportionately impact them, forcing some to sell or convert properties to non-rental uses.

Instead of rent control, I urge the council to focus on increasing housing supply, incentivizing development, and supporting rental assistance programs for those in need. These solutions will create a more sustainable and fair housing market for both tenants and landlords.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Chao Ruan

From: Dan Sakaguchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 11:27 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Methodology Used to Estimate Out-of-Town Investor-Owned Rentals in Concord Dear Concord City Council Members and staff,

My name is Dan Sakaguchi. I’m a member of the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project (AEMP) and was one of the authors of the “Property ownership and consolidation in Concord” report that we published in September 2023. I have spent the last six years as a data scientist and researcher with the AEMP studying evictions, rental property ownership, and real estate corporate structures across the Bay Area, including for the last two years in Contra Costa.

I am aware that City staff inquired how we concluded that 78% of rental units were owned by out- of-town investors in our report. To help provide clarity to the Council as it reviews the city’s tenant protection and rent stabilization ordinance, I want to explain the methodology that we used in our report.

We purchased Contra Costa County Assessor parcel data from Regrid that reflects ownership as of May 2022. These property records include fields for its address, use (e.g. single family or multifamily residential), unit count, and owner mailing address (i.e. the address where property tax bills are mailed). We filtered the data to properties in Concord with a residential use code and determined whether each property is renter- or owner-occupied based on whether the property address and owner mailing address matched. We also used the owner mailing address to determine whether a property is non-locally owned.

For a fictional property listed at 123 Main St. Concord:
• If its owner mailing address were listed as 123 Main St, Concord, we would determine the property is owner-occupied
• If its owner mailing address were listed as 456 Oak St, Concord, we would determine the property is local investor-owned (i.e. renter-occupied) • If its owner mailing address were listed as 789 Broadway, San Francisco, we would determine the property is out-of-town investor-owned (i.e. renter-occupied) Note: We use the term “investor-owned” to indicate that the owner is using the property as a business opportunity rather than a primary residence. It does not necessarily mean that the owner is a large corporation. Many individuals use small properties as an investment opportunity in this way.

Based on the County records for the property site addresses and owner mailing addresses, we found that 78 percent of all rental units in Concord are owned by out-of-town investors. We further found that 67 percent of single-family rentals and 81 percent of rented condominiums in Concord are owned by out-of-town investors.

Please let me know if you have any further questions about the methodology used and I would be happy to further clarify.

Dan Sakaguchi
Anti-Eviction Mapping Project

Property ownership and consolidation in Concord
The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project
September 11th, 2023
Contents
Introduction 1
Results 1
Top-line statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Multifamily rental units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Single-family homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Condo units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Conclusions and recommendations 12
Appendix 13
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Introduction
The goal of this report is to provide an analysis of property and property ownership in Concord, and especially to determine the extent of ownership consolidation of residential rental units in Concord.

This report will answer three questions:

1. To what extent is ownership of rental units in Concord consolidated within corporate landlords, as opposed to so-called “mom-and-pop” landlords?

2. Are investors in Concord rental units locally based or based outside of Concord?

3. What kinds of property data do we need to ensure tenants are protected? What are the limitations with current data?
This report is authored by Violet Davis, Nathan Kim, and Dan Sakaguchi, developers and researchers from the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. We produced these findings to provide evidence for the City of Concord on why Concord needs Just Cause protections and rent stabilization, as well as to provide recommendations on future data practices to better protect tenants.

Results
All statistics in the tables and charts below apply to residential units only, not commercial or other forms of property.

Top-line statistics
Our initial set of counts reveal strong presences of nonlocal owners in Concord, and a large number of multifamily units held by a small number of multifamily owners. 1 Page 93 of 369
The numbers in the table here include both properties occupied by owners and those that are occupied by renters, so they provide only a partial picture in identifying ownership consolidation and the presence of a “mom-and-pop” landlord class in Concord. Later in our report, we will stratify these results by owner- occupied status and investigate ownership trends specifically among investor-owned units.

Table 1: Summary statistics of ownership in Concord
Statistic Tenure Non-locally owned Locally owned Total
Total Units Renter Occupied 13,695 (78%) 3,816 (22%) 17,511 Total Owners Renter Occupied 5,051 (69%) 2,227 (31%) 7,278 Total Units Owner Occupied 0 (0%) 26,454 (100%) 26,454
Total Owners Owner Occupied 0 (0%) 26,454 (100%) 26,454 Condo units Owner Occupied 0 (0%) 3,242 (100%) 3,242
Condo owners Owner Occupied 0 (0%) 3,242 (100%) 3,242
Condo units Renter Occupied 2,184 (81%) 504 (19%) 2,688 Condo owners Renter Occupied 1,509 (79%) 413 (21%) 1,922 Multifamily units Renter Occupied 7,428 (85%) 1,262 (15%) 8,690 Multifamily owners Renter Occupied 326 (66%) 169 (34%) 495 Single-Family units Owner Occupied 0 (0%) 23,212 (100%) 23,212 Single-Family owners Owner Occupied 0 (0%) 23,212 (100%) 23,212 Single-Family units Renter Occupied 4,083 (67%) 2,050 (33%) 6,133 Single-Family owners Renter Occupied 3,396 (66%) 1,745 (34%) 5,141 From here, we divide our report’s results into three rough sections, by type of property: multi-family rental units, condo units, and single-family homes. Within each type of property, we explore whether owners are locally or non-locally based and whether the property is investor-owned or owner-occupied.

Multifamily rental units
Multifamily ownership consolidation
The charts below measure ownership consolidation in Concord by examining what proportion of units each decile of landlords own. If property ownership in Concord was relatively egalitarian, we would observe the top and bottom deciles to own an equal amount of property. We observe instead that the top 10%, comprising just 50 owners, own 66% of all multifamily units, in our view a stunning capture of the market that reflects the highly unequal landscape of property ownership in Concord. Most tenants are subject to living in just a handful of corporations’ buildings.
2 Page 94 of 369
T op multifamily owners
The charts below depict the top corporations by total multifamily unit count and total multifamily property count in Concord. Only one corporation name is indicated in the x-axis, out of potentially multiple repre- sented in each bar’s height. Each name below represents the beneficial owner of a given corporate network identified through both qualitative means and through the Evictorbook database of property ownership, with methodology described in further detail above.
3 Page 95 of 369
4 Page 96 of 369
Case study: Vasona Management
To further emphasize the importance of recognizing the links between seemingly independent corporations, as well as to illustrate how corporations manage and expand themselves today, we display a portfolio below of the top landlord network by total unit count in Concord. This network is commandeered by Vasona Management, Inc., led by CEO Terry Maas and located at 1500 E Hamilton A ve in Campbell, CA. This network controls 14 properties and 569 units in Concord alone.

Table 2: Portfolio of properties held by Vasona Management Shell corporation Property address Unit count
Adelaide Pines LLC 1731 Pine St 15
Adelaide Pines LLC 1730 Adelaide St 36
Adelaide Pines LLC 1711 Detroit A ve 35
Walnut Creek Properties LLC 1776 Laguna St 44
Walnut Creek Properties LLC 1531 Detroit A ve 33
Walnut Creek Properties LLC 1530 Ellis St 47
Walnut Creek Properites LLC 1236 Detroit A ve 33
Concord Props LLC 1688 Clayton Rd 40
Concord Props LLC 1741 Detroit A ve 35
Concord Props LLC 1682 Clayton Rd 40
Adobe Lake LLC 1500 Ellis St 54
Maas Creatview LP 1601 Broadway St 72
Amador Concord LLC 1880 Laguna St 47
Catcrest LLC 1501 Detroit A ve 38
5 Page 97 of 369
The geography of multifamily ownership
Table 3: Top multifamily owners in Concord and their locations Owner Location Owner Name Number of units owned
Campbell, CA Vasona Management 569
Calabasas, CA Walsh & Company 297
San Mateo, CA 1160 Meadow Lane Associates 226
San Francisco, CA Prime/ Rivershore 219
San Ramon, CA Broadway Investment Company 209
San Diego, CA Monument Blvd Housing Assoc 199
Concord, CA Greencourt LLC 190
San Ramon, CA MT View Apartments LLC 163
San Francisco, CA Persons Cob Borrower LP 154
Concord, CA Meadow Wood Associates 152
Finally, we show preliminary analyses here of investors with activity in San Francisco and Oakland that also have activity in Concord, obtained by matching records from Regrid and records from the Evictorbook database of landlord activity in San Francisco and Oakland. Mailing addresses were used to link these two sources of data together. Matches from the top 1,000 landlord networks in the Evictorbook database are shown below.

We see here corporate networks led by landlords like Michael Marr, which the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project had previously documented as a prominent and prolific Bay Area evictor who was convicted of bid rigging.

We also find large investments from other landlords like RDO Urban Investments Partners and Dianna Garrett.
6 Page 98 of 369
“Rank” here was determined by the total number of properties associated with a given landlord ownership network in the Evictorbook database.

Table 4: Activity of property investors across San Francisco, Oak- land, and Concord.

Owner City
Rank within
Evictorbook
Units in San Francisco and
Oakland
Units in
Concord
Michael Marr San
Leandro
4 298 8
Rdo Urban Investments
Partners LLC
New York 21 102 76
Glenn D Bigelow Oakland 35 75 75
Justin Wallway Oakland 63 48 1
Dianna Garrett Berkeley 133 31 100
Susan Friedland Berkeley 181 24 8
Gail Giffen Berkeley 325 13 9
Wilson Young San
Leandro
390 11 1
Gerald S Friedkin Oakland 444 10 150
Yoav Kirshenboim Pleasant
Hill
628 8 2
Gail Zerbib San
Francisco
631 8 1
Mark Raymond Belanger Concord 640 8 1
Albert D Seeno Iii Concord 653 8 2
Abhijeet Dwivedi San
Francisco
667 8 1
Oscar K Wu Alamo 672 8 1
Ben S Marcus Piedmont 824 7 32
Single-family homes
Ownership consolidation among single-family homes
We also find significant investor activity among single-family homes, suggesting that legislation dealing specifically with larger multifamily properties may leave many tenants in harm’s way. All tenants can be subject to displacement driven by real estate speculation, and all tenants deserve protection and transparency from their landlords, not just those in corporate housing.

The chart below shows a significant number of investor-owned single-family homes, which can be used as rental properties by the owners. Transparency measures like the Rent Registry, which require buildings with four or more units to register with the city, fail to cover these cases, even though many tenants live in these units.
7 Page 99 of 369
Below, we show a profile of the beneficial owners of investing parties in single-family homes. Compared to investors of multifamily properties, which tend to be corporations, single-family homes are more attractive options for individual investors and family trusts.
8 Page 100 of 369
Geography of single-family investors
Objections may be heard in Concord of local “mom-and-pop” landlords who are burdened by potential regulations imposed by the city. But our analysis finds little support in the data for this argument. As shown below, just 33.4% of single-family rentals are owned by investors who live in Concord. 9 Page 101 of 369
We additionally find that a corporation from Texas known as “2018-4 IH Borrower LP” or alternately as “Invitation Homes”, Gregory and Kathleen Kern (who run K5 Family LLC) from Clayton, and Zahra and Hossein Nik-ahd from San Ramon hold the highest number of properties in Concord.

Table 5: Top single-family investors in Concord and their locations.

Owner Location Owner Name Number of properties owned
Clayton, CA Gregory and Kathleen Kern 17
Dallas, TX Invitation Homes 13
San Ramon, CA Nik-Ahd Hossein & Zahra M TRE 13
Concord, CA AAA Property Management 11
Concord, CA Seto Paul & Rose TRE 9
Concord, CA Evergreen Realty 9
Concord, CA Mead Bradley E TRE 9
Danville, CA Farinha Rufus P & Nancy M TRE 8
Concord, CA Mary A McAlister 7
Santa Ana, CA Tricon American Homes LLC 7
Condo units
The last case of units we will consider in this report are condo units, a special case of unit that are neither traditional apartment rental units (in that they are bought and traded independently) nor are they single- family homes.
10 Page 102 of 369
Investor ownership of condos
We profile below the top investors of condos as well as show the proportion of investor-owned condos. We find nearly as many investor-owned condo units as owner-occupied units, and find that of investors, nonlocal investors far outweigh local investors in total unit ownership.

Nonlocal ownership of condos
Finally, to understand nonlocal investor activity in Concord condos, as well as to profile the top owners in Concord, we show here the distribution of locations of condo investors in Concord, and profile the top 10 investors of condos. We find that just 18.8% of condo units in Concord are owned by investors from Concord, and the rest are owned by nonlocal investors hailing from places like San Francisco and San Ramon. 11 Page 103 of 369
Of the top ten investors of condo units in Concord, we find that none of them are from Concord – some, like Carol Meyer, are from Nevada, others are from elsewhere in the Bay Area.

Table 6: Top owners of condo units in Concord
Owner Owned condo units Location
Meyer Carol Marie Keck 31 Zephyr Cove, NV
Jaber Philip J TRE 26 Alameda, CA
James Baldacci 26 San Ramon, CA
Kellar Edward D & Janeen F TRE 23 Morgan Hill, CA
Chern Investments II LLC 19 Danville, CA
Dmw Rental Properties LLC 15 Berkeley, CA
Hayer Sukhjinder Singh TRE 14 Dublin, CA
Wong See-Pok TRE 13 Danville, CA
Chapman Lisa E 12 Danville, CA
Francis Wanyee 12 San Francisco, CA
Conclusions and recommendations
We find significant consolidation in Concord of property ownership among a few corporations. Most tenants do not live in a property owned by a “mom-and-pop” management company, but a large property manage- ment company that may operate under many different corporation names. Even among entities that own smaller numbers of units, Concord has strong trends of investment activity from parties outside Concord that now own the majority of Concord’s non-owner-occupied homes. 12 Page 104 of 369
We obtained all of these findings using the proprietary property data source Regrid, which in turn draws from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office. But data on property use and ownership needs to be made public in order to make this kind of analysis democratic. Existing measures like the Rent Registry are only available for a limited subset of rental units (the Rent Registry only covers buildings with more than four units), making it difficult for tenants and tenant organizers to advocate for the many thousands of people renting in smaller buildings. Though we provided proxy measures we have confidence in here, tenant advocates can only truly understand who is most vulnerable and what protections we need with quality data on rental units and beneficial ownership – advocates shouldn’t have to rely on approximations.

Appendix
Methodology
T erms
• Parcel - a property, identified by a unique ID that we most often refer to as an APN, or an Assessor’s parcel number. Parcels are pieces of real estate property that can be owned and transferred indepen- dently – apartment rental units are thus not parcels, but the apartment building as a whole, a condo unit, or a single-family home is a parcel.
• Address - a mailing address for a parcel. In the discussions that follow, the term always refers to unique addresses; an address formatted two different ways is still considered a single address. • Ownership network - a single ownership entity operating through possibly several corporations and people. Real estate activity often takes place through shell companies and corporate structures that may appear as independent actors, but in fact benefit one owner.

Data sources
We initially looked into two data sources: the Concord Residential Rent Registry Program and Regrid, a property data and location intelligence company.

From the Concord Rent Registry, we obtained ownership information on all units in Concord within buildings with four or more units. We obtained the name, address, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and several other variables that can be viewed online. For more information about the Concord Residential Rent Registry, please visit this link. Because the Concord Rent Registry lacks information on mailing addresses and only provides data on units with more than four units, we cannot perform analyses on the relationships between different buildings nor on the ratio of units owned by “mom-and-pop” landlords and corporate landlords.

Therefore, we did not end up utilizing this dataset for analysis, but did at times refer back to it to check consistency with Regrid data.

Thus, to make these ownership claims, we rely on data from Regrid. From Regrid, we obtained data on all properties in Concord regardless of whether they are residential buildings with four or more units. For our analysis, only counts for residential buildings are reported. Regrid draws from city and municipal property data across the country and provides data in a cleaned and standardized format. For the rest of the report, when we refer to data, we will be referring to data obtained from Regrid.

Creating ownership networks
The Regrid dataset lacks information on beneficial ownership, or the entity that benefits from the ownership or a chain of ownership of a property. A given LLC owning a unit could be benefiting the owner of another LLC, and act as a shell company for another company’s operations. Thus, to find the largest owners in Concord, we are interested not in which corporation owns a property directly but which corporation controls and owns the corporations listed as a given property’s owner.

We make a best effort estimate of these relations of ownership, hereafter referred to as “ownership networks,” by matching corporations based on the mailing address for each owner available from Regrid’s property ownership data. We consider multiple corporations listing a single owner mailing address to be our best 13 Page 105 of 369
indicator of whether a single entity is acting under multiple corporation names. However, this strategy is not perfect; for example, in rare cases, two landlords could list the same mailing address despite being completely separate corporations because a single law office completed the paperwork for both companies.

Though this can result in inaccurate landlord networks being formed, we believe it is not applicable to the largest networks which are profiled in this report and does not change the trends that we identify here.

We, the researchers and developers of AEMP, plan to incorporate property ownership data in Concord into our web lookup tool Evictorbook, to address the above limitations. In Evictorbook, we not only use corporation mailing addresses to connect property owners as we do in this analysis, but we also use data on the officers reported by the corporation to the California Secretary of State (SOS). If two corporation has the same CEO, that is a strong indication that they are part of the same ownership network. Evictorbook also contains corporation data for the entirety of California, not just specific localities like Concord. This, in conjunction with the use of officer names to create ownership networks, would mean that integrating with Evictorbook would allow us increase confidence in the ownership networks we display here.

We expect the integration with Evictorbook to not change the major findings that are reported in this analysis. The scenario of different landlords listing the same mailing address seems not likely with our current view of our top landlords based on qualitative review. If anything, by allowing us to make more connections between ownership networks, the more accurate matching from Evictorbook would reinforce our findings that property ownership in Concord is consolidated among a few large corporations.

Estimating the number of owned units
Regrid lacks comprehensive information to definitively determine the number of units a landlord owns. While Regrid does not provide data on the number of units for Contra Costa County, it does provide information on the total number of unique addresses associated with a property. For commercial buildings, this is not an accurate count of the number of units; a building could have both “Floor 1” and “Suite 1” both as valid addresses where mail could be accepted, but we would overcount the number of units in this building were we to count these as separate units. For residential properties, we believe the number of addresses associated with a building to be a valid count of the number of units associated with that building.

Regrid matches addresses to properties via “geocoding” each address, or by finding the longitude-latitude coordinate associated with each address, and then matching the address to a parcel based on which parcel is closest to the coordinate. This is not an exact process, and we have observed single parcels within a condominium building or trailer park be assigned the addresses of other parcels in the same complex. For any parcel with multiple addresses, we search our records of parcels to find any parcel which is listed at any of these addresses – which Regrid might have mistakenly assigned to a different parcel when constructing lists of mailing addresses for each parcel – and update the address associations for the overcounted and undercounted parcels accordingly. This process is necessary to avoid recognizing a parcel as a multiunit apartment building or recognizing the parcel’s owner as a landlord with many units.

Identifying rentals
Unfortunately Regrid does not provide information on which parcels are used for rental units in Contra Costa County. To approximate which properties are rentals, we filter out owner-occupied properties. We do so by observing which of these parcels list a mailing address for their owner that is distinct from the parcel’s mailing address. This process gives us the best approximation for which units are investor-owned and rented out instead of owner-occupied. However, properties may be investor-owned and not rented for a variety of reasons. Additionally, a owner may be listing a PO Box as their mailing address and actually live at the property, but our process would identify the property as a rental. Luckily, we found only a very minor portion of PO box listed mailing addresses, and this did not affect our overall analysis. Finally, A real estate company could have temporarily acquired a building without intention of renting the units inside to individual tenants, but our analysis makes no distinction between these cases and landlords that rent out units. Thus, our findings should be taken as an approximation of rental ownership, and not an exact calculation of rental units in Concord.
14 Page 106 of 369
Distinguishing single-family , multi-family , and condo rentals We identify investor-owned single-family homes by first observing which parcels are associated with just one address after removing the unit number from all addresses; “123 Main Street Unit#1” and “123 Main Street Unit#2” are different addresses but clearly part of a single complex and thus not a single-family home, so we look for these cases and remove them, then count the remaining items as single-family homes. We identify multi-family rentals through identifying which parcels are associated with 2 or more addresses. We identify condo units by filtering which parcels are associated with just one address when including the unit number and associated with multiple addresses when removing the unit number. 15 Page 107 of 369
From: Maria De Sousa <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 11:37 AM
Subject: Rent Stabilization & Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance Dear City of Concord Council Members:

I am writing this letter to urge you to please repeal the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction program in Concord. The rental business makes absolutely no sense under these conditions.

It would be nice if the people that are in charge of making these laws and regulating this industry, actually understood the rental business and knew a thing or two about it. I question if any of the Council Members would even consider getting into this type of business, having to obey these rental laws?! I don’t think so!
We have to use common sense. Property owners cannot be expected to absorb all the costs, and be limited to a puny rent increase per year. We, the landlords, are getting hit from all directions:

Insurance, utilities, laborers, inflation, lawsuits… These businesses are making the money, and they pass the costs down to us. They are not working for free. The landlords are caught in the middle, and are stuck with those costs, based on their demands. The rental business is all about maintenance, and we can no longer afford repairs and maintenance.

It’s not just the cost of doing normal business, it’s the additional laws that you are imposing that is putting the nail in the coffin. No landlord wants to evict a tenant for no reason. Evictions are very costly, and landlords need tenants as much as tenants need a home. We are not in the charity business, and we don’t live off donations. Where is all the money going to come from to stay in business? Property owners can no longer provide rentals when all the odds are against them.

It’s amazing that there are some of us still left, but I guarantee you that there will be less and less owners that will want to get into the rental business. It will be a thing of the past.

Data has shown over and over again that Rent Control only exacerbates the housing market and creates dilapidated buildings. The State already has AB1482 in place to protect tenants. There is no need to have additional protections in place. This Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance only protects one side. Where is the fairness for everyone? We would like to know how is it that for the past two years (2022 & 2023), the Rent Registry fee was $5.75 per unit, and this year, the fee went up to $47.00 per unit. That’s over 800% increase!!!!! What is this fee for, and why did it go up so much? You can increase all your fees to the landlords as much as you want, but you demand us to only increase the rents 2.5% (if that). This is not a fair game and does not make sense at all.

This Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction program NEEDS to be repealed. The City Council is harming everyone with these reckless decisions, and is in self destruction mode with these kinds of laws.

Thank you for your time,

John De Sousa
Carleton Dr. property owner

From: Lynn Luo <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 11:28 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please stop rent control in Concord

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further expansion of local rental regulations. These policies place unnecessary financial burdens on property owners, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately lead to reduced housing supply and higher rents—the exact opposite of what they intend to achieve. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, enacted in 1995, already provides clear exemptions for single-family homes and condominiums from both rent cap requirements and just cause eviction regulations. There is no need for Concord to impose additional, conflicting restrictions that create confusion, legal challenges, and financial disincentives for housing providers. Furthermore, rental property owners bear all major costs associated with maintaining housing, including property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs, while tenants do not. Yet, the current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), fails to account for the rapidly rising costs of ownership. This artificial cap makes it unsustainable for landlords to continue offering rental units, particularly for small property owners. A critical consequence of local rent control is the deterrence of real estate investment. When investors see a city implementing restrictive rent control policies, they become unwilling to develop new housing or purchase rental properties in that area. This reduction in available rental housing creates a supply shortage, leading to higher rents for tenants. Instead of keeping housing affordable, rent control shrinks the market and drives up costs over time.

Additionally, the just cause eviction requirement further burdens landlords, making it difficult to manage their properties efficiently. By restricting a property owner’s ability to address problem tenants or reclaim their property for legitimate reasons, the city is discouraging responsible landlords from participating in the rental market. This pushes more small property owners to sell their units or convert them into owner-occupied housing, further reducing rental availability. We have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall. The defeat of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanding rent control. The City Council should respect this decision and prioritize policies that encourage housing development rather than discouraging it. Expanding rent control will only result in fewer rental properties, higher rents, and a worsening housing crisis in the long run. I urge the City Council to eliminate or significantly roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord must align with state law, support property investment, and encourage a fair

and sustainable housing market that benefits both landlords and tenants. Thank you for your time and consideration. I encourage the Council to adopt policies that promote housing growth and investment, rather than deterring it through restrictive and counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,

Wenlin Luo
Concord resident

From: cathy baigent <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 11:49 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection- Rental Registry

As A citizen of Concord, I am writing to express that I am strongly opposed to the recent City Rental registry program. This is against my consitutional right to privacy. Please, DO NOT proceed with this program.

Cathy Baigent

From: SHIRLEY MILLS <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 12:52 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Repeal local rent control ordinance
City Council members,
I'm writing as a concerned local landlord regarding the rent control ordinance.

This new ordinance is creating financial difficulties. The rent cap of 2 1/2% is unrealistic. The overall cost of expenses that we have no control over is beyond the 2 1/2%.

I went back of over my records for the last two years and here is what I found.

Our building insurance cost rose by 6% in 2024 over 2023. The insurance companies are now either raising the rates even higher (almost double) and/or they are dropping the policies altogether.

Our property taxes increased by 9% in 2024 over 2023. We did not make any improvements to generate this increase as our funds were already in danger of decreasing due to this new ordinance.

Even the City of Concord business license that we are required to get rose by 3% in 2024 over the 2023 amount. It seems that the City of Concord is not held to the same 2 1/2% cap as you want landlords to be.

I will not get into the general overall costs of repairs and supplies as they have also skyrocketed.

This new ordinance is creating a huge burden on Concord landlords. I feel it is prohibitive in allowing landlords to retain the upkeep and improvements to residences in Concord not to mention creating a financial burden on us.

I feel that overall Concord landlords have been doing a fine job in keeping Concord desirable for tenants. I don't think we should be punished for the abuse of a small fraction of landlords who have not.

Please seriously consider repealing this rent control ordinance for the good of both landlords and tenants.

Thank you
Shirley Mills
Concord Landlord

From: Wei Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 9:33 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Any Local Rent Control Regulations Wei Kang
1650 Frisbie Ct
Concord, CA 94520
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (510) 299-2701
February 20, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Opposition to Any Local Rent Control Regulations

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further local regulations that restrict rental housing providers. Rent control policies, including the current rent cap and just cause eviction requirements, impose unnecessary burdens on landlords, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately reduce the availability of quality housing in our community.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state-approved law enacted in 1995, already provides clear guidelines on rent control in California. Under Costa-Hawkins, single-family homes and condominiums are exempt from both rent cap requirements and just cause eviction regulations.

There is no need for Concord to override or complicate these established state protections with additional local restrictions. Creating city-specific rent control policies only adds confusion and deters housing providers from continuing to invest in and maintain rental properties.

The current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), makes it increasingly difficult for landlords to keep up with rising costs, including property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Rental housing must remain financially sustainable, and excessive government interference discourages property owners from continuing to offer rental units. Similarly, the just cause eviction requirement unnecessarily restricts landlords from managing their properties effectively, making it more difficult to address problematic tenants or adjust to changing circumstances.

Furthermore, the rejection of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanded rent control measures. The City Council should respect the will of the voters and focus on policies that promote housing development rather than stifling it with excessive regulations. Expanding rent control will only drive small landlords out of the market, reducing rental supply and making affordability even worse for tenants.

Additionally we have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall.

I urge the City Council to roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord should align with state law rather than creating unnecessary and harmful restrictions that discourage housing investment. A fair and sustainable housing market requires policies that encourage private investment, not government overreach that creates long-term negative consequences.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I strongly encourage the council to prioritize policies that support both landlords and tenants by fostering a healthy and stable rental market.

Sincerely,
Wei Kang

From: Frank Chiang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 2:29 PM
To: Ramirez, Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Ordinance
Hi Amy,

Please forward to Honorable City Council Members,

Rent control and just cause eviction policies are bad because of the followings:

1. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing:
•
Rent control limits landlords’ ability to charge market rates, reducing their incentive to invest in or maintain rental properties. Over time, this can lead to a decline in the quantity and quality of available rental housing.
•
Some property owners may convert rental units into condominiums or owner-occupied homes to avoid rent restrictions, further reducing supply.

2. Decreased Property Maintenance and Quality:
•
With limited rental income, landlords may cut back on property maintenance and upgrades, leading to deteriorating living conditions. This can negatively impact tenants, despite lower rents.

3. Distorted Market Incentives:
•
Rent control can create a mismatch between tenants and housing units. For example, long-term tenants might stay in units that no longer suit their needs because of below-market rents, reducing turnover and availability for others.

4. Increased Housing Shortages and Higher Rents for New Tenants:

•
Since rent control often applies only to existing tenants, landlords may increase rents for new tenants to compensate for income lost from controlled units, raising overall market rates.

5. Discouraging New Construction:
•
Developers may avoid building new rental properties if they fear future rent control regulations, limiting the growth of the rental supply. This is especially problematic in areas already experiencing housing shortages.

6. Administrative and Legal Costs:
•
Just-cause eviction laws can increase the time and expense of removing problematic tenants, potentially discouraging landlords from renting out units or making it harder for them to manage their properties effectively.

7. Unintended Consequences for Tenants:
•
While rent control protects current tenants, it can make it harder for newcomers or lower-income individuals to find housing, as fewer units are available and landlords may become more selective.

So please stop rent control and just cause eviction policies.

Thanks,
Frank
Yahoo Mail - Email Simplified

From: Mike Temps
To: Rush, Kelly
Subject: Tenant Protection Program
Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 8:59:44 AM
“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 safe.”
Dear Kelly Rush and Concord City Council:

Are rented single family residences and rented condominiums Really a problem for the City of Concord?
Why is it necessary to burden the majority of Good landlords for the problems of a few?
Doesn’t the City already have remedies for the few bad actors.

How can the City in good conscience cap rents with no cap on costs? 25% increase on insurance, no cap on HOA dues, no cap on painting roofing, landscaping, etc.

If expenses exceed income, I’m afraid the overall appearance and quality of rental property and the City of Concord as a whole will suffer.

Thank you

Mike Temps
Castle Companies
12885 Alcosta Blvd. Ste A
San Ramon, CA 94583
[email protected]
Office – 925 328 1000
Cell – 925 876 1643

City clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Council,
I have worked/lived/served people in Concord for [xx] years.

Last year’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction ordinance was a critical win for my community. It has only been implemented for ten months, and the policy needs time to work and stabilize working families, seniors, and young people.

Though many landlords are ethical, there are unscrupulous landlords who have retaliated against tenants advocating for basic standards of living with evictions and unreasonable rent increases, further displacing renters and families and exacerbating the housing crisis. Concord renters should not live with fear due to misinformation campaigns led by real estate interests.

I urge you to let the policy work and keep the rent cap to 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (whichever is lower).
[Add your story here.]
I am counting on your leadership to implement a strong policy that will help stabilize children, seniors, and working class families in Concord, stop unnecessary displacement, and reduce the City’s growing homelessness.

Thank you.

The following individuals submitted the email above:

1. Noelle Trinidad Taylor
[email protected]
1493 So. Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94110

2. Margaret Miller
[email protected]
2455 Royal Oaks Drive
Alamo, California 94507

From: Millie Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 4:04 PM
To: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: faith letter concerning tenant protections
Hello, city council members.

Attached is a letter from local clergy and lay leaders expressing our concern around potential reductions in Concord's tenant protections ordinance.

Thanks in advance for reading and considering it.

Millie
Rev. Millie Phillips
(She/Her)
Faith-Rooted Organizer FAME Concord
Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy (FAME) an initiative of EBASE 1820 Galindo St., Concord CA 94520
Cell: 415 272-4152
Agenda Item No. 5.a
Benched Correspondence
February 25, 2025

PRESERVE CONCORD’S EXISTING

TENANT ORDINANCES TO PROTECT

VULNERABLE FAMILIES

Dear Concord City Council Members,
We, the undersigned clergy and lay leaders, support the existing tenant protection ordinance passed last year by the Concord City Council, and we urge you not to change it in ways harmful to renters.

As people of faith grounded in the values of our religious traditions, caring for those who are marginalized due to race, immigration status, age, or lower income is central to our pastoral mission. Many lower-income tenants are immigrants, BIPOC, elderly, or single parents with children. Our senior members often live on fixed incomes and have expensive medical needs; they are especially vulnerable to rising housing costs. Religious leaders in Concord have been advocating for tenant protections for years as we see our own congregants and neighbors struggle to keep a roof over their heads in the face of skyrocketing rents.

Having safe, affordable, and habitable homes is essential to everyone’s well-being, but even more important for those already marginalized. Keeping tenants in their homes prevents homelessness or displacement to other regions, reduces costs related to homeless services,

and keeps essential workers in our community. Right now, given the added stress caused by a barrage of federal decisions that increase the risks of breaking up immigrant families, losing major benefits like Social Security and Medicare, facing greater discrimination by race and gender, and increasing consumer costs, it is essential to preserve the existing rent cap and to keep single-family rental homes covered by just-cause eviction procedures.

Increasing the rent cap places an added burden on tenants already coping with inflated grocery prices and the high cost of healthcare and other essentials. Eliminating just-cause eviction protections for single-family rental homes, including relocation assistance, puts families at risk of homelessness should they face a no-fault eviction, since few families can afford the full cost of moving.

As the elected representatives of the people of Concord, it is your moral duty to protect and serve Concord residents, especially those with the greatest need for protection. We pray that you will act accordingly.

Please keep single-family homes covered by just-cause eviction protections and do not raise the rent cap on covered, multi-unit apartments. Your constituents deserve no less.

Thank you.

Rev. Marie Wilson Rev. Laura Eberly Rev. Steve Hong Rev. Rodney Lemery Rabbi Dr. Sophia Woodley-Von Rothschild Rev. Kurt Kuhwald Rev. Jeremy McCants Rev. Elizabeth Robinson Rabbi Roberto Graetz Rev. Millie Phillips Rev. Sophia Dewitt Multi-Faith Action Coalition Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy Hope Solutions Parable of the Sower Healing Center Carlos Aguilar Nicole Arrington Irma Bodden Rebecca Chase Stewart Florsheim Katie Gaines Patricia Gonzales William Goodwin Kent Green Marjorie Ho Janette Kennedy Douglas Leich Deena Levine-Lipsett Sheila Mason Robin Mencher Elsie Mills Sandra Mitchell Byrne Sherwood Mary Terjeson Aleta Toure

From: Min Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 4:42 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental Program
Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding rent control. Rent control may have good intentions, but the points below suggest that it often does more harm than good in terms of maintaining the long-term health and functionality of the housing market.

1. Decreases Investment in Housing: Rent control can disincentivize property owners from maintaining or improving their properties. When rental prices are capped, owners may not see enough return on investment to make necessary repairs or upgrades. This could lead to a decline in the quality of rental housing.

2. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing: Rent control can lead to a decrease in the overall supply of rental units. Property owners may decide to convert rental units into condos or sell them, which reduces the available rental stock. This can ultimately make it harder for renters to find available units.

3. Inefficient Allocation of Housing: Rent control often benefits existing tenants more than those in need of affordable housing. Tenants in rent-controlled units may hold onto apartments that no longer meet their needs or that they can afford, preventing others from accessing affordable housing.

4. Encourages Black Markets: Rent control can result in the creation of under-the-table agreements or “side payments, ” where tenants pay more than the regulated rent in exchange for the apartment. This leads to unfair and unregulated practices, undermining the goal of providing affordable housing.

5. Hinders New Construction: Developers may be less likely to build new rental properties in areas with rent control due to the reduced potential for profitability. Without new construction, the overall supply of rental housing is limited, which can lead to higher demand for existing units and exacerbate affordability problems in the long run.

6. Creates a Disincentive for Landlords to Rent: Property owners may decide to take their units off the market entirely rather than accept lower rents due to rent control policies. This can create housing shortages, especially in high-demand areas, as fewer properties are available for rent.

7. Distorted Market Dynamics: Rent control can distort the natural functioning of the housing market by interfering with the pricing mechanism. When prices don’t reflect supply and demand, it can create an imbalance, potentially causing housing shortages, overcrowding, and even inequality in access to housing.

8. Long-Term Economic Harm: While rent control may provide short-term benefits for some tenants, the long-term effects can harm the broader economy. Lower rental incomes could

lead to reduced property tax revenues, which in turn could harm local services and infrastructure.

9. Alternative Solutions Exist: There are other ways to address affordability issues, such as increasing the supply of housing through zoning reforms, offering housing subsidies to low- income individuals, or providing tax incentives to developers. These methods can better balance affordability with a healthy housing market.

I hope you can take a holistic view of this matter and reconsider implementing rent control in Concord.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Warm Regards, Min Liu

From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 4:31 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: On RC
To the Concord City Council.

1. As I mentioned at the meeting the empirical data is overwhelming if you put in place price controls on anything you get less of it. (For housing the existing housing stock deteriorates and future production stops). Yes the laws of economics apply to all us whether you want to believe they do or not.

2. As a political matter the city voted down prop 33 in November and all districts except d3 Aliano voted it down.

3. Lastly watch Daniel Lurie and SF . Homelessness and crime were very high on voters concerns in last years elections. The rent control ordinance in SF is creating the homelessness which is triggering the crime and drug addiction. It cost Breed her career and will likely cost Lurie his too. He can say and do whatever he wants but he is not mentioning RC which will continue to undermine whatever plan he implements. Same for Sacramento, huge sums of money and failure.

Theres a couple of other issues unrelated to RC that i will speak about during public comment period tuesday.

Reed Robertson
Concord

From: Yuehong Fu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 2:31 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Concord's Rent Control Ordinance

Yuehong Fu
1650 Frisbie Ct
Concord, CA 94520
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (510) 468-1470
February 20, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Opposition to Concord's Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further local regulations that restrict rental housing providers. Rent control policies, including the current rent cap and just cause eviction requirements, impose unnecessary burdens on landlords, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately reduce the availability of quality housing in our community.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state-approved law enacted in 1995, already provides clear guidelines on rent control in California. Under Costa-Hawkins, single-family homes and condominiums are exempt from both rent cap requirements and just cause eviction regulations.

There is no need for Concord to override or complicate these established state protections with additional local restrictions. Creating city-specific rent control policies only adds confusion and deters housing providers from continuing to invest in and maintain rental properties.

The current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), makes it increasingly difficult for landlords to keep up with rising costs, including property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Rental housing must remain financially sustainable, and excessive government interference discourages property owners from continuing to offer rental units. Similarly, the just cause eviction requirement unnecessarily restricts landlords from managing their properties effectively, making it more difficult to address problematic tenants or adjust to changing circumstances.

Furthermore, the rejection of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanded rent control measures. The City Council should respect the will of the voters and focus on policies that promote housing development rather than stifling it with excessive regulations. Expanding rent control will only drive small landlords out of the market, reducing rental supply and making affordability even worse for tenants.

Additionally we have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall.

I urge the City Council to roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord should align with state law rather than creating unnecessary and harmful restrictions that discourage housing investment. A fair and sustainable housing market requires policies that encourage private investment, not government overreach that creates long-term negative consequences.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I strongly encourage the council to prioritize policies that support both landlords and tenants by fostering a healthy and stable rental market.

Sincerely,
Yuehong Fu

From: Chris and Susan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 6:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments to the Council Meeting on February 15, 2025 - Opposition to Any Local Rent Control Regulations
Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I have been living in Concord for 23 years. I love the city and enjoy my living in the area.

I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further local regulations that restrict rental housing providers. Rent control policies, including the current rent cap and just cause eviction requirements, impose unnecessary burdens on housing providers, especially for the people like us who are reaching the retirement age and rent out a home we used to live in to generate supplemental income.

Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) in California already imposes limits on rent increases and provides eviction protections for tenants. There is no need for Concord to override or complicate these established state protections with additional local restrictions. Creating city-specific rent control policies only adds confusion and deters housing providers from continuing to invest in and maintain rental properties in Concord. This will make the affordable housing less available in Concord and thus causes more hardships to tenants.

The current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), makes it increasingly difficult for housing providers to keep up with rising costs, including property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Rental housing must remain financially sustainable, and excessive government interference discourages property owners from continuing to offer rental units.

Similarly, the just cause eviction requirement unnecessarily restricts housing providers from managing their properties effectively, making it more difficult to keep the house in good shape to make Concord beautiful.

Furthermore, the rejection of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanded rent control measures. The City Council should respect the will of the voters and focus on policies that promote housing development rather than stifling it with excessive regulations. Expanding rent control will only drive small housing providers out of the market, reducing rental supply and making affordability even worse for tenants.

I urge the City Council to roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord should align with state law rather than creating unnecessary and harmful restrictions that discourage housing investment. A fair and sustainable housing market requires policies that encourage private investment to build more affordable housing, not government overreach that creates long-term negative consequences.

We have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, housing providers will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I strongly encourage the council to prioritize policies that support both housing providers and tenants by fostering a healthy and stable rental market.

Sincerely
Chris Quan
5435 Woodleaf Ct, Concord, CA 94521
(925) 588-4971

From: Carlene <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 8:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: February 25, 2025 Council meeting - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL CITY COUNCIL

MEMBERS
February 21, 2025

Mayor, Carlyn Obringer
Vice Mayor, Laura Nakamura
Dominic Aliano
Laura Hoffmeister
Pablo Benavente

RE: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction

Mayor Obringer, Vice Mayor, Laura Nakamura and Council members, Aliano, Hoffmeister and Benavente,

I am writing to you regarding the situation Concord landlords have landed in due to the YES vote of 3 council members on the Rent Stabilization ordinance. I reside in District 5 as does our condo. I wrote
Ms Nakamura in March 2024 after our daughter told me she had read about it on Nextdoor, I never received a reply. Ms Nakamura stated that in early 2023, work on tenant protections was a priority of the council and that ‘it was a year full of hard work, outreach, engagement, dialogue, research and debate‘ . Evidentially, most of this was done with renters and tenant organizations and not Concord landlords. Upon checking with friends who have rentals here, we found they knew nothing about it either. So much for outreach I guess. It’s disheartening to learn that renters and tenant organizations have been working with the council for 8 years yet, as an owner of a condo, we were never notified. The fact that after the rent stabilization was put into place, the city then found time to locate landlords by notifying us of the new restrictions on our own property was unprofessional at best.

We attended the meeting February 4th, I was surprised to see our ex council member, Tim McGallian speak on the issue. Listening to renters voice how they are mistreated, displaced and disregarded was untrue and disheartening. We had somehow been put on the ’Landlord Bad’

file. Ms. Nakamura further stated that ‘Residential real estate is a complicated investments given that moral duty. It therefore may not be an appropriate investment for everyone. ‘ We didn’t appreciate a council member telling us we may be in the wrong financial vehicle if we don’t want to let a tenant have almost total control of our rental.. We rent our condo at below market rates, it keeps good tenants and affords us not having the expense of finding a new tenant. The tenant before our current ones lived in our condo from the time her children were in kindergarten until they graduated from high school . We never begrudge people less fortunate then we are but we also do not feel a responsibly to offer them housing at our financial loss should we decide to sell our property, renovate it or move into it ourselves. We’re now required to give them the equivalent of 2 months rent plus $2,000 in moving expenses, that’s outrageous! Please be aware that they have paid one month rent in advance, along with a security and damage deposit, which are returned. Yet, we’re advised it’s not enough.

We are hopeful that the two remaining council members who voted YES for this ordinance will rethink their decisions and attempt to understand the plight of landlords of single family homes and condos. We further hope the newest member of the council, Pablo Benavente, will understand the unfortunate situation landlords are now in. As it stands, should our current tenants decide to move, we will sell our condo and invest in property elsewhere. I do not see how this will work for the tenants with fewer homes and condos available on the rental market.

Sincerely,

Carlene Visperas

From: Pearl Kim-Kregel <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 8:24 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Registry and Just Cause Eviction Program

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing you as a rental property owner in Concord. Our family owns our rental property, not as a corporation, but rather as a family-owned business. We are not rich and depend on the rental income to survive in the Bay Area. The Tenant Protection Program threatens small business owners who may not be able to keep up with the cost of their rentals if they cannot raise rents to keep up with inflation. As a result, small business owners may end up selling their properties and corporations may be the only owners who can afford having a rental in Concord.

I don't think that is the intention of the City Council. I humbly request the following of my City Council members:
• Please DO NOT expand the Tenant Protection Program to include single-family homes and condominiums.
• Please vote to increase the annual allowable rent increase amount to match California state law which is 10%, or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower.

Please don't hurt small family businesses and keep rental properties out of the control of corporations.

Sincerely,
Pearl Kim-Kregel

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 10:26 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: rental control
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rent control ordinance and any further local regulations that restrict rental housing providers. While I understand the intent behind rent control, experience has shown that such policies often have unintended consequences that ultimately harm both landlords and tenants.

Rent control discourages investment in rental properties, leading to a decline in housing quality and availability. For example, one of my clients owns homes in both Berkeley and Walnut Creek. In Walnut Creek, where there are no rent control restrictions, he is generous in upgrading and maintaining the property because he knows he will see a return on his investment. However, in Berkeley, where strict rent control is in place, he only performs the minimum required maintenance, knowing that he cannot recoup the costs through reasonable rent increases. As a result, both landlords and tenants are dissatisfied—landlords feel restricted from managing their properties effectively, while tenants live in units that are not well-maintained due to the lack of financial incentive for property owners to invest in improvements. This demonstrates how rent control policies discourage property owners from investing in their rental homes, ultimately leading to lower-quality housing for tenants.

Furthermore, rent control creates market distortions that can reduce housing supply and increase rental costs for new tenants. Instead of imposing restrictive measures that drive housing providers out of the market, I urge the city to focus on policies that encourage new housing development, streamline permitting processes, and offer incentives for landlords who provide affordable housing.

Sustainable solutions should support both tenants and property owners, ensuring a balanced and fair housing market for all.

Rather than imposing rent control, the city should focus on increasing the housing supply by easing building restrictions for homeowners. Encouraging the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and streamlining approval processes for new housing, condos, and apartment complexes would help address affordability issues without penalizing property owners. By making it easier to build and expand housing, the city can create more rental opportunities, increase competition, and naturally stabilize rent prices while ensuring tenants have access to quality housing. It will create more job opportunities in Concord
I appreciate your time and consideration on this important matter. I encourage you to reject rent control policies and pursue more effective, long-term solutions to address our community’s housing challenges.

Sincerely,
Raymond Wu

From: Joyce Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 11:46 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5a
Mayor and City Council Members,

I provide housing for Concord renters and support amending the overly restrictive rent control ordinance. I ask that you limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law.

Your rent registry data already shows that state law is working in Concord and that mass evictions or rent gouging are not happening in the city. Please do not punish housing providers by keeping this draconian law in place.

Currently I have two very nice and well-kept single-family units that provide housing for two families. Both units are at least $500 per month under market. I did have a third unit but sold it last year because of the new restrictions imposed on housing providers like me. If you decide not to re- evaluate the current rent control ordinance, I will be forced to liquidate the last of my two single family properties in Concord. I’m sure you are aware many housing providers in Concord have already started selling off their properties because of this current rent control ordinance. Also, I have been informed by a major property management company located in Concord that they will no longer be managing Concord rentals because of this current rent control ordinance.

Please let reason prevail and vote YES to re-evaluate the rent control ordinance.

Sincerely,

Joyce Kelly, Housing Provider

From: Greg Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 11:53 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord rent control

To whom it may concern.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Greg Ross
Sent from my iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Maas <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 12:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control

Counsel,
We are a small family business with several apartments. Please consider rolling back the onerous rent caps. Without that, we will be unable to maintain our property. With increased expenses, insurance alone will double, our investment value will decline. This will be reflected when we apply for a property tax reassessment for a lower value. This will result in the City having more problem funding anything, from police to fixing pot holes. You have already seen many selling their properties, thus removing them from the housing stock for rent.

Terry Jaas

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing you as a rental property owner in Concord. Our family owns our rental property, not as a corporation, but rather as a family-owned business. We are not rich and depend on the rental income to survive in the Bay Area. The Tenant Protection Program threatens small business owners who may not be able to keep up with the cost of their rentals if they cannot raise rents to keep up with inflation. As a result, small business owners may end up selling their properties and corporations may be the only owners who can afford having a rental in Concord.

I don't think that is the intention of the City Council. I humbly request the following of my City Council members:
• Please DO NOT expand the Tenant Protection Program to include single-family homes and condominiums.
• Please vote to increase the annual allowable rent increase amount to match California state law which is 10%, or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower.

Please don't hurt small family businesses and keep rental properties out of the control of corporations.

Sincerely,

Mark Kregel

From: kevin kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control
Hello
Me and my wife own two building in Concord with 26 units.

We feel we are good landlords who try and do the right thing for our tenants and ourselves.

We feel this recently passed rent control is punitive to landlords.

• Our costs are rising considerably more than 2.5% and more than even current inflation.

Insurance premiums have tripled alone. Our cost to repair or maintain our buildings has risen substantially. An example - 4 years ago to replace a 40 gallon water heater labor and materials was about $1200 - today that cost is over $2000 • Vacancies are extremely expensive - it is not in our interests to raise rents unfairly since we loose the tenant and it costs us way more than we get in increased rents. • We are in favor of safe secure buildings but the costs we now absorb and pay to you are becoming too high - rent registry and building inspections now cost close to $2000 a year • Concord now has one of the most restrictive and punitive rent control in the state - in the long term this will not be beneficial.
• While we own in an LLC we are a mom and pop investor just trying to make retirement income. We have an LLC to protect assets against malicious lawsuits.

Couple of suggestions:
• Allow the state guideline of 5% rent increases
• Allow us to ‘bank’ rent increases (even Bekeley allows this) • Modify relocation costs - in the event of a catastrophic fire we would not be able to absorb those costs and rebuild.

Thank you
kevin kelly
[email protected]
925-890-8890

From: Matt Rubenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 1:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Rent Control - Doesn't Work and is BAD for Concord Members of Concord City Council,
Rent control sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it works against the intended objective. I'm a very active Real Estate agent in Contra Costa County. I'm active in our community as well. I'm serving my third year as Director at Large on the Contra Costa Association of Realtors Board of Directors and have served on multiple committees in the association, including Local Government Relations, for the last nine years. I have a client that contacted me soon after Concord adopted rent control regulations and asked me to help her sell ALL 40 of the rental properties she owns in Concord. She is raising the rents to the maximum limits allowed for each and we are listing and selling them as they are vacated. The 5 that have closed so far have ALL sold to owner occupied buyers. They are GONE from the rental market in Concord. Are new rental properties being added that will replace them? How many others will be listed and sold to owner occupied buyers as a result of rent control regulations and will not be replaced? This IS NOT a "could happen" or a "what if" scenario. The homes in Concord that we are selling are all single family homes and condominiums. They are all, without exception, beautifully updated, well maintained and under excellent property management. This one seller is raising the rents on all 35 of her remaining units RIGHT NOW and will continue removing ALL 35 of these top quality rental properties from the Concord rental market until they are ALL GONE. This is the OBVIOUS and TOTALLY PREDICTABLE result of rent control. Is there a community that you can point to where this hasn't happened as a result of rent control? Unfortunately, the people that support it are often misled and misinformed about how it works and the outcome that it ultimately leads to.

What many of them don't understand is that this is a simple example of supply and demand. Fewer available units at higher monthly rates? Is this really what we all want for Concord? It may seem counterintuitive that a Real Estate agent that gets paid a commission on every closed sale would speak out and write to you in opposition of something that drives such a substantial amount of business his way. The bottom line is that there is a lot of business to be had in our community and this is not the kind of business that I feel good about doing. I'll continue to do my job but rent control is TERRIBLE for Concord and I STRONGLY OPPOSE it.

Matt
Matt Rubenstein
Realtor® | EastBayPro Team
[email protected] | m: 925.586.6578

Serving the East Bay since 1999

ALAMO | BENICIA | BRENTWOOD | CLAYTON | CONCORD |
DANVILLE | DIABLO | DUBLIN | LAFAYETTE | MARTINEZ | MORAGA | OAKLAND | ORINDA | PLEASANT HILL | PLEASANTON | ROSSMOOR | SAN RAMON | WALNUT CREEK CalBre 01889932

From: Murthy Sama <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 1:44 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: 'david astoundrealestate.com' <[email protected]>; stuart astoundrealestate.com <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Adjustment Petition - owner
Dear Sir / Madam,

I have come across the following article, but was not able to download any relevant details:

News Flash • Concord Now Accepting Rent Adjustment Petitions

The property located at 1895 San Vincente Dr, Concord (27 units) was purchased at end of 2019. The property had low rents, and our intent was to increase rents based on the state stipulated 5%+Inflation Rate. Unfortunately, we were hit by Covid rent freeze in early 2020 and we had to live with our low rates for 2 plus years. This has caused considerable financial pressure. Now, we are limited to such meager increases that is killing us. To make it worse, our insurance career choose not to renew our policy that caused our insurance premium to jump from 7K a year to 35K a year. Considering the escalating costs of repairs and maintenance costs vs. the allowed rent increases, we are in a very bad state to say the least.

Any opportunity to help with ability to improve on our low rents would be greatly appreciated. Please help us. I have also copied my property management company on this email.

Regards

Murthy Sama
510-676-0985

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Shafizadeh <agshafi[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 1:43 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: RENT CONTROL

2/20/2025

COUNCIL MEMBERS—

After hours of testimony given in support of re-evaluating the ordinance and hours of hearings where rental housing provided asked you to reconsider rent control, you went ahead and imposed it.

Youdonot want to hear my voice but I want my voice to be heard and not ignored.

Rent control is a curse on its tax-paying citizens. It dampens enthusiasm of buyers for rental properties. It does not improve the quality of rental housing. In rent control areas, the results are high crime, declining quality of rentals, declining properties offered for rent, decline in improvements to rental properties, and reluctance too invest in upgrades and modernization. Look at the rent control cities in the area.

I am asking you to

1- limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and exempt single family and duplexes

2- revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with CA law.

As I reflect on the fuss and agony the council imposes on housing providers, I am deeply distressed. I do not know why progressives feel that they are entitled to free and push to onerous laws that preferentially favor them. Further, these rent control orders have not been put to the voters. You afraid to put this before the voters? Why? afraid of the outcome? Apparently.

Nothing is free— not our liberties that we enjoy at the cost of so many lives and dollars. As our founding Fathers stated, big government = little people. The bigger the government, the smaller the voice of its citizens. Trump is directing us to clear the red tape and barriers to freedom and self- governance. Please stop inserting your will on us. We did not vote for these rent control regulations in Concord.

Pleasant Hill is doing just fine with out such control and interference. Our constitution calls for little government. But those elected to government feel that, once elected, it is their mission in life too burden its tax paying citizens.

Please

1- limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and exempt single family and duplexes

2- revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI

THANK YOU

From: yiting ding <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 2:51 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control won’t work
Honorable City Council Members,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding rent control and just cause eviction policies. While these measures aim to protect tenants, they often lead to unintended consequences that can exacerbate housing challenges. The key Unintended Consequences for Tenants:
•
Reduced Housing Opportunities: While rent control protects current tenants, it can make it harder for newcomers or lower-income individuals to find housing, as fewer units are available and landlords may become more selective.

•. Pushed landlords to increase rents every year though some landlords not used to do that.

Also Key issues with rent control include:

1. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing:
•
Disincentive for Landlords: Rent control can limit landlords’ ability to charge market rates, reducing their motivation to invest in or maintain rental properties. Over time, this may lead to a decline in both the quantity and quality of available rental housing. •
Conversion to Non-Rental Units: Some property owners might convert rental units into condominiums or owner-occupied homes to avoid rent restrictions, further decreasing the rental supply.

2. Decreased Property Maintenance and Quality:
•
Limited Funds for Upkeep: With restricted rental income, landlords may cut back on property maintenance and upgrades, leading to deteriorating living conditions for tenants.

3.

Distorted Market Incentives:
•
Mismatch Between Tenants and Units: Rent control can create situations where long-term tenants remain in units that no longer suit their needs due to below-market rents, reducing turnover and availability for others.

4. Increased Housing Shortages and Higher Rents for New Tenants:
•
Compensatory Rent Increases: Since rent control often applies only to existing tenants, landlords may increase rents for new tenants to offset income lost from controlled units, raising overall market rates.

5. Discouraging New Construction:
•
Developer Hesitancy: Developers may avoid building new rental properties if they anticipate future rent control regulations, limiting the growth of the rental supply. This is particularly problematic in areas already experiencing housing shortages.

6. Administrative and Legal Costs:
•
Challenges in Managing Tenancies: Just cause eviction laws can increase the time and expense of removing problematic tenants, potentially discouraging landlords from renting out units or effectively managing their properties.

Research indicates that rent control can lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of housing, as well as increased rents in uncontrolled areas. Additionally, studies have shown that such policies can discourage new construction and lead to the withdrawal of existing rental units from the market.

In light of these considerations, I urge the City Council to reconsider the implementation of rent control and just cause eviction policies. Instead, focusing on strategies that encourage the development of new housing and the maintenance of existing properties may offer more sustainable solutions to our housing challenges.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Christina Dean

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

From: sherry topete <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 3:10 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: RENT CAP
DEAR CITY COUNCIL OF CONCORD:

WE ARE ASKING TO PLEASE PLEASE REVERT THE RENT CAP TO THE STATEWIDE CAP OF 5% PLUS THE CPI. BECAUSE THE 2.52% PRESENT RATE & ROLLBACK WILL CAUSE HARDSHIP TO OWNERS AND TENANTS. WE ALREADY HAVE BELOW MARKET RATE RENTS.. IF THE SMALL OWNERS SELL

THEIR RENTAL PROPERTIES, TO A CORPORATION

DEAR CITY COUNCIL OF CONCORD,

WE ASK TO PLEASE PLEASE REVERT THE RENT CAP TO THE STATEWIDE CAP OF 5% PLUS THE CPI.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECONSIDERATION IN THIS IMPORTANT MATTER.

SINCERELY ,

RAFAEL AND SHERRY TOPETE

From: Biao Louie <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 3:11 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control and just cause eviction policies
Dear City Council Members,

Rent control and just cause eviction policies are bad because of the followings:

1. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing:
•
Rent control limits landlords’ ability to charge market rates, reducing their incentive to invest in or maintain rental properties. Over time, this can lead to a decline in the quantity and quality of available rental housing.
•
Some property owners may convert rental units into condominiums or owner-occupied homes to avoid rent restrictions, further reducing supply.

2. Decreased Property Maintenance and Quality:
•
With limited rental income, landlords may cut back on property maintenance and upgrades, leading to deteriorating living conditions. This can negatively impact tenants, despite lower rents.

3. Distorted Market Incentives:
•
Rent control can create a mismatch between tenants and housing units. For example, long-term tenants might stay in units that no longer suit their needs because of below-market rents, reducing turnover and availability for others.

4. Increased Housing Shortages and Higher Rents for New Tenants:
•

Since rent control often applies only to existing tenants, landlords may increase rents for new tenants to compensate for income lost from controlled units, raising overall market rates.

5. Discouraging New Construction:
•
Developers may avoid building new rental properties if they fear future rent control regulations, limiting the growth of the rental supply. This is especially problematic in areas already experiencing housing shortages.

6. Administrative and Legal Costs:
•
Just-cause eviction laws can increase the time and expense of removing problematic tenants, potentially discouraging landlords from renting out units or making it harder for them to manage their properties effectively.

7. Unintended Consequences for Tenants:
•
While rent control protects current tenants, it can make it harder for newcomers or lower-income individuals to find housing, as fewer units are available and landlords may become more selective.

So please stop rent control and just cause eviction policies.

Thanks,

Biao Louie

From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Prop 33 Voting results for 2024
Hello Team,
I did a deeper dive on the voting results and here they are for Concord all districts. As I mentioned before i received the voting results then cross referenced via the precincts the data from the county Clerks website(Connelly). Its worth noting that Hoffmeister who long has been reminding the other city councils members of the supply demand imbalance didnt even have the highest turnout against the rent control ordinance. She was usurped by D4 and D5 or Benavente and Nakamura's districts showing a roughly 64% against.

D1 Hoffmeister
11097 total votes cast
6982 no votes or 62% voting against expanding rent control.

D2 Obringer
8701 Votes total cast
5012 voted against or 57% voted against expanding rent control D3 Aliano
5324 total cast
3002 voted to increase protections 56% yes
D4 Benavente
11629 total votes cast
7435 cast against prop 33 or 64%
D5 Nakamura
12380 total cast
7876 cast against 33 or 64%.

Reed Robertson
D2 Concord

From: Jizeng Jin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 3:32 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control and just cause eviction policies

Honorable City Council Members,

Rent control and just cause eviction policies are bad because of the followings:

1. Reduced Supply of Rental Housing:
•
Rent control limits landlords’ ability to charge market rates, reducing their incentive to invest in or maintain rental properties. Over time, this can lead to a decline in the quantity and quality of available rental housing.
•
Some property owners may convert rental units into condominiums or owner-occupied homes to avoid rent restrictions, further reducing supply.

2. Decreased Property Maintenance and Quality:
•
With limited rental income, landlords may cut back on property maintenance and upgrades, leading to deteriorating living conditions. This can negatively impact tenants, despite lower rents.

3. Distorted Market Incentives:
•
Rent control can create a mismatch between tenants and housing units. For example, long-term tenants might stay in units that no longer suit their needs because of below-market rents, reducing turnover and availability for others.

4. Increased Housing Shortages and Higher Rents for New Tenants:
•

Since rent control often applies only to existing tenants, landlords may increase rents for new tenants to compensate for income lost from controlled units, raising overall market rates.

5. Discouraging New Construction:
•
Developers may avoid building new rental properties if they fear future rent control regulations, limiting the growth of the rental supply. This is especially problematic in areas already experiencing housing shortages.

6. Administrative and Legal Costs:
•
Just-cause eviction laws can increase the time and expense of removing problematic tenants, potentially discouraging landlords from renting out units or making it harder for them to manage their properties effectively.

7. Unintended Consequences for Tenants:
•
While rent control protects current tenants, it can make it harder for newcomers or lower-income individuals to find housing, as fewer units are available and landlords may become more selective.

So please stop rent control and just cause eviction policies.

Thanks,

Jizeng Jin

From: AMY CUTLER KELLY <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 4:10 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: AMY CUTLER KELLY <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control
**** THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR TIME IN READING MY LETTER **** RE: Repealing Concord Rent Control

Background my husband and myself:

1. I was raised in a modest home. Husband is an immigrant from UK arriving with no money (literally).

2. I Graduated from UC Berkeley in 1985 (Economic Major) – after rent control was enacted in 1980

3. Real Estate Broker since 1991

4. We developed a vacant 16-unit apartment building in Concord 2009 – another 10- unit in 2014. We are Mom&Pop owners with LLCs

5. We owned/operated a property management company for over 10 years servicing East Bay- Sold in 2019 after growing the biz to over 400 doors

6. We currently manage our 2 buildings we own in Concord along with our other properties in the surrounding area.

WE’VE WORKED HARD AND CONTINUE TO WORK HARD FOR WHAT WE HAVE BUILT FROM NOTHING…….

Writing to Represent Concord Apartment Owners:

Vacancies: The last thing any apartment owner wants is a vacancy. During this time no rent/income is received and there are turnover costs ranging from ($3000-25,000). Owners want to avoid this at all costs including not raising rents too much to lose a tenant.

Concord Tenants: 99% of all tenants in Concord have a blemish on in their application whether it be Credit (low scores and/or no credit), Income: (low income or unconventional ways of making income), Strange circumstances (too many to list, but they do exist).

Just Cause Clause: Because it is very hard to get rid of a ‘bad’ tenant and now you need to pay to relocated tenants, we will not take any risks on any tenant. In the past we had a slogan ‘No credit is Good credit’
TODAY => We require excellent credit and will wait months if we have to until the right person comes along. This might hurt some good people finding housing.

Exorbitant Increase in Owner Expenses:

As you know prices are rising everywhere! Owners pay:

1. Fees to the City of Concord for Inspections/taking care of issues ($600) -annually

2. NEW => Rent Control Registry Fee/Paperwork ($500) -annually

3. Owners need their balconies inspected/cured ($1500 per unit)

4. HUGE increase in Insurance (doubled) annually

5. Cost of Turnovers/upkeep up over 30%

6. Water/Garbage/PGE up 10% - annually

Foreclosure Risks: Owners cannot afford these increases with < 2.5% annual rent increases. All of these fees including mortgage rates coming due could result in foreclosures and owners possibly walking away from their properties. This is a sure-fire way of taking in less property taxes-and we all know about that slippery road. You might say that someone will purchase the property. My answer: Probably NOT! There are so many other places to buy without any strings attached that Concord is no longer a desirable place to invest. As a matter of fact: As soon as I can sell my buildings in Concord I will do so!
True Story: When I walked into the Counsel Room the other week (first time). I looked around to room to see if I knew any tenants or owners. I saw Jima Monson who later spoke to The Counsel with the Juntas advocating to keep this Rent Control. Ironically (or is it?), Jima is our oldest and original tenant from the 16 unit apartment building we first bought. She has been with us for approx. 15 years! BTW we love Jima!
What Jima may or may not know is that over time, we kept Jima’s rent low (approx. $200 under market) to keep her from leaving over the many years. Once there were rumors of rent control, we had no other choice than to raise rents so that we didn’t get caught with low rents/income resulting in low building value. We didn’t want to raise her rent, but were basically forced to do so.

On another note: Berkeley was a disgusting city when I went to college. Owners didn’t care about the front of their homes/buildings. Landlords did nothing for their tenants – the curtains in our unit had to be 20 years old! Graffiti/Garbage ran rampant. Students came and went and luckily through inflation the rents went up. Concord does not have the luxury of rotating students. Also, Rent Control in Berkeley allows owners to Bank the rent increases. I thought I would never see the day where Berkeley Rent Control was much more friendly to owners than other Rent Control systems- especially this oppressive one in Concord.

Truthfully: The markets have changed. High rent increases are no longer going to happen. Owners can’t afford turnovers with all of the other increase in payments and do not want good tenants to leave. The answer to all of this is building more apartments. This has been the answer for over 25 years and yet The City of Concord has done nothing about it. If your results are fair in changing this

program such that it benefits both sides, I would offer my services to assist with a Commission to start this endeavor.

Thank you for your time
Amy Cutler Kelly
(925) 788-0092

-----Original Message-----
From: Carole Ohare <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 7:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Raquel Rath <[email protected]> Subject: Concord rent control

“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.”

As a long time landlord for two townhouses in concord I can tell you that this rent control will ultimately hurt tenants.

We are planning to sell our townhouses because of it. We have always been good and honest landlords with few and reasonable rent increases. Because of the rental increase cap, until our properties are sold, we will be raising our rent yearly.

The supply of individually owned rentals will disappear with this rent control. only apartments will be available for renters.

And apartments that can be condominiumized and sold will be sold to live in buyers.

You are shooting yourself in the foot!
Don’t know any other business that forces owners to lose money. Insurance, HOAs and other costs are skyrocketing for landlords and owners cannot recoup these increases.

Sent from my iPhone

From: Adel Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 9:47 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Raquel Rath <[email protected]>; James Michael <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control

.”

TO WHOME IT MAY CONCERN
I own a house in the city of Concord. I had to go to finish my education in a different state so I had rented my home until I graduated. For several years I didn’t increase the rent. I had to put an huge amount of down payment to buy this house and my monthly mortgage is huge. I am also still responsible for the property tax, home insurance, home warranty, repairs and maintenance, pools expenses, yard maintenance, solar system payments and the monthly HOA dues.

This new rent program is a HUGE MISTAKe, OVERREACH AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It will definitely put this city we love at a great disadvantage compare to other neighboring cities which is not in the interest of our city Concord. It also treats owners like they are living in a socialist or communist countries. It will definitely effect home pricing and discourage new buyers which again is not in the best interest of our city Concord.

Therefore, we respectfully request that this program be REMOVED from Concord homeowners.

Thank you in advance for your consideration
James Michael
1231 Bluejay Ct.

Concord, CA 94521
C: (805)455-7556

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 10:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for City Council 2/25 meeting

The Residential Tenant Protection Program is going to backfire on you. We would nave NEVER purchased any investment properties in Concord if this program was in effect. It's obvious there are no landlords on this city council. We will be selling our investments in Concord once our tenants decide to move. We understand you are trying to protect tenants from big bad landlords, but we believe most landlords are hardworking, fair people providing housing for hardworking, fair people. Consider this ... we have most of our retirement money invested in Concord real estate ... what happens if we need to sell a home to cover our costs as we age? ... is it fair that we would have to pay a tenant thousands of dollars, if we ask them to move, so we can recoup our money to cover our own costs? We do not think so!!!
Omar & Victoria Acosta
808-640-8662
PO Box 311, Honomu, HI 96728

From: Chris van Wolbeck <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 9:19 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Tina Van Wolbeck <[email protected]>
Subject: Residential Tenant Protection Program
February 23, 2025
Re: 2614 Garden Ave.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in response to the letter I received about Concord’s Rental Registry Program. I am the owner of a single-family residence rental and I have serious concerns about the registry program and the new rent control ordinance in general.

Our background is that I am retired and my wife Tina is about to retire. We bought this home 17 years ago with the specific goal of creating income for our retirement. We are not affiliated with any investment group, nor do we own several rental properties. Up until the passage of the recent Residential Tenant Protection Program, we have kept the rent at a near break-even point which is significantly below the market rate for comparable rentals in the area.

In addition, it has been in the
county’s Housing Choice Voucher Program for the last few years. Our rent has been 13% below the Housing Authority’s 2024 Rent Payment Standard limit. We believed that this was a way of serving the community by providing low-cost housing.

We have always maintained the house and kept it in perfect condition and have, in the last few years, replaced all of the flooring, upgraded all of the windows, painted inside and out and planted landscaping in the backyard. In addition, all of the appliances have been replaced and an air conditioner has been added. Even though I am in my mid 70’s, I continue to do all of the maintenance myself, which helps to keep the rent low for the tenants.

We believe that the registry program is an egregiously unfair bureaucratic move on the part of the city. It is unreasonable to require us to provide information and pay fees and it appears to be a money-grabbing effort on the part of the city. We believe that there are better ways to accomplish your goals without negatively impacting landlords who treat their tenants fairly. A rental hotline where tenants can report unfair or illegal practices could better target these unfair landlords We also believe that requiring us to pay moving and other expenses to tenants is also ridiculously unfair and that both of these rent control efforts will negatively affect tenants in Concord.

Since the implementation of these Programs, we have applied to the housing authority for a rental increase and we will continue to raise the rent to the maximum rate that we can. We feel that this is necessary to offset the costs that the ordinance can or will bring to us. We have also seriously considered selling the house and purchasing one in a community that does not unfairly target landlords who are capable of treating their tenants fairly without government bureaucracy.

Overall, we believe that this ordinance is short-sided and is a lose-lose proposition for landlords and tenants.

Sincerely,
Chris van Wolbeck

From: Barbara Decker <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 10:13 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control

Hello,

I am an owner of a single family home and I am against putting my home under rent control.

I think this is a huge overreach, this is unconstitutional, anything you feel so we can get this program removed from Concord homeowners.

Thank you,
Barbara Decker

From: Roy Tsang <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 3:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on the City of Concord’s Rental Registry Program

City of Concord
Attn: Rental Registry Program
Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive M/S 03
Concord, CA 94519

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the requirement that I, as a landlord of a rented condominium, participate in the City of Concord’s Rental Registry Program. After carefully reviewing the program’s guidelines, I would like to present the following points for your consideration:

1. Already Compliant with Existing Regulations: As a responsible property owner, I ensure that my condominium complies with all local housing codes, safety regulations, and landlord-tenant laws.

The introduction of an additional registry program seems redundant, given the comprehensive regulations already in place.

2. Administrative Burden: The process of registering and maintaining the rental property on the registry presents an unnecessary administrative burden, especially considering the small scale of the property I rent out. This would require substantial time and resources that could otherwise be spent improving the property or ensuring a positive living experience for the tenant.

3. Privacy Concerns: The requirement to share detailed information regarding tenants and rental agreements with a public registry could potentially raise privacy concerns for both my tenants and myself. As a landlord, I believe in maintaining the confidentiality and security of my tenants' personal information, and this program may infringe upon that principle.

4. Financial Impact: There may be a financial burden associated with the cost of registration or any additional compliance measures. As a small landlord, these costs could significantly affect the viability of maintaining the rental unit and could ultimately discourage me from continuing to provide housing in Concord.

5. Lack of Clear Benefits: It is unclear how the rental registry program would benefit individual landlords or tenants, particularly in a situation where existing regulations and housing codes already provide the necessary safeguards for tenant welfare and property management. I would appreciate a clearer explanation of the intended benefits of this program.

In light of these considerations, I respectfully request that you exempt rented condominiums from participating in this program.

Please kindly reply to acknowledge the receipt of this letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a favorable resolution.

Sincerely,

Roy Tsang

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 8:37 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: 2/25 City Council Meeting input regarding rent control Mayor Obringer, Vice Mayor Nakamura, Council Members Aliano, Benavente, and Hoffmeister;

I am a Concord resident and homeowner. I do not currently have a rental home in Concord, but I have several neighbors and friends, regular middle class people like you and me, who do own a rental home in Concord. They ALL have been renting their homes at rates significantly below market. They have good relationships with their tenants and do not have a property manager. They are all do-it-yourself housing providers.

You have probably already heard from many people like them. This complicated, burdensome and unfair ordinance is making homeowners consider raising rents to cover the new costs and/or completely getting out of the rental business by leaving their home empty or selling.

I can’t think of a city council action that has backfired so completely. Single family home rents are going up faster and housing availability is dropping as more homeowners leave homes empty rather than taking on the risk of renting under the new ordinance.

When this ordinance was first drafted, it was designed to constrain the actions of large corporate landlords who have their own attorneys, accountants, etc. It was designed to control our inventory of permanent rental housing in order to help poor tenants in affordable apartment units. It was obviously not designed to be applied to individually owned single family homes rented for a few months or a few years.

The decision to increase the scope of this ordinance to include individual homeowners was made at a meeting in September 2023. It was made with no serious consideration. It was a huge mistake.

Unlike big corporations, Individual home owners have changing life circumstances. They may need to rent their home out for a few months or a few years. They may need to move back into their home, or make it available to their children or grandchildren. When they die, their children will need to sell the old family home.

These homes are an important part of the overall rental inventory. Tenants often look for short term rentals. They may be on a temporary work assignment, or want to get familiar with the area before buying a home of their own. Why would we want to eliminate these homes from the rental market?

Single family home rentals in Concord are already quite expensive. Prospective tenants must have high incomes in order to qualify for the average rent of about $3,500 a month. This is not low income housing serving vulnerable communities. Applicants for single family home rentals often have much higher incomes than the homeowners do!

Under this ordinance, the homeowner and tenant are not even allowed to agree on the term of the lease! If you are familiar with the ordinance, you know this is true. You also know the ordinance prevents homeowners from regaining possession of their homes when they need to sell. Imagine putting your house on the market with the tenant living in it. You have to tell the prospective purchasers they will have to gain possession after escrow closes by giving proper notice to the tenant of an owner move-in and then pay the high moving expenses. What a nightmare! The new owners won’t get possession of their new home for several months. Who would buy it under those circumstances? This ordinance makes selling for a fair price impossible.

Please do the right thing and remove individually owned homes and condos from this ordinance completely.

Going forward, perhaps you could consider a positive rather than punitive outreach to both individual homeowners and tenants? Let’s look for the win/win opportunities.

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

From: W Tsang <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 11:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection to Registration of My Property as a Rented Condominium and Annual Fee

Dear City Council of the City of Concord,

I am writing to formally object to the registration of my property, located at 4081 Clayton Rd #228, Concord as a rented condominium and the imposition of an associated annual fee.

I am concerned about the fairness and accuracy of this requirement, as well as the financial burden it imposes.

Thank you for your attention to this issue. I hope that the City Council will remove the requirement for rented condominiums to be tracked in the City's Rent Registry.

Sincerely,
Winter Tsang & Andrew Law
4081 Clayton Rd #228
Concord, CA

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 8:19 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Affordable Housing
Good evening Mayor Obringer, Vice Mayor Nakamjra, Council Member Aliano, Council Member Benavente, Council Member Hoffmeister and City Manager Barone,

Affordable Housing
In his 2024 State of the City address, 2024 Mayor Edi Birsan referred to the “Housing crisis” in Concord. The “crisis” turned out to be a lack of affordable housing.

What is the definition of Affordable Housing?
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing as housing where the occupant is paying 30% or less of the gross income on total housing, including utilities.

What is the affordable Housing response taken by The City of Concord?

The City Council passed the Rent Stabilization Ordinance limiting rent increases in February, 2024 with Laura Hoffmeister dissenting. As enacted the ordinance limits annual rent increases to 3 percent, or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower, and will apply to multi- family rental complexes of two or more units built before Feb. 1, 1995.

Rent Stabilization

Council Member Hoffmeister said she didn't see rent control solving high housing prices in other cities. She said that rent raises of 3 percent or 60 percent of CPI was too low. She said “Our problem is housing supply. It costs a lot to build, own and operate residential rental property. That is the problem” . Rent Stabilization is a form of rent control which is a classic example of a government-engendered price distortion.

No one likes to pay more for rent, so politicians often resort to laws that simply prevent rents from rising which is what the Concord, CA Rent Stabilization Ordinance provides. Rent-control laws distort incentives for renters and landlords.

Council Member Hoffmeister also said that she couldn't support the ordinance because it could punish landlords doing the right thing for a few who weren't. Is the “Just Cause for Evection” policy necessary for all if only a few (landlords) might not be doing the right thing? Recommended Action
● Revoke the entire Housing Program that was approved in 2024.

The City of Concord is not taking the appropriate actions to increase Housing supply when it limits annual rent increases to 3 percent or 60 percent of CPI. There are several other measures that could more effectively address Concord’s Housing Supply issue.

Sincerely,

John Primus
Concord Resident since 1981
(925) 825-7670
[email protected]

From: Lala Email <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 7:23 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control

My husband’s family the Buscaglias, have been part of the Concord family for almost 100 years. They’ve owned numerous rental properties over those years which allowed them in retirement to appreciate life in the golden years. To be self sufficient, and receive elder care if needed.

With your new rent control rules
that is no longer possible. With the cost of taxes, insurance, and building maintenance alone it has become difficult to make a profit at the end of the year. Your rental rules have made it impossible. The rules have also made our properties less valuable. No one wants to make an investment that is not going to bring in money. They might as well just leave their money in the bank.

Please please resend your rental rules or I fear the properties are going to become looking shabby because the landlords won’t be making a profit to even pay for maintenance. Plus the idea of a young family making a long term investment in a building they can live in & rent out the other duplex etc. will no longer be a practical reality for their future as it was for so many Concord residents in the past.

Please think long & hard about family future.

Thank you,
Cheryl Buscaglia
Sent from my iPhone

From: Jyotsna Soin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 6:20 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Dear Council Members,

The ordinance that was implemented last year is HURTING both landlords and tenants. This must be removed.

1. DO NOT expand the Tenant Protection Program to include single-family homes

2. Increase the annual allowable rent increase amount to match California state law which is 10%, or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower.

Thank you,

Jyotsna Soin
Concord Resident

From: Matt Rubenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 1:18 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control - Doesn't Work and is BAD for Concord Laura,
Rent control sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it works against the intended objective. I'm a very active Real Estate agent in Contra Costa County. I'm active in our community as well. I'm serving my third year as Director at Large on the Contra Costa Association of Realtors Board of Directors and have served on multiple committees in the association, including Local Government Relations, for the last nine years. I have a client that contacted me soon after Concord adopted rent control regulations and asked me to help her sell ALL 40 of the rental properties she owns in Concord. She is raising the rents to the maximum limits allowed for each and we are listing and selling them as they are vacated. The 5 that have closed so far have ALL sold to owner occupied buyers. They are GONE from the rental market in Concord. Are new rental properties being added that will replace them? How many others will be listed and sold to owner occupied buyers as a result of rent control regulations and will not be replaced?

This IS NOT a "could happen" or a "what if" scenario. The homes in Concord that we are selling are all single family homes and condominiums. They are all, without exception, beautifully updated, well maintained and under excellent property management. This one seller is raising the rents on all 35 of her remaining units RIGHT NOW and will continue removing ALL 35 of these top quality rental properties from the Concord rental market until they are ALL GONE. This is the OBVIOUS and TOTALLY PREDICTABLE result of rent control. Is there a community that you can point to where this hasn't happened as a result of rent control? Unfortunately, the people that support it are often misled and misinformed about how it works and the outcome that it ultimately leads to.

What many of them don't understand is that this is a simple example of supply and demand. Fewer available units at higher monthly rates? Is this really what we all want for Concord?

It may seem counterintuitive that a Real Estate agent that gets paid a commission on every closed sale would speak out and write to you in opposition of something that drives such a substantial amount of business his way. The bottom line is that there is a lot of business to be had in our community and this is not the kind of business that I feel good about doing. I'll continue to do my job but rent control is TERRIBLE for Concord and I STRONGLY OPPOSE it.

Matt

Matt Rubenstein
Realtor® | EastBayPro Team

[email protected] | m: 925.586.6578
Serving the East Bay since 1999

ALAMO | BENICIA | BRENTWOOD | CLAYTON | CONCORD |
DANVILLE | DIABLO | DUBLIN | LAFAYETTE | MARTINEZ | MORAGA | OAKLAND | ORINDA | PLEASANT HILL | PLEASANTON | ROSSMOOR | SAN RAMON | WALNUT CREEK CalBre 01889932

From: Rob Sogomonian <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 8:04 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Re-Evaluate Rent Control

I provide housing for Concord renters and support amending the overly restrictive rent control ordinance. I ask that you limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law.

Your rent registry data already shows that state law is working in Concord and that mass evictions or rent gouging are not happening in the city. Please do not punish housing providers by keeping this draconian law in place.

Please let reason prevail and vote YES to re-evaluate the rent control ordinance.

From: Reuben Au Yeung <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 8:04 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Re-Evaluate Rent Control

I provide housing for Concord renters and support amending the overly restrictive rent control ordinance. I ask that you limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law.

Your rent registry data already shows that state law is working in Concord and that mass evictions or rent gouging are not happening in the city. Please do not punish housing providers by keeping this draconian law in place.

Please let reason prevail and vote YES to re-evaluate the rent control ordinance.

From: Wei Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 9:33 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Any Local Rent Control Regulations Wei Kang
1650 Frisbie Ct
Concord, CA 94520
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (510) 299-2701
February 20, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Opposition to Any Local Rent Control Regulations

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further local regulations that restrict rental housing providers. Rent control policies, including the current rent cap and just cause eviction requirements, impose unnecessary burdens on landlords, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately reduce the availability of quality housing in our community.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state-approved law enacted in 1995, already provides clear guidelines on rent control in California. Under Costa-Hawkins, single-family homes and condominiums are exempt from both rent cap requirements and just cause eviction regulations.

There is no need for Concord to override or complicate these established state protections with additional local restrictions. Creating city-specific rent control policies only adds confusion and deters housing providers from continuing to invest in and maintain rental properties.

The current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), makes it increasingly difficult for landlords to keep up with rising costs, including property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Rental housing must remain financially sustainable, and excessive government interference discourages property owners from continuing to offer rental units. Similarly, the just cause eviction requirement unnecessarily restricts landlords from managing their properties effectively, making it more difficult to address problematic tenants or adjust to changing circumstances.

Furthermore, the rejection of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanded rent control measures. The City Council should respect the will of the voters and focus on policies that promote housing development rather than stifling it with excessive regulations. Expanding rent control will only drive small landlords out of the market, reducing rental supply and making affordability even worse for tenants.

Additionally we have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall.

I urge the City Council to roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord should align with state law rather than creating unnecessary and harmful restrictions that discourage housing investment. A fair and sustainable housing market requires policies that encourage private investment, not government overreach that creates long-term negative consequences.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I strongly encourage the council to prioritize policies that support both landlords and tenants by fostering a healthy and stable rental market.

Sincerely,
Wei Kang

From: Susan Burkitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 9:16 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control Ordinance

Dear Honorable Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers,
The purpose of this letter is to request your consideration to amend the overly restrictive rent control ordinance. As the owner of a single family residence who has rented to the same tenants for the past 20 years, I was in shock to discover I would have to pay relocation monies should I decide to sell or move in to the property and furthermore, if I did sell the property I would have to attach a restriction saying the buyer of the property could not (if they so chose to) rent it out for a lengthy period of time. As a taxpayer and landowner this is restricting my rights to control my own property and that of any future buyer. I am an individual with one property and not a large corporation with multiple units. I ask that you limit the scope of the “just cause” ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law.

Your rent registry data already shows that state law is working in Concord and that mass evictions or rent gouging are not happening in the city. Please do not punish me and other housing providers by keeping this draconian law in place.

If I may, I would also suggest that if you need more affordable housing units you look to rehabilitating or replacing the housing units at the former Naval Weapons Station off of Olivera Rd that have sat and still sit idle when they could be utilized to help with the affordable housing shortage.

Please let reason prevail and fix the flawed rental housing ordinance. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan Burkitt
Property Owner

Virus-free.www.avast.com

From: Chris Moulis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: council member Laura H
Dear Council Member Laura,
As a long-time Concord resident since 1972, business owner, and real estate professional with over 50 years of experience in this city, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recently enacted rent control ordinance that exceeds the existing California state regulations. I have been against this measure from its inception, believing it to be unnecessarily stringent. Despite my extensive experience in the local real estate market, I was not consulted for my professional opinion on the potential negative impacts on the rental market and unintended consequences7.

The passage of Concord's rent control ordinance has already had tangible effects on the local rental market. Personally, I have divested from two Concord condominiums, resulting in a reduction of available rental units as the new owners are occupants rather than landlords.

While I understand the initial concerns were primarily focused on large, corporate-owned multi-unit complexes, the inclusion of single-family homes and condominiums in the ordinance seems to have been a last-minute decision. I strongly believe these properties should be exempt from local rent control measures.

The current Concord rent control, which limits annual increases to 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (whichever is lower), is creating financial difficulties for small investors. This cap often falls short of covering rising costs such as fire insurance, utilities, property taxes, and necessary repairs.

In light of these concerns, I urge you to consider repealing the Concord rent control ordinance. At the very least, I implore you to remove single
-family homes and condominiums from the scope of
this local rent control measure7.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
Christos Moulis

Serving the real estate community for over 50 years
Benefits @ www.ChrisRewards.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Never trust wiring instructions sent via email. Cyber criminals are hacking email accounts and sending emails with fake wiring instructions. These emails are convincing and sophisticated. Always independently confirm wiring instructions in person or via a telephone call to a trusted and verified phone number. Never wire money without double-checking that the wiring instructions are correct.

I HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT VERIFY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 3:11 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Cc: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DPCCC letter regarding Concord rent stabilization and just-cause eviction ordinance Importance: High

“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 Obringer and Council Members – Attached is a letter from Katie Ricklefs, Chair, Democratic Party of Contra Costa County, expressing concerns regarding the current review of Concord’s rent stabilization and just-cause eviction ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Hildreth, DPCCC Issues Committee Chair

Susan Hildreth
President, Rossmoor Mutual 28
President, Democrats of Rossmoor
Chair, Library Foundation of Contra Costa
[email protected]
2229 Ptarmigan Dr., #1
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
206-619-5030

February 21, 2025
Dear Mayor Obringer and Concord City Council Members,
It has come to the attention of the Democratic Party of Contra Costa County (DPCCC) that, after the Concord City Council passed a rent stabilization and just-cause eviction ordinance less than a year ago, the City Council plans to review this hard-fought set of tenant protections, and potentially overturn some of them. This is concerning to us, as well as to a number of our commu- nity members who rallied in support of our endorsed candidates for Concord City Council.

The DPCCC wants to clarify our strong support of the tenant protections that have been a priority for Concord residents since 2016, when community members experienced 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.

It is difficult for us to understand why the City Council would revisit the rental ordinance for "rented single-family residences and rented condominiums” .

Rental protections apply to all rental properties in most cities that enact them. Landlords remain free to file evictions under just-cause as long as a le- gal cause is specified. Just-cause is particularly critical to curbing illegal forms of retaliation against tenants for lawful actions such as reporting inhab- itable living conditions, an issue which we understand has especially affected Concord tenants. This is why the community was heartened when the ordi- nance was passed by the City Council last year.

Concord’s rent stabilization and just-cause policies were a crucial component of the 2023-2031 Housing Element that was certified by the California Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in order to fulfill the We are the Party for and by the People
contracostadems.org

city s obligations to mitigate displacement risk and keep working-class fami- lies 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 o, in many cases, adopted ordinances with a similar rent increase formula to Concord s for the very first time.

The DPCCC strongly encourages the City Council to continue to maintain the anti-displacement obligations that you have already committed to the State.

You have joined a group of cities who are leading the way in renter protections that comply with California’s HCD obligations. We applaud the City of Con- cord for your leadership in this crucial quality of life goal and we stand ready to support you as you continue to implement your rent stabilization and just- cause eviction ordinance.

Sincerely,

Katie Ricklefs, Chair
Democratic Party of Contra Costa County

From: Jean-Pierre (JP) Maeder <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 7:01 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concerned Property Manager / Current Concord Investor

“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 Members of the Concord City Council,

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the recently enacted rent control ordinance, which is among the strictest in California. This ordinance imposes significant limitations on rent increases and introduces substantial relocation assistance to tenants for no-fault evictions.

As a property owner in Concord, I have experienced firsthand the challenges of maintaining and renting out properties in the current economic climate. Since September 2024, I have been unable to secure tenants for a fully renovated three-bedroom unit, despite extensive efforts. The market is saturated, and potential owners are increasingly hesitant to commit to rentals in Concord. The introduction of this stringent rent control ordinance has further exacerbated these challenges, making it financially unfeasible to continue holding rental properties under the current conditions.

Moreover, I understand that the City Council is considering an amendment to extend the rent control ordinance to include single-family homes and condominiums, which are currently exempt.

This proposed change will further enforce the notion that investors, especially small-time investors, are not welcome in Concord. The most likely outcome, given the trends observed over the past few months, is a noticeable exodus of rental property owners who have sold their properties to new owners intending to occupy the spaces themselves. This shift is driven by the increasing financial pressures imposed by the current ordinance and the anticipated expansion to include single-family homes and condominiums.

The ordinance's provisions, including capping annual rent increases and introducing substantial relocation assistance to tenants for no-fault evictions, have created an environment where small investors like myself are compelled to consider selling properties at a loss. This observed exodus of property owners will lead to a significant reduction in the rental housing stock in Concord, adversely affecting the very tenants the ordinance aims to protect as rents for fewer properties will increase considerably.

I urge the City Council to reconsider the implementation of this ordinance. While the intention to protect tenants is commendable, the current approach will inadvertently harm the rental market and the community at large. A more balanced solution is necessary—one that considers the interests of both tenants and especially small property owners—to ensure a sustainable and healthy rental market in Concord.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the City Council will carefully weigh the long- term implications of this ordinance and consider its repeal to foster a more balanced and thriving community.

Sincerely,
--
Jean-Pierre (JP) Maeder

O: 925-465-5141 | C: 415-997-3680
DRE#: 02034080

This email is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Thank you.

From: Cesar Montes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 1:08 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control
To whom it may concern,
About rent control, please limit the scope of the just cause requirements and revert the rent capto the statewide cap of 5% plus the consumer price index
Thank you for your consideration.

Cesar Montes
P .S Rent control does not work!!!!!

From: Betsy Iwasa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 8:32 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: New property owner and tenant ordinance

Dear City Council Members,
I am a landlady of two single family homes in Concord. I provide a safe and and well maintained home for my tenants. I have pride of ownership for these two homes. the Just Cause and
Permanent Relocation Assistance provision in the current ordinance presents a burden for me. I might need to sell a property to pay for my housing and care as i am now 81 years old.

Please revise the ordinance and remove these two provisions of the ordinance.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Iwasa

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Kell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 3:02 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council;
In your efforts to protect tenants in Concord please keep in mind that at this time Landlords are facing some serious obstacles to making a fair return on their investment:

1. Property insurance is very difficult to find now and extremely expensive if you do find it. Property owners (landlords) are having to replace roofs that were not worn out but drone photos showed perceived imperfections ( I’m forced to replace
2 roofs now and expect more insurance co.
non- renewals). $30,000 each roof plus more $ if dry rot is found when the old roof is torn off.

The insurance company wants no trees near the roofs. Years ago trees were planted close to houses to shade the roof and house from the hot summer sun. So trimming or cutting the trees down is a big expense. I can’t find a licensed tree company for less than $1,000 a day.

So, even if I do everything the insurance agent mandates there is no guarantee of getting property insurance at all. It’s all a gamble. The new premium will be at least 3 to 4 times what it was before, for less coverage and higher deductibles.

2. Residential home repairs are very expensive. I just had to replace a furnace in an 800 sf unit. Cost was $6000. To make a living in Contra Costa County repair people need to make at least $100 an hour. There is no such thing as a cheap handyman any more.

3. Property taxes continue to go up every year, especially with the special assessments, school bonds, sewer, etc.

Please don’t include single family homes in this restrictive ordinance. You want to protect apartment renters from “greedy landlords” and corporate owners. That is not us: small retired landlords trying to make a decent retirement income. We don’t need the headache of new regulations, fees, rules, restrictions, penalties. PLEASE CONSIDER EXEMPTING SMALL LANDLORDS WITH A FEW UNITS FROM THE RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE.

Please increase the annual allowable rent increase amount to match California state law which is 10%, or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower.

Thank you for your consideration.

Douglas Kell
[email protected]
(924)285-2477

From: Tahirah Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 10:05 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Subject: On Behalf of Concerned Residents & Organizers: Just Cause & Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Dear City Council Members,

Please see the attached letter on behalf of concerned residents and organizers regarding proposed changes to the Just Cause and Rent Stabilization ordinance. We look forward to seeing you all tomorrow at the City Council meeting.

Sincerely,

Tahirah Dean

Tahirah Dean
Staff Attorney at Public Advocates
SF office
857-225-4656
| [email protected]
www.publicadvocates.org

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone. Thank you.


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

February 24, 2025

Re: Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance

Dear Concord City Council Members,

We, the undersigned group of community service, faith, labor, and advocacy organizations, are writing to express our deep concern about the Council’s deliberation on weakening the Just Cause and Rent Stabilization provisions of the Residential Tenant Protections Program that was recently enacted on March 5, 2024 and took effect on April 19, 2024. Our organizations all work in different ways to stabilize working families, children, seniors, immigrants and vulnerable members of our community. We recognize that housing is the foundation for health and wellbeing.

For years we have advocated for basic tenant protections that would allow renters to remain housed in stable and affordable homes in Concord as we witnessed the devastating impact of skyrocketing rents. According to the City, rent increased by 62% between 2011 and 20211, far outpacing the growth of renter incomes. These unreasonable increases coupled with unjust evictions lead to displacement and increased homelessness, especially of black and brown residents and immigrant families. For this reason, we have supported efforts to keep the community intact through meaningful policies like just cause for eviction and rent stabilization. and were relieved when Concord enacted these protections last April. Over the last 10 months, the ordinance has helped keep hundreds of families in their homes by stabilizing rent increases and preventing arbitrary, unfair evictions. Now, the unexpected expedited renegotiation of the policy risks the safety and stability of those most vulnerable to displacement and homelessness.

We urge you not to water the ordinance down during the first year of implementation before the city has been able to obtain data about the impacts of the policy.

The current ordinance caps rent increases at 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 3%, whichever is less, which is a best practice across the region to effectively stabilize rents for low-income and fixed-income tenants. If Concord moves to weaken this cap, it will fall behind other jurisdictions while jeopardizing the housing stability of Concord families and betraying the City's legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing by taking measurable actions to address economic displacement. At a time when inflation is high, federal aid is uncertain, and our housing crisis continues to grow, low-income tenants need every dollar to ensure stability.

All landlords are guaranteed to make a reasonable return on their investment under California law, and all rent stabilization ordinances, including Concord’s, enable that right. In addition, a 1 City of Concord staff report dated Sept. 5, 2023.

strong rent cap is good for Concord’s economy. Paying reasonable rents allows Concord residents to spend a greater share of their income in the local economy -- on food, services and other necessities. Weakening the rent cap less than one year after the ordinance was passed will lead to greater financial strain, displacement, and eviction in an already fragile economy.

Just cause for eviction protections for all renters who live in single-family homes is another critical component of the ordinance that provides fairness and equity. All renters need protections against arbitrary and unfair evictions regardless of whether they reside in a multi-unit building, single-family home, or condo. The City of Concord's 2019 Rental Housing Data Book estimated that 33% of renters lived in Single Family Homes, and the recent staff report for Feb. 4th Council Meeting indicated that up to 43% of renters live in single-family homes or rented condos. Thus, limiting the scope of the just cause would leave renters who live in single-family homes, often individuals with children or extended family to care for, with no protections from arbitrary displacement. Displacing families with young children disrupts schools, negatively impacting learning. Displacement doesn’t just impact a single home, it has long term impacts on our entire community.

The existing ordinance balances the needs of landlords and tenants. It preserves a landlord’s ability to evict tenants for “no fault” reasons, such as if the owner wishes to move into the unit, as well as for “at fault” reasons such as nonpayment of rent or lease violations. This policy does not prevent landlords from increasing the rent— it only helps to limit rent increases at a reasonable rate so that tenants are not impacted by volatile rental markets, while ensuring a fair rate of return for landlords.

As you know, local laws have a significant impact on the day-to-day lives of community members. While an unprecedented amount of turmoil and chaos unfolds at the federal level, people need stability and protection from divisive politics. The unexpected change and rollback of policies that have been enacted after extensive public debate only 10 months ago would create unnecessary tension and fear in the community. Concord should be a place where everyone feels welcome. Historically, BIPOC and immigrant communities in Concord have faced a disproportionate amount of abuse, exploitation and discrimination, and thus have been the majority of tenants who have been urging Council for more protections since 2016. We want to lift up just two recent cases that illustrate their vulnerability.

● In the fall of 2022, Eduardo and his wife were forced out of their apartment with 60-day notice asserting the need for substantial renovations. Before the 60-days were even up, the landlord illegally changed the lock on their apartment and the couple found their remaining belongings had been destroyed and thrown into the garbage bins. After receiving legal support and advice, Eduardo confronted the landlord and asked for reimbursement for his belongings and the relocation assistance that was due for a no-fault eviction per the City’s local ordinance. Notably, Eduardo reported that while he was talking to his landlord, the landlord actually shared that he was surprised to see Eduardo asserting his rights, saying he hadn’t expected that from him, adding “you win some, you lose some.” Also, the major renovations never did happen. In fact, other tenants in that complex were evicted under the same pretense. Neighbors

reported that another tenant moved in within days of Eduardo’s departure. It was the relocation assistance that enabled Eduardo to transition into a new apartment in Concord.

● In Feb of 2024, before the ordinance passed, Maria V, a single-mother of three children and survivor of domestic violence living in a single-family home on Detroit Ave. received a 60-day notice to quit, with no reason given for the eviction. She was current on her rent, even though it was a struggle to make ends meet as she was on a fixed income receiving disability payments. She was consumed with worry about her ability to find another place she could afford with her three children and no way to pay the costs to transition to a new place. Yet, the house she rented was owned by Discovery Homes Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Discovery Builders Inc. Discovery Homes is one of nearly 120 businesses or shell companies owned either directly or indirectly by Albert Seeno III. 2 Maria shared that she was being harassed by the property management company on a weekly basis to leave even before the April 1 deadline, even though she had no place to go and had paid through March 31. Ultimately, she succumbed to the pressure and left, having to sleep on the couch of her neighbor with her three kids. This ordinance helps prevent scenarios like this, where a tenant is evicted with NO REASON given, and modest relocation is available to help families actually secure a stable and safe place to live.

These cases are just two of hundreds we have heard from immigrant renters in recent years. Yet they illustrate the ways that some unethical landlords take advantage of the vulnerability of immigrants who they understand are unlikely to assert their rights and challenge unjust or unlawful evictions. And in this increasingly hostile political climate with escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric and our immigrant residents preparing themselves for the possibility of more ICE raids and surveillance, it is even more important that we do not roll back tenant protections. It is our duty to ensure that these families are protected from abuse and remain housed through a strong just cause policy that is applied to all housing units, and one which requires relocation assistance for no-cause evictions in order to help families transition into new housing and not to fall into homelessness. The requirement to offer relocation assistance is also important to deter landlords from issuing fraudulent evictions.

Therefore, we urge the Council not to roll back protections for renters and to leave the ordinance that was barely enacted ten months ago in tact so that we can truly reduce displacement and homelessness and keep families housed.

Sincerely,

Tahirah Dean, Staff Attorney, Public Advocates
2 According to an analysis of business filings submitted to the California Secretary of State, Albert Seeno III directly owns 80 companies and indirectly owns another 39. These companies are further tied to other entities that are owned by other members of the Seeno family, which controls a vast real-estate empire in Northern California.

On behalf of the undersigned organizations

1. Public Advocates

2. Contra Costa Senior Legal Services

3. CocoKids

4. Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance

5. Healthy Contra Costa

6. Contra Costa Central Labor Council

7. SEIU 2015

8. Concord Communities Alliance

9. United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County

10. Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay

11. East Bay Housing Organizations

12. IFPTE 21

13. Healthy and Active Before 5

14. Monument Impact

15. Rising Juntos

16. Lift Up Contra Costa

17. Movement Legal

18. Centro Legal De La Raza

19. East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy

20. Ensuring Opportunity, The Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County

21. California Nurses Association

22. Teamsters 856

23. Tenants Together

24. Urban Habitat

25. Greenbelt Alliance

26. PolicyLink

27. Todos Santos Tenants Union (Concord)

28. Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy

29. Contra Costa Budget Justice Coalition

30. Contra Costa Young Democrats

31. East Contra Costa Community Alliance

32. Choice in Aging

33. Bay Area Legal Aid

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Wetherell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:22 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments re Residential Registry Program

We are not in favor with the current rental program. What a nightmare for the city to maintain, and the costs involved. We feel that you are punishing good landlords. We currently have two rental homes in Concord. We are very good landlords, treat our renters fairly and maintain our property.

Issues with the property are handled in a timely manner. Our rents are below market. Our tenants are very appreciative, and we give them an annual reduction in rent for the month of December.

Please reconsider the rental registry program for single family homes.

Thank you!

Kathy and Dave Wetherell
Sent from my iPad

From: Rich Burris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:34 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concern Regarding Rent Control & Just Cause for Single-Family Homes Dear Concord City Council,
I am writing to express my strong concern regarding the inclusion of single-family homes, condominiums, and townhouses in the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction ordinance.

While tenant protections are important, applying these regulations to individually owned properties creates unintended consequences that negatively impact not only homeowners but also renters and the community as a whole.

Here are a few key concerns:

1. Deferred Maintenance & Neighborhood Blight – With rent stabilization limiting rental income growth, property owners will have less funding available for essential upkeep such as landscaping, exterior painting, and necessary repairs like roofing and plumbing. Over time, this leads to declining property conditions, negatively impacting both tenants' quality of life and neighborhood property values.

2. Reduction in Rental Inventory – Many small landlords rely on rental income as part of their retirement strategy or to fund long-term care. If their ability to manage their own property is restricted, they are more likely to sell to an owner-occupant, permanently removing these homes from the rental market. Given Concord’s home prices, these properties are unlikely to be purchased by investors seeking to rent, further limiting housing availability.

3. Unintended Tenant Hardships – While the intention of rent stabilization is to protect tenants, it may have the opposite effect. If rental properties are sold and removed from the market, the limited supply of available rentals will drive prices up for new tenants seeking housing. Additionally, without the ability to adjust rents to market value, landlords may become more selective in choosing tenants, making it harder for some renters to secure housing.

4. Loss of Homeowner Flexibility – Many single-family rental property owners plan to either move back into the home themselves or provide housing for a family member in the future.

Just Cause restrictions make it significantly more difficult for homeowners to regain possession of their property when needed, placing unnecessary burdens on families who rely on their real estate as part of their long-term planning.

5. Market Forces Already Dictate Fair Rental Pricing – Unlike large multifamily developments, single-family rentals naturally follow market trends. A landlord cannot simply demand rent higher than what the market allows, as tenants will seek alternatives.

Artificial rent caps disrupt this natural balance, making it harder for private homeowners to maintain their investments while benefiting both landlords and tenants.

For these reasons, I urge you to remove single-family homes, condominiums, and townhouses from Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction policies. These properties are fundamentally

different from large-scale apartment buildings and should not be subjected to the same regulations.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your efforts to address housing concerns in Concord while also ensuring a fair and balanced approach for all stakeholders.

Sincerely,
Rich Burris
(925) 586-8800

From: Ron Ventura <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rental Policies

Hello City Council Members,

Please use extreme caution when considering the Rental Policies being considered. For the protections of Landlord's and Tenant's, the more restrictions that are initiated regarding rental policies are not good for the Landlords or Tenants. The current policies being considered in my opinion will promote Landlords to sell their rental investments causing even more of a rental housing shortage. Please consider your options and vote as if you owned a rental property and how you would like to see policies enacted.

Sincerely,

Ron Ventura | Broker - Best Property Management, Inc.
| CA DRE#00643696 - NMLS # 1612925
| phone: (925) 809-3400
| email: [email protected]
| website: www.bestproperty4u.com
| address: 5 Offices to Serve You

From: Lida <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 2:06 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; FROgard Schmidt <[email protected]>
Subject: cons of rent control

City Council letter.

To the city council of Concord
The people of Concord have expressed their feelings about rent control to your multiple times.

We have written, spoken and voted against rent control. The people did not waive on their decision. Yet the Council decided to sneak around behind closed doors and vote as if we the people will not become aware of your action. When a public official does not listen to constituents, he/she is acting as a dictator stepping on our democracy.

The council took the matter further, stepping on the landlord and tenant privacy laws by asking for the tenant's personal information, such as name, email, and phone number. This is against the tenant-landlord privacy act.

As our last vote in November stated, Rent Control is not for our city.

The City of Concord has yet to explain why such a destructive move is good for the city. This does not help displacement of tenants, it aggravates the situation. Rent increase is part of inflation, and the city has yet explained the BaseLine for the rent standard to begin with. Rent control masks the symptom; it is not a solution to the problem.

Much has been documented in regards to rent control flaws.

Had the council truly done their homework, they would realize rent control is not the best long-term option.
1) Rent Control means boarded up homes. It is more cost effective to board up your home than move the tenant out, per your requirements. First month, last month, deposit, moving cost fees, and cleaning up the rental units after the tenants are gone. 2) In my area many rental properties are empty and boarded up. A few months ago, a woman got sexually assaulted in one of the abandoned rental properties. The unit has been emptied for over a year. There are currently 5 such units in one block radius. 3) Condo Conversion is causing higher housing shortage and higher rent. (case in point please drive by the Monument area near Tree Street). The conversion leads to gentrification, as these types of property cater to higher income individuals. (case in point. New York- Harlem, East and West side, West and East village, Chelsea, Long Island California—San Jose, South Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland East. This will create, Racial discrimination).

4) Deteriorated properties- Rent control can discourage landlords from making repairs and upgrades, which can lead to a decline in the quality of existing housing. Look around Bonifacio, Almond Ave, and Grant Street.
5) Reduces the incentive to develop new markets in Concord by investors. 6) Displaces low-income families.
7) Reduces the property tax- If they can’t sell the property at market rate. 8) Discourages the tenant to move, since they will not be able to find cheaper housing. 9) Illegally subletting the property for profit.
10) Reduces the value of all properties in the city.

Below are some sites for you to look over to understand the ramification of your decision.

Rent control has a number of potential drawbacks, including: [1, 2] • Reduced housing supply: Rent control can reduce the supply of housing by discouraging new construction and investment. Landlords may also convert buildings to condos or commercial use instead of maintaining them. [1, 2]
• Lower housing quality: Rent control can lead to a decline in housing quality over time.

Landlords may spend less on maintenance and upkeep due to low returns on investment. [1, 2, 3]
• Lower rental incomes: Landlords may experience depressed rental incomes due to rent control. [3]
• Higher vacancy rates: As landlords spend less on maintenance, vacancy rates may increase. [3]
• Increased tenant turnover: Rent control may encourage tenants to move out more quickly to raise rents. [2]
• Complex regulations: Rent control can create complex regulations that require time and money to administer. [2]
• Increased illegal subletting: Rent control may encourage residents to illegally sublet apartments for profit. [4]
• Reduced residential mobility: Rent control can reduce residential mobility. [5] • Gentrification: Rent control can fuel gentrification and have negative effects on surrounding neighborhoods. [6]

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rent-control.asp [2] https://toljcommercial.com/rent-control-strategies/ [3] https://www.ccrentalpro.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-rent-control-for-single-family-renters [4] https://naahq.org/10-unintended-consequences-rent-control-policies [5] https://iea.org.uk/media/rent-controls -do-far-more-harm-than-good-comprehensive-review- finds/
[6] https://commonwealthbeacon.org/opinion/does-rent -control-help-or-hurt-the-quest-for- affordable-housing/
https://fee.org/articles/rent-controls-a-well-intentioned- disaster/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAzvC9BhADEiwAEhtlN0e4zF8J5ZjGqSCGz14C- mVT3FDYaHm5nQa6gVJe6GcYKF1y5FLmaBoChxAQAvD_BwE
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2023/03/23/national-apartment-association- study-finds-that-rent-control-is-not-the-solution-it-appears-to-be/ https://fee.org/articles/how-we-know-california-new-rent-control-law-will-make-its-housing- shortage-
worse/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAzvC9BhADEiwAEhtlNw4J5EYhCTghvX18vmgxmWNSqqTuxt h_-DVm5EYiawToNVcHxEGxrhoC7IUQAvD_BwE
https://www.autohost.ai/landlord-tenant-confidentiality- laws/#:~:text=Tenant%20privacy%20laws%20are%20designed,handled%20with%20the%20utmos t%20care.

From: Jenny Terry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 2:40 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control

Dear city clerk, mayor and council members:

I have written previously regarding my observations regarding the financial and dangerous provisions in your rent control and just cause ordinances. I am writing today to bring to your attention a provision that I did not address previously: The rental registration program.

I have written to you at least annually to indicate that the City of Concord is not a party to the lease between myself and my tenant. The rental registration program violates privacy laws which are designed to protect American’s privacy rights. The City of Concord has historically made certain parts of the rental registration information public, which, in my opinion, is unethical. I will continue to decline participation in this overreach of government authority, and the violation of my tenant’s privacy rights. My tenant’s privacy rights supersede any city ordinance. City ordinance is not law.

That being said, I recommend that you take these comments under consideration along with the other provisions of your rent control and just cause ordinances.

Thank you in advance for your service and consideration.

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

Virus-free.www.avast.com

From: Cici Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 2:45 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Your very biased unfair Just Cause requirements and current rent cap are ruining my USPS retirement after my 30 years of careful saving and investment in a Concord single family home l rent while tenants have taken advantage of me! Now you are taking a...

Why are you openly discriminating against me as a single family home renter and financially punishing me with your terrible "renters come first" just cause and current rent cap? I do not feel that you have taken an honest caring resident of Concord like me who spent 30 years of my life choosing to slowly and carefully invest in my retirement by owning a single family home to rent out.

There are many like me in the City of Concord. We voted for you now l and we feel abandoned.

Fairness is all we are demanding.

Celina Liu
Concord resident and voter.

From: Emerald Properties <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 3:16 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Residential Tenant Protections
Good Afternoon,
Please include my email amongst comments to City Council 2/25/25 on above matter.

Mayor and City Council Members.

I, sincerely, appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion on this very important matter.

A. Longtime Housing Provider. As I have already mentioned I have been a Housing Provider in Concord for over 30 years. My property consists of 300 older, but well-maintained apartments. Many tenants have resided there for years because of our Policy to maintain and to upgrade the community. Here is the problem.

There is no way that we can continue to upgrade those older units with the current controls placed by Concord City. Because of the age we are forced to upgrade kitchens, bathrooms, hardwood flooring, windows from single pane to double pane, etc. when tenants decide to move. We must be able to increase annual rents to State of California 5% plus C.P .I. change.

B. Imposing Further Tenant Protections. Sounds good, but it has severe downsizes. Imposing more regulations causes Housing Providers, especially Mom and Pop providers, to get out of the business. Every week we read of apartment complexes being foreclosed or selling for a price lower than what the property was purchased for earlier. See East Bay Times Saturday last February

22. Our reliable Housing Providers, having to contend with, Values Dropping, Rent Controls and Impositions of further Tenant Protections are choosing alternate Investments. Our State Regulations dictate fair Tenant Protections and also fair to everyone, Annual Rent Increase Rates.

C. Single Family Homes Rentals. I don’t have any in Concord, but from my vast experience, as a Housing Provider, and as a Home Sales Realtor, placing obstacles on a homeowner’s ability to ask a tenant to vacate so the homeowner can have a family member move in, or imposing other restrictions or financial obligations, is not right.

Again, Thank You for giving of your valuable time. Please do look at the larger picture. We need more apartment rentals and more single-family home rentals. Don’t place further restrictions on the already restricted marketplace.

Thank you,
John Sullivan
(510) 538-9496

From: Derek Raynor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 3:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Remove the draconian rent cap!
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned citizen about Concord's rent control measures and untenable rent cap.

While these policies might offer short-term relief for tenants from the outside looking in, the long- term consequences could be deeply detrimental to our community.

Numerous reports and studies have highlighted the adverse impacts of rent control. The New York Times article "Rent Control Explained" and the Forbes article "Rent Control Doesn't Solve Housing Shortages" show that these measures often reduce the supply of rental housing while limiting the funds available for essential property maintenance and development.

Further concerns are outlined in an article by Leah Cuffy (April 29, 2023), which details several critical issues:

1. Reduced Incentives for New Development: When housing providers cannot raise rents to match rising costs, over 70% either scale back, shift to other markets or cancel development plans altogether—exacerbating rental shortages.

2. Discouraged Investment: With rent caps lowering property values, 67% of providers are unwilling to invest further, stalling improvements and new projects.

3. Lower Property Tax Revenues: Limiting rental income reduces property values and local property tax revenues. These funds are essential for our infrastructure, schools, parks, and public services.

4. Deferred Maintenance and Improvements: Financial strain forces providers to postpone nonessential maintenance, accelerating property deterioration.

5. Pressure to Sell Assets: Approximately 54% of providers anticipate selling properties due to the inability to cover rising operational costs, further shrinking the available housing stock.

6. Subsidizing High-Income Residents: Contrary to popular belief, 58% of providers note that higher-income tenants
benefit from these policies.

7. Reduced Tenant Mobility: Rent-controlled tenants often remain in their units longer, limiting housing options for those trying to enter the rental market.

8. Harm to Small Landlords: Smaller providers with fewer financial reserves are disproportionately affected.

9. Limited Benefits for Prospective Renters: With fewer new units coming to market, those seeking their first rental find even fewer options.

10. Encouragement of Illegal Subletting: Financial pressures may drive some residents to sublet units at market rates for profit, potentially leading to overcrowding and related quality-of-life issues.

Additional perspectives come from a recent article in The American Prospect, "Economists Hate Rent Control" (May 16, 2023), which reflects the strong consensus among economists that rent control stifles market innovation, deters necessary property maintenance, and ultimately reduces the overall supply of rental housing. Similarly, an article from The Economist, "Rent control will make housing shortages worse" (September 19, 2019), using examples from San Francisco, demonstrates that such measures can worsen housing shortages by undermining new construction and investment in existing properties.

In addition to these broader findings, we have already seen tangible local effects. In less than a year since this law has been on the books, quality housing providers such as Fuller Investments have sold their buildings among many smaller mom-and-pop investors. Inflation has risen far beyond the
allowable 2.52% increase set by the policy. Insurance costs have surged over 25%, wages have skyrocketed, and recent wildfires indicate that these expenses will continue to climb. As a result, essential projects—including building painting, roof replacements, and hiring—have been canceled or postponed.

Given these concerns, it is evident that while rent control may look to offer immediate short-term relief, its long-term effects—ranging from a decreased housing supply and deferred maintenance to reduced local revenue—could fundamentally undermine the vibrancy and sustainability of our neighborhoods. I urge the council to thoroughly consider removing the current cap, allow AB 1482 to work, and explore alternative strategies that balance affordability with the long-term health of our community’s housing infrastructure.

Sincerely,
Derek Raynor

City of Concord and all Committee Members;

Re: Rent Control/ additions / modifications/ implementations

The City of Concord has allowed wealthy out-of-area racist non-profits to run its housing elements without giving appropriate consideration to the actual people of Concord.

These same “nonprofits” are responsible for the chaos that has ruined Alameda County, San Francisco, Oakland and every other jurisdiction that has adopted these extreme housing policies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/04/24/how-ironic-americas-rent- controlled-cities-are-its-least-affordable/

There is a reason why 89.9% of cities in California have chosen NOT to adopt rent control policies not to mention that most economist, the people of California, Contra Costa and Concord have voted against it.

https://www.contracostavote.gov/wp-content/uploads/ElectionSummaryReportRPT-

95.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the- effects-of-rent-control/
I would like to remind the City of Concord that on November 5 Californians repealed/ rejected rent control (for the second time) measures that were implemented by the state legislature.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2024/11/california-election-results-prop-33-rent-control/

In that election that 61% of Contra Costa County and Concord voted to repeal rental control, but somehow you “feel” you know better? Why are you ignoring the will of the people of Concord? We have already spoken.

The City of Concord heavily relies on economic and financial housing advice from out- of-town wealthy “non-profits” who have failed elsewhere and are now trying to grift on the people of Concord. But they fail to ever mention that cities like Cambridge Massachusetts have chosen to completely end rent control after 25 years because they found out that it did not benefit anyone and actually just drove up the cost of housing.

Why was this type of information missing from your data analysis?

https://www.nber.org/digest/oct12/end-rent-control-cambridge

These wealthy “non-profits” are just paid individuals/corporations whose job it is to attend meetings and advocate for programs that will help their own bottom line. Here are just a few that have attended the Concord Meetings in the past.

EBHO – of Oakland, CA 94607 per their own tax filing in 2021 has a net asset of $2,286,778. A wealthy non-profit should be giving its money way not asking other people to pay for their asks.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943232405/2022131693493016 06/full
MONUMENT IMPACT filed this for 2021 year that they have a revenue stream of $2,663,504 of which $790,000 goes into payroll.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943370919/2022329093493028 03/full
BAY AREA LEGAL AID – of Oakland, CA has a revenue of $22,860,765 with a pay roll of $11,415,111
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941631316/2022231393493030 47/full
EDEN HOUSING – of Hayward CA has a revenue $90,990,309 per their filings that includes $7,677,235 in payroll.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231716750/2022431493493013 14/full
EBASE - of OAKLAND CA has net assets of $3,736,361and payroll of $820,612. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943314108/2023326993493004 13/full
Alliance Of Californians for Community Empowerment ACCE – of Los Angeles has a revenue of $1,148,639 and payroll of $183,686
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/271482731/2022031893493198 50/full
Even cities like San Francisco that have spends billions on housing and rent control, admit that they have failed. These same failed non-profits are the same ones that have come to Concord and pressured this city to make the same mistakes they made in San Francisco and Oakland. Rent control just simply does not work. No economic study can show that it has - the Goldwater report lays it all out quite simply. https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/new-report-government-imposed-rent-control-doesnt- make-housing-more-affordable/

As things become more public and therefore transparent it seems quite clear that the people of Concord have been left carrying the financial and social burden of rent control. Perhaps these nonprofits should use their wealth to pay for rents instead of asking everyone else to do it. The city needs to stop using us a bank for pet projects.

The people of Concord are not servants for causes and we should not have to pay for a nonprofits CEO salary of $300,000.

As proven by their 990 tax returns these wealthy “non-profits” that are advocating rent control are wealthier than any every single Concord landlord.

I encourage you to vote NO on any current and future policies. Eliminate ALL aspects of rent control in the City of Concord including those being voted on this agenda.

Respectfully,

Turtle & Charlie Pfeiffer
Concord Residents

From: Harry Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 5:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control Reconsideration
Hello City of Concord Councilmembers,
I am the managing member for the family entity owning Clayton Creek Apartments, a 208-unit multi-family property located on Clayton Rd. In the summer of 2022, we began a 2+ year major renovation of the property’s exterior that included new building siding, new building lighting, new sidewalks, new landscaping, and new landscape lighting. All told, we invested $9 million in the project.

When initially contemplating the renovation, the reason we opted to move forward was twofold: 1) As a family business with a conservative approach to investments, with time, we felt we could work within the framework of AB1482 to ultimately justify the investment made into rehabbing a property that was certainly in need of an upgrade. We have owned the property for 30 years and, with the renovation, our expectation was to continue owning it for the next 30; 2) Quite frankly, we felt the City of Concord was in need of, and would appreciate, a property that is aesthetically pleasing. At 208 units and in a prominent location, we felt that a property of this stature would reflect well on the city’s image.

As things stand today, with continued skyrocketing expenses and an ordinance that allows for rent increases capped at 60% of CPI, the reality is that our investment in Clayton Creek will never pay for itself. As reasonable and responsible property owners, we saw the logic in the passage of 1482 and felt it was a fair compromise between property owners and tenants. What we’re looking at now, however, is brutally oppressive to property owners. Given the cost of doing business in today’s world, and with no relief in sight, rent restrictions of this magnitude are now as equally harmful to property owners as was the belief that pre-1482 rent increases were once damaging to tenants. The truth is that, had I known rent control to this degree was in the pipeline, I would not have made this investment. Instead, I would have struck a balance between the reduced income and the financial resources we had available to simply keep the existing buildings at some level of operation. From an aesthetic standpoint, I am confident the City of Concord would not have appreciated its appearance.

As a property owner who has stepped up financially to provide the city an apartment community it can be proud of, I ask that the council reconsider its current restrictions and find a compromise that will allow property owners to remain profitable while also encouraging them to reinvest in their properties.

Sincerely

Harry Lewis
Managing Member
Clayton Creek Apartments, LLC

From: Zhen B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:46 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Ordinance

Dear Council Members-

Thank you so much for reconsidering the rent ordinance. As an individual and owner of one single rental I strongly urge you to at least take out single family homes out of the program. The program as currently defined I believe will ultimately force small business owners with one rental or two out of rental market and I believe the ordinance will ultimately make the housing crisis worse. Thank you for your consideration of our voices

Evgenia

From: DV Dems Information <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 8:56 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of support for Concord Rent 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.”

Hello Mayor Obringer and Council City Council Members,

Please see the attached letter from the Diablo Valley Democratic Club in support of keeping the Concord rent ordinance intact.

Thank you for your time.

Best,
Laura Patch
Vice President
DV Dems

February 24, 2025

Dear Concord City Council Members,

It has come to the attention of the Diablo Valley Democratic Club (DV Dems) that the City Council plans to review the rent stabilization and just-cause eviction ordinance passed less than a year ago. The potential for changing or overturning tenant protections concerns us and many of our community members.

Over the last 10 months, the ordinance has helped keep hundreds of families in their homes by stabilizing rent increases and preventing arbitrary, unfair evictions and unreasonable rent increases. These issues disproportionately impact immigrant communities and people of color who are currently experiencing higher levels of fear given the federal government’s recent actions. Now, the unexpected expedited renegotiation of the policy risks their safety and stability at a local level as well.

It is difficult for us to understand the Council’s decision to revisit this ordinance less than a year after implementation and why rented single-family residences and rented condominiums should be exempted from just cause evictions. The City of Concord's 2019 Rental Housing Data Book estimated that 33% of renters lived in Single Family Homes, and the recent staff report for Feb. 4th Council Meeting indicated that up to 43% of renters live in single-family homes or rented condos. Thus, limiting the scope of the just cause would leave renters who live in single-family homes, often individuals with children or extended family to care for, with no protections from arbitrary displacement. Rental protections apply to all rental properties to prevent discrimination.

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 we understand has especially affected Concord tenants.

Your current policy is in line with the standard practice in California, and is part of your certified Housing Element.

DV Dems strongly encourages the City Council to leave the ordinance intact and continue to maintain the anti-displacement obligations that you have already committed to the State and your community.

Sincerely,
Laura Patch
Acting President
Diablo Valley Democratic Club

From: Fareed Tawasha <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 8:42 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control
Hello,
I wanted to write as an active broker and property manager the effects of your Just cause rent control has really wreaked havoc on the Concord rental market and will continue to do so. The Just cause rulings are very unfair and unfavorable to the landlords and ultimately affecting tenants at the end of the day.

The most Dearing story is we have a landlord who has retired from being an elementary school teacher and has limited income as a retiree. The tenants who reside in her future home for retirement as planned make over 5 times the income compared to the retirement income the landlord makes. The landlord would have to pay over $10,000 to the tenants when the contractual agreement is over per the terms of the lease if she wanted to move into her retirement home. The landlord cannot afford this, and it seems unfair for the landlord having to pay this money as a retiree to young tenants who make over 5 times the amount, she does on a retirement income.

We have discussed the Concord just cause with housing specialist in Contra Costa and Alameda whom all agree the just cause ruling oversteps the authority and makes no sense and is bad policy.

It creates havoc to the housing market in Concord. I know many landlords who have taken their rental homes off the market and a local lawyer has helped dozens of landlords to take their homes off the rental market. We have seen the inventory in Concord already start to dwindle and thus effecting the tenants as pricing will go up.

I know this may fall on deaf ears yet think about the tenants and how this will affect them as when rents rise landlords beneift. Homes will fail to be updated and kept up causing blight in the city.

Look at cities with strict rent control and see how their rent prices are some of the highest in the nation. You will ruin the rental market in Concord and will ruin tenants if this remains. For a minuite do not think of the votes you are looking for and think of the small business owners and tenants and the true harm this causes everyone.

Just like with every buisness there are a few bad charaters yet do not punish the good landlords and the tenants. Most landlords do not care of the rent cap and are soley focused on the Just Cause portion of the Concord Rent Control. I know many investors who will no longer buld or invest in Concord.

My best,
Fareed T.

From: Robyn Kuslits <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 9:20 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Changes to Tenant Protections
Hello Mayor and Councilmembers,

I am writing to express my opposition to the city council making changes to the historic tenant protection policy enacted by the city council less than one year ago.

Just Cause eviction policies are anti-discrimination policies. The burden for landlords to find a justifiable cause to evict a tenant is far outweighed by the anti-discrimination protections afforded by this policy. Especially so as we are currently in a housing crisis, it boggles the mind that the council would consider allowing the removal of more community members from their homes.

We are watching as President Trump dismantles anti-discrimination protections at the federal level.

Nothing is more discouraging than watching our local leaders do the same.

Please vote tonight to not change the policy. Thank you.

Robyn Kuslits
Concord Resident District 3

Mark Pryor
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS - THANK YOU.

FEBRUARY 25, 2025

COUNCILMEMBERS
Mayor Carlyn Obringer
Vice Mayor Laura Nakamura
Councilmember Dominic Aliano
Councilmember Pablo Benavente
Councilmember Laura Hoffmeister

Re: Concord Tenant Protection Policy

Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members,

It is my understanding that you will be meeting today, and part of your discussions will be about the City’s new Tenant Protection Policy and if single family/condo/townhome owners should be exempt. I am asking you to:

PLEASE EXEMPT SINGLE FAMILY/CONDO/TOWNHOME RENTAL OWNERS FROM THE CITY’S TENANT PROTECTION POLICY , AND IF POSSIBLE, JUST SCRAP THE WHOLE THING.

I have been a Realtor® and working in Concord for almost 45 years. This past month, due to the City’s new policy, I have had to inform two different Concord townhome owners that: 1.) I do not know if they can actually sell their property and meet City policy; or 2.) I don’t know if the owner can even raise their rent.

In the first instance, City staff states that the property can only be sold if: a) the tenant remains in the property and the property remains a rental with a new owner; or b.) the owner complies with the Costa Hawkins Act. Both of these occurrences interfere with the owners “Bundle of Property Rights” and likely reduce selling options and therefore sales prices.

In the second instance, while a single-family landlord may be exempt from the City’s arbitrary rent cap percentage increase, this same landlord is not exempt from time frame restrictions if children are present.

In short the landlords in the City of Concord are left much like the findings of a French Rent Commission from the late 1800s that found: “Whereas the landlord in our times is an unfortunate and pitiable being; He does not know what to do to meet his obligations… ”

What irks me and the clients that I represent are that:

- There has been no vote by the people of Concord on this policy

- The California Constitution in it’s very first Article states: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. ” The City of Concord’s policy infringes on these property rights.

- The City of Concord has decided to implement a defacto rent control program with just a different name.

- The City of Concord has taken sides and implemented a policy that promotes tenants over landlords, interferes with landlord’s prospective economic advantages, interferes with private contractual rights between landlords and tenants, and establishes a City run bureaucracy to supervise the property owners basic liberty

- The City has become a biased arbitrator and finder of facts that may lead to potential fines, fees or other penalties.

- In California, there has been a shortage of housing since World War II. The City’s implementation of this policy, while likely reducing rents for existing tenants, will likely lead to less supply and therefore increased rents for new tenants as landlords cease to invest in the City’s housing and/or remove their units from service. (Note: this is the exact thing that happened post- COVID when landlords up and down the State decided to get out of the rental business and take their money elsewhere due to the interference of government at the State and local levels.) - Economists are not in favor of rent control:
• There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing.
• In a 2013 analysis of the body of economic research on rent control by Peter Tatian at the Urban Institute (a think tank described both as "liberal" and "independent” , he stated that "The conclusion seems to be that rent stabilization doesn't do a good job of protecting its intended beneficiaries—poor or vulnerable renters
• Two economists from opposing sides of the political spectrum, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (who identifies as an American liberal or European social democrat), and Thomas Sowell, (who stated that "libertarian" might best describe his views)  have both criticized rent regulation as poor economics, which, despite its good intentions, leads to the creation of less housing, raises prices, and increases urban blight.

- Studies don’t support rent control in California:

• A 1990 study of Santa Monica, CA showed that vacancy control in that city protected existing tenants (lower increases in rent and longer stability). However, the policy potentially discouraged investors from building new rental units
• A 2000 study that compared the border areas of four California cities having vacancy control provisions (Santa Monica, Berkeley, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto) with the border areas of adjoining jurisdictions (two of which allowed vacancy decontrol, including Los Angeles, and two of which had no rent control) showed that existing tenants in the vacancy control cities had lower rents and longer tenure than in the comparison areas. Thus, the ordinances helped protect the existing tenants and, therefore, increased community stability. However, there were fewer new rental units created in the border areas of the vacancy-controlled cities over the 10-year period. • According to a 2018 review of new research by Rebecca Diamond, new research showed that rent control benefitted tenants in the short-run, but had adverse effects for tenants and neighborhood stability in the long-run by reducing affordability, increasing gentrification, and creating negative spillovers for nearby neighborhoods. Landlords frequently responded to rent control policies by reconverting rentals into buildings exempt from rent control or by allowing rentals to decay

- The State of California already has a Tenant Protection laws with rent cap and just-cause protections since about 2019. In the State’s law, single family owners as exempt and can notice tenants in advance as part of the rental/lease contract. If the tenant does not like this circumstance, they have the liberty to go elsewhere.
- It is unduly burdensome to for property owners to have to navigate State law and now different local policies to remain in compliance.
- The City has set a penalty structure for landlords and those that “assist” landlords. Never in my almost 45 years as a full-time Relator® have I been threatened with financial penalties for giving advice or assistance to my clients.
- Where are the actions and City support against problem tenants and why is the City’s policy so one sided???
- The property owners and clients that I have spoken with object to having to subsidize low income, elderly or handicapped tenant’s relocation expenses. They are happy to enter into lease/rental contracts with the tenants to provide housing but reject having to be responsible for providing progressive social services.

So once again, I would ask you to:

PLEASE EXEMPT SINGLE FAMILY/CONDO/TOWNHOME RENTAL OWNERS FROM THE CITY’S TENANT PROTECTION POLICY , AND IF POSSIBLE, JUST SCRAP THE WHOLE THING.

Respectfully yours,

Mark Pryor
Broker, G.R.I. e-Pro, CA DRE# 00789148
First Realty / Pryor & Associates
925-595-4188
[email protected]

From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 11:00 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Municipal Code 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program

Attached is a letter to the Concord City Council regarding the above referenced ordinance for the hearing to be held tonight.

Dennis Cedros

February 24, 2025

Re: City Municipal Code 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program

Concord CA City Council:

I was and still am totally against the referenced ordinance. It is impossible for me to understand how the elected representatives in any city would vote for a city ordinance that takes away the rights of property owners. It is just as hard for me to believe how Concord’s elected representatives could pass legislation that is so biased and one sided as Municipal Code 19.40. This ordinance is totally in favor of tenants and provides absolutely no fairness to owners/landlords. This ordinance allows the city to control residential rental properties without ownership.

This ordinance should not remain on the books, but it Should Not include single family residences or condominiums. It should be amended to exclude single family homes and condominiums.

Additional general comments detailing how poorly written and unfair this ordinance is to owner’s/landlord’s.

The city council, under the guise of helping tenants and providing affordable housing, has deflected their responsibility for providing affordable housing in the City of Concord. All you have done is taken away the rights of property owners concerning their own property. Instead of focusing on doing what is necessary to generate affordable housing you have saddled property owners with the responsibility and made their lives even more difficult. If you were really serious about creating more affordable housing you would reduce the fees that it takes to build new housing, you would reduce the time it takes to get approval for new home projects, you would stop the ridiculous litigation that projects have to deal with, just to detail a few tasks that would be more worth your time and effort.

What you have done with this ordinance is far from fair and equitable and takes away an owner’s rights concerning their own property. Why should the city have the right to control rent pricing?? Who in their great wisdom determined that a maximum 3% rent increase was sufficient for an owner? Why does the city think it knows better than the owner what a sufficient rent increase needs to be??
A real world example. My property tax, insurance and home warranty costs increase significantly more than 3% per year. Why should I not be able to cover the increase in my cost through an increase in rent??? Please do not tell me there is a review process that can be undertaken in order for the owner to increase rents more than allowed. That process is bogus. The owner has to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops to get a review, we have to pay for costs of a review and we have to provide the city and the tenant private personal financial information. Just like the ordinance itself, this so-called review process is one sided and unfair. This process was established in such a way that it would discourage owners from filing for a review. How is that fair???

Another comment on the review process and its lack of fairness. Why shouldn’t the owner’s interest payments be included in the calculation of a return? This is unfair. Interest is a component of an owner’s expense. All reasonable expenses should be included in the calculation of an owner’s return. There is nothing that should be excluded. There should be no difference between what a person would use for their tax return and what the ordinance should allow.

Why are owner’s/landlord’s made to be caretakers for their tenants??? Why should owner’s/landlord’s be responsible for anything related to a tenant’s personal circumstances.

Owner’s/landlord’s provide a home for tenants, Why should more be expected??? The ordinance has no protections for the owner/landlord. The ordinance is totally one-sided in favor of tenants. If the owner/landlord wants to assert any rights to protect themselves and their property we are forced to go through a legal process that is expensive and takes a lot of time.

This ordinance should never have been approved. The concerns of owner’s/landlord’s were totally ignored. At the minimum, single-family residences and condominiums should be excluded.

Dennis Cedros
Owner

Muin Afnani
[email protected]

My name is Moeen Michael Afnani and I own two single family rental properties in Concord with ADU.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed ordinance called rent stabilization.

I have not raised the rent in these properties since I acquired them in 2017. I have good tenants and do not increase rents because stability is important to me. However, should this ordinance pass I would feel that I have to start increasing rents by 2.5% every single year because of the concern that if the market changes I may not be able to increase rent adequately.

Rather than taking an ideological approach to rent control please look at the abundant experience from San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland that how rent control ordinance has backfired and has damaged rental market for new tenants creating massive shortage of rental properties.

Regards,

M. Afnani

To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: City Municipal code 19.40, Rent Registery

Hello,

My name is Soheila Sobhani, and I own a single family rental property in Concord which also has an ADU.

The proposed ordinance called rent stabilization is of concern to me.

First of all, experience from other cities in the Bay Area that have adopted similar measures has proved to be a failure in that it has made the rental market worse for both tenants and owners.

Secondly, the proposed 2.5% is inadequate because just the property tax increases by 2% every year, not to measure the inflation that some years goes much higher than 2.5%.

I do not raise rent every year but the proposed 2.5% will force me to increase it every single year because of the fear that in case of inflation higher than 2.5% I would not be able increase rent in that particular year to compensate.

Please do not disrupt the stable rent market of Concord by passing this ordinance because in the long run it will be detrimental to tenants and owners.

Regards,

S. Sobhani

[email protected]

Dear Joelle, please add the following to the comments from public:

Dear City Council Members.

As a property owner, I’m very concerned with City of Concord considering rent control and restricting eviction beyond an already lengthy and expensive process. Please keep in mind every time we deviate from open market, determined by demand and supply, we will be creating an unbalanced circumstances with negative impacts for both sides.

Rent control will detoriate property values in Concord. It will discourage the developers from new residential projects in Concord which will lower supplies. It will discourage the property owners from maintaining and improving their properties as they will not get their money back. The 2.5% limit will force the increase for all tenants every year. Me as an example leave the rent the same if I’m happy with the tenant I have. With this restriction I have to increase the rent every year regardless.

This is not a new concept and other cities such as San Francisco, Berkely and Oakland have tried it and it has failed miserably. They all decided to drop it. Why Concord wants to try something that it has proven to be a failure?

Warmest regards,
Massoud Fanaieyan

From: Mark Orcutt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:01 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: EBLC Support of Revisions to Residential Tenant Protection Program

Concord City Council Members:

See attached letter outlining the position of the East Bay Leadership Council related to proposed changes to the Residential Tenant Protection Program. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Mark Orcutt

---
Mark Orcutt | He/Him
President & CEO | East Bay Leadership Council
O: 925-246-1880 | C: 415-312-1394
www.eastbayleadershipcouncil.com

February 25, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

RE: SUPPORT of Agenda Item 5.a relating to the Residential Tenant Protection Program

Dear Concord City Council:

On behalf of the East Bay Leadership Council (EBLC), I am proud to support Agenda Item 5.a, which proposes changes to the Residential Tenant Protection Program. As a leading public policy advocacy organization representing hundreds of employers across Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, we recognize that balanced housing policies are essential to maintaining a strong regional economy. A stable and predictable rental market fosters workforce retention, economic mobility, and business investment—key pillars of long-term economic vitality.

EBLC supports California’s existing rent control framework, codified by AB 1482 in 2019, which was designed to prevent price gouging while ensuring a functional rental market. Changes to the protections established by AB 1482 creates a patchwork of local laws that creates uncertainty, disrupts housing stability, and risks undermining the delicate balance between tenant protections and the viability of rental housing.

Accordingly, we support changes to Concord’s current policy. In specific, EBLC supports 1) limiting the scope of the Just Cause requirements in the current ordinance and 2) reverting the rent cap to the statewide cap of 5% plus the Consumer Price Index.

For these reasons, we strongly support this proposal and look forward to working with you to advance policies that promote both housing stability and economic growth.

Sincerely,

Mark Orcutt
President & CEO
East Bay Leadership Council

From: Anisa Subhani Afnani <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 12:46 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter Against Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance City Mun. Code 19.40 Dear City of Concord,
I am a rental property owner in Concord, and I am deeply concerned about the proposed rent stabilization ordinance. While the intention behind such measures may be to support tenants, the experience of other Bay Area cities has shown that similar policies have had the opposite effect— ultimately harming both renters and property owners by distorting the market.

The proposed 2.5% cap on rent increases is particularly problematic. Property taxes alone increase by 2% annually, not to mention the impact of inflation, which in some years far exceeds 2.5%.

Although I do not raise rent every year, this restriction would compel me to do so annually out of concern that I may be unable to adjust for inflation in future years when costs rise significantly.

Concord’s rental market has remained stable without these regulations, and I urge you not to introduce a policy that could create unintended consequences. In the long run, this ordinance will make housing less sustainable for both tenants and landlords.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Anisa Afnani

--
Anisa Afnani esq.

From: James Cantwell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 12:47 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Program

There are adequate protections in place for both the renter and landlord. No more bureaucratic involvement is needed, with more fees attached. Overpriced rentals go unrented and/or tenants move.

Vinnie Boomba
representative for The Cantwell Trust

From: Omid Shah <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Rent Stabilization ordinance

To Whom It May Concern, including the City of Concord,
As a rental property owner in Concord, I am deeply concerned about the proposed rent stabilization ordinance and its potential negative impact on both landlords and tenants. Similar policies in other Bay Area cities have led to unintended consequences, ultimately worsening the rental market rather than improving it.

The proposed 2.5% cap on rent increases is particularly concerning. Property taxes alone rise by 2% annually, and inflation often exceeds 2.5%, making this limit unrealistic. While I do not increase rent every year, this restriction would force me to do so annually out of necessity—otherwise, I risk being unable to adjust for higher costs in years of significant inflation.

Concord’s rental market has remained stable without these regulations, and introducing this ordinance could disrupt that balance. I urge you to reconsider, as it may ultimately make housing less accessible and sustainable for both renters and property owners.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Omid Shah

From: Quanah Brightman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:07 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: United Native Americans Fully Supports Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Evictions

We as United Native Americans Fully Support the Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program.

We Hope that the Concord City Council will Join the Newly Created State of California Accountability https://www.accountability.ca.gov Pro-housing Jurisdictions.

According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness... Housing Affordability is the Main Reason why Homelessness is a Growing Global Crisis that these GREEDY Scamlords are Guilty of!

Rent Stabilization and Just cause Evictions has been Proven to Combat Homelessness.

Sincerely,

Quanah Parker Brightman
Executive Director
United Native Americans
(510) 672-7187
[email protected]
https://unitednativeamericans.weebly.com

From: Jessica Marr <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 12:00 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control will hurt our city

Hello,
My name is Jessica and I am a licensed Real Estate Agent who has been in the business since 2004.

I have seen how rent control and just cause has negatively impacted cities that I manage properties in and would hate to see those same issues impact Concord. If you want Concord to follow Oakland and other struggling cities just cause and rent control is a step in that direction.

I urge you to sit down with professionals like myself and learn about the real challenges these policies pose to neighborhoods and being able to responsibly manage buildings.

Housing Providers and Renters are not and should not be enemies. We are on the same side and hope that your council can bring us together rather than pull us further apart.

Together we can protect those in need without jeopardizing our city and community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

--
Jessica Ardell-Smith
BRE Lic # 01749610
Community Realty Property Management Inc.
1032 E.14th St. San Leandro CA. 94577 Office:510-562-5053 3577 Fruitvale Ave. Oakland CA. 94602 Office: 510-530-1005 Cell 510-418-6433 Efax 510-280-0834

From: John Goodwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 12:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concern Regarding Rent Control & Just Cause for Single-Family Homes Dear Concord City Council,
I am writing to express my strong concern regarding the inclusion of single-family homes, condominiums, and townhouses in the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction ordinance.

While tenant protections are important, applying these regulations to individually owned properties creates unintended consequences that negatively impact not only homeowners but also renters and the community as a whole.

Here are a few key concerns:

1. Deferred Maintenance & Neighborhood Blight – With rent stabilization limiting rental income growth, property owners will have less funding available for essential upkeep such as landscaping, exterior painting, and necessary repairs like roofing and plumbing. Over time, this leads to declining property conditions, negatively impacting both tenants' quality of life and neighborhood property values.

2. Reduction in Rental Inventory – Many small landlords rely on rental income as part of their retirement strategy or to fund long-term care. If their ability to manage their own property is restricted, they are more likely to sell to an owner-occupant, permanently removing these homes from the rental market. Given Concord’s home prices, these properties are unlikely to be purchased by investors seeking to rent, further limiting housing availability.

3. Unintended Tenant Hardships – While the intention of rent stabilization is to protect tenants, it may have the opposite effect. If rental properties are sold and removed from the market, the limited supply of available rentals will drive prices up for new tenants seeking housing. Additionally, without the ability to adjust rents to market value, landlords may become more selective in choosing tenants, making it harder for some renters to secure housing.

4. Loss of Homeowner Flexibility – Many single-family rental property owners plan to either move back into the home themselves or provide housing for a family member in the future.

Just Cause restrictions make it significantly more difficult for homeowners to regain possession of their property when needed, placing unnecessary burdens on families who rely on their real estate as part of their long-term planning.

5. Market Forces Already Dictate Fair Rental Pricing – Unlike large multifamily developments, single-family rentals naturally follow market trends. A landlord cannot simply demand rent higher than what the market allows, as tenants will seek alternatives.

Artificial rent caps disrupt this natural balance, making it harder for private homeowners to maintain their investments while benefiting both landlords and tenants.

For these reasons, I urge you to remove single-family homes, condominiums, and townhouses from Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction policies. These properties are fundamentally

different from large-scale apartment buildings and should not be subjected to the same regulations.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your efforts to address housing concerns in Concord while also ensuring a fair and balanced approach for all stakeholders.

Thank You,
John Goodwin

From: Rosemary Hatcher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:20 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: William Goodwin <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 5a

Council Members:

Mayor Carlyn Obringer, Vice Mayor Laura Nakamura, Council Member Dominic Aliano, Council Member Pablo Benavente, and Council Member Laura Hoffmeister

Regarding Agenda Item 5a – 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.

Please read attached document.

William Goodwin

Dear Concord City Council,

I have served the good people of Concord for over 5 years. And I see the real crisis of Housing Affordability in Concord firsthand.

I was ecstatic when the City of Concord finally committed to addressing the excessive rent increases that are harming and displacing so many of our community residents, like seniors on a fixed income, low-income and working families, and Black and Brown renters. But in a matter of weeks a decision has been made to revisit the aspects of the Residential Tenant Protections Program. In the public’s eye this process seemed inordinately quick. In fact, this item was agendized, and a hearing was scheduled very quickly, considering how long and arduous the process usually takes for the public to get an item on the agenda.

Even Council Member Aliano’s absence did not pause this agenda item. And that is unfortunate because it means that Council Member Aliano could not represent his constituents in the discussion. This lack of representation was exacerbated by the fear in the immigrant community of the Federal Administration-Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s targeting of immigrants for deportation (especially in public spaces) that was spreading throughout the City of Concord. As a result, there was a large population of Concord Citizens that were not represented that evening.

How did we get here? Well according to recent reports, the median rent in Concord, California increased by a significant 62% over the last ten years (10.5% from 2021-2023). That should always be the backdrop for this discussion. Because this is the very reason families have been advocating for the last eight years for Tenant Protections and Rent Stabilization. Who can sustain increases of this magnitude? Every family in Concord should be able to raise their kids in a clean, decent and Affordable Place to Live. And perhaps be able to afford much needed medications and medical care as well.

Single Family Home Rentals (SFH) in Concord were not exempt from that 62 % bonanza in rent increases. So why should Single Family Home Rentals be exempt from the Rent Stabilization Ordinance? Especially when 43% of renters in Concord live in SFH (and rented Condos). Why should almost half of the renters in Concord not be afforded the important protections from unjust evictions? And do not be mistaken, I love Mom and Pop Landlords. They are truly the best! But we know that 66% of landlords who rent single-family homes live outside of Concord. And many hide their portfolio under multiple shell corporations. That is why there is such massive push back, because corporate landlords cannot increase earnings for their shareholders under Rent Stablization.

For the life of me I cannot understand why we were rushing this process. It has only been 10 months that the ordinance has been in effect. How do we know what is working? When you think about it.

Landlords were given a legal process by which to remedy any rental amount they might deem as an “unfair return” on their investment. I wonder how many landlords have taken advantage of that process. Don’t we want to know what landlords consider to be a “fair return. ” Shouldn’t we know? Before dismantling the Residential Tenant Protections Program? It took Concord families 8 long years to finally get the protections they’ve needed and been fighting for. In contrast it only took landlords 2 months to get a hearing to dismantle the Ordinance.

At best The Council should wait for the full cycle, and then gather all the data, all the reports, and lay all the information on the table (in full transparency) for all to see. Wouldn’t that be the fair and equitable way to address these concerns?

At the least, the Council should advise staff to develop a study to determine: what are the ramifications of exempting SFH from the Residential Tenant Protections Program. And report back to the Council.

Thank you.

William Goodwin

February 24, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Dear Concord City Council,

I write to respectfully urge caution when instituting local rental protection policies beyond the scope of the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482, Chiu) and the subsequent cleanup legislation in 2023 (SB 567, Durazo).

As the joint-author of 2019’s California Tenant Protection Act and a supporter of the follow-up legislation, I can attest to the significant amount of research, analysis, and discussion that took place over many years to aid in carefully crafting smart policy to serve tenants and landlords statewide.

Housing is a human right, and it is our responsibility as elected policymakers to ensure that individuals and families who rent their homes are protected while California works to ultimately build its way out of our housing crisis and increase our housing supply to meet demand.

Housing costs have increased for renters and homeowners alike, and there are many factors a homeowner may account for when setting a rental price for their home. It is my belief that the vast majority of homeowners who opt to rent their single-family homes do not act with bad or harmful intent. Single-family homes were purposefully exempt from the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 as no significant data has shown the need for these rents to be capped. I would respectfully urge the Council to similarly exempt single-family homes from its rent cap policies; including these homes in the policy may discourage homeowners from listing their homes for the rental market, further hindering sorely-needed housing supply.

I firmly believe that we can honor and protect our tenant population while cultivating an environment that encourages homeowners to make their unused housing stock available for rental. I respectfully ask that you strongly consider policies that will help to increase our housing supply and be wary of any action that may further decrease stable housing opportunities for renters. Thank you for the thought and work you have put into this important matter.

Respectfully,

Senator Timothy Grayson
Senate District 9

From: Correen Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:33 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Cc: Jorge Chamorro <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to City Council

Greeting,
Please find the attached letter to Concord city council in relation to the Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction ordinance.

--
Cori Johnson (she/her) L.E.

Co- Executive Director and Director of Youth Housing

DONATE HERE

Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa County
2380 Salvio Street, Suite 301 Concord CA 94520 | 925-692-0090 ext. 721 www.rainbowcc.org
OUR VALUES: Authenticity. Bravery. Education. Healing. Liberation.

Greetings Concord City Council Members,

I am writing to you as the Executive Director of the Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa County, a nonprofit dedicated to serving the LGBTQI2S+ community in the region. Our work focuses on supporting the most vulnerable members of our community. As such, I am deeply concerned about the potential weakening of the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance that took effect in April 2024.

In Concord, where rents increased by 62% between 2011 and 2021, this ordinance has been a lifeline for many of our community members. The protections it provides have been crucial in preventing arbitrary evictions and stabilizing rents. Now, with discussions to weaken the ordinance, we are deeply concerned that the safety and stability of those most at risk will be compromised.

The Rainbow Community Center stands in solidarity with the hundreds of Concord residents whose lives have been positively impacted by this ordinance. We urge you to maintain the protections already in place and to reject any efforts to dilute them. Let us not forget that the safety, dignity, and well-being of our LGBTQI2S+ community members with intersectional identities (immigrant, people of color, youth, seniors, ect.) are at stake.

Although I am sending you this letter last minute, I thank you for your attention to this matter and for your commitment to ensuring that all Concord residents, regardless of background or identity, can thrive in a safe and stable home.

Cori Johnson
Co Executive Director & Director of Youth Housing
Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa County

From: Harry Soulette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:39 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Agenda Item 5a

I provide residency and tax income for Concord coffers and landlords and am STRONGLY against amending the rent control ordinance. I ask that you support constituents that actually live in your city, by protecting their rights, and defending their ability to raise families in concord.

Your rent registry data already shows that state law is destroying family's ability to afford rental prices, while assuring their family has other necessities. Do not protect laws that permit mass evictions or rent gouging as they ARE happening in the city. Please stop supporting the leeches that don't even live here. You are supporting a draconian law. Housing is not an investment. It provides many benefits for the city and families.

Please let reason prevail and stop supporting greedy landlords, and their desire to turn your city into a slum park by kicking out more people, leaving more units empty, because "if they wait, they'll get more money" while many people that can afford slightly lower prices and contribute taxes to city coffers are DYING to find a place to live here.

A vote to support landlords over your constituents will only drive further our grass roots causes to counter the current city official reelections. This is fair warning.

From: Megan Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Joey Flegel-Mishlove <[email protected]>; Davina Srioudom <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Compliance with Regional TOC Policy (Item 5b)

Dear Concord City Councilmembers,

EBHO is in support of the several actions outlined across land use density, policies across the 3 Ps (production, preservation and protection), parking management, and station access and circulation to be in better and as much compliance with the regional TOC Policy as possible.

EBHO has long been a member of the regional 6 Wins for Social Equity Network, to ensure that implementation of Plan Bay Area includes provisions for affordable housing and protections against displacement. We note that if the Council does not want to lose sight of being competitive for regional roadway funding sources and One Bay Area Grant, it is important to take up the areas where the Council is not entirely compliant.

We are especially supportive given that the MTC Planning Committee approved $485,000 to the City for TOC Policy planning and technical assistance to support moving towards fuller compliance.

With minimal local funding and a difficult environment for development, especially affordable, we consider it critical that the City prioritize regional funds, future OBAG and other discretionary MTC funding that would prioritize compliant transit station areas in the future.

It is important to us to call attention to the fact that the City is not seeing development projects being submitted in the lower density range in the DMX district, and that MTC staff understand the complexities with the North Concord TOC area and would likely offer flexibility to the City. Given EBHO's long history advocating that public land be used for public good, and the ongoing movement around Town Center II and other public land parcels, we are very supportive of the City creating a map of publicly owned land to support the Public Land policy in Table 5, and the potential actions to support affordable housing preservation for condo conversions.

We appreciate the City's discussion on this item.

Sincerely,
Megan Nguyen

--

Megan Nguyen
Policy Manager

EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
[email protected]
8337-(510) 213
she/her/hers
Join us or renew your membership to continue building an East Bay where everyone has a safe, stable, accessible and affordable home!

From: Tom C <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:58 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Ordinance
Dear Members of Concord City Council,

Please exclude single-family homes from the rent ordinance. Many of us rely on this income as our retirement. The cap will not keep us up with inflation.

Far more threatening is the move out payments, which will hurt renters and landlords. I am a benevolent landlord; once a tenant is in, I take care of the home, answer requests promptly, and do all I can to keep them. Currently, I have an 8 year tenant, a 12 year tenant, and one moving on after five full years. If I can't move a tenant out, for instance, to offer a place for my older brother with health issues that may have to move here, I will have to sell and find other arrangements. I am talking to real estate agents now.

From a business point of view, if a $10,000 - 20,000 expense could await me when a tenant leaves at the end of his term, that raises my monthly costs, and requires the asking price for monthly rent to rise. It is another business expense like taxes, insurance, and repairs/maintenance.

I have lived in my District 4 home for almost 43 years. I don't consider Concord a friendly place for single family landlords any longer. This will become a greater problem very soon. A close friend rented for nearly 8 years and is now in Texas, because his landlord elected to move him out and sell the house rather than face rent control. He could not find another place to rent like he had. This has happened in other cities and will happen in Concord as well. Fewer homes will be available to rent. Please don't ignore history and assume it will be different here.

I understand dealing with large corporations and apartments is troublesome, but that is a different level. Please do not group benevolent single-family landlords with corporations and apartment complexes.

Sincerely,

Tom Ciaramitaro
Concord, CA

Dear City Clerk,
I hope you are doing well. Please distribute this message to all members of the Concord City Council.

Assembly member Avila Farias would like to express her support for Senator Tim Grayson’s letter regarding local rental protection policies. She stands with the Senator in urging the Council to carefully consider the potential impacts of expanding rent control measures beyond the scope of existing state laws.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please confirm receipt and distribution of this message.

Best regards,
Patanisha Davis Pierson, Esq.

District Director, Assembly Member Anamarie Avila Farias

From: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:46 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Subject: CORRECTION Re: Item 5a Rent Control - Concord resident letters of SUPPORT of reconsideration
My apologies. I attached the wrong document below.

Please see the attached letters from Concord residents.

This is the correct attachment. The document name is 2025-02 Letters from Concord Residents - SUPPORT Fix the Ordinance.pdf

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: Rhovy Lyn Antonio <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 4:33 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5a Rent Control - Concord resident letters of SUPPORT of reconsideration

Good afternoon,

We were notified by Concord residents that the letters sent were caught in the city’s SPAM folder.

Attached are letters from Concord residents supporting the council to re-evaluate the rent control ordinance – specifically limiting the scope of Just Cause and increasing the current rent cap.

Names and addresses of the residents are affixed in each letter.

We respectfully urge you to fix the flawed rental housing ordinance.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

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

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Yolanda Torres [email protected]
22-Feb-25 6:54 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Yolanda Torres
1872 Ellard Place
Concord, CA 94521