Concord City Council
March 25, 2025

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. assistance pursuant to Section 19.40.080(a)(3) shall be payable for any rented single-family homes or condominiums.
(b) No waiver. In the event the tenant accepts an offer to temporarily or permanently move to an available comparable or superior vacant dwelling unit owned by the landlord at the same rent, the tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance pursuant to this section, but shall be eligible for the moving stipend. Except as expressly provided in this subsection (b), a tenant cannot waive their right to receive relocation assistance required by this chapter.
(c) Coordination with other relocation benefits. If a tenant receives, as part of the termination of tenancy, relocation assistance pursuant to the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code Sections 7260 through 7277), then the amount of that relocation assistance shall operate as a credit against any relocation assistance to be paid to the tenant under this section.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.090 Requirement to offer written lease; minimum lease terms.

Tenants shall have the right to written leases and minimum lease terms, as provided herein. (1) One-year lease term. If a prospective tenant wishes to rent a dwelling unit from a landlord and if said landlord wishes to rent said dwelling unit to said prospective tenant, the landlord must offer to the prospective tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of one year. Such offer must be made in writing. If the prospective tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of one year will be considered an offer if signed by the landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by the prospective tenant. If the prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, such rejection must be in writing. (2) Six-month lease term. If the prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year as provided in subsection (1) of this section, but the prospective tenant continues to wish to rent said dwelling unit from said landlord, said landlord must offer to said prospective tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of six months. Such offer must be made in writing. If said prospective tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of six months will be considered an offer if signed by said landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by said prospective tenant. If said prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, such rejection must be in writing. (3) Shorter term. If said prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months as provided in subsection (2) of this section, said landlord and said prospective tenant may then enter into a written lease that provides for a term of fewer than six months. (4) Renewal of lease. If both the landlord and tenant wish to continue the tenancy upon the expiration of a rental agreement which has a minimum term of one year or six months, a written rental agreement shall be offered again in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (1) through (3) of this section. The landlord shall have no obligation to reoffer a tenant a one-year or six-month lease term if the tenant has previously rejected such offers in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (1) through (3) of this section, and has a rental agreement with a term of fewer than six months. (5) Existing tenancies. Any tenant renting a dwelling unit may request a written lease with a minimum term of either one year or six months, provided such tenant has not previously received a written notice of rental agreement violation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 and such violation remains uncured. The tenant shall do so via written notice to the landlord. The landlord shall, upon receipt of such notice, offer to said tenant a written rental agreement on terms substantially similar to those of the existing rental arrangement (except as to length of term) in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section, as applicable. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024.

19.40.100 Notice of tenant rights.
(a) A landlord subject to this chapter shall provide notice to the tenant as follows:
(1) For any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, as an addendum to the rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy provided to the tenant.
(2) For any tenancy existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, by written notice to the tenant no later than 180 days after the effective date of the ordinance adopting this chapter, or as an addendum to the rental agreement.
(b) The notification and rental agreement provision shall be in no less than 12-point type, shall be in English and Spanish, and shall include the following:

Concord law limits the amount your rent can be increased; see Chapter 19.40 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. [Note: The foregoing sentence must only be included if the covered rental unit is subject to the rent stabilization provisions of this chapter.] Concord law provides that, a Landlord must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a Tenancy. See Section 19.40.070 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. In addition, City of Concord Municipal Code Sections 19.40.070(e) and

19.40.080 provide tenants evicted on a no-fault basis with the right to return to the Tenant’s original Covered Rental Unit if such Covered Rental Unit is returned to the market, and the right to relocation assistance and a moving stipend; see City of Concord Municipal Code Sections 19.40.070(e) and 19.40.080 for more information.

City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 provides tenants with the right to written leases and minimum lease terms. Landlords must offer tenants the option to enter into a one (1) year written lease. If a tenant declines a one (1) year written lease, the landlord must offer that tenant the option to enter into a six (6) month written lease. It is the tenant’s choice whether or not to enter into such a written lease with a landlord. If tenant rejects the initial offers of a written lease with a minimum lease term of 12 or 6 months, the tenant and landlord may enter into a written lease with a term of fewer than 6 months. See City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 for more information.
(c) Manner. Landlords must provide the notice to tenants in writing if the application and rental agreement are processed in writing, electronically if the application and/or rental agreement are processed electronically, or both if both methods are utilized. The provision of the notice shall be subject to Civil Code Section 1632. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.110 Procedures and guidelines.

The City Manager is hereby delegated the authority to promulgate procedures, regulations, and guidelines to aid in the implementation of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.120 Remedies.
(a) Remedies and penalties.
(1) If a landlord violates the terms of this chapter, an aggrieved tenant may institute a civil action for injunctive relief, actual, statutory, or direct money damages, and any other relief that the court deems appropriate, which shall include a civil penalty of no less than $2,000, and no more than $5,000, per violation, at the discretion of the court. If the aggrieved tenant is a senior tenant or a disabled tenant, the court may award an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, at the discretion of the court. (2) Any person who violates, aids, abets, or incites another person to violate this chapter is liable in a court action for each and every such offense for money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. by an aggrieved tenant (including damages for mental or emotional distress), or for minimum damages in the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be tripled if the trier of fact finds that the defendant landlord acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of this chapter. (3) If within two years after withdrawing a covered rental unit from the rental market pursuant to Section

19.40.070(d)(2) a landlord offers for rent such covered rental unit, in addition to any right of return that the tenant may have pursuant to this chapter, the landlord shall be liable to the tenant who was displaced from the covered rental unit for actual and exemplary damages provided the tenant brings an action against the landlord within three years of the withdrawal of the covered rental unit from the rental market. (b) The court may award punitive damages in a proper case as set out in Civil Code Section 3294 and pursuant to the standards set forth in that code section or any successor thereto, but may not award both punitive damages and triple damages.
(c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a tenant who prevails in any such action. The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a landlord who prevails in any such action if the court determines that the tenant’s action was frivolous.
(d) The remedies available under this section shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available to the residential tenant under applicable federal, state, county, or local law. (e) No administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this chapter. (f) Authorization of City Attorney to enforce this chapter. The City Attorney shall have the right and authority, but not the obligation, to enforce this chapter, including bringing actions for injunctive relief, equitable relief, restitution, and/or penalties to ensure compliance with this chapter. (g) To the extent permitted by law, any violation of this chapter shall be a defense to an unlawful detainer action. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.130 Waiver prohibited.

Any waiver of rights under this chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.140 Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024.

Chapter 19.40

RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION PROGRAM
Sections:

19.40.010 Binding findings; definitions; citation.

19.40.020 General applicability of chapter; exemptions.

19.40.030 Rent stabilization.

19.40.040 Permitted rent incr eases for covered rental units.

19.40.050 Rent adjustment petitions.

19.40.060 Annual rental registration.

19.40.070 Just cause for eviction.

19.40.080 Relocation assistance for no-fault termination of tenancy; moving stipend.

19.40.090 Requirement to offer written lease; minimum lease terms.

19.40.100 Notice of tenant rights.

19.40.110 Procedures and guidelines.

19.40.120 Remedies.

19.40.130 Waiver prohibited.

19.40.140 Severability.

Prior legislation: Ord. Nos. 20-7 and 20-10.

19.40.010 Binding findings; definitions; citation.
(a) Binding findings. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.2(g)(1)(B), the City Council hereby makes the following binding findings within this chapter, that this chapter is more protective than the provisions of Civil Code Section 1946.2 because:
(1) The just cause for termination of a residential tenancy under this chapter is consistent with and more protective than Civil Code Section 1946.2; and
(2) This chapter provides additional tenant protections that are not prohibited by any other provision of law, because it applies upon legal possession of a covered dwelling unit. provides for earlier and higher relocation assistance amounts than those available to tenants covered by Civil Code Section 1946.2, requires certain minimum lease terms, limits the exemptions listed in Civil Code Section 1946.2 and in particular applies just cause for termination of a tenancy to dwelling units regardless of when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the dwelling unit and protects tenants upon commencement of the tenancy; and (3) As provided in Civil Code Section 1946.2(g)(2), a residential real property shall not be subject to both a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination of a residential tenancy and Civil Code Section 1946.2.

This chapter intends to cover those dwelling units defined as covered rental units and to the extent such dwelling units are covered by this chapter, such dwelling units will not be subject to Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12.
(b) The City Council finds that there presently exists a critical shortage of rental housing in the city. Due to this shortage, it is very difficult to find adequate, safe, and habitable rental housing at reasonable rents. (1) Due to the shortage of rental units, rents in the city are increasing excessively. A substantial number of persons in the city who reside in rental units spend a high percentage of their income on rent, and many have been forced to move out because they could no longer afford to pay the increase in rent. Further, low- and moderate-income tenants have difficulty finding affordable housing after being displaced due to a rent increase. (2) The purposes of this chapter are to promote long-term stability and certainty for tenants in the rental market while providing landlords an ability to receive a fair return on their property. This chapter regulates rents and terminations of tenancy, including requiring relocation assistance and affording a tenant the right to return under certain circumstances. It requires landlords to register covered rental units, establishes an administrative hearing process, and provides for procedures and guidelines for the implementation of this chapter.

Attachment 2

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. (c) Definitions. The following terms shall have the meaning provided below when used in this chapter, whether plural or singular:
(1) Accessory dwelling unit shall mean an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, as those terms are defined in Section 18.200.180, which has received a valid accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit permit from the city or Contra Costa County. (2) Accommodations shall be as defined in the Government Code Section 7060(b)(1), which, for convenience, reads as follows:
(1) “Accommodations” means either of the following:
(A) The residential rental units in any detached physical structure containing four or more residential rental units.
(B) With respect to a detached physical structure containing three or fewer residential rental units, the residential rental units in that structure and in any other structure located on the same parcel of land, including any detached physical structure specified in subparagraph (A). (3) Allowable annual rent increase shall mean the annual rent increase as set forth in Section 19.40.040. (4) Base rent shall mean as follows: For tenancies commenced on or before April 4, 2023, the rent in effect on April 4, 2023, plus the initial allowable annual rent increase. For tenancies commenced after April 4, 2023, but prior to the effective date of this chapter, the rent charged upon initial occupancy, plus the initial allowable annual rent increase. For tenancies commenced after the effective date of this chapter, the rent charged upon initial occupancy. The foregoing amounts are subject to the assumption that such amounts are not in violation of this chapter or any provision of state law. Nothing in this definition is intended to alter the requirement that a landlord provide a tenant with valid, written notice of any change in the terms of the rental agreement (including any rent decrease or rent increase) as required by Civil Code Section 827. (5) Base year shall mean the 2022 calendar year.
(6) City Council shall mean the City Council of the City of Concord. (7) City shall mean the City of Concord.
(8(8) City Manager shall mean the Concord City Manager or their designee. (9) Code shall mean the Concord Municipal Code.
(910) Covered dwelling unit and covered rental unit are used interchangeably and shall mean a dwelling unit located within the cityCity not specifically exempted under Section 19.40.020(a1) or (b2). (1011) CPI shall mean Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area, or any successor designation of that index that may later be adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor for April of each year. Calculation of the CPI percentage will be determined by the city and set forth in its procedures and guidelines.
(1112) Disabled shall mean any mental or physical disability as defined in Government Code Section 12955.3.

A “disabled tenant” is a tenant who is disabled.
(1213) Dwelling unit shall mean a dwelling unit, as defined under California Civil Code Section 1940(c), including joint living and work quarters, that is used or occupied in consideration of payment of rent, and applies to any dwelling space that is actually used for residential purposes, whether or not the residential use is legally permitted, including live-work spaces, mobile homes rented to a tenant, and any accessory dwelling unit in the city.
(1314) Ellis Act shall mean California Government Code Sections 7060 through 7060.7.

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. (1415) Fair return petition shall mean a petition filed by a landlord seeking a fair return rent increase pursuant to Section 19.40.050.
(1516) Fair return rent increase shall mean the amount by which base rent plus any allowable annual rent increase may be increased in accordance with an approved fair return petition submitted pursuant to Section

19.40.050.
(1617) Hearing officer shall mean an official appointed by the City Attorney to conduct an administrative hearing pursuant to this chapter.
(1718) Housing services include, but are not limited to, repairs, maintenance, painting, providing light, heat, hot and cold water, elevator service, window shades and screens, storage, kitchen, bath and laundry facilities and privileges, janitor services, access to exterior doors, entry systems and gates, utilities (unless separately metered and billed to the tenant by the utility company since the inception of the tenancy, as provided in the rental agreement), refuse removal, furnishings, telephone, parking, the right to have a specified number of occupants or tenants, the right to have pets, utility infrastructure, and any other benefit, privilege or facility connected with the use or occupancy of any dwelling unit. (1819) HUD FMR rent shall mean the fair market rent published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the applicable year for Contra Costa County. (1920) Initial allowable annual rent increase shall mean 60 percent of the CPI increase for the 12-month period from April 2022 to April 2023, which equals 2.52 percent. (2021) Landlord or owner shall mean any person, acting as principal or through an agent, having the right to offer a dwelling unit for rent, and includes a sublessor, except that this term does not include the owner or operator of a mobile home park or his or her agent, but does include the owner of a mobile home if the mobile home is offered for rent.
(2122) Landlord’s family member shall mean a landlord’s parent, child, spouse or registered domestic partner, grandparent, or grandchild.
(2223) Lawful rent shall mean the base rent for a covered rental unit as such base rent may be increased by any annual allowable rent increase and any fair return rent increase permitted by this chapter. Lawful rent expressly excludes any unlawful rent.
(2324) Lawful rent increase shall mean the annual allowable rent increase together with any fair return rent increase permitted for the covered rental unit as specified in this chapter. Lawful rent increase expressly excludes any unlawful rent increase.
(2425) Lower-income tenant shall mean a person and family whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower-income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, or as otherwise defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
(2526) Moving stipend is defined in Section 19.40.080(a)(2)(e). (26(27) Natural person is defined in Section 19.70.070(d)(1)f.1. (28) Property shall mean the real property on which the dwelling unit or units are located. For purposes of Ellis Act evictions only, property shall mean the parcel on which the accommodations are located. (2729) Protected tenant shall mean any lower-income tenant, disabled tenant, senior tenant, terminally ill tenant, and any tenant whose household contains school-aged children. (2830) Rent shall mean all payments and all nonmonetary consideration including, but not limited to, the fair market value of goods, labor performed or services rendered to or for the benefit of the landlord under a rental agreement concerning the use or occupancy of a dwelling unit and premises and attendant housing services,

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. including all payment and consideration demanded or paid for parking, utility charges, pets, furniture, and other benefits, privilege or facility connected with the use or occupancy of the dwelling unit. (2931) Rental agreement shall mean an oral or written lease, sublease, or similar agreement between a landlord and a tenant for the lawful occupancy of a dwelling unit. (30) Rent restricted affordable unit is defined in Section 19.40.020(b)(3). (31(32) School-aged child or school-aged children shall mean any TK-12th grade student enrolled full-time in a brick-and-mortar school, or a special needs student enrolled full-time in a brick-and-mortar school, living in the tenant’s covered rental unit.
(3233) School year shall mean the first day of instruction for the fall semester through the last day of instruction for the spring semester, as posted on the applicable school’s website. (3334) Senior tenant shall mean a tenant who is at least 62 years of age or older as defined in Government Code Section 7060.4.
(3435) Significant hardship is defined in Section 19.40.070(d)(1)(c). (36) Single-family homes/condominiums shall mean any dwelling unit that is alienable separate (i.e., separately transferrable) from the title to any other dwelling unit, or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in California Business and Professions Code Section 11004.5(b), (d), or (f), including without limitation single-family residences and condominiums, but excluding mobile homes offered for rent. (3537) State shall mean the state of California.
(3638) Substantial remodel or substantially remodel shall mean either of the following that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner that allows the tenant to remain living in the covered rental unit and that requires the tenant to vacate the covered rental unit for at least 30 consecutive days: (1) the replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency; or (2) the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. Cosmetic improvements alone, including painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the covered rental unit vacated, do not qualify as substantial remodel. (3739) Tenancy shall mean the lawful occupation of a dwelling unit and includes a lease or a sublease. (3840) Tenant shall mean a tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or any other person entitled under the terms of a rental agreement to the use or occupancy of any dwelling unit. (3941) Terminally ill tenant shall mean a tenant who has a terminal disease as defined in California’s End of Life Option Act as any “incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months” pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 443.1 and which is verified in writing by the tenant’s medical care provider. (4042) Unlawful rent shall mean any rent charged by a landlord to or paid by a tenant for a covered rental unit which exceeds the tenant’s base rent together with any lawful rent increase. In the case of a rent restricted affordable unit, unlawful rent shall mean any rent increase imposed in excess of the rent increase specified in Section 19.40.020(b)(3).
(d) Citation. This chapter may be referred to as the “residential tenant protection program” of the city. The words “this chapter” and “this ordinance” are used interchangeably herein. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024.

19.40.020 General applicability of chapter; exemptions.

This chapter shall apply to all landlords and tenants in dwelling units within the jurisdictional limits of the city, unless otherwise exempted by state law or the provisions of this chapter. (1) Fully exempt (exempt from both rent stabilization and just cause for eviction). The following dwelling units are exempt from all provisions of this chapter:
a. Units in hotels as defined in Section 18.20.020 which, for convenience, reads as follows:
“Hotel” or “motel” means a facility that provides guest rooms or suites, with or without kitchen facilities, rented to the public for transient lodging. These facilities typically include a variety of services in addition to lodging, such as restaurants, meeting facilities, spas or other personal services, and accessory guest facilities including swimming pools, sport courts, exercise facilities, and accessory retail sales. This classification does not include rooming houses, boardinghouses, or private residential clubs (see “Group housing” under “Residential Facility,” and “Bed and breakfast inn”).

For purposes of this chapter only, “hotel” or “motel” does not include short-term rental arrangements in which a dwelling unit is hired or occupied by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.
b. Institutional facilities. Housing accommodations in a hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures published by the State Department of Social Services. c. Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades one to 12, inclusive, school.
d. Government owned. Housing accommodations which are owned by a public agency or authority, or which are specifically exempted under state or federal law or administrative regulation. e. Dwelling units in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner who maintains their principal residence at the property.
f. Emergency shelters and homeless shelters as defined in Section 18.200.070. g. Residential facility/ies, as defined in Section 18.20.020. h. Accessory dwelling units.
i. A property containing two separate dwelling units within a single structure in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy, and neither unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
(2) Partially exempt (exempt from rent stabilization but subject to just cause for eviction). The following dwelling units are exempt from all rent stabilization provisions of this chapter:
a. Dwelling units that are expressly exempt under state or federal law. This includes any dwelling unit that has a certificate of occupancy or equivalent permit for residential occupancy issued after February 1, 1995.

For this purpose, a certificate of occupancy is the certificate issued before the property is used for any residential purposes.
b. AnyThree or more rented single-family homes/condominiums. Rented single-family homes/condominiums, but only to the extent that three or more are offered for rent by the same or substantially similar landlord, owner, or natural person. For purposes of determining if this exemption

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. applies, the City Manager is hereby delegated the authority to determine whether or not the landlords, owners, or natural persons are “the same or substantially similar” using those criteria the City Manager deems appropriate, including but not limited to ascertaining whether the dwelling units have any landlords, owners, or natural persons in common.
(3) Partially exempt (exempt from rent stabilization and just cause for eviction but subject to the rent registry).

The following dwelling units are exempt from all provisions of this chapter except for the annual rental registration requirements pursuant to Section 19.40.060:
a. Two or fewer rented single-family homes/condominiums. Single-family homes/condominiums, but only to the extent that two or fewer (i.e., no more than two) are offered for rent by the same or substantially similar landlord, owner, or natural person. For purposes of determining if this exemption applies, the City Manager is hereby delegated the authority to determine whether or not the landlords, owners, or natural persons are “the same or substantially similar” using those criteria the City Manager deems appropriate, including but not limited to ascertaining whether the dwelling units have any landlords, owners, or natural persons in common.
dwelling unit that is alienable separate (i.e., separately transferrable) from the title to any other dwelling unit, or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in California Business and Professions Code Section 11004.5(b), (d), or (f), including without limitation single-family residences and condominiums, but excluding mobile homes offered for rent.
c. Dwelling units that are either restricted by the city or other governmental agency as affordable housing for persons or families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, if any are subject to one of the following rent increase restrictions:

1. Rent increases equal to or less than five percent annually and enforceable by the city or other governmental agency pursuant to a deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement, or other recorded document, or

2. For certified over-income tenants, rent increases in an amount less than or equal to those permitted under Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) until/if AB 846 (amending Health and Safety Code Section 50199.24 (Low income housing credit: rent increases)) is enacted, in which case the provision of the latter shall control; provided, that tenants are not charged rent in excess of 30 percent of the household monthly income.

The foregoing are referred to herein as the “rent restricted affordable units.” “Tenant” as used for purposes of rent restricted affordable units means all individuals living in the rent restricted affordable unit (i.e., the household). Notwithstanding the language in this subsection (2), the petition process set forth in Section

19.40.050 shall apply.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.030 Rent stabilization.
(a) Subject to Section 19.40.020, no landlord shall charge rent in an amount that exceeds the base rent plus any lawful rent increases permitted by this chapter.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.040 Permitted rent increases for covered rental units. (a) A landlord may, but shall not be obligated to, impose the initial allowable annual rent increase, fair return rent increase, or any other allowable annual rent increase for any covered rental unit, as allowed in this section after providing prior written notice to the tenant of the rent increase pursuant to California Civil Code Section 827, as may be amended.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a landlord shall be prohibited from imposing an allowable annualany rent increase, unless the covered rental unit is registered with the city pursuant to Section 19.40.060, and the landlord is

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. not delinquent in any registry fees, accrued interest, fines, and/or penalties pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 (Rent registry) and/or Section 19.40.060, as applicable. (c) Allowable annual rent increases. This
(1) For the period from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2025, this chapter shall limit annual rent increases on covered rental units to no more than 60 percent of the percentage increase in CPI published and reported for the 12-month period ending as of April of the immediately preceding year; provided, however, in no event shall the allowable annual rent increase exceed three percent. In the event that the percentage change in the CPI is negative, the (the allowable annual rent increase shall be zero percent. The allowable annual rent increase shall be rounded to the nearest one-quarter of a percent.). (2) Beginning in April 1, 2025 and for each 12-month period thereafter, annual allowable rent increases on covered rental units shall be no more than five percent of the lawful rent for the preceding 12-month period. (3) Fair return rent increases may also be applied pursuant to Section 19.40.050. (4) Nothing in this subsection is intended to alter the requirement that a landlord provide a tenant with valid, written notice of any rent increase as required by Civil Code Section 827. The annual allowable rent increase amount shall be reviewed annually by the City Council. (d) Only one allowable annual rent increase and one fair return rent increase (if and to the extent approved by the hearing officer) may be imposed on a covered dwelling unit in any 12-month period, unless otherwise permitted by this chapter.
(e) Rent increase following vacancy (vacancy decontrol). When a tenant has voluntarily vacated, abandoned, or been legally evicted from a covered rental unit, the landlord may set the initial rent for the next tenant, without restriction, at the commencement of the new tenancy.
(f) Allowable annual rent increase banking prohibited. A landlord who seeks to raise lawful rent by the allowable annual rent increase must do so within the 12-month period between August 1st of the current year and July 31st of the following year. A landlord who does not impose an allowable annual rent increase or any portion thereof in the applicable 12-month period automatically waives that allowable annual rent increase or the remaining portion of that allowable annual rent increase for the remainder of the tenancy. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.050 Rent adjustment petitions.
(a) Fair return petitions. Landlords who believe they are not receiving a fair return on their property may submit a fair return petition to the city to request an increase in rent beyond that which is permitted under Section 19.40.040. (1) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize any lawful rent increase in any 12-month period for a covered rental unit in excess of the amount authorized pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1947.12, as may be amended. If a hearing officer awards a landlord a fair return rent increase in excess of the maximum allowable rent increase pursuant to Civil Code Section 1947.12, the landlord may carry forward any portion of the fair return rent increase that could not be taken to a subsequent year until the full fair return rent increase is imposed.
(2) No fair return petition shall be deemed submitted or accepted until the landlord has registered the property and paid all current and past due registration fees for the property pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 (Rent registry) and/or current Section 19.40.060, as applicable. (3) No fair return rent increases shall become effective until all of the following have occurred:
a. The landlord has provided written notice of the fair return rent increase for the covered rental unit in accordance with California Civil Code Section 827, as may be amended; b. After a hearing is held, the hearing officer, in a written decision, grants the fair return rent increase; and

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. c. All amounts due and payable to the city in connection with the fair return petition and hearing have been paid in full.
(4) Standard for approving a fair return petition.
a. Fair return. The landlord has the right to obtain a net operating income equal to the base year net operating income adjusted by the percentage increase in the CPI since the base year. It shall be presumed that this standard provides a fair return. The current year CPI shall be the annual CPI for the calendar year preceding the calendar year the fair return petition is filed. The hearing officer shall make a determination whether the landlord will receive a fair return under this standard. In evaluating whether or not the landlord is receiving a fair return on their investment, the hearing officer may consider other relevant factors without limitation.
b. Base year net operating income. The base year and current year net operating income shall be determined by subtracting the actual operating expenses for the base year from the gross income realized during the base year. The landlord shall provide evidence of gross income, operating expenses, and the determination of net operating income for the base year and current year. All figures shall be certified by the landlord under penalty of perjury as true and correct and with respect to expenses and income used to determine gross income, as permitted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. c. Rebuttal of base year net operating income presumption. Any party to the hearing may present evidence to rebut the presumption of fair return based upon the base year net operating income, and the hearing officer may adjust said net operating income accordingly if at least one of the following findings is made:

1. The landlord’s operating expenses in the base year were unusually high or low in comparison to other years. In such instances, adjustment may be made in calculating operating expenses so the base year operating expenses reflect average expenses for the property over a reasonable period of time. The hearing officer shall consider the following factors in making this finding:
(a) Extraordinary amounts were expended for necessary maintenance and repairs; (b) Maintenance and repair was below accepted standards so as to cause significant deterioration in the quality of services provided;
(c) Other expenses were unreasonably high or low in comparison to prudent business practices; (d) Costs of debt service paid during the base year, where the proceeds of the debt were used for capital improvements or rehabilitation in the property.

2. The gross income during the base year was disproportionate. In such instances, adjustments may be made in calculating gross income consistent with the purposes of this section. The hearing officer shall consider the following factors in making this finding:
(a) The gross income during the base year was lower than it might have been because some tenants were charged reduced rent;
(b) The gross income during the base year was significantly lower than normal because of the destruction of the premises and/or temporary eviction or vacancies for a substantial remodel, construction, or repairs.

3. The rent charged by the landlord in the base year was significantly below the HUD FMR rent for the most similar unit type.
d. Determination of current net operating income. The net operating income as of the date of filing a fair return petition shall be determined by:

1. Annualizing the rent in effect as of the date of filing to determine the annualized gross income;

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024.

2. Determining the operating expenses during the immediately preceding calendar year;

3. Subtracting the operating expenses determined pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(d)(2) of this section from the annualized gross income.
e. Calculation of gross income.

1. For the purposes of determining the net operating income, gross income shall be the sum of the following:
(a) Gross rent calculated as gross rental income at 100 percent occupancy, adjusted for uncollected rent as provided in subsection (a)(4)(e)(2) of this section; (b) Income from any laundry facilities and parking fees; (c) All other income or consideration received or receivable in connection with the use or occupancy of the covered rental unit.

2. Gross rent shall be adjusted for uncollected rent due to vacancy and bad debts to the extent such are beyond the control of the landlord. No such adjustment shall be greater than three percent of gross rent unless justification for a higher rate is demonstrated by the landlord. f. Calculation of operating expenses.

1. For the purposes of determining net operating income, operating expenses shall include the following:
(a) Reasonable costs of operation and maintenance.
(b) Utility costs to the extent they are not paid by the tenants. (c) Landlord-performed labor compensated at reasonable hourly rates. No landlord-performed labor shall be included as an operating expense unless the landlord submits documentation showing the date, time and nature of the work performed. There shall be a maximum allowed under this provision of five percent of gross income unless the landlord shows greater services were performed for the benefit of the tenants.
(d) Real property taxes and assessments.
(e) Reasonable costs of operation and maintenance including, but not limited to, costs associated with repairs mandated by law.
(f) Insurance costs to the extent they are not paid by the tenants.

2. Operating expenses shall not include the following:
(a) Mortgage principal or interest payments or other debt service costs or lease payments; (b) Any penalties, fees or interest assessed or awarded for violation of any provision of this chapter or of any other provision of law;
(c) Legal fees except as specified in subsection (a)(4)(f)(3) of this section; (d) Political contributions;
(e) Any expenses for which the landlord has been or will be reimbursed by any discount, security deposit, insurance payment or settlement, judgment for damages, settlement or any other method or device;

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. (f) Avoidable and unnecessary expense increases since the base year; (g) Depreciation;
(h) Expenses which are excessive in relation to the customary and reasonable costs of such items;
(i) The costs of capital improvements associated with the purchase and/or installation of separate meters or service unless the landlord can demonstrate that such improvements benefit the tenants.

3. Legal expenses allowed in the calculation of operating expenses shall include: attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with successful good-faith attempts to recover rent owing, successful good-faith unlawful detainer actions not in derogation of applicable law, and legal expenses necessarily incurred in dealings with respect to the normal operation of the property to the extent such expenses are not recovered from adverse or other parties. Attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to the administrative or judicial proceedings in connection with subsection (a) of this section are not allowable as operating expenses.
g. Determination of fair return rent increase.

1. The hearing officer shall set the fair return rent increase in the amount required to provide the landlord with a fair return.

2. In determining the fair return rent increase required to provide the landlord with a fair return, the following shall be determined:
(a) The fair return in accordance with subsection (a)(4)(a); (b) The gross income required to produce the fair return; (c) The rent increase needed to produce the required gross income. (5) Notices upon submitting petition.
a. Within five calendar days after submission of a landlord’s fair return petition to the city, the landlord shall serve each affected tenant with a notice of the fair return petition via personal service or certified mail.
b. Within 10 calendar days after service on each affected tenant, the landlord shall file with the city a proof of service, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that a copy of the petition was served upon each affected tenant.
(b) Tenant petitions. If a landlord demands or retains unlawful rent for a covered rental unit, a tenant may file a petition to adjust the rent to its lawful level.
(1) Unlawful rent. If a tenant believes that the landlord is demanding unlawful rent for a covered rental unit, then the tenant may submit a tenant petition to the city. (2) Decrease in housing services. A decrease in housing services of a covered rental unit, without a corresponding reduction in rent, is considered an increase in rent. Before filing a petition with the city, a tenant shall provide the landlord all of the following (copies of which must be submitted with the tenant petition):
a. Prior written notice identifying the decrease in housing services of a covered rental unit; and b. A reasonable opportunity to correct the issue(s).
(3) Notices upon submitting petition.

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. a. Within five calendar days after submission of a tenant petition for rent adjustment to the city, the tenant shall serve the landlord with said petition via personal service or certified mail. b. Within 10 calendar days after service on the landlord, the tenant shall file with the city a proof of service, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that a copy of the petition was served on the landlord. (c) Petition forms. Fair return and tenant petitions must be filed on petition forms prescribed by the city and accompanied by such supporting material as the city may require. Each petition shall be made under penalty of perjury.
(d) Petition fees.
(1) Fair return petitions.
a. Landlords filing a fair return petition shall be responsible for all city costs associated with such petition, including, but not limited to, the cost of the hearing officers, any costs associated with experts, inspection fees, and any other costs. The city shall provide the landlord with an estimate of the costs at least 45 calendar days prior to the first date set for the hearing. The landlord shall deposit with the city the full estimated cost of the hearing at least 30 calendar days prior to the first date set for the hearing. If the deposit is not timely received by the city, the hearing will be postponed, and the hearing shall not be rescheduled until such time as the deposit is received. The city shall have the right to deduct costs incurred from the deposit. Upon the completion of the hearing, the city shall prepare a final invoice of hearing costs.
b. To the extent that the final invoice amount exceeds the amount deposited by the landlord, the landlord shall pay the difference to the city within 10 days of receipt of the final invoice. To the extent the final invoice amount is less than the amount deposited by the landlord, the city shall issue a refund to the landlord for the difference.
c. The city will not issue the hearing officer’s final decision until the city has received full payment of the final invoice, and no fair return rent increase, if approved, may be imposed until full payment is received by the city.
(2) Tenant petitions. There shall not be any fee charged for tenants filing a petition for a downward adjustment of rent.
(e) Hearing process.
(1) Upon receipt of a fair return or tenant petition and the proof(s) of service that the petition has been served as provided above, the city shall appoint a hearing officer to conduct a hearing on the petition and to render a final decision on the merits of the petition, subject to this chapter and any procedures, regulations, and guidelines promulgated by the City Manager.
(2) Each party to a petition shall receive sufficient advance notice of the time, date, and place of any hearing regarding the petition.
(3) The hearing officer may require either party to a petition to provide any books, records, and papers deemed pertinent.
(4) If the hearing officer finds good cause to believe that a building or other inspection would assist in resolving the issues raised in the petition, the hearing officer may conduct an inspection and/or request that the city conduct an inspection. Any party submitting a petition shall be required to cooperate with the city to grant and/or secure permission to conduct such inspection, within the constraints of applicable law; failure to do so shall be considered an automatic and voluntary withdrawal of that party’s petition upon written notice by the city thereof. The parties to the petition may be present during the inspection. (5) All hearings conducted pursuant to this chapter shall be open to the parties and their designated representatives, but shall not be open to the public.

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. (f) Assistance or representation authorized. All parties to a petition may seek assistance from attorneys, recognized tenant organization representatives, or any other person designated by said parties. (g) Consolidation. All fair return petitions pertaining to tenants in the same property shall be consolidated for determination. Tenant petitions for rent adjustment from tenants residing in the same property may be consolidated at the election of the city, in its sole discretion.
(h) Quantum of proof and notice of decision. No petition shall be granted unless supported by the preponderance of the evidence submitted prior to and at the hearing. All parties to the petition shall be sent notice of the decision. (i) Finality of decision. The decision of the hearing officer shall be the final decision and shall not be appealable to the City Council. Any party disputing the final conclusions and findings of the hearing officer may seek review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6. (j) Time of hearing and decision. The city shall not be required to accept petitions until six months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. The city shall endeavor, but shall not be required, to schedule a hearing on a petition within 90 days after submittal to the city of the petition and the proof(s) of service. A final decision on a petition shall be made within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.060 Annual rental registration.
(a) Registration of covered rental unit. On or before July 1st of each year, aA landlord shall register any covered rental unit (including any rented single-family homes or condominiums) through the city’s designated rent registry portal, shall provide all required information, shall pay the required rent registry fees, and shall annually submit reports. To the extent that a landlord has previously complied with the requirements of former Section 19.40.110 (Rent registry), the landlord shall on or before July 1, 2024, update the registration previously completed pursuant to former Section 19.40.110 to comply with the requirements of this chapter. (b) Rent registry fees. A landlord shall pay the required rent registry fees as set forth in the City Council adopted Resolution Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services. The fees will be used to finance the cost of the rent registry and implementation and enforcement of this chapter including, but not limited to, administrative time and costs, legal fees and costs, and any other expense incurred to implement, administer, or enforce this chapter.
(c) Late fees, penalty for late payment; penalty for incomplete or false information. Should a landlord fail to pay all or a portion of the rent registry fees, or provide incomplete or false information, the city may recover the outstanding amounts, plus accrued interest, fines, and penalties, utilizing any remedies provided by law or in equity, including municipal tax lien procedures established by ordinance or state law. Such sums shall be calculated as set forth in the Resolution Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services and applicable law, may be applied on a per-unit basis, and may be subject to adjustment by the City Attorney or hearing officer. (d) Past due amounts. To the extent that a landlord owes rental registry fees, accrued interest, fines, or penalties incurred prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, such amounts shall continue to be owed and continue to accrue. See also Sections 19.40.040(b) and 19.40.050(a)(2). (e) Termination notices. Within seven calendar days of serving a notice of termination on a tenant, a landlord shall submit a copy of such notice of termination through the city’s designated rent registry portal. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.070 Just cause for eviction.
(a) This section shall apply to all landlords and tenants in dwelling units within the jurisdictional limits of the city, unless otherwise exempted by state law or the provisions of this chapter. (b) When terminating a tenancy for cause or no-fault, a landlord must comply with all of the following:

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. (1) The landlord must serve a written notice to the tenant that, in addition to any information required by federal or state law, the landlord will terminate the tenant’s tenancy because of at least one for-cause or no-fault reason and state the ground(s) for such termination as described in subsection (c) and/or (d) of this section; (2) The landlord has not accepted and will not accept rent or any other consideration in return for the continued use of the covered rental unit beyond the term of the terminated tenancy; and (3) The landlord qualifies the termination as for-cause or no-fault, as specified in this section. (c) For-cause termination of tenancy. If a landlord can show any of the following circumstances with respect to a termination of tenancy in a covered rental unit, the termination qualifies as a for-cause termination:
(1) Default in the payment of rent.
(2) A breach in the material terms of the rental agreement, as described in paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the rental agreement after being issued a written notice to correct the violation. (3) Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (4) Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (5) The tenant had a written rental agreement, and after a written request or demand from the landlord, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the rental agreement for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions; provided, that those terms do not violate this chapter or any other provision of law.
(6) Criminal activity by the tenant in the covered rental unit or on the property, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the Penal Code, or criminal activity by the tenant on or off the property that is directed at other tenants or the landlord. (7) Assigning or subletting the covered rental unit in violation of the rental agreement, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (8) The tenant’s refusal to allow the landlord to enter the covered rental unit as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 of the Civil Code, and Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health and Safety Code. (9) Using the covered rental unit or any portion of the property for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (10) The employee, agent, or licensee’s failure to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (11) When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the covered rental unit after providing the landlord written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the Civil Code of the tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of the covered rental unit, or makes a written offer to surrender the covered rental unit that is accepted in writing by the landlord, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that written notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d) No-fault termination of tenancy. If a landlord can show any of the following circumstances with respect to a termination of tenancy in a covered rental unit, the termination qualifies as a no-fault termination. See subsection (e) of this section for right of return provisions. See Section 19.40.080 for rental assistance and moving stipend provisions.
(1) Owner move-ins. Intent to occupy the covered rental unit by the landlord or the landlord’s family member.

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. a. A landlord may not terminate a tenancy based on intent to occupy the covered rental unit by the landlord or the landlord’s family member if the intended occupant already occupies a dwelling unit on the property or if a vacancy of a similar dwelling unit already exists at the property. b. The written notice terminating a tenancy pursuant to this subsection shall contain the name or names and relationship to the landlord of the intended occupant. The written notice shall additionally include notification that the tenant may request proof that the intended occupant is a landlord or the landlord’s family member. The proof shall be provided upon request and may include an operating agreement and other nonpublic documents.
c. This subsection (d)(1) only applies if the intended occupant moves into the covered rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates and occupies the covered rental unit as a primary residence for at least 24 consecutive months. If the intended occupant moves into the covered rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates, but before having occupied the covered rental unit as a primary residence for 24 months as required herein, and suffers a serious disability, becomes terminally ill, or suffers some other significant hardship (each, a “significant hardship”) requiring the intended occupant to vacate the covered rental unit, this will not be considered a failure to comply with this section. d. A landlord shall only be allowed to terminate a tenancy pursuant to this subsection (d)(1) if the landlord meets one of the following:

1. Is a natural person that has at least 25 percent recorded ownership interest in the property;

2. Is a natural person who has any recorded ownership interest in the property if 100 percent of the recorded ownership interest is divided among owners who are related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild; or

3. Is a natural person whose recorded interest in the property is owned through a limited liability company or partnership.
e. Owner move-in protections for senior, disabled, and terminally ill tenants. A landlord may not evict a tenant in order to occupy the covered rental unit by the landlord or the landlord’s family member if the tenant has resided in the dwelling unit for at least three years and is either a senior tenant, a disabled tenant, or a terminally ill tenant, unless the landlord or landlord’s family member who will occupy the covered rental unit is either a senior tenant, a disabled tenant, or a terminally ill tenant, and no other covered rental units are available at the property.
f. As used in this subsection (d)(1):chapter:

1. “Natural person” includes any of the following:
(a) A natural person who is a settlor or beneficiary of a family trust; or (b) If the property is owned by a limited liability company or partnership, a natural person with a 25 percent ownership interest in the property.

2. “Family trust” shall mean a revocable living trust or irrevocable trust in which the settlors and beneficiaries of the trust are persons who are related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild.
(2) Ellis Act evictions. Withdrawal of all accommodations at the property from the rental market is subject to the following conditions and requirements pursuant to the Ellis Act:
a. Landlord complies with all provisions of the Ellis Act, unless otherwise indicated in this subsection (d)(2).

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. b. Not less than 120 days from the date the landlord intends to withdraw the accommodations, and after completion of all required proceedings, if any, the landlord shall provide written notice of termination of tenancy to all affected tenants.
c. Landlord’s notice to all affected tenants shall contain the following information:

1. That the landlord is evicting the tenant pursuant to this subsection (d)(2);

2. That within 30 days of receipt of notice to terminate, the tenant may notify the landlord in writing that the tenant would be interested in re-renting the covered rental unit if any of the covered rental units are reoffered for rent at a future time and advising the tenant to notify the landlord of future address changes;

3. A general description of the tenant’s rights to relocation assistance and any other rights set forth in this chapter and the Ellis Act (relocation assistance and any additional special assistance shall be paid in accordance with Section 19.40.080);

4. Any other information required pursuant to Civil Code Section 7060.4; and

5. A self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the tenant may indicate, under penalty of perjury, whether they or another tenant in the covered dwelling unit are a disabled tenant or senior tenant. d. A senior tenant or a disabled tenant who has resided in the covered rental unit for at least one year prior to the landlord’s notice of intent to withdraw the covered rental unit in a property from the residential rental market, and after receiving 120 days’ written notice, may within 60 days of receipt of the written notice of termination submit a written notice to the landlord of tenant’s status as a senior or disabled tenant, in which event the notice of termination shall be extended to one year from the date of delivery of the notice pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(c) of this section. e. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the city adopts all tenant protections authorized by the state legislature in the following provisions of the Ellis Act: California Government Code Sections 7060.2, 7060.3, 7060.4, 7060.6, and this chapter shall be interpreted to implement all available tenant protections in the aforementioned sections of the Government Code, as they exist as of the effective date of this chapter. See also subsection (e)(2) of this section for Ellis Act right of return provisions. See Section

19.40.120(a)(3) for Ellis Act remedies, including exemplary damages. f. Recordation of notice.

1. The city shall prepare a form notice consistent with Government Code Section 7060.3, and which shall specifically describe the property where the covered rental units are located, the dates applicable to the constraints and the name of the owner of record of the property.

2. Any landlord withdrawing a property containing covered rental units from the rental market shall complete such notice and shall serve such notice on the city concurrent with providing notice to the tenants of the landlord’s intent to withdraw the covered rental units from the residential rental market.

The notice shall be executed by the fee owner(s) of the property, and all such signatures shall be duly notarized.

3. The city shall record the notice with the county recorder. Such notice encumbers the property for 10 years from the date the accommodations are withdrawn from rent or lease. (3) Government orders. The landlord is complying with any of the following:
a. An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the covered rental unit; or
b. An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the covered rental unit; or

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. c. A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the covered rental unit. (4) Intent to demolish/substantially remodel. Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the covered rental unit.
a. For purposes of this subsection, a tenant is not required to vacate the covered rental unit on any days where a tenant could continue living in the covered rental unit without violating health, safety, and habitability codes and laws.
b. In order to terminate a tenancy based on intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the covered rental unit pursuant to this subsection, a landlord must provide the tenant with written notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.1 which notice shall be in no less than 12-point type, shall be in English and Spanish and include all of the following information:

1. A statement informing the tenant of the landlord’s intent to demolish the property or substantially remodel the covered rental unit or property.

2. The following statement: “If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the Landlord must offer you the opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the Landlord at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated.

You must notify the Landlord within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within thirty (30) days of notifying the Landlord of your acceptance of the offer.”

3. A description of the substantial remodel to be completed, the approximate expected duration of the substantial remodel, or if the property is to be demolished, the expected date by which the property will be demolished, together with one of the following:
(a) A copy of the permit or permits (or a written commitment from the applicable governmental agency that such permits are ready to be issued subject only to conditions requiring the property or covered rental unit to be vacant) required to undertake the substantial remodel or demolition; or
(b) If the notice is issued to abate hazardous materials and the remodel does not require any permit, a copy of the signed contract with the contractor hired by the landlord to complete the substantial remodel, that reasonably details the work that will be undertaken to abate the hazardous materials.

4. A notification that the tenant has the right to return to the covered rental unit upon completion of the substantial remodel at the same rent and the same lease terms subject to any lawful rent increases. (e) Tenant’s right of first return to a covered rental unit; rent upon return. (1) Owner move-in right of return. If the intended occupant fails to occupy the covered rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates, or if the intended occupant fails to occupy the covered rental unit as their primary residence for at least 24 consecutive months absent a significant hardship as provided in subsection (d)(1)(c) of this section, and if tenant reoccupies such covered rental unit, landlord shall reimburse the tenant for reasonable moving expenses incurred. Such payment shall be in addition to any relocation assistance that was paid to the tenant in connection with the termination notice. To the extent permitted by state law, for a new tenancy commenced during the time periods described in this subsection (e)(1), the covered rental unit shall be offered and rented or leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice of termination of tenancy is served, subject to any lawful rent increases.
(2) Ellis Act right of return.
a. If within two years after withdrawing a covered rental unit from the rental market pursuant to subsection (d)(2) of this section a landlord offers for rent such covered rental unit, in addition to any right of return

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. that the tenant may have pursuant to this chapter, the landlord shall be liable to the tenant who was displaced from the covered rental unit for actual and exemplary damages provided the tenant brings an action against the landlord within three years of the withdrawal of the covered rental unit from the rental market.
b. Return within five years. A tenant of a covered rental unit whose tenancy was terminated in accordance with subsection (d)(2) of this section is entitled to receive notice of the first right to return to the same covered rental unit at the rent previously charged for the covered rental unit, subject to any lawful rent increases, and subject to the rental agreement terms in effect at the time the tenant vacated. A tenant may return to the covered rental unit if:

1. The tenant has provided the landlord a current mailing address and/or email address, and keeps those addresses updated, at which to receive notice from the landlord that the covered rental unit is available; and

2. The landlord returns the covered rental unit to the residential rental market within five years after the effective date of withdrawal of a property containing the covered rental unit from the residential rental market.
c. Return within 10 years. A landlord of a property containing a covered rental unit that was withdrawn from the residential rental market within the previous 10 years must provide 120 days’ written notice to the previous tenants of the landlord’s intent to return the covered rental unit to the residential rental market.
d. Any tenant displaced from a covered rental unit in connection with the withdrawal of a property containing a covered rental unit from the residential rental market may request the first right of return from the landlord within 30 days of receipt of a landlord’s written notice of intent to return the covered rental unit to the residential rental market.
(3) Government order right of return. The landlord must give advance notice to the tenant of the tenant’s right to reoccupy the covered rental unit if and when the covered rental unit is found to be in compliance with the order. The tenant shall notify the landlord, in writing, within 30 days after the receipt of such notice of the tenant’s interest to reoccupy the covered rental unit and shall provide the landlord with their contact information.
(4) Substantial remodel right of return. Tenant shall have the right to return to the covered rental unit upon completion of the substantial remodel. The tenant shall notify the landlord, in writing, within 30 days after the receipt of such notice of the tenant’s interest to reoccupy the covered rental unit and shall provide the landlord with their contact information.
(5) Rent upon return. In each such instance, the landlord shall offer and tenant shall have the right to return to the same covered rental unit at the rent previously charged for the covered rental unit, subject to any lawful rent increases, and subject to the rental agreement terms in effect at the time the tenant vacated. (f) School year evictions.
(1) It shall be a defense to a no-fault eviction if a school-aged child resides in the covered rental unit, if the effective date of the notice of termination of tenancy falls during the school year. (2) Within 30 days of service of the notice of termination of tenancy, the tenant must submit a statement with supporting evidence to the landlord if the tenant claims to have a school-aged child residing in the covered dwelling unit; this information is required in addition to tenant’s return of the postcard referenced in Section

19.40.080(a)(1). The notice of termination of tenancy shall contain a warning that a tenant’s failure to submit such statement within 30 days of receipt of the notice shall be deemed an admission that the tenant is not protected from eviction pursuant to this subsection (f).

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. (3) A landlord may challenge a tenant’s claim of protected status pursuant to this subsection (f) through commencement of the eviction proceeding.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.080 Relocation assistance for no-fault termination of tenancy; moving stipend. (a) Relocation assistance for no-fault terminations.
(1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under Section 19.40.070, if a landlord issues a termination notice for a no-fault reason, the landlord shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in subsection (a)(3) of this section and (except to the extent prohibited by applicable law) the landlord shall notify the tenant in writing of the tenant’s right to relocation assistance at the time the landlord issues the notice of termination. Each termination notice shall be accompanied by a self-addressed stamped postcard (in a format approved by the city) on which the tenant may indicate, under penalty of perjury, whether they or another tenant in the covered dwelling unit are a protected tenant and under which category (i.e., lower-income tenant, disabled tenant, senior tenant, terminally ill tenant, school-aged child/ren) they claim protected tenant status. (2) Permanent relocations. When relocation assistance is required by this subsection (a)(2) to tenants who are evicted pursuant to Section 19.40.070(d), the landlord must make relocation assistance payments as follows:
a. Nonprotected tenant relocation assistance. If the tenancy is terminated pursuant to Section

19.40.070(d)(1) through (3) (i.e., owner move-ins, Ellis Act evictions, governmental orders), or pursuant to Section 19.40.070(d)(4) (i.e., intent to demolish/substantially remodel) with the intent to demolish the covered rental unit, the landlord shall pay to the tenant relocation assistance in the amount of three times the HUD FMR rent for the most similar unit type based on the number of bedrooms plus the moving stipend. Such payment shall be calculated on a per-covered dwelling unit basis, without reference to the number of tenants in the covered dwelling unit.
b. Protected tenant relocation assistance. If one of the tenants living in the covered rental unit from which the tenants are displaced is a protected tenant, then all tenants living in the covered rental unit are collectively entitled to receive supplemental relocation assistance in the amount of one additional month of the applicable HUD FMR rent. Such payment shall be calculated on a per-covered dwelling unit basis, without reference to the number of tenants and protected tenants in the covered dwelling unit. c. SingleThree or more rented single-family home/condominium relocation assistance. Notwithstanding anything in this subsection (a)(2) (Permanent relocations)chapter to the contrary, in the case of any dwelling unit that is alienable separate (i.e., separately transferrable) from the title to any other dwelling unit, or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in California Business and Professions Code Section 11004.5(b), (d), or (f), including without limitation rented single-family residences and homes or condominiums, but excluding mobile homes offered for rent, subject to Section 19.40.020(2)b (Three or more rented single-family homes/condominiums), the landlord shall pay to the tenant relocation assistance in the amount of two months of the tenant’s then-current rent plus a moving stipend in the amount of $2,000.
d. Payment process. For permanent relocation assistance, the landlord shall provide one-half of the relocation assistance owed to the tenant within 15 calendar days of service of the notice of termination.

The remaining relocation assistance shall be paid to the tenant in cash no later than the date the tenant vacates the covered rental unit.
e. Moving stipend. The landlord shall pay to the tenant the amount of $3,000 (“moving stipend”), which shall be paid to the tenant in cash no later than the date the tenant vacates the covered rental unit. Such payment shall be calculated on a per-covered dwelling unit basis, without reference to the number of tenants in the covered dwelling unit.

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. f. Refund of security deposit. A landlord must refund to the tenant any security deposit paid by the tenant.

A landlord may withhold any properly itemized deductions from the security deposit in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1950.5.
(3) Temporary relocations. A landlord must pay temporary relocation assistance to tenants of a covered rental unit who are temporarily displaced due to substantial remodel of covered rental unit:
a. Thirty days or fewer. A landlord must provide the tenant a per diem payment if the tenant will be temporarily displaced for 30 days or fewer. The landlord shall pay to the tenant the full amount of the per diem payment when the tenant temporarily vacates the covered rental unit. b. Thirty-one days or more. A landlord must provide the tenant either a per diem payment or, at the landlord’s election, comparable or superior temporary housing, if available. c. Duration extended. In the event the duration of the temporary relocation is longer than anticipated, the landlord shall continue to pay to the tenant the per diem relocation assistance payments on a weekly basis or continue to provide the tenant with the comparable or superior temporary housing until the tenant is able to return to the covered rental unit.
d. Per diem amount. The per diem payment amount shall be based on the Federal General Services Administration per diem rate for lodging and meals (M&IE total) in Concord, Contra Costa County, which is updated on a yearly basis. Per diem payments for meals shall be on a per tenant basis. Per diem payments for lodging shall be on a per-covered dwelling unit basis assuming a household size of four. e. Rent due. For temporary relocation assistance where the landlord is providing comparable or superior temporary housing or making a per diem payment, the tenant shall continue to pay the lawful rent to the landlord for the covered rental unit.
f. Refund of security deposit. A landlord shall not be required to refund to the tenant any security deposit paid by the tenant in connection with a temporary relocation. g. The phrase “comparable or superior” when used in connection with a dwelling unit or temporary housing shall mean a dwelling unit or temporary housing that is similar in size or larger, has the same number of bedrooms or additional bedrooms, is located in the city, has similar amenities as the covered rental unit, such as parking, laundry facilities or exercise facilities, allows pets if the displaced tenant has a pet, and as to a disabled tenant, is disability accessible and ADA compliant. The tenant, in the tenant’s reasonable discretion, may waive any of these factors in deciding whether the dwelling unit or temporary housing offered is comparable or superior.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter to the contrary, no protected tenant relocation assistance pursuant to Section 19.40.080(a)(2)b moving stipend pursuant to Section 19.40.080(a)(2)e, or temporary relocation assistance pursuant to Section 19.40.080(a)(3) shall be payable for any rented single-family homes or condominiums.
(b) No waiver. In the event the tenant accepts an offer to temporarily or permanently move to an available comparable or superior vacant dwelling unit owned by the landlord at the same rent, the tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance pursuant to this section, but shall be eligible for the moving stipend. Except as expressly provided in this subsection (b), a tenant cannot waive their right to receive relocation assistance required by this chapter.
(c) Coordination with other relocation benefits. If a tenant receives, as part of the termination of tenancy, relocation assistance pursuant to the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code Sections 7260 through 7277), then the amount of that relocation assistance shall operate as a credit against any relocation assistance to be paid to the tenant under this section.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024.

19.40.090 Requirement to offer writ ten lease; minimum lease terms.

Tenants shall have the right to written leases and minimum lease terms, as provided herein. (1) One-year lease term. If a prospective tenant wishes to rent a dwelling unit from a landlord and if said landlord wishes to rent said dwelling unit to said prospective tenant, the landlord must offer to the prospective tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of one year. Such offer must be made in writing. If the prospective tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of one year will be considered an offer if signed by the landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by the prospective tenant. If the prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year, such rejection must be in writing. (2) Six-month lease term. If the prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one year as provided in subsection (1) of this section, but the prospective tenant continues to wish to rent said dwelling unit from said landlord, said landlord must offer to said prospective tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of six months. Such offer must be made in writing. If said prospective tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of six months will be considered an offer if signed by said landlord, and an acceptance if countersigned by said prospective tenant. If said prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months, such rejection must be in writing. (3) Shorter term. If said prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of six months as provided in subsection (2) of this section, said landlord and said prospective tenant may then enter into a written lease that provides for a term of fewer than six months. (4) Renewal of lease. If both the landlord and tenant wish to continue the tenancy upon the expiration of a rental agreement which has a minimum term of one year or six months, a written rental agreement shall be offered again in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (1) through (3) of this section. The landlord shall have no obligation to reoffer a tenant a one-year or six-month lease term if the tenant has previously rejected such offers in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (1) through (3) of this section, and has a rental agreement with a term of fewer than six months. (5) Existing tenancies. Any tenant renting a dwelling unit may request a written lease with a minimum term of either one year or six months, provided such tenant has not previously received a written notice of rental agreement violation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 and such violation remains uncured. The tenant shall do so via written notice to the landlord. The landlord shall, upon receipt of such notice, offer to said tenant a written rental agreement on terms substantially similar to those of the existing rental arrangement (except as to length of term) in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section, as applicable. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.100 Notice of tenant rights.
(a) A landlord subject to this chapter shall provide notice to the tenant as follows:
(1) For any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, as an addendum to the rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy provided to the tenant.
(2) For any tenancy existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, by written notice to the tenant no later than 180 days after the effective date of the ordinance adopting this chapter, or as an addendum to the rental agreement.
(b) The notification and rental agreement provision shall be in no less than 12-point type, shall be in English and Spanish, and shall include the following:

Concord law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See; see Chapter 19.40 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. [Note: The foregoing sentence must only be

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. included if the covered rental unit is subject to the rent stabilization provisions of this chapter.]
Concord law also provides that, a Landlord must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a Tenancy. See Section 19.40.070 of the Concord Municipal Code for more information. In addition, City of Concord Municipal Code Sections 19.40.070(e) and

19.40.080 provide tenants evicted on a no-fault basis with the right to return to the Tenant’s original Covered Rental Unit if such Covered Rental Unit is returned to the market, and the right to relocation assistance and a moving stipend; see City of Concord Municipal Code Sections 19.40.070(e) and 19.40.080 for more information.

City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 provides tenants with the right to written leases and minimum lease terms. Landlords must offer tenants the option to enter into a one (1) year written lease. If a tenant declines a one (1) year written lease, the landlord must offer that tenant the option to enter into a six (6) month written lease. It is the tenant’s choice whether or not to enter into such a written lease with a landlord. If tenant rejects the initial offers of a written lease with a minimum lease term of 12 or 6 months, the tenant and landlord may enter into a written lease with a term of fewer than 6 months. See City of Concord Municipal Code Section 19.40.090 for more information.
(c) Manner. Landlords must provide the notice to tenants in writing if the application and rental agreement are processed in writing, electronically if the application and/or rental agreement are processed electronically, or both if both methods are utilized. The provision of the notice shall be subject to Civil Code Section 1632. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.110 Procedures and guidelines.

The City Manager is hereby delegated the authority to promulgate procedures, regulations, and guidelines to aid in the implementation of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.120 Remedies.
(a) Remedies and penalties.
(1) If a landlord violates the terms of this chapter, an aggrieved tenant may institute a civil action for injunctive relief, actual, statutory, or direct money damages, and any other relief that the court deems appropriate, which shall include a civil penalty of no less than $2,000, and no more than $5,000, per violation, at the discretion of the court. If the aggrieved tenant is a senior tenant or a disabled tenant, the court may award an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, at the discretion of the court. (2) Any person who violates, aids, abets, or incites another person to violate this chapter is liable in a court action for each and every such offense for money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered by an aggrieved tenant (including damages for mental or emotional distress), or for minimum damages in the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be tripled if the trier of fact finds that the defendant landlord acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of this chapter. (3) If within two years after withdrawing a covered rental unit from the rental market pursuant to Section

19.40.070(d)(2) a landlord offers for rent such covered rental unit, in addition to any right of return that the tenant may have pursuant to this chapter, the landlord shall be liable to the tenant who was displaced from the covered rental unit for actual and exemplary damages provided the tenant brings an action against the landlord within three years of the withdrawal of the covered rental unit from the rental market. (b) The court may award punitive damages in a proper case as set out in Civil Code Section 3294 and pursuant to the standards set forth in that code section or any successor thereto, but may not award both punitive damages and triple damages.

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION

PROGRAM

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 24-7, passed November 12, 2024. (c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a tenant who prevails in any such action. The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a landlord who prevails in any such action if the court determines that the tenant’s action was frivolous.
(d) The remedies available under this section shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available to the residential tenant under applicable federal, state, county, or local law. (e) No administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this chapter. (f) Authorization of City Attorney to enforce this chapter. The City Attorney shall have the right and authority, but not the obligation, to enforce this chapter, including bringing actions for injunctive relief, equitable relief, restitution, and/or penalties to ensure compliance with this chapter. (g) To the extent permitted by law, any violation of this chapter shall be a defense to an unlawful detainer action. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.130 Waiver prohibited.

Any waiver of rights under this chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy. (Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

19.40.140 Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.
(Ord. No. 24-3, § 5 (Exh. A))

*Not covered under rent stabilization if County restriction of 5% included in regulatory agreement and/or if rent increase is served to an overincome tenant in a income restricted unit.

Rented Single-Family Homes/Rented Condominiums
(Landlord owns 2 or fewer of these rental unit types) NO NO YES Rented Single-Family Homes/Rented Condominiums
(Landlord owns 3 or more of these rental unit types) NO YES YES Rented Multi-Family Complex 2 or more units (built
before Feb 1, 1995) YES YES YES
Rented Multi-Family Complex 2 or more units (built
after Feb 1, 1995) NO YES YES
Rented Multi-Family Affordable Housing Units (built
before Feb 1, 1995) YES YES YES
Rented Multi-Family Affordable Housing Units (built
after Feb 1, 1995) NO YES YES
Rented Mobile Home Units YES YES YES
Rented Accessory Dwelling Units NO NO NO
Transient and Tourist Hotel Occupancy NO NO NO
Institutional Facilities* NO NO NO
Dormitories NO NO NO
Government-Owned Housing Accommodations NO NO NO
Rented Units Where Owner and Tenant Share
Kitchen and Bathroom NO NO NO
Emergency Shelters NO NO NO
Residential Facilities** NO NO NO

JUST CAUSE

FOR EVICTION
RENT

STABILIZATION
IS YOUR UNIT COVERED?
The chart below can assist you in determining if your Concord rental unit is subject to the rent stabilization, just cause for eviction and/or rent registry requirements. *Institutional Facilities include housing accommodations in a hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or an adult residential facility as defined in City Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program.
**Residential Facilities include group housing, residential care facilities, assisted living facilities, supportive housing, and transitional housing.

RENT

REGISTRY
Revised 3/25/25
Attachment 3

From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:53 AM
To: Concord City Council Email
Subject: March meeting

Please sent this to City Council for March 25th meeting with direct cc to Pablo Benavente.

Thank You
Larry Ribarich

Attachment 4

March 04, 2025
To: Concord City Council
CC: Pablo Benavente (My local representative)
From: Larry Ribarich Concord Rental Property Owner
Regarding rent control discussions to February 25th meeting regarding review of rent control issues.

I want to thank the Concord City Council tentatively approved amendments to the ordinance, including increasing annual allowable rent increase from the restrictive 60% of Consumer Price Index (CPI)- currently 2.52%-- to a flat 5% not to exceed 7%. I have been a small property owner in City of Concord a 4 Plex since 1981. In all these years I never had to do an eviction or had a court case filed against me in all these years. I have many long term tenants some over 10 years all below market rents. In the past 5 years due to changes in the City of Concord approach to rent control see in 2024 my bottom line in reserves for repairs and operating costs diminish to an all time low with minuscule financial reserves due to pressure on property owners with these new regulations; In this week’s news releases PGE will still have another rate increase of 7% over last rate increase of 10%, also received letter in mail from Central San (Contra Costa Sanitary District) to increase rates on annual sewer fees, my insurance on the property will increase 10% for 2025, and water usage rates will increase this year. This has nothing to due with increase maintenance costs per unit for this year.

I thank the City Council proposed changes and to vote on approved amendments to ordinance on 5% not to exceed 7%. On your March 25, 2025 meeting. Rental tenants in general do not understand the cost of services included in their rent and diminishing returns on my financial reserves for 2025.

Regards,
Larry Ribarich
Property owner at 2011 Sierra Rd E-H
Concord, CA
925-287-9326

From: Scott Greathouse
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:44 AM
To: Concord City Council Email
Subject: Concord Landlord- Scott Greathouse
Dear Concord City Council,

My name is Scott Greathouse. I'm a working registered nurse and have been for the last 6 years, I bought a condo almost 3 years ago. For some life circumstances I needed to move out and decided to rent it. I have been supported by a great property management company who is transparent and fair to both me and tenants. I am wanting to sell my condo so I can purchase a primary residence. If you're able to get rid of the just cause for eviction out that would be great, because it is quite expensive to have my tenant leave. I have been a great landlord and fixing anything that has come up, but I'm needing money to buy a home for myself and my wife as we're wanting to build our own home. I actually got married 5 months ago and because of the tenant laws that were initiated I didn't want to pay someone 6-7k of my own hard worked money to move. I recently got married and was hoping to move in to my condo. I ask for fairness to landlord, I'm 33 years old and trying to build my life but the laws that are being implemented are unfair for me as I'm trying to build my life and I'm being a responsible and fair landlord. For example my tenant parked somewhere on the property where he shouldn't and I paid for his car reposition bill. Also, to get my tenant into my condo I had a discount for the first 3 months of rent. I have fixed needed items to be fixed and swiftly. I am in favor for tenant protection and help to but I ask you lift the fees ans just causes to landlords.

Thanks,

Scott Greathouse

From: Ramirez, Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 1:29 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Resident Input on Rent Control

Hi Joelle,

I received a call on the mayor’s line from Jo Ann Walden at 5137 Laurel Dr. She would like it noted that she supports rent control being continued and said the reason there are so many homeless people is because they cannot afford the constantly increasing rent. She is not able to email but can be reached at (925)825-9022.

Thank you,
Amy Ramirez
Administrative Clerk II | Office of the City Manager & City Council City of Concord | www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3233 | [email protected]

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Thank you

The email above was submitted by:

1. Ramen Suri

2. Sara Emrich

3. Jenny Yang

4. Jonathan Emrich

5. Cara Heilmann

6. Warren Wren

7. Melissa Cahn, San Mateo

8. Mark (MVP) Vanderpool

9. CalproManager

10. Brett Starczewski, San Ramon

11. David Lee

12. John Goodwin

13. S. Plakti

14. V . Plakti

15. Gary Aulakh

16. Anne Shafizadeh

17.

From: Ramirez, Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 8:45 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Resident Support for Rent Control

Hello,

We received a voicemail on the Mayor’s line from a D5 resident named Mike. He expressed his support for the current rent control laws, expanding the rent control laws, and the politicians who support rent control.

Thank you,
Amy Ramirez
Administrative Clerk II | Office of the City Manager & City Council City of Concord | www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3233 | [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohamed Khlafallah <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 12:01 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject Any Expansion of Rent Control at the City of Concord

Honorable Vice Mayor Laura Nakamura,

As a voter and resident of Concord District 5, I am writing to urge you to reject any and all attempts to expand any rent control measures proposed or being discussed in city council meetings beyond what is required by the state law and no more. Do not follow radical measures adopted by Oakland or other cities. Follow the examples of set by Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and other moderate neighboring towns.

I urge you to focus your efforts instead on tackling the issues most needed to maintain good governance and quality of life in Concord. These include roads, infrastructure, policing and crime prevention, schools and maintenance of city parks.

Best regards;

Mohamed Z Khlafallah
1236 Summit View Dr
Concord, CA 94521

From: Orla Coste <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 1:55 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: March 25th Meeting

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market. The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

We are residential housing providers and are not corporate investors, we are hard working individuals who worked all their lives to secure some financial security for our old age. My husband is now 81 and retired and I am still working managing our rentals and we live from the income of our rentals.

Your argument, Vice Mayor Nakamura, about property value increases is true but I believe with all due respect, that what you fail to see and understand is that value increases looks good on paper but we cannot use it to pay our monthly operating expenses, our mortgage, our living expenses, etc. It is a phanthom benefit that only becomes a real asset when one sells the property which is not the goal of property owners, or refinance. Well, here is a real example, we had to refinance a property at 5.83% last year, our previous rate was 3.25% and that rate increase, increased our mortgage payment by 47.41%. Even with a modest increase in rents, we are not able to cover the large increase in our mortgage payment. Additionally, we had three units in the same property upgraded at a cost of $30K each, that cost can never not recovered with a 3 or 5% rent increase!. Additionally, you forgot to mention that property taxes also increase each year plus every other operating expense, so in essence we are worse off than before! This is what most people who do not own property fail to see or understand and it is what home providers have to deal with year to year!
Your second argument about 2 exempt units, I just would like to say that financial institutions and insurance companies consider 5 units or less "single residential properties" so an owner could potentially live in one of the units in a four-plex and rent out the others to help pay for their living expenses. Why should this owner be penalized?
I am urging you to make this right, to vote YES on March 25th to amend Concord's rental housing policies!
Thank you.

Orla Coste

From: Carol Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 1:07 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Fair rental policies in Concord

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,

I urge you to support the revised rental policies and vote YES at the meeting on March 25th. Concord needs rental housing and the current policies are very discouraging to housing providers. I own several rentals in Concord. My income has been declining over the last two years because the cost increases to maintain my properties exceeds any rent increases I have been able to implement ( Inflation) This is very serious since I rely on the income to live. So my income has been going down. I have a substantial investment and when I do the calculations it appears that I would be better off selling and investing in the stock market. I would not have management headaches, the need for expensive repairs, accounting costs, and hours and hours of my time spent on proper management. It’s getting in the “life is too short” area. If you want housing providers to provide housing,t he investment has to provide a return you can live on with less headache and hassles.

Thank you for listening.

Carol Meyer

From: Teri Darrenougue <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 3:32 PM
To: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: In Support of Proposed Revisions to Concord’s Rent Stabilization Program Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
Thank you for reconsidering the Concord Rent Control Ordinance/Rent Stabilization Program on March 25, 2025, and special thanks to Councilmember Benavente for bringing forward the proposal under consideration. I am strongly in support of his proposal.

I am a senior citizen who is a landlord/owner of a single-family house in Concord which I have rented to the same tenants for five years. With the overly restrictive current ordinance which throws landlords like me under the bus, I had lost my confidence in the City of Concord and planned to sell my rental house when the current tenants give their notice to vacate. I support California’s rent control laws, which I believe are fair and balanced to both landlords and tenants, but the City of Concord’s rent control went to an extreme that is unjust and unfair to single-family homeowner/landlords. Councilmember Benavente’s proposal gives me hope that I can remain a landlord in Concord, and I urge you to vote in favor of amending Concord’s current housing policies.

Theresa Darrenougue
Owner/Landlord of 1254 Hale Drive, Concord, CA

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:10 PM
To: Gentry, Mindy <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: Tenant Protection Regulations Questions

This e-mail is being shared with all Councilmembers

Laura N.,

You forwarded this e-mail and requested staff respond. See the response below.

Joelle will add this communication to the agenda packet for the 25th.

Valerie

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

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

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: RE: AFFH - Affordable Housing Mandate

Jo,

Your e-mail was forwarded to me for a response. Thank you for your interest in the AFFH program and the proposed ordinance amendments to the City’s tenant protection regulations.

The agenda and staff report for the meeting on the 25th will be published before end of day tomorrow (Thursday the 20th), I believe your questions related to the tenant protections are answered within the report and draft amended ordinance. For your convenience, I’ve also provided responses below in yellow highlight. If you have any follow up questions, I recommend you reach out to Sophia Huckabay on our team. Her e-mail is above.

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

Valerie

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

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

From: Jo Sciarroni <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 4:52 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH - Affordable Housing Mandate

Hi All,
Attached is an Article regarding President Trump's withdrawing the Federal AFFH Program as presently being implemented. Would like a response from the City Attorney as to how this will affect the City of Concord and the present Zoning changes to comply with the local AFFH Program if Federal Funding goes away? The State of CA has its own AFFH requirements and it is the State’s regulations that the City’s adopted Housing Element policies address. There is a City webpage with a lot more information on this topic, which you can link to here. It is worth noting that changes in the Federal government’s position are unlikely to change State regulations.

Also a Thank you to Pablo Benavente for introducing the Exemption of Single Family Homes/Condos from the City Rent Control Ordinance and Laura Hoffmeister for her support. Although SFH Owners appreciated the partial exemption as amended by Carlyn Obringer, it does need some clarification. When replying to this email I would appreciate the following items clarified regarding the SFH/Condos exemption:

1) Ownership of two properties?? Two Rentals in Concord or Residence and One Rental in Concord. The staff drafted ordinance was written to achieve Council’s direction. As the amendments are drafted, the Ordinance states that no just cause eviction regulations applies to rented single family homes and condos unless an owner rents out three or more single family homes or condos in Concord. If an owner rents out two single family homes or condos in Concord, and lives in a third, the owner would not trigger the just cause regulations. The just cause regulations are triggered when three homes and/or condos are rented out in Concord by the same owner.
2) Rentals only in Concord apply or all rental properties outside of Concord included. How will that be enforced? The Ordinance relates only to rentals in Concord. 3) The definition of "Investor Owner" , as the Councils reasoning made no sense. All property ownership is a type of Investment and is the City Council now determining this for the Citizens of Concord? Simply put, a Real Estate Investor is one who buys real property to make money which can come from rental income, appreciation in the property value or both. This would include a person residence. I don’t understand this question. I suggest you review the staff report and revised ordinance. If after doing so, you continue to have a question, reach out to Sophia Huckabay who is on this e-mail.

The general basis for secure wealth building is property ownership. Perhaps the City could invest in programs that would explain and teach Renters how to become homeowners. Then their payments could be fixed over the life of ownership, eliminating the need for Rent Control. Just a thought if you really have helping the Tenants in mind and not just punitively against the Homeowners. The City supports first time homeowners and works with third party organizations to offer education on how to become a homeowner.

I also need the extended deadline date for the Rental Registry compliance on the SFH/Condo Owners. A new deadline date has not yet been set. Currently all multi-family property owners should have completed their registrations, and we are following up with those that have not. Currently, the deadline for submitting and completing registration for rented single family homes and condos is still paused. All owners of rented single family homes and condos will receive direct notification of the new registration deadline once it is set.

Appreciate yours or the City Attorney's Reply.

Thank you and Have a nice evening,

Jo
************************************

Jo Sciarroni
Compliance Manager - Broker Associate
RE/MAX Accord
800 S. Broadway, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Office: (925) 947-1777 - Cell: (925) 708-8889
CA License #00585920

-----Original Message-----
From: pikyi chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:13 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rejected for Prop 33

“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.”

To City of Concord Council Members:

I am submitting my vote for Rejection of Prop 33. The proposal is not fair to the Single Residential homeowners.

Sincerely,

Pik Yi Chan

Sent from my iPhone

From: Hamed <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:44 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject Any Expansion of Rent Control at the City of Concord

Honorable Vice Mayor Laura Nakamura,

As a voter and resident of Concord District 5, I am writing to urge you to reject any and all attempts to expand any rent control measures proposed or being discussed in city council meetings beyond what is required by the state of California law and no more. Do not follow radical measures adopted by Oakland or other cities. Follow the examples of set by Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and other moderate neighboring towns.

I urge you to focus your efforts instead on tackling the issues most needed to maintain good governance and quality of life in the City of Concord. These include roads, infrastructure, policing and crime prevention, schools and maintenance of city parks.

Best regards,
Hamed Z Khalafallah
4342 Fallbrook Ct
Concord, CA. 94521

From: karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 9:59 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support fair rental housing policies in Concord

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

1. I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law.

2. I strongly support exempting single- family homes and condominiums from just cause eviction.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Thank you,
KC

From: David Murray <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 10:00 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control
Hi, I’d like to express my distaste for rent Control because in the long-term property maintenance is not kept up by property owners and I’ve seen the effects of rent control in San Francisco, which has not been good to say the least. I also know people that continue to take advantage of rent controlled property while they had excellent paying jobs by both husband and wife and stopped needing the help long ago.

Dave Murray
Pitch Pine Ct.

Concord

From: Michelle Tajirian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 11:55 AM
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]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Fair Rental Housing Policies in Concord

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,

I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies!

Sincerely,
Michelle Tajirian

From: Barbara Cahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 12:52 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Fair Housing Policies in Concord
Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Thank you. Barbara Cahn, property owner, 510-502-3936, [email protected]

NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

From: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 9:13 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia
<[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter regarding changes to the rent stabilization and just cause ordinance Dear Mayor Obringer, Council Members and City Staff:

On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition, I write regarding the proposed changes to Concord’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, which would remove basic eviction protections from most single family homes and condominium units and change the formula for the rent cap from an inflation-adjusted calculation to a flat rate.

We urge you to reject these changes as they are not based on good policy and will leave many Concord tenants unprotected from arbitrary eviction and cost-driven displacement, which was recognized as the primary threat to fair housing in Concord’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

As these policy choices are not a small matter to Concord tenants, we hope that you will consider how these policies have played out in other cities and will meet with us to discuss all possible options.

Sincerely,
Kristi Laughlin
--

Kristi Laughlin
She/Her
Deputy Director of Campaigns
- Contra Costa
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
[email protected]
Cell: (510) 847-2399
http://www.workingeastbay.org/
Learn more about EBASE’s work!

March 20, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Re: Don’t Untie Rent Increases from Inflation and Keep Just Cause for Eviction Dear Mayor Obringer, Council Members and City Staff:

On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition, I write regarding the proposed changes to Concord’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, which would remove basic eviction protections from most single family homes and condominium units and change the formula for the rent cap from an inflation-adjusted calculation to a flat rate. I urge you to reject these changes as they are not based on good policy and will leave many Concord tenants unprotected from arbitrary eviction and cost-driven displacement, which was recognized as the primary threat to fair housing in Concord’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

I. Rent Limits Should Be Tied to Inflation
In nearly all California jurisdictions that limit rent increases, yearly limits are tied to inflation, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Nineteen California jurisdictions have rent increase limits set at some percent of CPI.1 This practice ensures that while landlords are still able to increase rents, they rise according to need and not an arbitrary number that bears no relationship to costs. An additional eight cities use 100% of CPI.2 Only three use a flat percent increase not tied to inflation.

The trend in California cities is a rent cap of 60%of CPI. Concord is not an outlier in having this formula—rather, it is in line with many other Bay Area cities like San Francisco, Richmond, Oakland, and Antioch.3 The trend is moving in this direction as rental housing becomes more and more unaffordable to low-income residents, contributing to the soaring increase in homelessness. In the Bay 3 Los Angeles County (unincorporated) also uses this formula, while Bell Gardens has a lower increase formula of 50% of CPI.
2 These cities are Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, Cudahy, Culver City, Inglewood, Los Angeles, Mountain View, and Pomona.
1 These cities are Alameda, Antioch, Baldwin Park, Bell Gardens, Berkeley, Concord, Culver City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Los Angeles County (unincorporated), Los Gatos, Oakland, Pasadena, Richmond, Salinas, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. 1

Area, seven out of the eight cities that have either passed or amended their rent stabilization formulas since 2019 have set the rent cap between 60% and 80% of CPI.

A flat limit of 5% is in fact the outlier. A current 100% CPI increase in Concord would be 4.2%. A 5% CPI limit would therefore be a “CPI plus formula” that exceeds inflation. High rent increases that outpace inflation are likely to lead to even more tenant hardship and displacement because they outpace wages.

Data from other cities also shows that landlord costs increase far less than even the current formula allows. In Los Angeles, which is currently considering lowering its rent cap, the city recently commissioned a study that included analysis of landlord expenses and costs. The study found that rent increases would cover the average yearly increase in landlord expenses if the formula allowed rent increases of just 35% of CPI.4 Any higher increase is increasing revenues, not covering expenses.

This is especially important considering landlords typically address major renovations at the end of a tenancy, and not in the middle. As state law requires that a landlord can always set the initial rent at the start of a tenancy, a landlord can always build those costs into the initial rent, which is not impacted by any local limits.

II. No Properties Should Be Without Just Cause for Eviction Just cause for eviction is a basic legal protection. It means that a household cannot be evicted for no reason, or an arbitrary reason, but only for one of the numerous reasons listed in the law. In practice, this is the best legal protection that tenants have against evictions based in discrimination or retaliation.

Although it is illegal for a landlord to evict a tenant because of their race or ethnicity or in retaliation for exercising rights like requesting repairs, contacting the city, or opposing unlawful behaviors, this can be very difficult to prove. To do so, a tenant must prove their landlord’s state of mind in choosing to evict them. A tenant who does not have basic eviction protections functionally does not have the right to live free of retaliation and discrimination. These issues occur among small landlords and large landlords alike.

When a tenant has just cause for eviction protections, the landlord is required to state the reason why the tenant is being evicted. A tenant also cannot be evicted without evidence. This basic due process means that tenants have some stability and safety in their homes against false accusations and unfair motives.

The trend across California cities is to extend just cause for eviction protections where they did not previously exist and to move from outdated limited coverage laws to universal coverage.

Near-universal applicability of local just cause for eviction ordinances are now the most common practice.5 In the Bay Area, 11 out of the 13 cities with both rent stabilization and just cause protections (85%) cover single family homes and condominiums under just cause. 5 Just cause ordinances in all of the following cities cover single family homes and condominiums: Alameda, Antioch, Bell Gardens, Berkeley, Cudahy, Culver City, East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Half Moon Bay. Hayward, Larkspur, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Maywood, Oakland, Oxnard, Pasadena, Pomona, Richmond, San Francisco, Union City, and West Hollywood.
4 L.A. Hous. Dep’t, Economic Study Findings And RSO Annual Allowable Rent Increase Recommendations (2024), available at
https://housing.lacity.gov/rental-property-owners/rent-control-property-overview/rent-stabilized-rso-property/econo mic-roundtable-study-on-equitable-rent-rent-stabilization-standards-in-the-city-of-los-angeles. 2 Page 78 of 195
There is no good reason for the city to remove just cause for eviction protections from single family homes and condominiums. Families who rent single family homes also need eviction protections.

III. Conclusion
We do not think that the removal of tenant protections from certain households serves anyone in Concord.

Tenant protections are often the difference between a household staying in their home and being forced to leave. As these policy choices are not a small matter to Concord tenants, we hope that you will consider how these policies have played out in other cities and will meet with us to discuss all possible options.

Sincerely,
Alex Werth, Policy and Research Advisor for EBASE
on behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition:

California Nurses Association
Centro Legal De La Raza
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
Contra Costa Senior Legal Services
East Bay Housing Organizations
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Ensuring Opportunity, The Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy
Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay
Lift Up Contra Costa
Monument Impact
Movement Legal
Public Advocates
Rising Juntos
Tenants Together
Todos Santos Tenants Union (Concord)
United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County

3 Page 79 of 195
Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Thank you for reading
The email above was submitted by:

1. Stephanie Bergin

2. Raj Saini
Agenda Item No. 5.a
Correspondence Received
Between agenda publication and
3 p.m. on March 24, 2025

Phone calls received in support of raising the rent increase cap.

1. Anonymous

2. Barry Cunningham

3. Pat Everett

4. Dennis Reilly

Phone calls received in opposition of raising the rent increase cap.

1. E. Matus

2. Donald Milne

3. Danielle Haffner

4. Rick Peterson

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:03 AM
To: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fair rate of return petition(s)
This email is being shared with all Councilmembers.

Vice Mayor Nakamura,
Please see below response to your request for information.

Regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]

Sign up for our e-newsletter here.

From: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 9:55 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fair rate of return petition(s)

Hi Justin,

The City has not received any Property Owner Fair Rate of Return petitions to date. We have received two tenant petitions that staff is currently reviewing and processing.

Thank You,

Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager

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

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

From: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 9:19 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair rate of return petition(s)

Justin,
In anticipation of tomorrow’s meeting, I’d like to know how many Fair Rate of Return petitions the city has processed since ordinance 24-3 went into effect.

Thanks in advance,

Laura

Laura Nakamura (She/her/hers)
Vice Mayor / City Councilmember, District 5

Mobile 925-338-1259
Web https://www.lauranakamura.net/
Sign up for my newsletter:
https://www.lauranakamura.net/newsletter

From: Sharon Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Amending Muncipal Code chapter 19.40

I encourage the City Council to adopt the changes in the amendment Pablo Benavente introduced in regards to rent control of single family homes & condominiums. As a senior citizen this is an important change to the current restriction's in Concord’s rent control.

Sharon Anderson
Home owner since 1974

Sent from my iPhone

From: Rami Kahlon <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 4:15 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]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Common Sense Rent Policy

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I'm grateful that you revisited and corrected your rental housing ordinance with a common sense approach to ensure adequate rental adjustments and to exempt property owners with two or fewer rental homes / condominiums.

I'm a local housing provider. I live in Concord. I own three rental properties within about a mile of my home, all in the 94521 zip code. I provide good quality housing at fair prices and as a result I've enjoyed long-term tenants with minimal turnover.

I built a small property portfolio to ensure that I would have enough income to sustain myself and not become a burden to my children or to the government in my senior years.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Rami Kahlon

From: Leslie Baxter (via Google Docs) <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 4:32 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5.a March 25 Agenda

Leslie Baxter attached a document
Leslie Baxter ([email protected]) has attached the following document: Learn more
Please see the letter below and vote to amend the rent cap.

Letter

Use is subject to the Google Privacy Policy.

Snapshot of the item below:

Leslie Baxter

March 21, 2025
Re: March 25, 2025 Agenda Item 5.a.: Rent Increase Cap under Residential Tenant Protection Program
Dear City Councilmembers,

I urge you to reexamine the decision you took this February, to amend the Tenant Protection Program to allow a flat maximum rent increase of 5%. A flat maximum annual increase of 5% is an unfair windfall to landlords, as those increases would compound year over year. Tenants are unlikely to see their incomes rise at that pace, making housing unaffordable.

The fairest rent increase will be based on a CPI calculation. In our uncertain U.S. economy, tenants deserve financial stability that will come from knowing that as the costs of the CPI’s ‘basket of goods’ varies, so will their maximum rent. Concord can retain a cap of 5%, to protect tenants during times of high inflation, but a flat 5% annual rent increase would create an undue hardship on tenants and may greatly exceed the cost of consumer goods. For example, with 5% increases annually, a tenant initially paying $2000 a month in rent would see their rate increase to $2,431 over five years. That same tenant would only see an increase to $2,209, if the current cap of 2.52% were in effect. That difference ($222 a month or $2,664 annually) could make or break a tenant’s tight budget.

Other cities (for example, West Hollywood and Santa Monica) have done the hard analytic work to determine what is a ‘fair return’ rent increase. They found that the full CPI percentage would overcompensate landlords, and set the allowable increase at 75% of CPI. If the Concord City Council intends to alter the rent cap, it would be fairest to all concerned to set it at 75% of CPI. This gives tenants whose income may not be rising to meet costs some financial stability; they can afford to live in Concord and put down roots here. With an increase to 75% of CPI, landlords still benefit from compounding rent increases and appreciating real estate values. Concord can also adopt a ceiling of 5%, to protect tenants against inflation.

Last year, Concord’s Tenant Protection ordinance passed on a 4-1 vote. The vote was only 3 to 2, to pass the proposed amendments at the February 25, 2025 meeting. The City Council can and should reach a consensus on the changes to be made; changing the rent increase cap to 75% of CPI with a cap of 5% is something all five of you should
endorse. Understandably, Councilmember Aliano and his constituent would prefer no changes, but if last month’s vote is written into the ordinance, tenants in his district will suffer a 5% annual rent increase. Voting for 75% of CPI with a 5% cap will prevent that burden on tenants in District 3 and the City as a whole. In February, Councilmember Nakamura proposed a

5% ceiling, but only if the increase were to be calculated based on CPI. My proposal fits the bill. Councilmembers Obringer, Hoffmeister and Benavente, who voted for a 5% cap, can see the fairness in basing rent increases on CPI; they have every reason to vote for this new proposal and demonstrate consensus on the dais.

Sincerely,
Leslie Baxter
Concord resident

Google LLC,

You have received this email because
[email protected] shared a document with you from
Google Docs. Delete visitor session
Google
Workspace

From: Michael Littman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 8:43 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: My concord rental house insurance bill went up 265 percent

In one year and cost of materials with tariffs is expected to go up 25 percent .

I need to raise rents at least 15 percent to keep up with all my costs.

Please cancel rent control measures
Michael littman landlord
Sent from my iPhone

From: Catherine Makrakis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:04 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Munipicle code 19.40

I want the amendment proposed by Pablo Benevente completed.BEEN A CONCORD RESIDENT FOR 30 YEARS.

Catherine Makrakis
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Meghan W <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 4:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft Amendment for Rent Registry

Dear Council Members,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out and thank you for these adjustments. I am a single mom who owns a single family home which has been in my family since it was built in the 1950’s. I was unable to afford to live in my home as a newly single mom when I rented out my home but I hope to move back someday. These adjustments will allow my family to finally move back home when we are ready.

I appreciate your consideration of single family home property owners who may have faced hardships similar to my own.

Thank you again.

Kindly,

Meghan

From: Jean-Pierre (JP) Maeder <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 10:25 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]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Reform: Support Fair and Balanced Rental Housing Policies in Concord

Dear Mayor Obringer and Honorable City Council Members,

I respectfully urge you to take action to address the significant shortcomings in Concord’s current rental housing ordinance.

I stand in strong support of Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to bring Concord’s rent control policy into alignment with California state law. Our community needs housing policies that are fair, sustainable, and balanced—protecting both renters and housing providers alike, while promoting long-term stability in our local housing market.

This is a crucial opportunity to correct the course. I encourage you to vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord’s rental housing ordinance and move forward with a more equitable and effective framework.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
--
Jean-Pierre (JP) Maeder

From: Kang Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 5:39 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support fair rental housing policies in Concord

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,

I urge you to address and fix Concord's deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente's proposal to align Concord's rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

Best regards

Housing providers in Concord

Rowland

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 7:33 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: 3/25 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 own any rentals, but I am concerned about the future of Concord and the very negative impact this ordinance is having, particularly as it affects individual non-corporate housing providers.

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 or condos 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.

That is why I strongly encourage you to ratify the changes you agreed to at the 2/25 Council meeting. Removing individuals owning 2 or fewer rental homes from the scope of the just cause portion of the ordinance is a huge improvement. Also the revision to a simple 5% annual cap on rent increases gives owners the flexibility they need to adjust rents gradually as market prices and expenses increase without surprising tenants with a sudden big increase.

More needs to be done to make this ordinance less problematic, but this is a very good first step!

Finally, I would ask you to consider bringing this ordinance back for review and revision every six months. Waiting a full year to review the data and address emerging issues is too long I think.

Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott

From: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 7:35 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: No on the Proposal to Overturn Rent Protection/Control

Please add this to the record for Tuesday’s meeting.

Laura

Laura Nakamura (She/her/hers)
Vice Mayor / City Councilmember, District 5

Mobile 925-338-1259
Web https://www.lauranakamura.net/
Sign up for my newsletter:
https://www.lauranakamura.net/newsletter

From: Sylvia Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 5:12 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: No on the Proposal to Overturn Rent Protection/Control

Dear Mayor and Concord City Council Members-

From: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 7:35 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Amendment to Ordinance

Please add this to the record for Tuesday's meeting.

Laura

Laura Nakamura (She/her/hers)
Vice Mayor / City Councilmember, District 5

Mobile 925-338-1259
Web https://www.lauranakamura.net/
Sign up for my newsletter: https://www.lauranakamura.net/newsletter

-----Original Message-----
From: Blaine Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 9:34 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Antonia Rhovy <[email protected]> Subject: Amendment to Ordinance

Dear Council Members,

On March 5, 2024, the council voted to adopt the rent control ordinance with the commitment to review the 2.5% rent cap in one year.

As the city manager stated at the recent February 25 meeting, the time to review the rent caps is now.

Moreover, the statements made by those who object say there is not enough data to make a decision are completely false.

Speaker after speaker offered the council members hard data of invoices showing hazard insurance policy rates doubling & in some cases tripling.

Farmers Insurance notified the state insurance commissioner's office of a 33% rate increase for policy holders in California sighting losses by wildfires .

Contra Costa water published a 12% rate increase. PG&E published a second rate increase of 15%.

Since Covid the cost of lumber, roofing, wiring, sheet rock have increased by 30-40% along with the cost of skilled trade labor to install these items.

The city's own rent registry has seen an 800% increase from $5.47 to $47 per unit. The code inspection fees have risen 30% citing the increased cost of code enforcement staff.

The market trends have shown rents have stabilized since Covid, and since passage of Concord's rent control ordinance last March non owner occupied sales of single family home and condominium have risen approximately 9% year over year as housing providers opt for 1031 exchanges into other communities that have no rent control policy allowing for a fair return on investment.
"The data" is all around you, abundant, and undeniable.

I urged you to reconsider your position of a flat 5% cap and support council member Benavente's proposal of a 5% +CPI and exclude single family homes and condominiums of 4 units or less to protect small business operators ton align with the Tenant Protection Act signed into law by Gov.

Newson in January 2020.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Blaine Carter

From: Pearl Kim-Kregel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 7:45 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Kregel <[email protected]>
Subject: Support fair rental housing policies in Concord

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,

My husband and I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

We strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability, in addition to hurting small business owners like us who are trying make a profit on their rentals. If small business owners cannot make a profit, they will be forced to sell their properties - most likely to big corporations who can withstand such ordinances.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Sincerely,
Mark and Pearl Kregel

From: Laura Chase <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 7:02 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Councilman Benavente

I am a homeowner in Concord and I wanted to thank council member Benavente for bringing to Light the rent control issues and working to change the law to make it more sustainable and workable for Concord property owners. I own a
Single-family home, which I had planned to rent out, while working temporarily out of state, but with the restrictions regarding just evictions, I had decided not to do so, because paying for the moving expenses would be not feasible and would be burdensome for me. —
Sent from my iPhone

From: Miranda Stokley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 3:36 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

My parents started their property management company when I was in middle school. During covid my job was reducing my hours and they invited me to join. I have seen all my life what good housing providers look like. People who take care of their homes and want people who appreciate the home to rent it out. With the new restrictions our owners will not have the expendable income to keep their homes looking nice, to keep up with repairs. Either it will lead to run down homes or owners selling to people who will live in the house (not rent it out). The laws do not keep up with inflation and the changing world.

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Miranda Stokley

From: Melinda Kell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 8:00 AM
To: [email protected]; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control for Duplexes and houses

> Why are duplexes included with apartments? We own a home and a duplex in Concord and are trying to understand why a duplex is included with apartments rent control. Condominiums are included with townhouses and single family homes. Duplexes should be included with single- family homes.

> It seems to us that duplexes are almost a single-family home. Our duplex has a garage for each unit and their own private backyard. Our duplex is on a corner and we attempt to maintain the property exteriorly and interiorly.
>
> As elderly retired landlords, this income is indispensable for our sustenance. Regrettably, the city of Concord has rendered it infeasible for us to maintain our property, including landscaping, and we hope that in the future, it will not become an eyesore. Our wish is that the City of Concord would work with us to enable us to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the property and to make our tenants happy with the repairs necessary in their units. It would be a win-win situation for all of us—and the City of Concord would have increased tax revenue due to the property values going up and we will be able to keep long-term tenants happy.
>
> I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord’s rental housing policies and please include duplexes with single-family homes.

Thank you,

Melinda Kell
Owner of property in Concord

From: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent cap and just cause letter to the Mayor

Hi,

Please include the attached letter for this week's meeting.

Thanks,

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

From: pikyuk lew <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:38 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rejected Prop33

To Laura Nakamura
I inform you I reject Prop 33
Please help to fix Concord City broken rental laws Greatly appreciated Sincerely Frances pik Lew Sent from my iPhone

From: Jonathan Kendler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Residential Tenant Protection Program (RTPP)

No one who ever had to evict a delinquent tenant or had to pay for the cost of renovating a unit destroyed by a problem tenant would support Concord’s RTPP . Landlords establish common sense rules for the benefit of all who live in the community. Problem tenants flout these rules and create a nuisance, often dangerous situation, that neighboring residents and their children are forced to endure. Tenants already enjoy a multitude of protections under current law whereby both parties to a lease dispute make their argument before a judge and a fair ruling results. This process can take months, even in cases where a tenant’s lease violations are clear cut. If the City Council really wanted to make life more enjoyable for the majority of Concord’s residents, they should pass an ordinance that makes it EASIER, not harder to evict problem tenants.

The financial aspect of Concord’s RTPP is even more ridiculous. Once again, tenants already enjoy protection under California’s statewide rent control law, which caps annual rent increases at CPI + 5%. Ownership expenses such as financing, property tax, insurance, association fees, utilities, security patrols, maintenance and capital improvements far outpace “the lower of CPI or 3% per year” .

I ask the following:

Does anyone who drafted these so called “tenant protections” have experience in owning or managing rental property?
Is the City Council aware of the unintended consequences that result over time in communities where rent control laws have been implemented?
Do elected officials ever do any deep thinking about the constitutional rights of property owners? Have you replaced a water heater recently?

Jonathan Kendler
Century Management Company

From: Jason Heirtzler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 12:34 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Residential Tenant Protection Program

As a small landlord with just one rental property, I find the proposed Residential Tenant Protection Program to be messy, stressful, and going to make
things worse. If enacted, it may force me out of the rental market. The rules Concord is proposing are more burdensome than those in neighboring Bay Area cities.

I respectfully ask that you exempt small "mom and pop" landlords—especially from the registration requirements and Just Cause for Eviction rules.

I’m not a corporation and don’t have a property manager. If I’m forced to sell, and a wealthy tech couple moves in, Concord loses one more affordable housing option.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jason Heirtzler

From: Mel Bearns <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 12:47 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control

I am writing to oppose overturning the rent control protections that Pablo Benavente is pushing for.

The fact is that many low-income renters and households will be adversely affected, whereas landlords and rental corporations will benefit.

At a time when we are facing greater economic adversity than ever, and minority groups are the ones who will be most impacted, this is the wrong direction for Concord and I am deeply disappointed in Benavente's obvious obeisance to the major funding sources for his campaign. I expected better from him.

Thank you - I hope that the Council makes the right decision to continue protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

Sincerely,

Mel Bearns
Holbrook Heights

From: Sherry Floyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 12:56 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Rent control

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sherry Floyd <[email protected]>
Date: February 25, 2025 at 1:47:43 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Rent control
Good afternoon,
I would like to address your rent control issues before the council this evening.

I have owned my home in Concord for almost 40 years and am 76 years of age. Since I need income I rent rooms in my home.

After having read the many rules restricting me it has become more and more difficult to have a comfortable household. Currently I have a renter who has lived in my house for over 3 years. She is not a problem tenant (she pays on time) but has such a negative attitude I want her to go. She’s disruptive and spreads trouble to other tenants and even the neighbors. I feel my hands are tied because of your JUST CAUSE rules.

I live in the house and her being there makes me not want to go home.

I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, why do you get to tell me I have to pay $5000 and give her 60 days to get her out of my house. That’s outrageous. I’ve put up with the situation in my house for too long and need and want your rules to change.

I’m not an inconsiderate or unreasonable person. Please don’t tie my hands with the $5000 payment (I can’t afford that!!!)
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Sherry

Sent from my iPhone

From: Sherry Floyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 1:44 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control

Sent from my iPhone

Dear City Council,
I’m writing to voice my opposition to your rent control guidelines.

I’m a 76 year old lady who’s lived in Concord 40 years. I love living here and feel fortunate to have raised my children in this community.

Because I need the income I now have tenants living with me in my house. The experience has mostly been a positive one but after 10+ years, with rent control I feel my hands are tied. I have a difficult tenant who causes drama in the household and now she has affected the neighbors. She’s rented from me for 3 years and I now don't want to go home. I can’t afford to pay her $5000 to get her out and although I can live with the 60 day notice, it’s uncomfortable. There has to be another alternative!
I’m a college educated lady who loves people but may have to quit renting rooms and find another source of income. I can’t imagine telling you how to rent your house, raise your children or pay your bills. They all affect others but by you tying my hands you don’t give me credit for having common sense. Leave me alone! I’m fair, kind and respectful.

I plead with you all, either forget the rent control altogether or think about the homeowner too.

I appreciate your consideration tonight as you vote and hopefully my words will be heard.

Yours truly,
Sherry

From: Celina Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 2:19 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

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 advantage of me!! Unfair!

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Celina Liu

From: Amanda Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 3:27 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on Item 5a for the March 25, 2024 City Council Meeting Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, My name is Amanda Chang and I am a staff member at Urban Habitat. We are strongly opposed to the proposed changes to the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance that were only passed less than a year ago. As currently written, the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinances will help to stabilize working families throughout Concord. It will also help unlock millions of dollars in regional funds for the county through the Transit-Oriented Communities Policy.

In 2022, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy to ensure neighborhoods around transit stations and along transit corridors are places that not only support transit ridership, but are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services, such as education, childcare, and healthcare. Concord is a TOC Area, which means it is eligible for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program transportation funding. The next round of funding is slated to begin in 2026 and will make available hundreds of millions of dollars that the city relies on to maintain its public transit, roads, highways, sidewalks, and bike lanes.

When the City passed these ordinances, it brought the city closer to meeting its regional obligations. Attempts to weaken it will only set the City back and deprive it of future funding that it desperately needs. Instead of spending time, energy, and public dollars on trying to reverse policies that were passed 4-1 less than a year ago, the City should focus on proper enforcement of those policies.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item.
--
Amanda Chang (all pronouns)
Program Manager of Equitable Development
Agenda Item No. 5.a
Correspondence Received
Between 3 p.m. March 24, 2025
and 3 p.m. on March 25, 2025

Urban Habitat
2000 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 839-9510 (x303)
http://urbanhabitat.org/

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 2:36 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>
Subject: Info requested by Vice Mayor Laura Nakamura on item 5.A This email is being shared with all Councilmembers and being included in the record for this item.

Vice Mayor Nakamura, you recently asked questions related to rental property in Concord. Your questions are in black with staff’s response in blue. Sophia Huckabay put this information together for you.

For SFH and Condos:
- How many rented single-family homes and condos are in Concord? o The City of Concord is estimated to have approximately 7,500 rented single-family homes and condo units, based on County data and feedback from property owners that have contacted the City about their specific properties. - How many rented single-family homes and condos are owned by people living outside of Concord?
o It is estimated that 78% of the rented single-family homes and condos are owned by landlords that have addresses outside of Concord.
- What percentage of the total would be exempted by the amended Ordinance because they are owned by a property owner that has two or fewer rentals in Concord? o None would be fully exempted from the amended Ordinance since all rented single- family homes and condominiums in Concord would still be required to register their rental units in the City’s Rent Registry.
o However, property owners that own two or fewer rentals of these unit types within Concord would be exempt from the just cause for eviction provisions within the amended Ordinance. Of the 7,500 rented single-family homes and condominiums,

approximately 6,200 of those are owned by landlords that own 2 or fewer of this type of unit, this is around 82% of the total number of units.

Regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
Sign up for our e-newsletter here.

From: Mark Orcutt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 3:40 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: EBLC Support of Revisions to Residential Tenant Protection Program Concord City Council Members:

See the attached follow-up 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
President & CEO
East Bay Leadership Council
o. (925) 246-1880 | c. (415) 312-1394
www.eastbayleadershipcouncil.com

March 24, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

RE: Comments on 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 want to provide comments on Agenda Item 5.a relating to the Residential Tenant Protection Program. Our organization supports amending the Annual Allowable Rent Increase to an annual increase of 5% plus Consumer Price Index (CPI), up to 7%. EBLC represents hundreds of employers across Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, so 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.

Changes to the protections established by AB 1482 creates a patchwork of local laws that causes uncertainty, disrupts housing stability, and risks undermining the delicate balance between tenant protections and the viability of rental housing. Accordingly, we support changes to the current ordinance that bring the law closer to the AB 1482 regime. In specific, EBLC supports 1) limiting the scope of the Just Cause requirements in the current ordinance and 2) reverting the annual rent cap increase to the statewide cap of 5% plus the Consumer Price Index, up to 7%.

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: Lisa Carbajal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:07 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Rent Stabilization
City Council Members and Mayor:

Regarding some rental properties in question that were paid for by hard working individuals who planned on their properties for retirement income. Throughout the 80s and nineties they paid and paid mortgage cost sometimes doing without for this benefit. Whatever money was left after their end-of-life living expenses could be divided inheritance within family units / possibly for college or housing of a dependent grandchild or family member. It was a different time.

The median cost for home health aide services in the U.S. is $27 per hour. Based on that rate, 24- hour care would come to $4,536 per week, or $18,144 per month. TO THINK THAT A RENTAL PROPERTY SET UP FOR A FAMILY MEMBER WON'T PAY FOR THE ELDER COST TODAY.... THE AMOUNT OF A RENTAL INCOME IS TOO LOW.

To think that cities now come in look around your investment plan for retirement and potentially plan to take personal rental income from such for such needs as homing persons who should be on social service housing expenses. Taking these long-term retirements monies away from dependents and elderly is abhorrent. Especially when it had been planned as just a survival stream for years.

We have been helping many in our community who have come to us regarding this ongoing fear for last few years of their lives as the threat to take away their planned income continues. I commend the city for taking the opportunity to stop threat to take away planned living expense /INHERTANCE PLANS from their constituents.

Lisa Carbajal, COO
GCM Realty
1505 Monument Blvd
Concord, CA 94520
Office 925-849-9244
Mobile 510 367-7954
BRE#02188195
[email protected]

From: Murthy Sama <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:09 PM
To: Ramirez, Amy <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Cc: 'david astoundrealestate.com' <[email protected]>; 'stuart astoundrealestate.com' <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Concord Rent Control Impact - Request to increase allowable rent cap

Dear City of Concord Council Member,

As you are preparing for the meeting on Mar 25th, 2025 on consideration of the rent cap.

SV Apartments LLC is an LLC formed by group of bay area residents, who live and work in the bay area. We invested our savings to purchase property. The property was purchased in late 2019. At time of purchase, the property had low rents, but we figured we would be able to raise rents over time using the state mandated rent increases.

Covid hit, rent freeze took effect. We lost over two years of rent increases. We were impacted of tenants not paying rent, and having to hold off eviction until permitted. None of these costs were compensated EVER by city / state. Landlords are LEFT TO SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN.

Now, the City of Concord has implemented drastic measures that is just designed for landlords to FAIL.

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

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

City of Concord Fees – Inspection / License / Rent Control Fees Unless one has been living in a cave, you would understand that all costs are sky rocketing…. utility companies, city fees, labor, supplies, you name it, everything is CREEPING UP DAILY ….how can the council justify the rent increases allowed in place? City of concord has new policy of inspections and the inspectors are going crazy with unlimited number of inspections costing us thousands of dollars. How much ever you keep updated, they keep on finding some minor issue and keep coming back so that they can MILK US WITH MORE BILLING. All these have become major expenses and scary to be a property owner.

Interest Rates:

Commercial properties do not get 30 year fixed interest rates. Now that the cheap rate periods have ended. The mortgage interest portion alone can double up with new rates. Not every property is fully paid off, and with the higher rates and no opportunity to increase rents, as owners we are in trouble. Might be City Council is NAÏVE, and assumes 100% of rent is POCKETED BY OWNERS. Please be aware that we have major expenses.

Request you to please adhere to the state laws and spare us. Please help us keep properties in good condition, and help us meet our expenses by keeping rents aligned to costs.

Regards
Murthy Sama
510-676-0985

March 24, 2025
Mayor, Carlyn Obringer
Vice Mayor, Laura Nakamura
Dominic Aliano
Laura Hoffmeister
Pablo Benavente
RE: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction
I’m writing to ask you to uphold the vote of February 25, 2025 to listen to the will of the voters and fully support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to amend the current Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction as it pertains to single family and condo owners of rental properties.

We appreciate all the time and effort put forth to finally give Concord landlords a voice. This is something we were left out of even knowing about all these past years.

Sincerely,
Gil and Carlene Visperas
Concord landlords of a condo for over 40 years.

From: Emily Wheeler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:29 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance

City Council members,

I’m writing to ask that you reject the proposed changes to the rent stabilization ordinance that went into effect only last year.

We Concord renters are in a scary situation—especially those of us on a fixed income. We are already paying a hefty percentage of that income to our landlords. Now, cuts to Social Security and other programs are looking very likely. That means less money to live on each month.

If my rent goes up five percent, I will have to pay my landlord $1500 more next year. And the following year, I will have to pay $1575 more on top of that. This is not tenable.

Landlords complain they’re not able to make a profit because insurance costs have risen, and they want to maintain their profit margin by charging higher rents. But it’s not right to allow landlords to pass their costs onto their tenants this way. Housing is a human right; profiting from property ownership is not a human right.

I urge you to reject the proposed higher rent cap.

Emily Wheeler
2277 Galindo St, apt B
Concord, CA 94520

cell: 510-725-5484

From: Joyce Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:46 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Joyce Kelly
620 Pinot Ct
Clayton, CA 94517
[email protected]

From: Joyce Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:50 PM
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: Penny Walker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:01 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Support fair rental housing policies in Concord

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Sincerely,
Penny Walker

From: Katherine Walley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance Public Comment Dear Councilmembers and Clerk,
Attached are my written public comments for the Council meeting taking place tomorrow, March 25th.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Katherine Walley
--
Katherine (Kathy) Walley
ASL and English Hearing Interpreter
Pronouns: She/Her
[email protected]

[email protected]

Public Comment Regarding Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance 3/24/2025
Carlyn Obringer, Mayor
Laura Nakamura, Vice Mayor
Laura Hoffmeister, Council Member
Dominic Aliano, Council Member
Pablo Benavente, Council Member

Dear Council:

I am a Walnut Creek resident, however I have immediate family members who are Concord homeowners, along with many friends who either own or rent in the City. I spent the majority of my childhood as a Concord resident.

Please vote NO on the proposed changes that weaken the rent stabilization and just cause for eviction law that was implemented in April 2024. Throughout the county we are seeing residents devastated by rent increases that rise more rapidly than incomes, and evictions against tenants in a system that is stacked against them. This not only harms renters, but has terrible ramifications for all of us living in California.

We know that supporting renters saves money that instead can be invested in the community.

Supporting renters has been proven to save taxpayer resources and improve the fairness and efficiency of our court system. As a case in point: According to a 2019 report, for every dollar spent in eviction prevention, LA would receive about $4.50 in avoided costs for: Emergency shelters, Local rehousing programs, and Mental health and healthcare services.

By maintaining a strong rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance, we can promote residential stability, which in turn will have positive ripple effects across the city and county.

Please vote NO on the new ordinance draft.

Thank you.

Katherine Walley

From: Krishna Palvadi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:05 PM
To: Ramirez, Amy <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Cc: david astoundrealestate.com <[email protected]>; stuart astoundrealestate.com <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: City of Concord Rent Control Impact - Request to increase allowable rent cap Dear City of Concord Council Member,
As you are preparing for the meeting on Mar 25th, 2025 on consideration of the rent cap.

SV Apartments LLC is an LLC formed by group of bay area residents, who live and work in the bay area. We invested our savings to purchase 1895 San Vincente Dr, a 27 unit property. The property was purchased in late 2019. At time of purchase, the property had low rents, but we figured we would be able to raise rents over time using the state mandated rent increases.

Covid hit, rent freeze took effect. We lost over two years of rent increases. We were impacted of tenants not paying rent, and having to hold off eviction until permitted. None of these costs were compensated EVER by city / state. Landlords are LEFT TO SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN.

Now, the City of Concord has implemented drastic measures that is just designed for landlords to FAIL.

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

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

City of Concord Fees – Inspection / License / Rent Control Fees Unless one has been living in a cave, you would understand that all costs are sky rocketing…. utility companies, city fees, labor, supplies, you name it, everything is CREEPING UP DAILY ….how can the council justify the rent increases allowed in place? City of concord has new policy of inspections and the inspectors are going crazy with unlimited number of inspections costing us thousands of dollars. How much ever you keep updated, they keep on finding some minor issue and keep coming back so that they can MILK US WITH MORE BILLING. All these have become major expenses and scary to be a property owner.

Interest Rates:

Commercial properties do not get 30 year fixed interest rates. Now that the cheap rate periods have ended. The mortgage interest portion alone can double up with new rates. Not every property is fully paid off, and with the higher rates and no opportunity to increase rents, as owners we are in trouble. Might be City Council is NAÏVE, and assumes 100% of rent is POCKETED BY OWNERS. Please be aware that we have major expenses.

Request you to please adhere to the state laws and spare us. Please help us keep properties in good condition, and help us meet our expenses by keeping rents aligned to costs.

Regards
--
Thanks & Regards
Krishna Palvadi

From: Greg Brumley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:26 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; John Nunes <[email protected]>; Jo Sciarroni <[email protected]>; Bob Byers <[email protected]>; David Nardi <[email protected]>; Brian Hill <[email protected]>; Tammy Brumley <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Concord Rent Control ordinance

Greg Brumley

Greg Brumley
Brumley Properties LLC
Concord City Council,
Mayor Carlyn Obringer
& Council Members Laura Hoffmeister, Laura Nakamura,
Dominic Aliano, & Pablo Benavente
Re: Update of Rent Control & Just Cause Eviction ordinance Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to thank you for your willingness to review the facts and make changes to the ill-advised ordinance that was passed last year.

The existing annual adjustment limitation in the ordinance does not permit a property owner to keep pace with increased operating costs. By adjusting to a flat limit of 5%, property owners will be much closer to covering their actual property expense increases.

The Just Cause Eviction provisions created a serious burden on people, and exempting those owners with fewer than 3 properties alleviates a huge burden on small rental providers.

I also urge you to consider other exemptions. For instance, in my 20 unit building, I would be required to pay the tenants in excess of $235,000, if our building suffered a fire or earthquake, making the property uninhabitable. I don’t think that was the intent of the ordinance, but there are no exemptions for involuntary relocation resulting from a disaster. The Concord ordinance should be amended to exempt any Just Cause payment provisions if a tenant is displaced involuntarily, such as after an earthquake, fire, or flood.

I hope you will continue to review and correct some of the most egregious provisions that can result in the unintended consequences outlined. I would welcome a meeting with any of you to further discuss ideas that property owners can live with and that result in balanced tenant protections.

Regards,
Greg Brumley

From: Sylvia Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: No on the Proposal to Overturn Rent Protection/Control

We were told we needed to forward our letter below to you also to get into the city records. Thanks.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sylvia Gonzalez <[email protected]>
To: Carlyn Obringer <[email protected]>; Laura Nakamura <[email protected]>; Dominic Aliano <[email protected]>; Laura Hoffmeister <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 at 05:11:30 PM PDT
Subject: No on the Proposal to Overturn Rent Protection/Control

Dear Mayor and Concord City Council Members-

As residents/home owners of Concord for the past 36 years (and owners of 2 Concord business over those years) we are writing today to express our concern at the proposal to overturn the rent control/protection voted on last year.

We understand this is being brought forward by the new council member, Pablo Benavente. What a shock to find out that a leader we all thought was for working families and progressive ideas is now for wealthy donors. Disappointing to say the least!! We feel betrayed.

Low income residents in Concord must be protected! We are entering a period of serious economic uncertainty and hardship in our city and country. THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO UNDO THIS RENT PROTECTION FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES. We are against this. Keep the rent control in place please as you vote this week. We don't need more families becoming homeless.

Thank you.

- Sylvia and Miguel Gonzalez
3537 Bonari Court
Concord, CA. 94519
(925) 685-4945

From: Harry Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 6:19 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting - Rent Control

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 is 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 property at a safe 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, in lieu of returning to what is truly a fair AB1482 rent control law, I ask that the council at least move forward in confirming it’s vote in favor of the fixed 5% rent increase.

Sincerely

Harry Lewis
Managing Member
Clayton Creek Apartments, LLC

From: Jean Claude (JJ) B. Mallein Jr. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 7:03 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Residential Tenant Protection Program

Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers,

We appreciate this Councils reconsideration of rent control and just cause eviction provisions, and we request that the Council proceed with the proposed changes along with alignment of the rent cap to California state law AB1482.

While the proposed rent cap of 5% is a move in a sustainable direction to keep up with all the rising costs of property ownership and running a rental property business in the City of Concord, since Concord’s current rent control ordinance lacks a “rent banking” provision, housing providers need flexibility to raise rents more than 5% should utilities, insurance, labor and materials continue to raise in excess of 5% per year. Specifically, without “rent banking” , rent increases are “use it or lose it” , so housing providers are forced to raise rents annually or risk being perpetually behind rising costs of property ownership and running a profitable rental property business in the City of Concord.

Housing providers, like any other business, are constantly evaluating the need to raise rent prices to cover operating expenses, and one of the most expensive operating costs for all housing providers is a vacancy, which we go to tremendous lengths to avoid.

When we have a vacancy, not only do we lose monthly rent, but there are turnover costs to make the unit rentable, which at a minimum are well in excess of $2,000 between painting and cleaning alone. These costs may be covered by the vacating resident’s security deposit, but generally they are not due to normal wear and tear limitations. Moreover, since most prospective residents are providing 30-days notice to their current housing providing, they generally want to be accepted at the new apartment before providing this notice. As a result, it generally takes between 1-3 weeks of advertising, plus 3-5 business days to collect and process an application, plus the 30-days notice, which doesn’t even include the time required to find someone to paint and clean the apartment. Adding all these items up, we are lucky if we can re-rent a vacancy within two (2) months, which means a single vacancy will generally cost us a minimum of $5,000 -$6,000

. Accordingly, housing providers cannot afford to simply raise rents to raise rents and risk the unsustainable operating expenses related to vacancies.

The current rent cap was completely unsustainable and the proposed rent cap is not sustainable long term. Housing providers, like all the other businesses in Concord, need to make a reasonable return to operate a sustainable business.

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

JJ Mallein
Housing Provider

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

From: Vish Jakka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 7:54 PM
To: Ramirez, Amy <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; cc: david astoundrealestate.com <[email protected]>; stuart astoundrealestate.com <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control impact - Request to increase the cap

Hello Concord city Council Member(s),

I am a resident of the bay area and I have invested in the city of concord through 2 partnerships, SV Apartments LLC and Basset Apartments LLC. We started the investment back in 2017 and 2019. At the time of our purchase, rents were low and we were hoping to raise rents over a period of time.

However, since Covid, the number of restrictions put on rent increases, handling of non-paying tenants etc have been detrimental to us, the drastic changes implemented seem to be designed to set landlords to FAIL.

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

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

City of Concord Fees – Inspection / License / Rent Control Fees Unless one has been living in a cave, you would understand that all costs are sky rocketing…. utility companies, city fees, labor, supplies, you name it, everything is CREEPING UP DAILY ….how can the council justify the rent increases allowed in place? City of concord has new policy of inspections and the inspectors are going crazy with unlimited number of inspections costing us thousands of dollars. How much ever you keep updated, they keep on finding some minor issue and keep coming back so that they can MILK US WITH MORE BILLING. All these have become major expenses and scary to be a property owner.

Interest Rates:

Commercial properties do not get 30 year fixed interest rates. Now that the cheap rate periods have ended. The mortgage interest portion alone can double up with new rates. Not every property is fully paid off, and with the higher rates and no opportunity to increase rents, as owners we are in trouble. Might be City Council is NAÏVE, and assumes 100% of rent is POCKETED BY OWNERS. Please be aware that we have major expenses.

Request you to please adhere to the state laws and spare us. Please help us keep properties in good condition, and help us meet our expenses by keeping rents aligned to costs.

Regards
Vish

From: Theresa Luginbuhl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 8:06 PM
To: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Reject changes to the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance

Hello Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Clerk, I am a property owner and resident of Concord and I am writing today to urge you to reject changes to the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance. This ordinance provides needed protections for renters in our city at a time when securing and maintaining housing is already difficult enough.

Please do not make changes to weaken this ordinance before it even has sufficient time to prove itself as valuable. One reason our city is great is because of our diversity. Keeping rent affordable over time ensures that members of our community will be able to stay here, contribute to the local economy, and raise their families here. Please choose to support working class tenants over corporations.

Thank you,
Theresa Rivera

From: Angara, Jojo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 8:29 PM
To: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Council Agenda Item 5A

⚠ WARNING: This email came from a STUDENT mailbox. DO NOT Click links or open attachments unless you know the student and are expecting this email.

Thank you, Wendy and Staff.

It's time to make a drastic change in how this City of Concord is administered. I have all the time as a retiree and a student furthering my academic knowledge in different fields.

I hope to meet you tomorrow in the meeting room.

Warmest regards,

From: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:34 PM
To: Angara, Jojo <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Council Agenda Item 5A

Thank you for your comments. They will be inserted into the record, posted to the website, and sent to the City Council prior to the March 25th Council meeting.

Wendy McAuley
Executive Assistant | Office of the City Manager & City Council City of Concord | www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3038 | [email protected]
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

From: Jose Antonio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:21 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

STOP RENT INCREASE

To all City of Concord Council members. I migrated here 1998 and until now still renting. I am requesting your office to strictly retain 3% or LOWER so Hardworking Taxpayers can survive INFLATION! It’s already an ABUSE that we pay high gas price coupled with rent increases. Enough is Enough or will carry the fight in SOCIAL MEDIA!

Sincerely,

Jose Antonio
1501 Grove Way
Concord, CA 94519
[email protected]

From: J2 Ventures <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 9:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Ordinance

I am writing with respect to the proposed changes to the rent ordinance. My husband and I own 3 single family rental houses in Concord, which we manage on our own. We support most of the proposed changes, as they appear to bring the ordinance more in line with state law. However, we would like to see the minimum number of units needed to trigger the eviction rules increased. At only 3 units, you are going to impose an undue administrative burden on people like us who may not have the resources or systems to easily manage compliance with the ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jessica Grossman

From: jim yan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:51 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

jim yan
1610 Frisbie Ct
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Camille Calenda <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:50 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

Repair & maintenance costs, taxes, HOA fees, everything has gone up but housing providers are being punished for providing an essential part of the community. We're being gouged every which way and it's not fair!!

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Camille Calenda
2085 Olivera Rd
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Steven Murvine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:54 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Fix the flawed rental housing ordinance

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a constituent in District 2. As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rental housing policy with State law.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal responds to the majority of District 2 and Concord voters who rejected an expansion of rent control during the November 2022 election.

Please listen to the voters and save the city from punitive laws that will only hurt renters and homeowners.

Please vote YES and fix the flawed rental ordinance.

Sincerely,

Steven Murvine
2416 Pepper Dr
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Brian Brooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:58 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Fix the flawed rental housing ordinance

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a constituent in District 2. As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rental housing policy with State law.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal responds to the majority of District 2 and Concord voters who rejected an expansion of rent control during the November 2022 election.

Please listen to the voters and save the city from punitive laws that will only hurt renters and homeowners.

Please vote YES and fix the flawed rental ordinance.

Sincerely,

Brian Brooks
1950 Encima Dr
Concord, CA 94519
[email protected]

From: Sandra Matlock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:02 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Sandra Matlock
1145 Meadow Ln
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Patrice Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:10 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Fix the flawed rental housing ordinance

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a constituent in District 2. As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rental housing policy with State law.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal responds to the majority of District 2 and Concord voters who rejected an expansion of rent control during the November 2022 election.

Please listen to the voters and save the city from punitive laws that will only hurt renters and homeowners.

Please vote YES and fix the flawed rental ordinance.

Sincerely,

Patrice Moore
2062 Carmel Dr
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Maliyah McCullough <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:12 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Balanced Housing Policy

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a resident in the City of Concord, District 2.

As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s rent control proposal.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to cap rents at 5% + CPI, maxed at 7% will prevent rent gouging and give rental homeowners flexibility to maintain their properties.

This is a balanced policy that will protect renters and housing in Concord.

Please vote YES.

Sincerely,

Maliyah McCullough
1655 Galindo St Apt 1350
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Kaio Sen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Balanced Housing Policy

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a resident in the City of Concord, District 2.

As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s rent control proposal.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to cap rents at 5% + CPI, maxed at 7% will prevent rent gouging and give rental homeowners flexibility to maintain their properties.

This is a balanced policy that will protect renters and housing in Concord.

Please vote YES.

Sincerely,

Kaio Sen
1676 Grant St
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Andrea Reyes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 6:00 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Balanced Housing Policy

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a resident in the City of Concord, District 2.

As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s rent control proposal.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to cap rents at 5% + CPI, maxed at 7% will prevent rent gouging and give rental homeowners flexibility to maintain their properties.

This is a balanced policy that will protect renters and housing in Concord.

Please vote YES.

Sincerely,

Andrea Reyes
3401 Hillsborough Dr
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Joel Fedaie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:41 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Council Agenda Item 5A

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Joel Fedaie
3540 Chestnut Ave
Concord, CA 94519
[email protected]

From: Leticia Ramsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Balanced Housing Policy

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a resident in the City of Concord, District 2.

As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s rent control proposal.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to cap rents at 5% + CPI, maxed at 7% will prevent rent gouging and give rental homeowners flexibility to maintain their properties.

This is a balanced policy that will protect renters and housing in Concord.

Please vote YES.

Sincerely,

Leticia Ramsey
2590 Saratoga Ave
Concord, CA 94519
[email protected]

From: Wendy Hershey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 7:14 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: ¡¡¡ Reject Pablo Benavente's proposal !!!
Dear City Clerk Fockler,
I am a resident in the City of Concord, District 2 who supports rent control in Concord.

Please do NOT support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s rent control proposal.

We have worked hard to get controls on the very high rents in Concord, and I'm counting on you not to go backwards.

Thank you for not caving to Sacramento-based CCA money and greed . Thank you for protecting Concord renters.

Sincerely,
Wendy Hershey
3140 Euclid Ave
Concord, CA 94519
[email protected]

From: Luisa Orozco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 7:32 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Balanced Housing Policy

Dear City Clerk Fockler,

I am a resident in the City of Concord, District 2.

As my City Council representative, I respectfully ask that you support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s rent control proposal.

Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to cap rents at 5% + CPI, maxed at 7% will prevent rent gouging and give rental homeowners flexibility to maintain their properties.

This is a balanced policy that will protect renters and housing in Concord.

Please vote YES.

Sincerely,

Luisa Orozco
1776 Grant St
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]

From: Greg Kremenliev <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 8:52 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Tenants rights

All across the country, government, university and business leaders from Chuck Schumer to virtually every university head and major news outlets are afraid. They are giving in to Trump and Musk. We expect more from Concord and this council. Which side are you on? Reject the two draconian ammendments and protect the most vulnerable of our community. And then set up a community (not industry) led task force to strengthen not weaken the laws.

Greg Kremenliev
Cell: (925)-451-4135

From: KATHY ROBERTS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:03 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Tenant Protection Program

City Council members and Mayor Obringer,

As a 25-year resident and homeowner in Concord and current landlord, I feel compelled to share my thoughts on your heavy-handed decision regarding rent control. Your concern for protecting Concord tenants at the expense of tax-paying landlords is insulting. Consequently, I've decided to sell my single-family rental property in Concord instead of participating in this losing game you have devised. The absurdly low 2.52% increase we are allowed doesn't even come close to covering the annual property tax increase, the expected huge insurance premiums to come after the fires, and the ability to save money for future expenses. This paltry increase means I'm allowed to increase a $2500 a month rental by a whopping $63 a month. Last year, I replaced the HVAC because I believe in properly maintaining a property, even a rental. I now regret that decision. The unfortunate thing for you, City Council, is that I am the type of landlord you want because I care about my tenant and property and have always been more than fair. I have purposely kept the rent lower than what the market bears because I care about my tenant and his circumstances. However, your decision to give renters more rights and protections than a tax-paying landlord is more than I can take. This ordinance has only accomplished one thing. Lessened your rental pool by one unit, and likely more because other owners will and have made the same decision. Your decision has just given Concord one less rental, and my tenant is moving to a place that will cost him more. How does this help anyone? This decision on your part was wrong and misguided. Instead of going after the mom-and- pop landlords, why wasn't the focus on corporations that withhold units from the market and manipulate rents to increase their profits? That's where your energy and efforts should have gone. Despite the hours of opposition you heard, I am so disappointed and disillusioned by all the members who voted for this. Obviously, the decision was already made, and you who sat on the board should be ashamed of yourselves.

Although my SFR rental will be on the market next month, if you hope to prevent more landlords from making the same decision, I highly encourage you to amend the ordinance as proposed by eliminating single-family homes and condominiums from the Tenant Protection Program.

City Council members and Mayor: This town is going downhill. Vacant buildings, businesses gone, gang activity, and the homeless everywhere. What businesses would want to be associated with this city? This is not the Concord I moved to 25 years ago. The city can't even get its act together to keep the Welcome to Concord display attractive. It's shoddy looking, littered with garbage, and not

welcoming at all - PLUS, it's on your way out of town, not as you enter, where one would expect to be welcomed. I have been waiting for the city to make it right for years, but I've given up.

I hope at least some of you have read this email. I don't usually do this sort of thing, but I feel forced to express my opinion because I'm tired of being pushed around by people whose decisions affect me and who have little regard for the circumstances and hardships those decisions have on someone like me.

Sincerely,
Kathy Roberts
Constituent of Mayor Obringer

From: yiting ding <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 7:19 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent 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 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,

Christina and

From: east ocean <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 10:34 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Subject: Comments for 3/25/25 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5A

Pls see attached file 'eo_comments-coc-mtg_032525.pdf'

Madam Mayor & Council Members,
There are two sayings, “Virtue is its own reward”, and “No good deed goes unpunished.” While we operate according to the former, our experience has been the latter, especially after the adoption of Rent Control in Concord.

As a small, mom-and-pop housing provider, we manage several multi-family bldgs & SFH/ condos. The older buildings rent for ~50% of market, with many long-term tenants and seniors. Because of lower rents, we have deferred maintenance, and it is all we can do to keep things in good condition.

I write to share our experience and thoughts, and ask you to consider the following requests.

1. Revert to AB1482, specifying a rent cap of 5% +CPI. The current 60% CPI cap is unworkable. Our operating expenses exceed this amount many times over. To give you some idea: Utilities like insurance increased by 300%, garbage collection by 10%. Materials like lumber & steel increased 30-50% before tariffs. Hourly rates for labor/ services: $75 for handyman, $250 for plumber. It is impossible to absorb these costs and stay in business. Recently, very large rate increases were approved for insurance companies (State Farm) & utilities (PGE), for them to continue to do business in CA: why are housing providers treated differently?
While a flat cap of 5% is an improvement, the 5% +CPI is what we need. If you approve anything less than this amount, I ask that you exempt any property with rents that are less than either the comparable HUD/ market rate or that from the city's rent registry before subjecting it to the rent cap. Properties with rents below market rate won't have enough reserves to operate successfully.

2. Allow for 'Rent Banking': Our rents are below market, and we do not increase them yearly. In fact, our last rent increase was 5 years ago. By not having a provision in the Ordinance for rent banking, those increases are lost forever. Even Oakland, with its extremely restrictive rent policy, allows rent banking for 10 years. Without 'rent banking', we will be forced to increase rent every year, to the maximum amount allowed.

3. Abolish the rent registry: Although the requirement to include personally-identifying information for tenants is removed, complying with this requirement is an undue burden for housing providers in terms of time and money. There is no guarantee that the info provided will remain secure. More importantly, I feel there is no need for the City to have this information, as the rent and other fees charged is a private agreement between housing provider and tenant. In no case does the City need to be involved: If the terms of the agreement are unfair to either party, there will be none. If the agreement exists, then it occurred without the City's intervention. To illustrate my point another way: does the City ask stores to report prices they charge for eggs?

4. Reduce MF inspection frequencies & costs: MF properties are inspected annually: exteriors yearly, and interiors every two years. A great deal of time, effort, and money is spent in preparing before each inspection and in making corrections after.

Some inspections have focused on paperwork rather than habitability. For example, the inspector checked if we obtained permits before doing repairs/ improvements. Did you know replacing a hot water heater needs a 'plumbing permit'? Or tiling a kitchen counter backsplash needs a 'kitchen remodel permit'? These are significant costs, especially as older buildings then become subject to all current codes. I cannot help but think that these requirements are just a money grab on the part of the city.

We barely complete corrections before it is time to have inspections again. Our limited resources would be better used if we are allowed to make improvements according to our priorities and abilities. Frequent, overlapping inspections are a poor use of everyone's time, effort, and money.

5. Exempt all SFH/ condos from Just Cause: We already have too many regulations to comply with in MF properties.

Including SFH/ condos discourages housing providers from offering them for rent. We badly need housing of all types: MF, SFH, ADUs. Legislation should encourage, not discourage, people to participate.

Lastly, it has been said that it is foolish to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome. Many cities have tried Rent Control, and the policy has failed all those involved: tenants, housing providers, and even the cities themselves.

You can now correct the well-intentioned but mistaken policy of Rent Control and restore Concord's reputation as a well-run city that affords equal opportunity for all residents.Thank you for your time and consideration.

From: Jizeng Jin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 11:11 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Support fair rental housing policies in Concord

Dear City officials,

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your support and advocacy to reconsider the strict rent control measures. Your efforts are deeply appreciated, as they help maintain a balanced and fair housing market for both tenants and landlords alike.

I would like to share some good experiences as both a landlord and previous renter. Years ago, I was a renter in California, my landlord did not increase rents every year because we paid rent on time and kept the rental unit in good condition. A few years later, I became a landlord, I did the same to some of my renters. This is a Win-win situation.

Once strict rent control is established, I feel that I have to raise the rent according to what is allowed because I feel that I lost the freedom to keep my good tenants by offering them lower (than market) rent. At the same time, they lost the money saving opportunity by being good tenants.

I hope that you can help the landlord and tenant to find some common ground and keep quality rental business running in Concord.

Thank you very much!

Jizeng

From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 11:36 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to City Council and Staff about Rent Stabilization and 3 25 2025 City Council Meeting

Dear Mayor, City Council and Staff:

Thank you for taking the time and effort to reconsider certain of the terms of the recently enacted rent stabilization ordinance in Concord. I have been rather upset about what 60 percent of CPI with a 3 percent cap will mean to me, my family and our tenants. I strongly support a flat 5 percent maximum annual cap with no reference to CPI or to a percentage of CPI.

While 5 percent will be more restrictive than the statewide rent control, it will reduce the massive burden that the current Concord ordinance places on housing providers, especially housing providers who have long term tenants at below market rents (which we do).

I also want to share with you that I think some of the supporters of the current Concord rent ordinance have made housing providers out as having characteristics different from the tenants they serve and have painted housing providers in a negative light. In many cases, including our case, we are very much like the tenants we serve. My wife is first generation in this country. She moved here as a refugee with two children, four suitcases and less than $700 in her pocket. She was sponsored by a private employer to work in an assisted living facility for many years. She obtained her green card while working for them and subsequently obtained citizenship. She has worked very hard, as have I, to be able to afford to purchase an apartment building in Concord. We have owned our apartment building for over 20 years. It is our only rental property and we have put all that we have in to it after working for over 50 years. We are looking for the property to provide monthly income for us as we enter our retirement years. The current Concord rent ordinance will cause the net income from the property to fall not just in inflation adjusted terms, but in non- adjusted dollars as well. Over a period of years this will be a disaster for us. In fact it is already a turning out to be a disaster as we are behind on raising rents and expenses are rising faster than the expected income under the current rent stabilization ordinance.

I have just finished preparing our income and expense data for our 2024 taxes. Every expense category is up: repairs, maintenance, supplies, materials, landscaping, licenses and fees, pest control, property taxes, utilities (water which we pay as the housing provider) and insurance. Insurance is off the charts and will be even higher this year. We may not even be able to keep our same insurance carrier. It is fair to say that with the exception of insurance and property taxes, our expenses by category are up 7 to 17 percent year over year from 2023 to 2024. We hope they will not continue to rise at this rate! The current ordinance only allows us to increase rents by

2.52 percent!

For these reasons we are hoping that some balance and fairness will come back to the process and the council will support and pass a 5 percent annual cap on rents without reference to CPI.

The current Concord ordinance has addressed many items which are important, but I feel like to got it wrong about the annual rent increases.

A little bit about our tenants:

1. Most of our tenants are long-time residents, the average tenancy is about 10 years.

2. One family was an original tenant at the time we purchased 20 years ago, they then moved to Tracy a few years back and then decided the commute was too long and moved back.

3. Four families have been with us for almost 20 years. One of these tenants had lived as a young child some years ago in the same exact unit. He was so surprised and happy to see that the unit was available for rent when he was out looking for a home for his young family. This is his family’s long-term home!

4. Five of our tenants have been recommended by me to people I know to do work (cleanup work, landscaping, painting and light remodeling work).

5. Two of our tenants have been included in social events with me and others on more than one occasion.

6. Three of our tenants have moved out to purchase their own homes.

7. All of our tenants have my cell number and call and text me with any needs they may have.

8. Four of our units are covered under the HELP program and have below market rents under the terms of that program. Our rents for those units are even below the levels allowed under the program.

We feel like we are good housing providers and that the housing providers who are not so good (which appear to be a very small group) have brought issues upon us which are causing us to suffer.

Once again thank you for your time and effort in addressing the short comings of the current Concord rent stabilization ordinance.

BTW, the views I have shared above are my views as a housing provider and do not necessarily align with the views of any group I may be a member of.

All the best,

James Dye

From: FD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:15 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair rental policy needed!!

Dear Concil members,

As a property owner in Concord, I strongly advise you to adopt a fair rental policy.

I want to thank Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers Benavente and Hoffmeister for their willingness to fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

As a housing provider, I strongly support Councilmember Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. The state's formula of 5%+CPI creates a more consistent standard for renters, housing providers, and ensure a more balanced housing market in Concord.

Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. I ask you to vote YES to bring Concord's rent cap more closely in line with the state's formula.

Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Frank

From: Lisa Chow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:50 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]> Subject: Item 5A - Support

Hi Ms. Fockler,

Attached please find a letter from County Supervisor Carlson supporting Item 5A at tonight’s City Council meeting.

Please let me know if you need anything else from our office.

Thank you.

Lisa Chow (she/her)
Chief of Staff
County Supervisor Ken Carlson
District IV , Contra Costa County

(925) 655-2350

From: Tim McGallian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:34:25 PM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 5.a - Letter of Support

Dear Joelle,

Please see attached letter regarding Agenda Item 5.a for tonight’s meeting.

Thank you,

Tim McGallian

March 25, 2025

Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

RE: Comments on Agenda Item 5.a relating to the Residential Tenant Protection Program

Dear Concord City Council:

On behalf of the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce, I write to share our comments on Agenda Item 5.a relating to the Residential Tenant Protection Program. As the leading voice for the business community in Concord, we understand the critical importance of ensuring a balanced housing policy that supports both economic development and housing stability.

We support aligning the Annual Allowable Rent Increase with the statewide standard of 5% plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI), up to a maximum of 7%. This approach mirrors California’s existing rent control framework under AB 1482, which provides a clear and predictable guideline for both tenants and housing providers. Creating consistency with state law helps to avoid a confusing patchwork of local regulations that can hinder housing investment and economic growth.

Additionally, we encourage limiting the scope of the Just Cause eviction requirements to reflect those established in AB 1482. This helps to maintain a fair and predictable environment for property owners while safeguarding tenant protections.

By advancing policies that strike a thoughtful balance between tenant protections and housing viability, we can continue to support workforce retention, economic mobility, and business investment in Concord. For these reasons, the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce supports the proposed amendments and looks forward to partnering with the City to foster a thriving and inclusive economy.

Sincerely,

Tim McGallian
Chairman, Board of Directors
Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce

From: Ramirez, Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:28 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Feedback

Hello,

A District 5 resident called the Mayor’s line and left a voicemail stating that she hopes Laura Nakamura will listen to the voice of the voters by not supporting the rent control ordinance which City Council is trying to pass. The caller stated she is very much opposed to this ordinance. She did not leave a name or callback number.

Thank you,
Amy Ramirez
Administrative Clerk II | Office of the City Manager & City Council City of Concord | www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3233 | [email protected]

From: Astrid Z. Mallein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Residential Tenant Protection Program

Mayor Obringer and Councilmembers,

Thank you for the reconsideration of rent control and just cause eviction provisions, and we request that the Council proceed with the proposed changes along with alignment of the rent cap to California state law AB1482.

The current rent cap was completely unsustainable and unfair to housing providers. Like all the other businesses in Concord housing providers need to make a reasonable return to operate their businesses.

The downside of rent control is that suppressing the return on rental property investment does little to incentivize investors to increase the supply (or quality) of housing and the current local ordinance has already had dramatic impacts to our business. There are no caps ton our expenses (utilities, insurance, losses from tenants that vacate without notice, security deposits have also been reduced and don’t cover all the damages tenants have created to our units.

Vacancy is truly the most expensive cost housing providers face and we have to obviously be sensitive to rent raises. Which is why many of Concord’s housing providers were already under market in rents prior to this new ordinance.

Despite innovations to rent-control laws meant to maintain the housing supply, economists have found that following the introduction of these policies, rental stock typically declines through channels like the conversion of rental units to owner-occupied units and major unit renovations. In the long run, such policies may lead to a permanent change in the housing supply mix, which could also make renting less affordable.

Because housing providers are limited in the amount of rent, they can charge, decreased gross potential revenue can translate into lower valuations. Another potential impact of rent caps is that they may discourage new investment in rental properties since landlords may be less likely to purchase or maintain rental properties if they cannot charge market-based rents.

We support and demand Concord restore the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, re-aligning with the existing state law AB1482.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Astrid Mallein
Concord Housing Provider

Astrid

From: Lori Landberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Submission of Public Comments for today's City Council Meeting-Mar 25

Please see attached for the comments I am submitting for tonight's City Council meeting. The email I received stated that comments received before 3 p.m. on March 25 will become part of the official record and be shared with Councilmembers prior to the meeting.

Thank you,

Lori Landberg
Concord Resident and Landlord of a single-family home rental property Dear City of Concord Councilmembers,
I respectively request all Councilmembers to reconsider the original ordinance enacted in April 2024 and to remove single-family homes from being subject to the financial penalties under the Just Cause for Evictions provisions of the City's Residential Tenant Protections Program Chapter

19.40 Ordinance. The current suggestion of exempting single-family homes owned by landlords with two or fewer such properties is a at least a reasonable compromise. I believe there should also be an exemption if a substantial amount of advance notice to vacate is given to the tenants (such as at least 6 months) even for owners that hold more than two properties.

I am an owner of a single-family home in Concord that I have been renting since 2002, after inheriting the property from my parents in 2000. In those 24 years of ownership, I have had only three different tenants (one of those was my son who lived there for the last 6 years until he purchased his own home in 2024). This home is the generational wealth built and passed along to me by my parents who moved to Concord in 1959. I was born in Concord and raised in this home.

As a landlord owning only ONE single-family home rental property in Concord, I find the Ordinance enacted by the City of Concord in April 2024 to be extremely punitive financially to landlords like me. I am an individual, not a corporation with deep pockets. Over the past 24 years, I have reinvested significant dollars back into my property from the rental income it earns, in an effort to make for better living conditions for my tenants and to improve the property's value...which directly benefits the City of Concord and the County of Contra Costa. I am a senior citizen who likely will need to move back into this property myself in the next few years or I may need to just sell it.

Why should I be penalized by having to pay out 2 months’ rent plus $2,000 (almost $8,000 in my case) just because I ask a tenant to move out at the end of their lease (even if I give them many months’ notice)? This significant financial penalty infringes on my rights as an owner to make legitimate decisions about my property. If proper notice is given and if a lease term has expired (or if month-to-month rental notices are properly met), it is unreasonably punitive to subject property owners to financial penalties for relocation and moving expenses. This rule is a huge deterrent to continuing to be a landlord in Concord. It significantly discourages people like me from wanting to rent out properties in Concord at all. The next time a tenant voluntarily vacates my property; the current rule encourages me to stop renting the property ever again. The rule is not encouraging landlords to provide consistent rental opportunities to the people of Concord but rather discourages owners from renting single-family home properties. To me this only worsens the rental housing crisis, it does nothing to improve it. What we need is more available housing units, not these arbitrary rent control measures which backfire.

I have a friend who also rents out a single-family home. She has given her long-time tenants a full nine months of notice that they will need to vacate in September of 2025 because her adult son wants to move back to Concord and move into that home. She should not be penalized financially for this decision. She has given the tenant’s ample notice to be able to save money and move out.

I implore the Councilmembers to reconsider and to remove single-family homes from being subject to the financial penalties under the Just Cause for Evictions provisions of the City's Residential Tenant Protections Program Chapter 19.40 Ordinance.

Sincerely,
Lori Landberg, long-time Concord resident

From: Kristina C <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 2:29 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Residential Tenant Protections

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I'm writing regarding the proposed amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program (Chapter 19.40). As a 30+ year resident of Concord, I want to share how these changes might affect my family.

Last year, both income earners in our household became disabled, one permanently. This followed significant financial hardships during the COVID-19 lockdowns. We've been in our current rental home (SFR) for 17 years, with our landlord who owns multiple properties, but only two in Concord.

I'm not necessarily advocating to keep the ordinance unchanged. However, I want the Council to understand that real people will be impacted by the proposed exclusion of owners with only two properties in Concord. In our case, our landlord has expressed intention to sell, which would leave us vulnerable to displacement during an extremely difficult time.

This situation has given me pause to reconsider my own perspective on housing laws. While I understand the reasoning behind these amendments, I hope the Council will carefully weigh how these changes affect long-term residents in single family homes facing challenging circumstances, many of which are the direct result of CA policy over the last few years.

By the end of this year, we anticipate our situation will stabilize, but in the meantime, I ask you to thoughtfully consider the human impact of these policy adjustments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kristina Caspari

From: Tom Coleman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 2:51 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Sustainable Housing Policies.

Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,

I urge you to address and fix Concord’s deeply flawed rental housing ordinance.

I strongly support Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to align Concord’s rent control ordinance with California state law. Our city needs balanced housing policies that fairly protect both renters and housing providers, ensuring stability in the rental housing market.

The current ordinance is unsustainable and threatens to worsen housing instability.

This is an opportunity to make this right. Please vote YES on March 25 to amend Concord's rental housing policies.

Thank you!
Tom Coleman
Sent from my iPhone

From: Riggins Medina, Vickie <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:59 PM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: March 25, 2025 City Council Meeting_Public Comment

Hi Joelle,

Attached is a public comment from Larry Daly for tonight’s City Council Meeting. Thank you.

Best regards,

Dr. Vickie Riggins Medina (PhD)
Principal Housing Program Analyst

Please visit www.cityofconcord.org/938/Residential-Rent-Registry-Program for more information.

City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3097 | * [email protected] 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519

1 Riggins Medina, Vickie
From: Larry Daly Jr. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 2:45 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia; Alex Gonzalez
Subject: RE: Question & suggestion regarding leases
“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.”

Hi Sophia,

Thank you again. Yes I am good with you including my comments as part of the public correspondence.

Understood regarding the minimum lease requirements. Thank you again for your help.

Thank you,
Larry

Larry Daly
AAA Property Management
1220 Diamond Way Suite 220
Concord, CA 94520
Office: (925)825-7283 ext 108
Cell: (925)768-6350
Fax: (925)671-2840
[email protected]
BRE#01339992

From: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 2:38 PM
To: Larry Daly Jr. <[email protected]>; Alex Gonzalez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question & suggestion regarding leases

Hi Larry,

Thank you for your feedback. Would you like for me to include your comments as part of public correspondence received for the March 25th Council meeting? It will be shared with the full Council and will be accessible for the public to see. If not, you could also send another email by 3 PM on March 25th and/or come to the March 25th meeting to speak on this topic.

To answer your question below- Council has not directed any changes to be drafted to the minimum lease term provisions of the Ordinance and these regulations would still apply to all rental units in Concord.

Thank You,

2 Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
 (925) 671-3387 |  [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.

From: Larry Daly Jr. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 2:25 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Alex Gonzalez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question & suggestion regarding leases
“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.” Hi Sophia,
That helps a lot. We will continue to work under the current ordinance’s rules.

Do you know if the ordinance is changed to exempt homeowners with 3 properties or less in Concord if minimum lese requirements will apply to these owners?
I do not know if you have anything to do with the drafting of the ordinance or not, but if you do or could relay a message to whomever is responsible for the drafting. The fact that owners cannot give a tenant a notice to move so they can sell their property is a major problem for many owners. I personally know owners who have already sold their rental properties when their tenants gave notice to move and 1031 exchanged their property into other similar properties in other cities because of this portion of the ordinance. I also know others that plan to sell as soon as their tenants move because of this reason. Selling a property with a tenant in place negatively impacts the value of the home. This part of the ordinance will not help keep rental values down or help keep rental properties in Concord, it will eliminate many rental properties all together which will drive up prices as the supply will shrink.

This part of the ordinance also will stop current owner occupants who can purchase their next home without selling their current home from placing their property on the rental market when they decide to move. They will sell instead. Even if you left something like the relocation assistance in the ordinance for owners who wish to sell their properties it would help keep many of these rentals in Concord as rental properties and help others be more comfortable with making their current home a rental in the future. Just my thoughts from what I am seeing and hearing regularly. Thank you for your time.

3 Thank you,
Larry

Larry Daly
AAA Property Management
1220 Diamond Way Suite 220
Concord, CA 94520
Office: (925)825-7283 ext 108
Cell: (925)768-6350
Fax: (925)671-2840
[email protected]
BRE#01339992

From: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:57 PM
To: Larry Daly Jr. <[email protected]>; Alex Gonzalez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question regarding leases

Hi Larry,

Thanks for reaching out to me with your questions. I am happy to help clarify these items. Council has not, yet, adopted any changes and the current Ordinance is still in place. With that said, although the requirement to register a unit in the City’s rent registry is paused for rented single-family homes and condominiums, the original Ordinance, including its relocation assistance requirements is still in effect.

Next Steps: Staff will return to City Council on March 25th with a draft Ordinance that reflects these requested changes. The March 25th meeting will be a public meeting and public comment on the draft ordinance is invited. A second reading of the Ordinance would occur on April 22nd, and the amended Ordinance would be effective 30 day after, or on May 22nd. In other words, the soonest Council’s proposed changes are likely to go into effect, would be May 22nd.

I hope that helps.

Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager

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

www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com

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

4 From: Larry Daly Jr. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:30 PM
To: Alex Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Cc: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question regarding leases
“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.” Hi Sophia,
Sorry to bother you again but is the ordinance in place while payment is suspended?. If a tenant is being given 2 month rent plus $2000 to move out of a single family property so an owner can move back in and we are half way through the process do we still need to follow through on these payments if owner only owns 1 property in Concord.

Thank you,
Larry
Larry Daly
AAA Property Management
1220 Diamond Way Suite 220
Concord, CA 94520
Office: (925)825-7283 ext 108
Cell: (925)768-6350
Fax: (925)671-2840
[email protected]
BRE#01339992
From: Alex Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 9:54 AM
To: Larry Daly Jr. <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Question regarding leases
Thank you,
Alex A. Gonzalez
tel: 925-825-7283 EXT.109
fax:925-671-2840
[email protected]
BRE#01450368
AAA Property Management
1220 Diamond Way, suite 220
Concord, CA 94520

5 www.aaapm.com

From: Huckabay, Sophia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 3:33 PM
To: Alex Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Question regarding leases

Hi Alex,

Thank you for reaching out to me with your question. The Ordinance provides the following in regards to the minimum lease terms:
 New Leases: The Ordinance provides a Tenant and Landlord the opportunity to secure a minimum lease term of either twelve (12) or six (6) months. A Landlord must offer their Tenant a twelve (12) month lease. If the Tenant rejects the 12-month lease, the Landlord must offer the Tenant a six (6) month lease. If Tenant rejects the six (6) month lease, a shorter-term lease can be negotiated by the Tenant and Landlord. The Tenant must reject the lease terms in writing.

 Renewals of Leases: If the Tenant originally accepted a twelve (12) or six (6) month lease, follow the New Leases procedure outlined above. If Tenant and Landlord negotiated a shorter-term lease, the Landlord does not need to re-offer a twelve (12) or six (6) month lease, and shorter lease terms can be negotiated by the Tenant and Landlord.

I hope that helps.

Sophia Huckabay (She/Her)
Housing Manager

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

www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com

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

From: Alex Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 12:34 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Question regarding leases

“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.”

6 Hello,

With the new Concord ordinance do we have to offer tenants a lease when sending them a rent increase or can we keep them on a month to month? I’m unclear on this and would like some clarification.

Thank you

Residential Tenant
Protection Program
Ordinance Amendments

SOPHIA HUCKABAY , HOUSING MANAGER
MARCH 25, 2025
1

Ordinance Amendments

1. For Units subject to the Rent Increase Cap:
• Maximum annual rent increase allowed = 5%

2. Rented single-family homes and condominiums:
• Landlords who rent 3 or more units in Concord subject to the just cause for eviction regulations
• Landlords who rent 1 or 2 units in Concord exempt from the just cause for eviction
• All rented units required to participate in the rent registry 2

Ordinance Amendments
Clean-Up/Clarifying Language
 Ordinance applies to tenants upon beginning tenancy
 Redundant affordable housing language removed
 Removed requirement for Council to annually review rent increase cap
 Relocation payments clarified for rented single-family homes and condominiums
3

Next Steps
If Council introduces an Ordinance tonight:
 2nd reading and adoption of the Ordinance: April 22, 2025  Ordinance effective date 30 days later: May 22, 2025
4

Recommended Action
Introduce an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 19.40 “Residential Tenant Protection Program” to revise existing provisions thereof, including but not limited to, adjusting the Annual Allowable Rent Increase, and the applicability of the “just cause for eviction” provisions to rented single-family homes and condominiums by reading
of the title only and waiving further reading.
5

6.a

6.b

6.c