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))
I urge you to finalize the amendments to Concord’s punitive rent control ordinance at your April 22 meeting.
Concord’s current rent control policies are unsustainable. While full alignment with state law would have been preferable, this proposal helps correct a deeply flawed ordinance that harms both renters and housing providers and undermines long-term housing sustainability in the region. These changes represent a modest but meaningful step toward a more balanced approach.
Please support these amendments and continue working to improve Concord’s rental housing laws.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
The email above was submitted by the following individuals:
1. Jeffrey Weil, Concord
2. Sheila Stokley, Pleasant Hill
3. Ron Navarra
4. Venkat Ravikanti
5. Harry Lewis, San Ramon
6. Barbara Conde, Concord
7. Melissa Cahn, Concord
8. Joyce Kelly, Clayton
Attachment 2 - Correspondence
From: Judy Weil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 9:51 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control
My family and I own a building in Concord. We have 11 2 bedroom apartments. We are off of Willow Pass near the military base. We are not a
big operator.
We hope you will approve the 5% rent control.
Our insurance costs and utility cots have dramatically increased. We have invested in the Building replacing windows and sliders with double pane glass to provide better insulation recently. We have reroofed, put in security gates, put new asphalt in the parking lot and tried to improve the property.
It still is difficult. The value of the building is driven by the rent. When costs rise income to the owner decreases. My father lives off the income derived from his apartments.
Sincerely
Judy Weil
From: Nesrin Yenihayat <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 6:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please Maintain the 3% Rent Cap
Dear Concord City Council,
I am writing to respectfully urge you to keep the maximum allowable rent increase at 3%.
Over the past few years, California’s inflation rate has averaged around 3%, and many working residents including myself have not received raises beyond that in our jobs. Raising the cap to 5% would place additional financial stress on tenants whose incomes have not kept pace with rising costs across the board during this irrational economic period. Apartment rents in Concord are already at levels that create serious financial strain for many of us, and increasing the rent cap would only add to that burden.
Keeping the 3% cap helps protect housing stability for residents and reflects the economic realities many of us face. I hope you will consider the long-term impact on Concord’s families and workers as you make your final decision.
Thank you for your time.
Best Regards,
Nesrin Yenihayat
From: Joyce Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 3:14 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Finalize the rent control amendments
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 support these amendments and continue working to improve Concord’s rental housing laws.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Joyce Kelly, Housing Provider
From: oliver mork <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:39 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Rent Control Amendments - Second Reading on April 22
Dear Councilmember Hoffmeister,
I hope this message finds you well. My name is Oliver Mork, and I am writing to thank you for your vote on March 25, 2025, to amend the Residential Tenant Protection Program.
Your decision to slightly increase the allowable annual rent increase and exempt landlords with two or fewer properties form just cause eviction regulations directly benefits low-income, first- time homeowners like me.
A year ago, my mother who was a public-school teacher in Concord for over 40 years passed away. I inherited her house on Concord Blvd, where I hope to live. I currently rent in Berkeley, working in the service industry and living paycheck to paycheck. As such, I am sympathetic to the plight of renters in a tight and expensive housing market. However, under the existing rent control laws, moving into my mother's house would require me to pay thousands of dollars in relocation fees to the current tenant, a sum I cannot afford. Your vote to exempt homeowners like me from these requirements will make possible for me to move into my family home without facing an insurmountable financial burden.
With the second reading of this ordinance scheduled for April, 22nd, I respectfully encourage you to maintain your support for these amendments. Finalizing these changes will provide much needed flexibility for homeowners while still preserving a solid level of protections for tenants. Ultimately this will make homeowners who are deciding to rent out a house or ADU more likely to do it because they won't feel that they are getting into a situation they can't get out of (without paying a large sum of money) if their plans change.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you'd like to discuss this further. I look forward to seeing these amendments become law, as they will allow me to make Concord my home.
Sincerely,
Oliver Mork
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 7:29 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control
I think there are better ways to serve the community Have a hot line where both tenants and landlords Can go when they have an issue.. Then have a person or persons that can help resolve issues.
Don’t need rent control when the state has rent control. You can have a fund with this help department that can help both renter and home owners. Use a more inventive approach Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item No. 5.a
Benched Correspondence
April 22, 2025
From: Tahirah Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 12:12 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition Letter to Amended Ordinance re: AFFH Violation
Dear Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice. We have worked closely with Concord advocates and residents on the issue of the Just Cause and Rent Stabilization ordinance. As we approach the date of the second reading of the amended ordinance, we wanted to make Council aware of a potential AFFH law violation should you continue on this path.
We have only just begun to outline the issues that the amendments present in the attached letter. I plan to attend the next city council meeting and will share our concerns during public comment.
I look forward to engaging with you all on this matter.
Sincerely,
Tahirah Dean
April 18, 2025
Carlyn Obringer, Vice-Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Pablo Benavente, Councilmember
Re: Opposition Letter for April 22, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5(a)
Dear Concord City Council Members:
We are writing to urge the Council to not enact amendments that were approved on first reading on March 25, 2025. Council should preserve the Just Cause and Rent Stabilization ordinance the City adopted on March 5, 2024 and implemented last April. Adopting that ordinance was a central pillar of the City’s strategy in its Housing Element to best meet its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, as required by AB 686 (Santiago, 2018). The City’s own demographic analysis of renters in Concord concludes that non-White renters are most vulnerable to displacement and homelessness due to rising rents. Amending the Rent Stabilization ordinance to allow greater rent increases would disproportionately impact these renters, inconsistent with the City’s own goals and commitments and its legal duty to affirmatively remove barriers to fair housing choice for residents of color.
Specifically, in its Sixth Cycle Housing Element, the City determined that non-White populations in Concord were most vulnerable to displacement caused by rent increases, and recognized the need to stabilize housing and mitigate the disproportionate impact of displacement on those legally-protected residents. “The non-White population in Concord experiences cost burden and is more susceptible to living in overcrowded or substandard housing and experiencing homelessness and is more vulnerable to displacement.” City of Concord Housing Element 2023-2031, Section D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, p. 96. The disparities on which the City based this conclusion are quite stark: While 47% of White Concord renters are rent- burdened, paying more than 30 percent of their income in rent, that figure is 55% for Latino renters, and fully 69% for Black renters in Concord. (Source:
https://www.housingreadinessreport.org/concord/community-conditions) Accordingly, when the Department of Housing and Community Development certified Concord’s Housing Element, it included the tenant protections program–Program 20–in its list of programs essential to its finding that the Element substantially complied with Housing Element Law’s affirmatively further fair housing requirements. (Letter from HCD to City of Concord, dated October 23, 2023.)
The City carried out this commitment in its adoption of the tenant protections ordinance last March.
Concord City Council
Re: Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance Apr 18, 2025
The ordinance the Council adopted last year is an effective way to keep rent increases at a level that cost-burdened renters of protected classes could afford without losing their homes. By contrast, the proposal to increase the rent cap from 3% to 5% would disproportionately harm members of protected classes, and to do so without any new data showing that the City’s analysis in its Housing Element has changed.
Under California law, an action that has a harmful disproportionate impact on members of protected classes is plainly inconsistent with the affirmative obligation to further fair housing.
Reducing protections that the City adopted in order to shield protected-class tenants from displacement would have precisely that impact, and thus would be inconsistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. As AB 686 states:
‘Affirmatively furthering fair housing’ means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and… transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.” (Gov. Code sec. 8899.50(a)(1).)
It goes on to provide that:
“A public agency shall… take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” (Gov. Code sec. 8899.50(b).)
In guidance documents, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has confirmed that an essential piece of affirmatively furthering fair housing is taking steps to reduce the displacement of communities of color. California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for all Public Entities and for Housing Elements, p. 13.
Put another way, because taking steps to prevent displacement of renters of color is an element of affirmatively furthering fair housing, an action that will increase displacement pressure on communities of color is an “action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” Sec. 8899.50(b). Similarly, because a plan to affirmatively further fair housing should address issues that create disproportionate housing needs for protected classes – including cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions – an action that will increase or exacerbate disparities for protected classes in cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions is “materially inconsistent with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” Id. See also Martinez v. City of Clovis, 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 287, 307 (2023) (“The wording of section 8899.50 unambiguously demonstrates it does more than prohibit acts of discrimination.”).
Concord City Council
Re: Concord Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance Apr 18, 2025
Conclusion
Allowing rent increases greater than those the City determined last year were necessary to protect renters of color from displacement, and that enacted pursuant to its Housing Element program to affirmatively further fair housing, would disproportionately worsen the housing cost burden of residents of color in Concord relative to their ability to pay. Taking such an action would exacerbate disproportionate housing needs, and is “materially inconsistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” In order to preserve the commitments made in the Housing Element and ensure legal compliance with its civil rights obligations, the Council should refrain from amending the ordinance it originally adopted, absent a full analysis of the effects of the existing rent cap and the proposed higher one on protected populations.
Very truly yours,
Tahirah Dean, Staff Attorney
Public Advocates Inc.
MERLE HALL
c/o Palm Terrace
2925 Monument Blvd., Concord, CA 94520
April 2025
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
For those of you who do not know me, please allow me to introduce myself. My first wife and I came to this area in 1960. She secured a job from Jim Dent as a third-grade teacher at the Cambridge Elementary School. She supported us. I was still in College, but I got a real estate license in 1961 and started my own business a year later..
Concord was the first place we looked for a home. In 1960, resales in Concord Estates were available for $12,950, and Ken Hoffmann was selling new homes at Sun Terrace for $13,500. I remember selling a house on Cowell Rd. for an even $10,000 in 1962.
In 1965 we opened an office on Monument Blvd. on the site where Taco Bell stands today.
Our landlord was Betty Horgan, widow of one of the Gregory Gardens developers, and she sold the building to us when she moved. The next year we had the highest sales volume of any brokerage in the central county. In 1969 DVC hired me as one of its real estate instructors. I taught real estate investments until 1982.
Along the way I was twice elected as president of the Contra Costa Board of Realtors. After getting into politics, I co-chaired with Sunne McPeak, the CC Transpac Committee. We got the funding that built the upgrade to Highway 4 across N. Concord.
All the while my real estate business was growing and changing from house sales to investment sales, and management, and I accumulated all the expected professional designations. My company was the first Accredited Management Organization (AMO) approved by the Institute of Real Estate Management in Contra Costa County. I remember being a court-appointed receiver in a dispute over a four-plex in Concord. And I remember when nearly half the major multi-family buildings in Concord went into default during the
recession of 1993. In 1996 the US Bankruptcy Court put me in charge of the Chapter 11 reorganization of the property at 2925 Monument Blvd. I later had to beat the City of Concord in a legal fight to save the property as one of the best affordable housing communities in the area.
I am now writing this to you in my fiduciary capacity as the representative of the owners of 2925 Monument. Today, they are mostly the widows, children, grandchildren, or other successors of the original investors who risked their money to save the property from bankruptcy. They are troubled and heartbroken by what they are seeing in Concord today.
Before beginning, I ask why do you have rent control in the first place? The advocates say it helps renters by keeping rent low. But you know that is false. You know the reality is that it discourages production. And it is production that increases supply. And supply is the only thing that lowers prices. And why do you listen to those advocates anyway. You know they are driven by out-of-town interests with evil intent, the destruction of private property rights.
The advocates also say it is to discourage displacement. That means it is creating a new “squatter class” of tenants. But avoiding displacement is actually a diversionary tactic. It may help a few, but it harms the many. It reduces available supply and contributes to higher overall prices. It mostly harms those new families coming to town looking for a place to live. It is a subsidy to the squatters at the expense of everyone else who can afford market rents, and who must pay even higher rent because of lower inventory. Why is that fair?
The City of Concord has other policies that also discourage production and limit supply and contribute to higher rents. It discriminates against competitive construction by mandating Project Labor Agreements on new construction, and it maintains an inclusionary zoning policy, requiring below market units to be included in new construction. Along with rent control, all of these policies contribute to less production, and thus lower supply and higher prices. All of these policies were promoted by the former Mayor who is now gone because they are not supported by most of the Concord voters. But I digress.
The thing that is the most perplexing to my partners is the about face in Concord housing policy evidenced by rent control. As you know, most rental properties in Concord were built following WW II, but before February 1995, the effective date of the Costa/Hawkins act that encourages housing production. Those properties are now old and in need of repair. As an example, see the attachment on the 2001-2014 All-New Palm Terrace.
But Concord is an economically marginal market. It has always had the lowest rents in the central county area, and so it is difficult for owners to afford major repairs, and as Concord housing aged, it gradually went into disrepair, the tenant population deteriorated, and crime became an issue.
That resulted in the Concord Rental Inspection program that went into effect 25 years ago.
This represented an implied policy of dislocation. It forced owners to remove the squatters, the indigent, the crime, and the gangs so they could pay for needed repairs with higher rents from better tenants. Targeted dislocation was particularly supported by the Concord PD. Initially, it caused a lot of financial grief. And some owners lost their properties. Now, most of the blight is gone, and Concord is better for it.
Tragically, you have reversed that policy by enacting rent control. This new policy only applies to the old buildings, those built before Costa/Hawkins. Ironically, it is those buildings that will need maintenance the most. Again, see the attachment, “The 2001-2014 All-New Palm Terrace” . With this policy, you will never see that again. This policy will cause disrepair, it will attract a deteriorating tenant population and limit supply in the market. It is wrong. You need to get rid of it before it begins to destroy this city.
Now for what my partners wish from you. If you don’t repeal rent control, they wish to be exempted. They took over 2925 Monument in 1997, after Costa/Hawkins in 1995, and before the Concord Inspection program in 2000. At that time, Concord was adamantly anti- rent control and pro-growth. My partners committed to invest in Concord housing. They literally removed the original project and constructed a new one in its place. The new project had a new character and rose to the top quartile in the market while it qualified for conversion to condominiums. Again, the attachment will show you what they did.
Unfortunately for them, the housing market crashed in 2008, just when they were ready to sell condos.
They had no choice but to keep the property and rent it. But they were required to inform the tenants they could be asked to move when the owners decided to sell. This proved to be a concern for renters. To overcome this objection, a lease was created that provided the following;
1. 1-year extension, after notice of intent to sell
2. 2-year price lock. The right to extend for a second year at the same price as the first.
3. Market Discount. Renewals for three or more years are at 5% below current market rates.
4. Purchase Discount: Tenants in place get a 3% discount off the market price if they purchase the condo when it is sold.
Our property is a family complex. Most bedrooms are in units with three or more bedrooms.
We sometimes house up to 1,000 people. Some have been there over 20 years. Some are waiting to buy. Now, however, you have created a problem. If we ask people to move so we can sell condos, we must pay relocation costs. We can’t afford that. How is that fair? Our people get multiple benefits, and they are happy, but none of them bargained for that. The bottom line, if you are unable to agree to repeal these regulations, you must find a way to exempt Palm Terrace.
As you likely know, our attorney is sparring with yours over legal arguments. We do not wish a legal confrontation. You should be able to find a workaround, and we are prepared to work with you to find it. We will be looking forward to an encouraging response.
Sincerely yours,
Merle Hall, owner’s representative for 2925 Monument
A TOUR OF THE 2001-2014 ALL-NEW PALM TERRACE
Merle Hall – April 2025
As has happened throughout history, new cities have risen out of the dust of old.
Sometimes several layers of former construction can be found if one digs deep enough. For many different reasons, the old layers represent human effort that failed. In every case they were replaced with new construction designed and built to function differently, and to succeed where the old did not.
That is the case here with the Palm Terrace Condominiums (PT) at 2925 Monument Blvd.
Concord. They were built on the remnants of a former failed project. The tour you are about to take is a walk down memory lane. It will allow you to see and understand how new construction can incorporate the bones of former buildings that failed and yet result in an entirely different product that succeeds.
The site is 8 acres. In the early days of Concord, it was crossed by local roads, it consisted of several parcels, and it had many uses. In 1970 Del Chase assembled the site for his first construction effort, Greenwood Ct., later changed to Village Green (VG).
The former Project – VG was designed by Donald Sandy, later Sandy and Babcock, some of the most prominent resort architects at the time. The design was way too costly for the Concord market. It was also riddled by design and construction defects and had no chance of economic success.
To get out, Chase sub-divided the site into 21 parcels, one for each building, and sold them as “condo buildings” . But the design and construction defects had taken their toll. Nothing would work, and they ended up in bankruptcy. By now, VG was in shambles, operated as a barrio, and literally at the end of its useful economic life.
The New Project – The former project had no value. A new group of investors saw value in the location, the site layout, and the foundations, the “bones” of the former project as it were. It was their intent to build a totally new and different project on those bones. They created PT to eliminate design and construction defects, and to comply with the Concord Condominium Ordinance, an even higher level of amenities. They intended to create a community capable of sustaining an economically reasonable level of operations, and to re-characterize it for ccupancy by owners, instead of tenants. Construction occurred in
stages from 2001-2014 and ended up costing twice as much as the original project. Upon nearing completion, a condo use permit for PT was unanimously approved by the Concord Planning Commission at the end of 2006.
The tour begins:
1) Street Improvements: Standing on the edge of the street, we try to recall the old VG. It had overhead utilities, and no streetlights. There was a row of black olive but no fencing to protect the property from the street. The drug dealers living in the front building could run up the bank to meet customers who pulled up to the curb. There was only one driveway, but no parking lot and the old wooden sign was broken down.
Today, we see new streetlights in place of the old overhead utility lines. PT installed the new street lights and put the utility lines underground in the street. Now we see new curb and sidewalk cuts for new driveway locations to access a new parking lot. Between the driveways is a new lighted masonry monument sign for Palm Terrace. The olive trees have been replaced with a variety of new growth, and a new wrought iron fence overgrown with new thorny rose vines shields the property from the street and prevents entry. These improvements were all required as part of the Condominium Conditions of Approval (COA’s). In addition to this work, the new owners of the new PT, at no cost to the city, conveyed land to the City of Concord to clear up a section of the Monument Blvd. right-of- way. All of this new construction, and the title work, represents the buiding of a new project over the grave of the old.
2) Front Parking Lot: VG had no front parking lot. Instead, there was a small turnout onto a walkway that entered the complex and led to the pool. The driveway went past the front and down into the parking lot along the side of an ugly utility building.
Today, we see an all-new parking lot with 10 new parking spaces added to PT. This lot is fully landscaped, and planted with flowers, shrubs, and trees including Palm Trees. It is engineered for heavy use. Instead of a typical 4-inch-thick concrete slab with a single re- bar layer on 24-inch centers, this concrete is 7-9 inches thick and reinforced with two layers of steel re-bar on 12-inch centers. It will never break. Concord Station 6 tested it with its ladder truck parked beside the tanker truck. I wish I had a picture.
More iron fencing surrounds the parking lot. An iron pedestrian gate leads to a new walkway along the street side of the project. The entire walkway is planted with landscape
that eliminates the olive stains that ruined the original interior carpeting. In the center is a manually operated wrought iron gate with the PT Palm logo. This opens to an emergency fire lane to the center of the project. This is also new with special concrete. It is engineered to support a 27-ton fire truck. And the design of the 16’ wide curves has been tested with a ladder truck.
At the other end of the parking lot is another wrought iron gate. This is an automatic vehicle gate. There is another at the rear entry. They are operated by a remote control in the car from the outside, and from a sensor in the driveway on the inside. This lot is well lit at night.
There are three tall light poles; one at each end, and a center pole with a double light. None of this; the parking lot, the concrete driveways, the landscape, the lights, the iron work and gates; none of this was part of the original project. These components all represent new construction for PT that was done after 2001. As with the street work, most were required to comply with the COA’s required for the new PT condo community.
3) Leasing Office: One side of the fire lane gate is opens to the leasing office. The former project did not have a leasing office in the front. In fact, it did not have a leasing office at all.
The office consisted of a desk in the corner of the old pool house in the center of the project. This defect resulted in a “closed gene pool” of occupants. The only way to find the office was to be guided by someone already living here. In the old days, these were often gang members, or “friends” , related to existing occupants. The PT leasing office is now out at the front parking lot where it is visible to all interested customer prospects.
The office is built from the skeleton of an old apartment. It has all new landscape, new entry doors, a new floor plan, and even all new interior and exterior finishes.
In addition, this is now suite #1 (or unit 1) of the new PT. It used to be unit 189. But the city decided the former numbering system made no sense, so after building the new PT on the site of the old VG, the city re-numbered the complex to reflect circulation changes resulting from the new construction.
4) Expanded Parking Areas: Passing through the vehicle gate and walking down the front driveway, we see 11 parking spaces on the right hand side, behind the first building. These did not exist in the former VG. In fact, there was no parking on the right side at all. This area was previously covered by an old utility building. There were originally five (5) of these utility buildings around the property. Each building contained a boiler, a shop, and a laundry room.
Each shop was designed for a particular purpose. For example, one shop was the “screen shop” . With around 1,000 windows in the project, including 400 sliding glass doors, there were ongoing screen repairs. This was labor intensive and costly work. Except for one shop that was converted to storage, all the utility shops were removed. PT completely changed the nature of the project. It added 60 additional parking spaces. With all new construction, PT took land formerly occupied by useless shops, and turned it into something useful.
5) Old Water System: Previously, the entire project … all 190 units … were required to be shut off for the repair of one unit. The only shut-off valve was the main CCWD valve on the street. Because it was a major scheduling headache to coordinate on-site repairs with the water company, practical necessity required scheduling several repair projects for the same day and doing them all at once. This both delayed needed repair work, and inconvenienced everyone to benefit a few.
Each shop also had a boiler. The boilers were gas fired with a capacity of between 750,000 and 1,000,000 BTU’s. They each served 3-5 of the 21 residential buildings containing a total of 190 units in the project. But to keep the water hot for 3-5 buildings, each boiler had a recirculating pump. But that became a waste of water and gas. The unlimited hot water recirculation from the large boilers was an invitation to indulge in long showers.
In addition, pipe erosion and electrolysis resulted in massive leaking. Many leaks were under the concrete floors in the kitchens and were repaired with jack hammers to open the concrete in occupied units. The entire project was sitting in a pool of warm water.
Worse yet, because there were no water meters, nor water heaters for each unit, the entire cost of water and the gas to heat it was charged to the owners. They were paying to heat water that endlessly recirculated through non-insulated pipes, and paying for water lost underground, and paying for ongoing pipe and concrete repairs. Ultimately, the combined cost of water, gas, and repairs, bankrupted the project.
6) Service Yard: Toward the back of the first driveway, we see a large maintenance service area in the corner. It is built on a concrete slab, and includes a covered shop, a utility yard, and a debris box. The 8-foot-high back wall is built of concrete blocks to screen it from the neighbors back yard. These block walls were not part of the original project. They were included in the condo COA’s, to enclose the entire property.
The inside is roofed and enclosed by a wrought iron fence with a large gate and another light pole. The concrete slab extends outside the gate and slopes to a drain inlet in the center of the concrete. This is a carwash stand, a new feature unique to PT.
A hose is rolled on the light pole. When the water is turned on, a valve in the drain inlet automatically switches from the storm drain outlet to the sanitary sewer outlet to properly carry away soapy wash water. When the water is off, the drain valve automatically returns to the storm drain outlet to carry away rainwater. Clever.
This is all new construction. No part of this utility area existed before. None of the perimeter concrete block walls, roof covers, concrete slabs, fences, lighting, landscape, or plumbing existed. This was just a large weed patch in the corner of VG. The newly built amenities are among the many components of the new construction that defines PT.
7) Drainage: Going into the rear parking lot, we see a line of concrete “valley gutters” intermittently spaced down the center of the driveway. We can see that the asphalt surface is sharply graded to drain to these gutters, and each gutter is sloped to a drop inlet (drain inlet) at the end. This is all work done by PT and these drains all connect to a new 14-inch diameter main storm drain buried under the driveway. New secondary storm drains have also been installed throughout PT. They all connect to the main drain that wraps the property and connects to the city storm drain in the street.
In addition to the grading, we notice all new carports on each side of the driveway. They are lit both inside and out. The new PT paving was engineered to last 50 years. It is a 13-inch section, nine inches of base rock, and two layers of two-inch asphalt.
Of course, again, these improvements, the main and secondary storm drains, the grading, concrete, carports, and the lighting are part of new PT construction. VG had no carports or lights, no storm drainage, and no concrete valley gutters. VG did not have decent parking areas. The original paving was thin and flat and mostly broken into deep potholes. The entire area was a swamp when it rained, and a dust bowl when it was dry. After parking your car, you were certain to track mud or dirt into your home. In the new PT, you walk on clean, dry paving from your car to your home.
8) Garden Shed: At the far end of the driveway, we can see another new building. It is a maintenance facility that was built by PT in another corner of the property that was formerly nothing but a weed patch. It will serve as the Garden Shed for the future HOA landscape maintenance team. Today, there is not a single square inch of land in all of PT that is not
covered by new, or re-constructed buildings, or that has not been newly graded, paved, and landscaped since 2001.
9) New Plumbing: The new PT site plan has none of the old utility buildings. Boilers, recirc pumps, shops, or laundry rooms, and all the related plumbing have been capped off and abandoned. PT built an entirely new system.
Leaving the parking lot, we notice some steel valve boxes on the edge of the driveway.
These contain the valves for the new water system that replaced the old boilers. Instead of the defective copper, these are all non-corrosive plastic pipes … high pressure PVC. Each of the 21 buildings now has its own separate water line and shut off valve.
Each of the 21 main lines was buried in a new trench placed through the back patios of each building. And each building main line has individual laterals with a valve on the end.
Now each townhome has its own water line, with its own cut off valve, coming from a building main line that has its own cut off valve, and which is connected to the transite loop that surrounds the property. In place of the old utility buildings with centralized boilers, PT has constructed a completely re-designed and new water system throughout the project.
The old VG system has been totally abandoned, may it rest in peace, and PT is a new project with a totally new water system today. This is not the same project that existed before.
10) Walkway and Patio Grading: At the entrance to an alleyway between buildings, we notice a roofed enclosure containing several gas meters beside the walkway. This meter manifold serves all the units in the building behind it, but it wasn’t always in this location.
The VG meter manifolds were left standing in the open areas between buildings. These obstructed the walkways accessing back patios.
In fact, many VG buildings previously had no complete walkways. To construct new walkways the PT owners had PG&E relocate all the free-standing meter manifolds. The new PT site plan is substantially different than VG. It not only has wider walkways, but its new walkways also now connect to every patio in the project. To do this, every old walkway in the entire project was removed to make way for construction of the newly designed walkways. This was not an inexpensive improvement and is another example of why PT is a completely newly constructed project.
11) Patios and Toters: VG buildings did not have fully paved patio areas Each unit had a small fenced enclosure, surrounding a 4x6 stoop outside the rear slider. The fences consisted of 4-foot high vertical slats resting in the dirt. The boards were splitting or collapsing and many were missing. Many VG patios had whole sections missing. The fences were not being maintained because there was no money for it. Billings for the VG utilities and repairs had to be kept up to keep the water running.
PT removed all the old fences and patio stoops to clear the way for trenching behind the buildings to bury new water and gas lines. The old water lines beneath the buildings were capped off and the new outside lines were installed. The new lines had laterals that surfaced behind each unit and entered the utility closet through the outside wall. After backfilling and compacting the trenches, the surface was graded to prepare for patio construction.
The new fences were to be built on posts set in stainless steel Simpson post bases in new concrete. Holes were dug for the post bases, a steel re-bar grid was installed, the post bases were set and the new concrete was poured, level, and finished.
Each home was given maximum exterior real estate. The concrete was designed to cover the entire patio area sideways from unit to unit, and backwards to the new concrete walkway. No soil was left exposed.
The fence was built 5’ high with solid exterior plywood set on a 2x12 kickboard attached to pressure treated posts set in the post bases. Finally, a space for the toter was provided in each patio. A split level enclosure was provided for those patios set at a higher elevation than the walkway, and the toter was set at the walkway level.
Stepping into the alleyway, we notice that the building on one side of the alley is about a foot higher than the building on the other side. The offset in this alleyway is apparent by a retaining wall that runs along the high side of the walkway. It supports the new patios and fences serving the higher building.
On the high side, there are two sets of gates. One is at the top of a step going up into the patio. The other is at the walkway level. This gate contains the toter enclosure. The toter lid can be accessed over a low wall while standing inside the patio. And the toter can be rolled out from the recess and taken to the parking lot for pickup without having to deal with the grade change by going up or down across steps.
Not only is this all new construction, it is an all new design. Not only is it a new design, but it is a completely different design than VG. The PT construction is based on a design for success, and not failure. It not only changes the plumbing design and materials, it moves the plumbing out from under the buildings and under outdoor patios where it is accessible
for repair if needed. It maximizes patio sizes and provides solid enclosures to increase occupant enjoyment. It is constructed with the top technology and materials, steel rebar, post bases, pressure treated materials. The original project is gone.
Even the toters represent new design and new construction. This is a new and unique disposal collection program that did not exist as part of the original project. In fact, the former project had no toters, partly because there were no flat walkways to roll them on.
There was no way to haul garbage from the house to a pickup container unless you carried it in a bag or a box and tossed it into a dumpster in the parking lot. The toss often missed, and the wind blew the trash. Worse yet, there were originally five dumpsters, one near each of the former utility buildings, so there was a lot of trash blowing around.
12) Storage: Walking further into the alleyway, there are more storage room doors. Some open into patios, and others open directly onto the walkway. These doors are not in stand- alone sheds. They go directly into the buildings. But the former buildings had no storage facilities.
A unique feature of PT is the fact that nearly half of the units have 3 bedrooms. In the original design, the third bedroom was simply tacked on beside the second bedroom. But since the units are all townhomes, the bedrooms are all on the second floor. This resulted in the third bedrooms being cantilevered out and held up by support at the outside edge.
Underneath the bedroom there was an open, shady, space that provided room for weeds, spiders, and junk. During the reconstruction PT changed all the VG buildings by converting these wasted spaces into enclosed storage rooms with concrete floors and lights.
This is not only a desirable amenity for the occupants, it is also an upgrade required by the COA’s for the condo conversion. Now, the buildings have all been modified and enlarged with extended foundations and walls to accommodate nearly 40,000 sq. ft. of new storage that was added to the project. Again, the rental project built in 1970 was totally different. PT is a totally new project, built between 2001 and 2014 for occupancy by owners. As we leave the alleyway, we go to the model. This is a standard rental grade, 2BR unit. It has not been upgraded to the ownership (condo) grade as other units have. Nevertheless, it contains numerous features that did not previously exist. The front door, and its hardware, the awning, the porch, and the front porch light have all been replaced with newly designed and upgraded components.
13) Picture Windows: Inside the front door, there is a new picture window in the front wall.
This is a structural modification that replaced half of the sliding glass doors (sliders). The
old project had front and rear sliders, in addition to a front door. The front slider was redundant. It wasted wall space, added to maintenance cost and allowed kids to run through and damage the front landscape. They are now gone. The new construction began by removing on the sliders and frames. Then we framed in a new front wall with a sill for the window. Underneath the new window is an added electrical outlet on the inside. The outside is finished with an inset of new vertical siding. Now the living room has three walls.
Now the old project gone. The new PT project not only has more new construction, it has an all-new more functional design.
14) New Water Meters: Further inside the model, we find that a utility closet has been added to the family room. It is fitted with new water and gas pipes coming in from the patio through the bottom of the wall. The water line goes to a meter that is connected to an electronic transmitter module that reports water usage every 24 hours. These reports are collected by a central receiver with a modem that downloads the water usage of every unit every month to a central billing agency. Each month it provides a water bill for the exact amount of water used by each unit.
Not only is this all new construction, it is new technology. Most importantly, it represents a totally different operating system than the old.
15) Tankless Water Heaters: The new gas line comes to a shut-off valve in the utility closed, and then goes directly to a Rinnai tankless water heater. Rinnai is the largest gas appliance maker in the world, and their tankless water heaters are 30% more economical than old fashioned tank type heaters that must stay hot all the time. Moreover, the gas comes directly from the outside meter for each unit. Water, and the cost of heating it, is now paid for by the user instead of the owner. Each occupant pays only for what they use, and long showers are gone. This was all built after 2001. Again, not only is it new construction, and new design, it is new technology for a different type of use. This was not just repair work. It was the creation of a new project out of the remnants of the old.
16) Re-Pipping the Buildings: Pipes for the old system all came up from under the floors.
The new pipes that come out of the new patios into the utility closet, come from the new mainlines installed behind each building. To switch to the new system, each unit had to be completely refitted with new pipes coming from the utility closet. That construction included opening and closing walls and building overhead soffits to insert new pipes. Even
the interior plumbing is different. It has been totally reconstructed, and does not function even remotely the same as the original project.
Next to the utility closet is another new cabinet fitted with new louvered accordion doors.
Sitting side by side behind the doors are a shiny new washer and dryer. The old outside laundry rooms were removed with the demolition of the old utility buildings. Now the laundry is done inside every home in PT and the laundry room vandalism has disappeared.
All this interior construction, the utility closet, the laundry closet, the new water meter, new water heater and transmitter, the laundry hookups and dryer vent were all constructed in space obtained by removing an old wardrobe closet. Again, new design that functions better, new construction.
17) Resource Responsibility: These modifications, indoor laundries instead of outside laundry rooms, and transferring the cost of water, and hot water, from the owner to the occupant represent a material change in the basic nature of the community. Quality of life, and quality of the popunlation is materially improved. Occupants have become responsible for the cost of their impact on available resources. The new construction provides a proud example of the use of better design, and modern technology for creating high-quality housing in Concord. PT is the opposite of the former project. It is not at risk of sliding into disrepair and bankruptcy.
18) Pool House: Stepping out from the model we continue past new lawns, shrubs and trees, down the fire lane to its termination at the swimming pool. Behind the swimming pool is the new pool house (clubhouse) that was built with all new construction, from the ground up, in 2014. It contains the Fitness Center, the Event Center with a kitchen, restrooms, the pump house for the pool, and more storage rooms. The roof of the pool house holds an array of water pads that provide solar heating of the pool water. The old pool was not heated. And we mean it when we say old.
19) Swimming Pool: The new pool is nestled into a new deck with a completely different design from the old. We began by removing the old deck, the coping, tile, plaster, light, skimmer and main drain. We also removed the old copper plumbing and then began by re- plumbing. The new pipes were larger and made of plastic. The filter and pump capacity was doubled, and replaced with all new equipment. An automatic chlorinator and auto-fill were
added. All the plaster, tile and coping were replaced with new, and new lights and skimmers were added and installed on every side. Even the decks were torn out, redesigned, expanded and replaced with new decks and planting areas. And the steps, and chrome handrails are new. Finally, the whole area was landscaped and planted with Palm Trees. This is a whole new resort style pool. None of these improvements existed before the new construction that was designed and built for PT.
20) Mail Center: Off to the side of the pool and pool house is the new Mail Center. This is located in a new free-standing building that also contains more storage. Prior to the construction of this building, occupants had to live with small mailboxes where they were exposed to the elements standing outside along an open walkway. This building is an addition to the complex and built with all new construction. It also adds a another new component to the site plan.
21) Original Defective Grading: As we leave the Mail Center, we notice more retaining walls, some almost two feet high. Prior to these walls, rainwater and irrigation water ran un- controlled across the entire property. It flooded walkways and patios and even ran into some homes.
Although not visible to the casual observer, there is an eight (8) foot elevation change between the highest and lowest of the 21 residential buildings at PT. You don’t notice the changes because they are incremental. But they are visible by steps in the parapets or in the form of offsets between different floor levels in the buildings. There are 54 of these floor level changes throughout the project.
As the floor level changes, so does the bottom of the wall, and so should the top of the soil.
But the top of the soil did not follow the grade changes. There was nothing to make sure the soil level changed in steps along with the floors, and to keep the top of the soil level so that water would not wash against building walls. The original project had no soil containment, no retaining walls, no terracing of any sort. It just flowed along the side of each building from one end to the next.
Consequently, the top of the soil would be well below the higher floors, but mostly not at all below the lower floors, and sometimes even up against the wall above the floor. The soil contact resulted in moisture penetration, mold, termite invasion, dry rot, and extreme structural damage. When the water moved soil from the higher levels to the lower levels, it washed soil up against the outside of the buildings, the Some were structurally collapsing
and needed to be demolished and replaced. Entirely new walls: framing, new siding, and new paint were required. In fact, in some cases, almost the entire building was rebuilt.
22) Original Defective Windows: In addition to a defective grading design, and dry rot due to the lack of grading, there was also a defective window design. And in addition to the dry rot caused by soil contact, there was dry rot resulting from a serious construction defect.
The second-floor windows were all placed on the inside, instead of the outside of the sills.
That resulted in leaving the sills exposed to the weather which allowed water to get into the sill. Water went down through the framing, and all the way to the floor joists, spreading the dry rot, and leaving every second floor building wall in need of replacement.
We began with the windows. Since we had to tear apart the walls, the architects drew all new building plans, including a new window design. Most of the old windows opened only at a small bottom panel that did not provide adequate ventilation. The lack of ventilation also contributed to excessive moisture retention resulting in condensation, mildew, and mold. In addition, the old siding contained asbestos and was not re-usable.
23) New Construction: Eliminating these issues required an all-new building wall design that included new window designs and new windows, new framing, new siding, new weather proofing and re-painting. The new design provided larger windows with conventional sliding panels that open to provide full ventilation to eliminate the mold.
Because of the asbestos, the new construction was even more challenging. The asbestos had to be contained. But the buildings were full of people, and they had to be protected.
Fortunately, the units were townhomes. Instead of apartments along double loaded corridors in typical apartment buildings with only one outside wall, townhomes have two outside walls with windows at each end. This allowed us to literally rebuild the complex with the people in place by doing one side of a building at a time.
First, we would build scaffolding all along one side of the building. Then we would cover it with an air-tight enclosure. Inside the building we installed air-tight plastic curtains three feet back from the outside wall in every room. Now we had a completely air-tight enclosure for the workers who proceeded to tear apart the exterior walls and re-build them with new framing, new windows and new siding. After finishing one side of a building, we did the other side. There are 21 buildings, so the scaffolding along with their enclosures had to be rebuilt 42 times. It took three years to finish the dry rot repair with new framing, windows, and siding, and more. We are not kidding when we say this is an entirely new project … built
between 2001-2014. The old project, both design and construction, is gone. PT is not the same project that existed before.
24) New Grading: After the new building construction, the site was entirely regraded, and the new grades and walkways were defined by new retaining walls where none existed before. These walls delineate planting areas (PA’s) in the new landscape design. All PAs are graded to conform to the elevation of the floor level of the building to which they are adjacent. Because there are 54 floor level changes, there are as many changes in PA elevations. The entire 8-acre site is now terraced and supported by new retaining walls.
Creating level PA’s that contain the water and prevent future structural damage. But there is more to the PA than just the level retaining wall. There is also a new drainage system.
25) Planting Areas: New rain leaders and downspouts have been installed on each building. Each downspout is connected to the storm drain system through the PA on the ground. Each drain connection includes a clean-out, where it goes underground into the PA. And every PA also has its own drain inlet that is connected to the underground line.
These drain lines pick up laterals from every building, every PA, and every walkway in the project, and they feed them into the new main drains installed in the parking lot that carry storm water to the street. Today, there is not one sq. in. of surface area at PT that does not remain drained, and completely free of ponding, even in the worst cloudburst. Even though PT is a garden complex, you can now exit your car under a carport lid and walk with an umbrella across perfectly drained surfaces to your front porch awning without being touched with a drop of water, and without having to jump across a single pond, let alone walking through mud being washed across walkways from unretained soil.
These PA’s and retaining walls, and drainage works are all part of the new project. None of them existed prior to the construction of PT.
26) New Walkways: In addition to the grading and retaining walls, all new walkways have been installed. The new walkways were built the same as the patios, with a new re-bar grid.
They contain drain inlets so as not to pond, and they are seven feet wide, as opposed to the old 30” walks. They also go where people go, instead of in the old geometrical configurations that people ignored, causing their foot traffic to trample the lawns and landscape. Today, there is not a single trace of the original landscape and walkway design, or of the original. concrete. Other than the building foundations themselves, the entire site
is designed with an entirely new layout, a new site plan, and new construction that previously did not exist. It would not be accurate to say that PT was built in 1970.
27) Sanitary Sewer: Before moving on from the grading and drainage, we must not overlook the underground systems. It was not uncommon for the sewers in the old VG project to back up and overflow onto the ground. The original project was built with inadequate drainage lines, and inadequate access. And a lack of straight grade slopes resulted in “bellies” (low sections that filled with fluids where solids and grease would settle and plug the line).
How do you fix all that? You rebuild the system like new. You prepare a new design. You add or modify drain routes. You replace old lines with new that drain properly, and you add manholes for better access. Of course, this requires barricades that obstruct traffic while doing more extensive trenching and reconstruction, but it results in a system that works.
How do you define what you did to replace a former dysfunctional projectl, with a new project that is functional? Is it a repair, is it a replacement, is it new construction with new and different component?
Maybe the answer can be found in usability. If the old component can still be used, it is a repair. If not, it is a replacement. If a government agency says a project is not habitable, it is not usable and must be replaced. If the replacement is a complete physical re-build and is usable, is it not a new project?
The old sewer system spewed onto the surface and had to be shut down. After much trenching and new construction, it was replaced with a new system that functions properly.
Is this still the same project? We think not. What was the intent of the legislature? What will a jury think? What will it cost the taxpayers for the city to try to prove it should adopt policies that discourage maintaining its housing stock by replacing old components with new components that collectively result in a whole new project. And what will the taxpayers think about the waste of their money. The answer is obvious.
28) Electric Power: Same thing for another underground system, the electric power lines.
The project is served by seven on-site transformers. Some underground, some on top. Each transformer is the source of power that serves three buildings through underground cables.
The original direct burial cables were made with aluminum. The metal contained microscopic impurities that the electrons sped up to by-pass, causing heat. Over the years, the resulting heat melted the metal and made “pockets” in the cables that weakened them until they snapped. The result, a total building blackout.
The fix, was partial repair, mostly replace. Four new transformers were installed, and so was new cable. The new cable was made ofs copper, and it was installed in plastic conduits that protect it from the elements. You don’t realize it, but when you stand on the lawn looking at the flowers, the power lines running underneath your feet were all replaced for the new PT. The original project was a blackout project. It became uninhabitable. PT now has a new power system. PT is a different project than the one that existed before. PT is habitable.
29) Landscaping: When the City of Concord sued the owners of PT alleging uninhabitability, and requesting the court grant an injunction to cease and desist operations, it alleged that there was no landscaping. It was correct. There was no landscaping. The original project included an irrigation system that had long since been abandoned due costly maintenance resulting from numerous operating defects. Most of it required hand watering.
Worse yet, the original walkways did not follow the logical paths that people would take to get from their door to their car and vice versa. Any planting that may have existed was long since trampled out. The place was a dust bowl.
To correct the problem a new landscape plan was prepared and approved to comply with the COA’s required by the City. It included all the PA’s, all the walkways, a complete planting list, and an entirely new irrigation system. It covered every square inch of soil that was not paved or built upon.
30) Irrigation: The new PT irrigation system was built on a new loop mainline that circles the entire interior of the complex. The loop is fed from the 21 domestic mainlines that are all protected by new back-flow preventers. Over 1,000 sprinklers in the system are fed by 184 valve stations along the loop. The valves are operated by transistors that de-code automatic signals fed along the loop from a central computer that is programmed for the specific micro-climate of every valve station. The result is a truly magnificent garden setting. Is this system just a repair of the original project that was built in 1970 or is this another totally new component constructed with new technology and new materials that define a totally new and different project that is here today.
By now the project has been rebuilt from the ground up. It has all new components; drainage, sewers, power, irrigation, landscape, plumbing, parking, utility areas, even entire building walls and windows. But what about the roofs.
31) Defective Roofs: The original project was built with flat roofs and cheap coverings, only three layers of felt dribbled with tar holding a thin cap layer. In addition to all the typical leaks, they were full of “potholes” , or “bathtubs” . What that means is that most second floor bedrooms are slightly cantilevered out over the first floor framing. The cantilevered section is shorter than the townhome width, and smaller ceiling joists were used (2x8’s, instead of 2x10’s). To keep the ceilings flat, the two inch shortage was left on the topside.
This created a sump ( bathtub) in the roof. The sump had no drain outlet, so it filled with water, and you can imagine the rest.
For 30 years, the former owners struggled with leakage. Because the roofs were flat, the leakage didn’t just occur at the bathtubs, it occurred everywhere. At one time they lost 45 tenants when a freak July downpour flooded units that were exposed while under repair. It was a mess. Over the years, the plywood roof decks accumulated dry rot. Some rot migrated into the joists below the decks, and some even migrated down into the walls and up into the parapets.
32) HVAC: To compound the problem. Each unit was equipped with its own HVAC unit.
These units were placed on “sleepers” , 4x4 blocks laying directly on the roof membrane.
Not only did they cause leakage, but the vibration was unbearable, and some of them rested on the adjoining unit. Worse yet, the project was 30+ years old, and they were all worn out. They all needed to be replaced. In addition to the HVAC roof penetrations, the bathroom exhaust fans penetrated the roof. And they needed to be upgraded from 3” ducts to 4” ducts. It looked like a complete rebuild. It required a mechanical contractor, a framing and decking contractor, and a roofing contractor. It would cost millions, but it would all be brand new.
In the end, a custom team of trade specialists was assembled. They repaired all the dry rot.
They “furred” (leveled the top of the joists) up the bathtubs, and added a new deck cover at the same level as the rest. Then they added a whole additional new deck over the top of the old repaired deck. Along with this work, the HVAC units were all raised onto proper metal curbs with vibration deadening materials. Those on adjacent units were moved over on top of their proper unit, so as not to wake the neighbors when the system went on. The exhaust fan openings were also increased from 3” to 4” in width.
33) All New Roof System: After the deck was completed, it was covered with tapered foam board insulation to eliminate the flat roof, and slope the entire surface to the scuppers that
carried away the rainwater into the leader heads on the downspouts. A side benefit of the insulation boards was an increase in the insulation rating of the roof from the old R-19 to a new R-40.
On top of the foam boards the crew installed a dens-deck cover to protect the foam, and on top of the dens-deck and new fluid applied seamless membrane was built. This membrane is fully reflective, and UV resistant. The system lasts forever by simply refreshing the UV surface layer every ten years. This technology did not even exist when the original project was built. The old roof was gone, and a new one was in place. The new roof in no way resembles the original. It is an all-new component of the new PT project that was built after 2001.
Most of the new project was completed by the end of 2010. But we say it lasted until 2014.
That is the year we replaced the old pool house with a completely redesigned new one. It was a larger building including a new kitchen, new restrooms, and the Fitness Center.
34) Conclusion: No person of sound mind will not recognize that the project known as Palm Terrace today, is a completely new and different replacement of the old VG. The original project was the first development effort of a tax shelter promoter using other people’s money to fund his enterprise. The project was not feasible to operate and went into disrepair. He later went bankrupt.
The original project was effectively abandoned as evidenced by the 2003 lawsuit by the City of Concord requesting an injunction to cease operations. It was due to the Pt investors efforts that an entirely new project was built on the bones of the original. They designed and built a project that was feasible to operate and became successful. That defines one difference between the old and the new. The old had no economic life. The new had a completely different economic result. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for condominium conversion is further evidence of the completion of a new project. An additional evidence of the new project, is the termination of the lawsuit requesting an injunction..
The project lasted over a dozen years, from 2001 to 2014. It cost over 15 million dollars, over double the cost of the original project. After all this effort, and all this expenditure of money, the housing market crashed in 2008, the year PT was ready to go on the market as condominiums.
From: Luis velasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:10 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Item 5a: Vote YES on the rent control amendments
Dear Councilmember Hoffmeister,
I urge you to vote yes and finalize the amendments to the city’s punitive rent control ordinance at your April 22 meeting.
It is the right and reasonable thing to do.
Concord’s current rent control law is unsustainable. While aligning with state law would have been a better approach, the proposed changes represent a modest improvement to a draconian policy that has harmed renters, housing providers and the long-term sustainability of housing in Concord and the region.
These amendments will help fix the city’s broken rental housing laws, and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Luis velasco
1475 Marclair Dr Apt Concord
Concord, CA 94521
[email protected]
From: Linda <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2025 7:52 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please vote YES
Dear Council Members,
As a Concord property owner, I strongly encourage you to vote Yes on Council member Benavente's proposal to align with state law at 5% + CPI.
1. Rental income cannot cover expenses due to inflation . 2. With current rental policy, no one will invest on Concord anymore, this will increase rental crisis 3. Tenant working hourly rate increase, they can afford the rent 2bed 1 bath room under $2000/month.
Thanks to make Concord a great city for both property owners and tenants.
Linda Guo
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ian Wong <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2025 5:44 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Thank you for your support for Rent Control Amendments
Hello City council member Hoffmeister
I am a Concord property owner. I strongly support Request Rental control reconsideration.
Please vote YES at the coming Tuesday city council meeting to support rent Control Amendments. The reason is as the following:
1. Current rent cap will push investor leave concord. This will decrease the rental house supply and will make the rental market more competitive. New investors will not consider investing in Concord.
2. The current rent cap will make the landlord can't make even. They will leave the rental market at Concord
3. The current concord market rent at Concord is less than the HUD payment.
Lots of multiple families at Concord the current rent is far below market, for example, a 2 bed/1 bath room apartment is around $1700-$2000. With the working hourly rate increased, people can earn this amount of money in 1-2 weeks.
It's not like the rental price is too high to make people can't afford.
4. There are lots of government support plans, like section 8 or some other relief plan to help tenants to move or help them for the rent. The tenant can apply for those kinds of programs if needed.
5. You can see Oakland is an example. The city is losing investment and can't attract people to live there and investors walk away.
Please vote YES at the coming Tuesday city council meeting to support rent Control Amendments and to make the concord keep on the right direction.
Thank you!
From: Emerald Properties <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control
Mayor and City Council Members,
I have been a longtime Housing Provider in our City. As a consequence, I, like anybody, having done business here for so long, feel very attached to it.
I became extremely concerned when the C.P .I. controls were voted in last year. As the owner of a large aging complex there is no way that we could maintain our property to the standards that we became accustomed to. Other Housing Providers shared similar concerns. Consequently, our City would go into decline and run-down mode.
Thank you, on behalf of our Concord residents, for catching on to that serious issue and taking steps to make adjustments. That is evidence of an alert and business like City Council. Please vote on Tuesday to enact those adjustments so that we can again budget to keep Concord's Rental Housing looking well maintained for the sake of the Community and for our tenants.
Thank you again,
John Sullivan
510-538-9496
From: Richard Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 7:10 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Item 5a: Vote YES on the rent control amendments
Dear Councilmember Hoffmeister,
I urge you to vote yes and finalize the amendments to the city’s punitive rent control ordinance at your April 22 meeting.
It is the right and reasonable thing to do.
Concord’s current rent control law is unsustainable. While aligning with state law would have been a better approach, the proposed changes represent a modest improvement to a draconian policy that has harmed renters, housing providers and the long-term sustainability of housing in Concord and the region.
These amendments will help fix the city’s broken rental housing laws, and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Richard Jones
816 Country Club Dr
Moraga, CA 94556
[email protected]
From: FD <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 8:34 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Please support and vote yes
Dear Council Members,
As a Concord property owner, I strongly encourage you to vote Yes on Council member Benavente's proposal to align with state law at 5% + CPI.
1. Rental income cannot cover expenses due to inflation . 2. With current rental policy, no one will invest on Concord anymore, this will increase rental crisis 3. Tenant working hourly rate increase, they can afford the rent 2bed 1 bath room under $2000/month.
Thanks to make Concord a great city for both property owners and tenants.
Frank
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Mauricio Torres <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 8:31 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Item 5a: Vote YES on the rent control amendments
Dear City Clerk Fockler,
I urge you to vote yes and finalize the amendments to the city’s punitive rent control ordinance at your April 22 meeting.
It is the right and reasonable thing to do.
Concord’s current rent control law is unsustainable. While aligning with state law would have been a better approach, the proposed changes represent a modest improvement to a draconian policy that has harmed renters, housing providers and the long-term sustainability of housing in Concord and the region.
These amendments will help fix the city’s broken rental housing laws, and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Mauricio Torres
1500 Lacey Ct
Concord, CA 94520
[email protected]
From: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 6:07 PM
To: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Vote no on the weakened ordinance -for families and democratic integrity
Hello Kristi,
Thank you for your letter and for the detailed background and perspective you’ve provided on behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition. I understand and respect the passion with which your coalition and many community members have engaged in the conversation around tenant protections in Concord.
Let me be clear: my vote was not, and never will be, for sale. It was rooted in the experiences of actual Concord residents, renters and housing providers alike, who voiced real concerns with the sustainability and unintended consequences of the original ordinance. These included small, longtime homeowners, many of whom are not wealthy landlords or outside investors, but people struggling to maintain their properties, navigate changing life circumstances, or move back into their homes without facing unaffordable penalties.
When I was walking the district during my campaign and even more so after being elected, I heard from immigrants, seniors, working families, young renters, and longtime residents from all walks of life. Their stories were honest, heartfelt, and at times heartbreaking. Many felt left out of the conversation entirely. My responsibility is to listen to all voices in our community, not just the loudest or most organized.
I believe the amendments brought forward represent a reasonable compromise. Tenant protections remain strong, with continued rent caps, relocation requirements, and just cause protections still in place (2 or less units). At the same time, we created room for small property owners to responsibly rent their homes without being locked into situations that could create long-term hardship.
I also want to be clear that bullying, doxxing, and harassment have no place in civic engagement. Unfortunately, some individuals and groups on both sides of this debate have crossed that line. I have personally experienced this, as have members of my family, and it’s deeply troubling. Resorting to that kind of behavior only erodes the trust and integrity that meaningful public policy requires, and becomes something much darker. We can
disagree passionately, but we must do so respectfully and without resorting to tactics that silence or endanger others.
The tactics used to disrupt meetings or manufacture support through paid attendees have also contributed to an unhealthy environment for honest debate. I’ve condemned those actions clearly and publicly, regardless of who funds them or who benefits. And I remain committed to governing with integrity, transparency, and a deep belief in Concord’s ability to build policies that serve all its residents.
We may not agree on every policy detail, but I welcome continued engagement and honest dialogue moving forward. Thank you again for your advocacy and commitment to the community.
Warm regards,
Pablo Benavente
Concord City Councilmember, District 4
From: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 8:00 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote no on the weakened ordinance -for families and democratic integrity
Dear Mayor Obringer, Vice-Mayor Nakamura and Council Members Hoffmeister, Aliano and Benavente
The decision you are making on Tuesday evening about Concord's rent stabilization and just cause ordinance is of grave importance. It is not just about the welfare of families and their ability to keep a roof over their heads in these economically unstable times, it is about the integrity of the democratic process in Concord.
I am sure you have seen by now the articles about the deceptive tactics of the California Apartment Association deployed in the last City Council meeting where they paid low- income individuals from as far away as the Central Valley, many of whom were actually renters, to fill the Council chambers at the March 25 City Council meeting and voice support for the landlords’ push to weaken the ordinance.
San Jose Mercury News
SF Standard
The reality is this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the unsavory tools they use to undermine or overturn local democratic efforts to stabilize housing. The CAA regularly pours money into elections, spreads misinformation, and organizes referendums and repeal efforts in order to move their corporate agenda. These tactics have been on full
display in Concord and cities throughout the Bay. Please see the attached letter that outlines their many efforts to thwart democracy.
While it may seem to you that you are immune to their influence and simply listening to your constituents, the CAA has inundated Concord and your constituents with misinformation which has been echoed repeatedly during these recent Council meetings.
Moreover, the watered-down ordinance being voted upon on Tuesday reflects the CAA’s agenda of weakening rental regulations. At a time when the corrupting power of corporations is becoming normalized at the national level, we urge you to stand strong against this attempt to manipulate our local political system for the benefit of outside investors over vulnerable residents.
Sincerely,
Kristi Laughlin, on behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition
--
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!
April 21, 2025
Dear Members of the Concord City Council,
The current effort to roll back Concord’s tenant protection ordinance is a clear example of how the corporate real-estate lobby uses its financial and political influence to overturn democratic processes and undermine the security of local renters. While it may seem to you that you are immune to their influence and simply listening to your constituents, the California Apartment Association (CAA) has inundated Concord and your constituents with misinformation. Moreover, this watered-down ordinance reflects the CAA’s agenda of weakening rental regulations. At a time when the corrupting power of corporations is becoming normalized at the national level, we urge you to stand strong against this attempt to manipulate our local political system for the benefit of outside investors over vulnerable residents.
First, let’s be clear on who supports and funds the CAA. It consistently claims to represent “local housing providers” and “mom and pop landlords.” But in reality, it is funded by some of the largest corporate landlords in the country. According to a thorough analysis of contributions to the CAA and its political action committees (PACs), between 2017 and 2022, just six corporations donated $70 million, or almost 50%, of the more than $140 million spent to influence elections, ballot measures, and policy campaigns. These corporations included Essex ($23.6 million), AvalonBay ($19.7 million), Equity Residential ($17.5 million), Blackstone ($6.1 million), and Invitation Homes ($2.7 million).1 As the owner of over 82,000 single-family rentals across the country, Invitation Homes is the largest single-family landlord in California and the U.S.2 It is also the second largest single-family landlord in Concord.3 The CAA poses itself as protecting local property owners. The CAA is funded by Wall Street investment firms that are 3 Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. 2023. Property Ownership and Consolidation in Concord, p. 10. 2 Sofia Lopez, Samantha Kattan, and Jordan Ash. 2022. The National Home Rental Council: How America’s Largest Single-Family Landlords Put Profit over People, pp. 6-7. 1 ACCE et al. 2023. From Housing Providers to Drivers of Homelessness: How the California Apartment Association’s Wall Street Leadership Spent at least $233 Million to Block Housing Solutions, p. 9. 1
scooping up single-family properties by the thousands, making it harder for residents in Concord and around the country of all incomes and backgrounds to purchase homes of their own.4
Since the start of the debate on tenant protections in Concord in 2016, the CAA has been involved every step of the way. The CAA has used its money, staff time, and communications to try to undermine the movement for dignity and stability among tenants. As laid out below, the CAA has used communications and text campaigns since 2024 to spread misinformation about the City’s ordinance. Most recently, the CAA hired low-income individuals from as far away as the Central Valley, many of whom were actually renters, to fill the Council chambers at the March 25 City Council meeting and voice support for the landlords’ push to weaken the ordinance. As reported in the San Jose Mercury News, 30 apparent supporters of the movement to “repeal rent control” were recruited online and paid a total of approximately $7,500 ($250 per person) to wear t-shirts and hold signs provided by the CAA. “This was one of those operations for which they were hiring anyone with a pulse,” stated one participant from Concord, who reported that some of the others did not speak English or seem to understand what was going on.5
This case may seem especially egregious. But if we zoom out to consider a wider scope and longer history, we see that the CAA is regularly using its money, staff, and communications capacity to undermine tenant protection policies both within Concord and across California. To that end, we write to remind you of the facts–all of which are publicly available–about the CAA’s involvement in local and state efforts to prevent democratically elected leaders from passing common sense regulations. These measures are meant to protect the 18,000 renting households in Concord and 6 million in California from the ever-worsening affordable housing crisis, which is driving displacement, homelessness, and the disappearance of the dream of homeownership.6
In the remainder of this letter, we discuss three tactics that make up the CAA’s playbook:
influencing elections, spreading misinformation, and organizing referendums and repeal efforts. All three of these tactics have been on full display in Concord.
…
As many residents are struggling under the weight of the affordable housing crisis, the CAA is using huge donations from corporate landlords like Invitation Homes to buy elections and undermine democracy. Between 2017 and 2022, CAA-controlled PACs spent $145 million on contributions to elected officials and ballot measure campaigns. In addition, pooling its money with other corporations–like Chevron, PGE, and Phillip Morris–the CAA 6 These figures are based on data from the 2023 American Communities Survey 1-Year Estimates. 5 Kate Talerico. April 7, 2025. “Landlord Group Pays ‘Activists’ to Oppose Bay Area Rent Control Measure.” San José Mercury News.
4 Fox Business, April 29, 2024. Wall Street has spent billions buying homes. A crackdown is looming 2 Page 94 of 149
spent another $50 million in political contributions meant to boost the power of massive corporations in Sacramento. The CAA donates to candidates across the political spectrum: In 2022, it donated to the campaigns of 70% of State Legislators, including 78% of Assemblymembers.7
The CAA and its members have spent big on elections at the local level, too. After it failed to collect enough signatures to overturn democratically passed tenant protections in Santa Ana, the CAA stated on its blog that it would use its well-financed PACs to “work to elect City Council candidates who understand the importance of balanced housing policy”.8 The CAA has also consistently invested its financial and staff resources in Concord. While the CAA as an organization did not contribute directly to any City Council races in 2024, one of the CAA’s PACs, Golden State V oices United9, sponsored a series of attack mailers last fall against former Mayor Edi Birsan, a champion of tenant protections, who lost his seat by just over 100 votes.
Furthermore, the leadership of powerful CAA member Vasona Management–the largest landlord in Concord10–dontated $4,999 to Pablo Benevente’s campaign.11 Within weeks of taking his seat, Councilmember Benevente pushed to effectively dismantle the tenant protection ordinance. In 2024, Vasona also donated $218,916 to the CAA across their issues committee, independent expenditure committee, and PAC.12
The CAA has used its funding to defeat common sense regulations of runaway rents by inundating voters with misleading information. The CAA spent $121 million to defeat Propositions 10 (2018) and 21 (2020), which would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, thus allowing communities to determine their own tenant and consumer protections.13 Then, in 2024, it spent another $131 million on ballot measures, most of which was used to defeat Proposition 33, another attempt to repeal Costa-Hawkins.14 The No on Prop. 21 campaign spread inaccurate information about what the measure would do. In but one of several examples, the CAA claimed that Prop. 21 would “repeal rent laws,” when, in fact, the only rent-related law that it would have repealed was Costa-Hawkins. It also claimed that Prop. 21 14 Jeremia Kimelman. October 29, 2024. “This California Proposition Is Drawing the Most Campaign Spending.” CalMatters.
13 ACCE et al., 2023, p. 11.
12 This analysis of Vasona Management contributions to the CAA is based on data reported by the California Secretary of State.
11 Campaign finance reports 2023-2024 filed by Vasona Management & Affiliates with the California Secretary of State.
10 As of 2023, Vasona Management owned an estimated 569 rental units in Concord. See Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, 2023, pp. 4-5.
9 The CAA was the largest contributor to this PAC in 2024 according to the California Secretary of State. 8 California Apartment Association. November 22, 2021. “CAA-Led Coalition Ends Signature-Gathering Effort to Stop Santa Ana Rent Control.” CAA Net.
7 ACCE et al., 2023, pp. 3, 10-11.
3 Page 95 of 149
contained “no eviction protections.” But this was a red herring: Costa-Hawkins addresses rent regulations, not eviction protections–which the CAA routinely opposes.15
The CAA has repeatedly used this strategy of misinformation in Concord, too. When the City Council was first poised to pass tenant protections in 2024, the CAA flooded homeowners with text messages that were filled with misleading statements about the ordinance. This text message campaign targeted all homeowners in the city, even though the majority of single-family homeowners would not be impacted by the ordinance in any way. In response to the CAA’s text campaign, the City sent an email stating: “staff has learned that misinformation about the ordinance is circulating within the community, and we want to clarify that single-family homes WILL NOT be subject to the proposed rent stabilization provisions.”16 More recently, before the March 25 meeting, the CAA sent text messages that called upon residents to urge the City Council to “vote YES on Councilmember Pablo Benavente’s proposal to cap Concord rents.” Again, this message was misleading. While the ordinance already capped rents at 3%, Councilmember Benevente’s proposal would have actually increased the allowable rent cap to 7%.
When the CAA is unable to block new tenant protections through its usual strategies of influencing elected officials and deceiving voters, it uses the language of “grassroots” democracy to overturn the legislative process through well-financed referendums and repeal efforts. According to its own blog, the CAA used referendums to successfully overturn tenant protection measures passed by City Councils in Richmond (2015), Santa Rosa (2017), and El Cerrito (2019), and it tried, unsuccessfully, to do so in Santa Ana (2021).17 According to news reports, in Santa Ana, the CAA’s paid signature-gatherers misled residents into thinking that they were supporting protections when signing petitions that would, in fact, repeal those protections.
The complaints about fraud became so concerning that the City of Santa Ana was forced to create a process for residents who had been misled to rescind their signatures from the petition.18 More recently, the CAA donated $15,000 to the campaign to repeal tenant protections in Fairfax and $15,000 to the campaign to block strengthening tenant protections in Larkspur. 19
19 Richard Halstead. October 10, 2024. “Donors Pour Money into Marin Rent-Control Elections.” Marin Independent Journal.
18 Gabriel San Román. November 3, 2021. “Santa Ana Activists Rally against Efforts to Overturn Rent Control.” Los Angeles Times.
17 Mike Nemeth. January 6, 2016. “The Year in Review: CAA’s Top 10 Legislative Victories of 2015.” CAA Net. Mike Nemeth. January 13, 2017. “CAA Petition Sends Santa Rosa Rent Control Law to Voters in June.” CAA Net. Mike Nemeth. August 1, 2019. “El Cerrito Repeals ‘Just Cause’ in Response to CAA-Led Referendum.” CAA Net. California Apartment Association. October 22, 2021. “CAA Leads Signature-Gathering Effort to Referend Santa Ana Rent Control.” CAA Net. 16 Email from Kelly Rush, February 9, 2024, “February 13- Concord City Council Meeting- Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction.”
15 Ethan Silverstein. 2021. Californians Still Want Rent Control: Decoding the No on Prop 21 Misinformation Campaign, p. 4.
4 Page 96 of 149
…
The CAA and its corporate members have marshalled their unparalleled resources to influence and manipulate the debate over tenant protections in Concord. Their playbook is working. Before even a year has passed, the City Council is now on the verge of dramatically weakening the rent cap and eviction protections for single-family homes and condominiums–all key goals of the CAA’s long-standing advocacy. Many of you insist that you have tuned out the noise of big-money and outside influence–that you only listen to your neighbors, fellow churchgoers, and constituents. Yet this move to dismantle this ordinance is in lock-step with the CAA’s well-financed agenda. We urge you to reconsider. At a time when American norms and values of democracy, decency, and fairness are under daily threat, we are counting on our local leaders to refuse such a corrosion of our political system. Please keep the rent cap tied to CPI and do not take away eviction protections from thousands of residents.
Sincerely,
Alex Werth, Policy & Research Advisor, EBASE
on behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition
5 Page 97 of 149
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 2:19 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Concord City Council to Adopt Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
Good afternoon all,
I have reviewed the content of your email message and determined that we are not likely to be adversely affected by this proposed Concord ordinance change.
● The name of this Concord, CA ordinance (“Residential Tenant Protection Program”) suggests that the City of Concord is interested in the Concord Residential Tenants, to the exclusion of the other tax paying stakeholders of the Concord, CA Affordable Housing program. I certainly hope that the City of Concord is not only interested in the Concord Residential Tenants, to the exclusion of the other tax paying stakeholders of the Concord, CA.
Sincerely,
John Primus, Concord Resident since 1981
[email protected]
(925) 825-7670
From: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 5:27 PM
To: Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]> Subject: Concord City Council to Adopt Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
Good Afternoon,
At its meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 22, Concord City Council will consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the Residential Tenant Protection Program (“Ordinance”), which was introduced at its meeting held on March 25, 2025.
The Ordinance will amend the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program in the following ways:
• For Units Subject by the Ordinance to an Annual Rent Cap (In general multifamily complexes built before Feb 1995): The new Ordinance will change the annual rent increase cap to a flat maximum annual increase of 5% (as opposed to the current Ordinance which establishes the cap at 3% or 60% of CPI whichever is lower).
• For Rented Single Family Homes and Condominiums: The new Ordinance will apply just cause for eviction regulations to rented single-family homes/condominiums if a landlord rents out three or more of those units in Concord. Landlords with two or fewer rented single-family homes/condominiums within Concord will be exempt from just cause for eviction regulations. (The current regulations apply just cause for eviction regulations to all rented single-family homes/condos in Concord.) Please note that all rental properties within Concord will still be required to participate in the City’s Rent Registry Program, regardless of whether the unit is subject to just cause for eviction regulations.
If approved by a majority vote, this Ordinance would take effect 30 days after final adoption, on May 22, 2025.
A link to the new Ordinance, which is not yet in effect, can be found here.
The April 22, 2025 City Council meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. The agenda for the meeting and the staff report documents are available on the City’s agenda page. The meeting will be held in Council Chambers at Concord City Hall, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord. The April 22nd meeting will be a public meeting and public comment on the draft ordinance is invited. Public comments can also be emailed to [email protected] before 3 p.m. on April 22 to become part of the official record and to be shared with Councilmembers prior to the meeting.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3032 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
From: James Yu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:06 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Tenant Protection Program Amendment
Suggest you also consider limiting the HOA fee increase. The Taxco HOA fee increased 10% each year, much more than the controlled rent increase.
Thank you,
James Yu
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
I urge you to vote yes and finalize the amendments to the city’s punitive rent control ordinance at your April 22 meeting.
It is the right and reasonable thing to do.
Concord’s current rent control law is unsustainable. While aligning with state law would have been a better approach, the proposed changes represent a modest improvement to a draconian policy that has harmed renters, housing providers and the long-term sustainability of housing in Concord and the region.
These amendments will help fix the city’s broken rental housing laws, and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you for your leadership.
The email above was submitted by:
1. Joyce Kelly, Clayton
2. Luisa Chavez, Newark
3. Stephanie Bergin
4. Camille Calenda, Concord
From: Teri Darrenougue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 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: Urging YES Vote, Finalizing Rent Control Ord Amendments Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to vote Yes to finalize the revisions/amendments to the Rent Control Ordinance.
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. The fact that the City Council was willing to initially adopt amendments has given me hope that I can remain a landlord in Concord, and I urge you to vote Yes and amend Concord’s current housing policies.
Theresa Darrenougue
Owner/Landlord of 1254 Hale Drive, Concord, CA
From: Wei Kang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:56 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Any Local Rent Control Regulations Wei Kang
1650 Frisbie Ct
Concord, CA 94520
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (510) 299-2701
February 20, 2025
Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Subject: Opposition to Any Local Rent Control Regulations Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further local regulations that restrict rental housing providers. Rent control policies, including the current rent cap and just cause eviction requirements, impose unnecessary burdens on landlords, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately reduce the availability of quality housing in our community.
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state-approved law enacted in 1995, already provides clear guidelines on rent control in California. Under Costa-Hawkins, single-family homes and condominiums are exempt from both rent cap requirements and just cause
eviction regulations. There is no need for Concord to override or complicate these established state protections with additional local restrictions. Creating city-specific rent control policies only adds confusion and deters housing providers from continuing to invest in and maintain rental properties.
The current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), makes it increasingly difficult for landlords to keep up with rising costs, including property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Rental housing must remain financially sustainable, and excessive government interference discourages property owners from continuing to offer rental units. Similarly, the just cause eviction requirement unnecessarily restricts landlords from managing their properties effectively, making it more difficult to address problematic tenants or adjust to changing circumstances.
Furthermore, the rejection of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanded rent control measures. The City Council should respect the will of the voters and focus on policies that promote housing development rather than stifling it with excessive regulations. Expanding rent control will only drive small landlords out of the market, reducing rental supply and making affordability even worse for tenants.
Additionally we have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall.
I urge the City Council to roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord should align with state law rather than creating unnecessary and harmful restrictions that discourage housing investment. A fair and sustainable housing market requires policies that encourage private investment, not government overreach that creates long-term negative consequences.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I strongly encourage the council to prioritize policies that support both landlords and tenants by fostering a healthy and stable rental market.
Sincerely,
Wei Kang
From: James Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:40 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Thoughts on Concord Rent Stabilization
Laura,
The views we have provided here are our views and may not be those of any organization that we are members of or associated with.
We have owned and personally managed a 10-unit apartment building in Concord for over 20 years. Thank you once again for your leadership and good work on bringing sanity to the discussions about Concord’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. We support you in recognizing that an ordinance with a percentage of CPI as a part of the calculation is not sustainable and is not good for the City of Concord. We also recognize that those who do not agree with this view do not have logic to lean on other than “other cities have done this” . We have looked at the other cities which have “done this” and we find cities such as Oakland, Richmond and San Francisco, none of which are good models for what Concord is or for what Concord can be. We are so sorry that these same groups have become disruptive and threatening in their communications not only with housing providers, but with City Counsel members as well. We thank you for your strength and commitment to do the right thing for the community at large.
We understand that initially Pablo Benavente wanted the Concord Ordinance to follow the State Ordinance and if not the State Ordinance, that the new ordinance would be 5 percent plus CPI not to exceed 7 percent. We also understand that while some other council members supported rewriting the City Ordinance which provided for 60% of CPI not to exceed 3 percent, they did not support 5 percent plus CPI not to exceed 7 percent. Our understanding is that you did however support a fixed cap of 5 percent with no reference to CPI. We STRONGLY support this compromise and hope that it will not only pass, but that it will remain the rule for decades to come. The uncertainty and stress of dealing with this topic and the time it has taken over a number of years could be better spent on other matters of importance to the City of Concord and its residents. I am not sure how this City
Counsel can make the new ordinance of 5 percent as permanent as possible, but it would certainly be beneficial to all if you can.
Thank you once again for understanding the plight of housing providers and the financial stress we have been under for the period of time the current ordinance has been discussed and then put in place. Not only did material and labor costs increase dramatically during COVID, insurance costs then spiked and now tariffs are likely to bring more increases in material costs beyond what we have already experienced. Anything less than a fixed annual limit of 5 percent means that housing providers will experience a reduction over time in their income after expenses. Thank you again for understanding this and for your leadership.
All the best to you,
James and Soussan Dye
From: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 6:22 PM
To: Joe Summers <[email protected]>
Cc: Joshua Anijar <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Letter in Opposition to the Proposed Changes to Concord's Rent Control Ordinance
Hello Josh & Joe,
Thank you for your letter and for sharing the perspective of the Contra Costa Labor Council and the many workers and union members you represent. I want to acknowledge the deep emotion and frustration that many are feeling around the recent changes to Concord’s rent stabilization ordinance.
As someone who has spent much of my career advocating for workers’ rights and who proudly identifies as a product of the labor movement, I do not take this feedback lightly. I deeply respect the role that labor plays in shaping a more just and equitable society, and I remain committed to ensuring Concord is a city where working families can thrive.
When I was walking the district during my campaign and even more so after being elected, I heard from immigrants, seniors, working families, young renters, and longtime residents from all walks of life. Their stories were honest, heartfelt, and at times heartbreaking. Many felt left out of the conversation entirely. My responsibility is to listen to all voices in our community, not just the loudest or most organized.
I want to be clear: my vote was not influenced by any outside groups. It was the product of months of direct conversations with Concord residents, including tenants and small property owners, many of whom voiced concerns about the sustainability and unintended consequences of the original ordinance. My intention was to support a more balanced and workable policy, one that preserves key tenant protections while allowing small housing providers to stay in the market without undue hardship.
It’s also important to recognize that this is a deeply nuanced issue, and even within the labor community, there are diverse perspectives. I’ve spoken with many union members and labor-aligned residents who support the changes, and others who don’t. This is one of those issues that has split people who are normally aligned, and I believe the outcome we reached lands in the middle, reflecting the complexity of the situation.
I also share your outrage over the use of unethical tactics to sway public process. I condemned publicly the CAA’s actions in paying individuals to attend and speak at public
meetings, just as I have condemned the doxxing, threats, bullying, and harassment that have been directed toward me and my family by a small group of tenant activists. These behaviors on both sides undermine the democratic process and make it harder for all of us to engage in the thoughtful, values-driven debate that this moment demands.
I understand this vote was deeply disappointing to many, including members of the labor community. While we may not agree on this particular outcome, I hope we can continue working together on the many other issues facing Concord, from good jobs and worker protections to housing production and community investment.
Thank you again for your advocacy and for holding leaders accountable. I remain open to honest dialogue and to continuing the hard work of building a more equitable future for all Concord residents.
In solidarity,
Pablo Benavente
Concord City Councilmember, District 4
From: Joe Summers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 1:31 PM
To: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Cc: Joshua Anijar <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter in Opposition to the Proposed Changes to Concord's Rent Control Ordinance
Councilmember Benavente,
Attached, please find a letter from the Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO in opposition to the proposed changes to Concord's Rent Control Ordinance on tomorrow's agenda. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.
Sincerely,
Joe
--
Joe Summers (He/Him)
Campaign & Political Director
Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO
[email protected] | (707)398-1772
P .O. Box 389
Martinez, CA 94553
From: Yuehong Fu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:58 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Concord's Rent Control Ordinance Yuehong Fu
1650 Frisbie Ct
Concord, CA 94520
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (510) 468-1470
February 20, 2025
Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Subject: Opposition to Concord's Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further local regulations that restrict rental housing providers. Rent control policies, including the current rent cap and just cause eviction requirements, impose unnecessary burdens on landlords, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately reduce the availability of quality housing in our community.
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state-approved law enacted in 1995, already provides clear guidelines on rent control in California. Under Costa-Hawkins, single-family homes and condominiums are exempt from both rent cap requirements and just cause eviction regulations. There is no need for Concord to override or complicate these established state protections with additional local restrictions. Creating city-specific rent control policies only adds confusion and deters housing providers from continuing to invest in and maintain rental properties.
The current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), makes it increasingly difficult for landlords to keep up with rising costs, including property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Rental housing must remain financially sustainable, and excessive government interference discourages property owners from continuing to offer rental units. Similarly, the just cause eviction requirement unnecessarily restricts landlords from managing their properties effectively, making it more difficult to address problematic tenants or adjust to changing circumstances.
Furthermore, the rejection of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanded rent control measures. The City Council should respect the will of the voters and focus on policies that promote housing development rather than stifling it with excessive regulations. Expanding rent control will only drive small landlords out of the market, reducing rental supply and making affordability even worse for tenants.
Additionally we have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall.
I urge the City Council to roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord should align with state law rather than creating unnecessary and harmful restrictions that discourage housing investment. A fair
and sustainable housing market requires policies that encourage private investment, not government overreach that creates long-term negative consequences.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I strongly encourage the council to prioritize policies that support both landlords and tenants by fostering a healthy and stable rental market.
Sincerely,
Yuehong Fu
From: Jo Sciarroni <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 8:15 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Concord Rent Control Ordinance Amendment Mayor and Councilmembers,
I want to thank you for voting to amend the Ordinance. Although Single Family Homes should never have been included and would have prevented much of the uproar regarding this updated Ordinance. I, my clients and friends who have single family rental homes in Concord do appreciate your movement in the right direction. In the beginning, had you just aligned this Ordinance with the State of California Rent Control law SB1482 you would have put in place Tenant Protections and Landlord Regulations that a minimum would have been more fair and avoided all this turmoil.
The type of Paid Tenant Activist and their willingness to disrupt the City Council Meetings, start fights, shove and push some of the Home Providers, use vulgar language and scripted complaints, some of which had no merit, threaten Councilman Benavente, his family and others is unconscionable! The necessity to have Police guard the Chamber and Home Providers prior to the meeting and to have a Police escort to my car because it was not safe walking to the parking lot is not what the homeowners of Concord expect when attending a City of Concord Council Meeting. Now you might say it's freedom of speech, but all this has gone way beyond that. When you also felt the need to leave the Council Chambers for your own safety should tell you something.
The City of Concord's own previous records show and support that Concord Home Provider's Rents were in fact under the average for the County and Bay Area and as far as evictions, only a handful were not Just Cause Evictions. Yet you succumbed to the pressures of the Berkeley Attorney and the outside Paid Activists who used local Tenants to
do their bidding. Now like other Cities who are re-evaluating their Rent Control Ordinances, it's time for you to do the same. Voting to finalize this Amendment is the right thing to do for now.
I would like to address two issues:
1) The Rent Registry including the Exempted Single Family Homes doesn't make sense. If they are exempted from the Ordinance that should include an exemption from the Rent Registry. Please include or clarify that exemption as well in the Amendment. 2) Removing the ability to revisit this issue on an Annual Basis should not be removed from the Ordinance. It had a 100% vote of the Councilmembers when put in place and I see no reason to change it now. As laws and times change it would be beneficial to the Citizens of Concord, both Tenants and Home Providers, to update it as needed on an annual basis.
Finally as an observation, the Amendment should have been on the Consent Calendar since it was thoroughly discussed and voted on twice. Procedurally it should have been a non-issue. If it were pulled from Consent at the meeting that would have been fine, as all the usual players will be attending the Meeting tomorrow night and would be ready to speak if given that opportunity. However it may not have been pulled and would have made for a much better meeting.
I understand the Police will once again be there to assist with the disruption from the Paid Tenant Activist. I am thankful so far no one has been hurt, since over 50% of the Home Providers are elderly people, respectful Concord Citizens who are Voting Tax payors and only want you to be fair in your deliberation. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the opposing side as they have demonstrated.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email and see you tomorrow night.
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
From: Jason Heirtzler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 8:36 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Although I’m unable to attend today’s meeting, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on the Residential Tenant Protection Program.
For nearly 20 years, I have owned a single rental home in Concord—right next to the house where my wife grew up. I care deeply about this community. I am not a corporation and do not employ a property manager; this home is my only rental and is my retirement income.
I respectfully urge the Council to exempt small, individual landlords—those who own just one or two homes—from the annual registration paperwork and fees, additional rent regulations, and the Just Cause for Eviction rules and fees. These policies may be appropriate for corporations or large apartment complexes, but they place a very real burden on responsible, single landlords who are trying to provide a good home and also need to plan for their retirement. If small landlords give up and leave Concord, tech workers will buy the small homes and renovate them and move in and we will have far fewer affordable rentals on market.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason Heirtzler
From: Toby Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 8:02 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Meta-Study: The truth about rent control impacts on a City - And they are NOT Good
To Council Members:
Below is the best most comprehensive rent control meta-study (looked at all the well designed rent studies). Out of the ten results, 9.5 are bad for the city.
I did not edit these findings at all.
Too many people vote with their heart not with an informed brain.
A comprehensive meta-analysis titled "Rent Control Effects Through the Lens of Empirical Research" by Konstantin A. Kholodilin offers an extensive review of over 60 empirical studies on rent control policies.
Key Conclusions from the Meta-Analysis:
1. Reduction in Rental Housing Supply: Rent control policies often lead to a decrease in the availability of rental units, as landlords may convert properties to other uses or withdraw them from the rental market.
2. Deterioration of Housing Quality: Controlled rents can diminish landlords' incentives to maintain or improve properties, resulting in a decline in housing quality over time.
3. Increased Rents in Uncontrolled Segments: Rent control can cause a spillover effect, leading to higher rents in the uncontrolled or newly constructed housing segments due to shifted demand.
4. Reduced Residential Mobility: Tenants in rent-controlled units are less likely to move, which can lead to mismatches between housing needs and occupancy.
5. Misallocation of Housing Resources: Rent control can result in inefficient use of housing, with tenants occupying units that do not match their current needs or family size.
6. Limited Impact on New Construction: While some studies find that rent control discourages new housing development, others show minimal or no significant effect, indicating variability based on policy design and market conditions.
7. Inequitable Benefit Distribution: Benefits of rent control are not always targeted to low-income households; higher-income tenants may also receive subsidies, leading to questions about the equity of such policies.
8. Potential for Gentrification: In some cases, rent control can inadvertently contribute to gentrification by reducing the availability of affordable units and encouraging the conversion of properties to upscale housing.
9. Administrative and Compliance Challenges: Implementing and enforcing rent control policies can be complex and resource-intensive, posing challenges for local governments.
10. Mixed Effects on Overall Affordability: While rent control can provide short-term relief for existing tenants, its long-term impact on overall housing affordability is ambiguous and may depend on specific policy mechanisms and local market dynamics.
From: Jim Rankin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 8:45 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Statement to the Meeting of the Concord City Council, April 22, 2025 A 5% yearly rent hike is considerably more than the yearly increase in the average renter's income. It means rent will consume an ever increasing percentage of the income of most renters year after year, and it means a certain percentage will be forced out of the market year after year, forced to flee Concord.
The rent law passed last year is very similar to one in Oakland. The claim is that this law did not allow landlords to meet the inflation in their expenses year after year, and thus that it too heavily favored renters over landlords. I say that the proposed 5% yearly increases will too heavily favor landlords over renters.
James E. Rankin
1080 San Miguel Rd Trlr 73
Concord, CA 94518
From: Scott Greathouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 8:43 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Small Concord Landlord Urge for Change
Hi,
My name is Scott Greathouse. I've been a nurse for the last 6 years, and bought a condo in Concord in 2022. For life circumstances I needed to move out and I rented it out. When the initial rent control and ordinance was passed, it couldn't have come at a worse time. I was getting married and was hoping to move into my own condo, but with the laws that were passed I couldn't have, it could have costs me close to 10k to have my tenant vacate.
Planning a wedding and getting married wasn't cheap so I decided to keep my tenant renting and I had to find a place to rent myself. My tenant has been great, fortunately, but I urge all of you to male ammendments to the current rent ordinance to eradicate just cause for single family homes and be able to increase rents to at least 5%. It's quite scary what's happening now, I just checked zillow and there's almost 60 condos and townhouses being sold, the rent ordinances is not encouraging small landlords and this is a result. Please make the ammendments to the rent ordinances to get rid of the just cause and be able to make rent increase consistent with the state.
Best,
Scott Greathouse
From: Holly Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:21 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Thank you for your support for Rent Control Amendments Hello Mayor Carlyn
I am a Concord property owner and property manager.
Please vote YES at the Tuesday city council meeting to support Rental Control Amendments. The reason is as the following:
1. The rental cap 2.5% will push investors to leave Concord. My friends and myself will not consider buying investment property at Concord anymore as losing money here.
This will increase the rental house shortage at Concord.
2. The current rent cap will make the landlord can't make even. They will leave the rental market at Concord
3. The current concord market rent at Concord is less than the HUD payment.
Lots of multiple families at Concord the current rent is far below market, for example, a 2 bed/1 bath room apartment is around $1700-$2000. With the working hourly rate increased, people can earn this amount of money in 1-2 weeks.
It's not like the rental price is too high to make people can't afford.
4. There are lots of government support plans, like section 8 or some other relief programs to help tenants to move or help them for the rent. The tenant can apply for those kinds of programs instead of complaining about no place to live.
5. You can see Oakland is an example. The city is losing investment and can't attract people to live there and investors walk away.
Please vote YES at the coming Tuesday city council meeting to support rent Control Amendments and to make the concord keep on the right direction. Thank you!
From: cim cim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please vote YES at the Tuesday city council meeting to support Rental Control Amendments
I am a Concord property owner and property manager.
Please vote YES at the Tuesday city council meeting to support Rental Control Amendments. The reason is as the followings:
1. The rental cap 2.5% will push investors to leave Concord. My friends and myself will not consider buying investment property at Concord anymore as losing money here.
This will increase the rental house shortage at Concord.
2. The current rent cap will make the landlord can't make even. They will leave the rental market at Concord
3. The current Concord market rent is less than the HUD payment.
Lots of multiple families at Concord the current rent is far below market, for example, a 2 bed/1 bath room apartment is around $1700-$2000. With the working hourly rate increased, people can earn this amount of money in 1-2 weeks.
It's not like the rental price is too high to make people can't afford.
4. There are lots of government support plans, like section 8 or some other relief programs to help tenants to move or help them for the rent. The tenant can apply for those kinds of programs instead of complaining about no place to live.
5. You can see Oakland is an example. The city is losing investment and can't attract people to live there and investors walk away.
Please vote YES at the coming Tuesday city council meeting to support rent Control Amendments and to make the Concord keep on the right direction. Thank you!
From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:03 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Considering – adoption of Ordinance No. 25-3 amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40
Dear Mayor Carolyn Obringer and city Council,
I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.
This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.
The city never had any evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law was working effectively.
Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent. This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Our average insurance, trash, city fees, utilities cost raise is on average about between 5% - 8%, how can I be expected to operate with the city of Concord proposed fee of 3%? Our PG&E costs have quadrupled with no justification whatsoever, from the state, PUC or any agency in charge of controlling these increases with no end at site. Why are you bullying housing providers who pick up all the costs for the fees you were supposed to use to determine rental registry which has yet to be used for any discussion or an educated proposal thus far? Please use your own research as opposed to being bullied by the so-called rental advocates and their bad actors with no proof whatsoever. If the bad actors who claim they are concord residents how can they appear at the City of Antioch city council meeting making the same claims? God has given you the gift of common sense, please use it as opposed to punishing the housing providers as if we are the enemy?
We have worked long and hard our entire lives in order to have a decent and comfortable living, have made sacrifices and served this country in two recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan and now upon returning home find ourselves at another war being waged at us by rental advocates and their thugs who have no stakes in the matter, they do not pay taxes, provide anything of value but to take whatever they want because they think they are entitled to it. The unfortunate part is that the state of California, some counties, and now the city of Concord keeps on giving them whatever they want at our expense. How is that right, legal, ethical, or even fair?
This city council gave themselves a pay raise of 17%, wants to increase the so-called rental registry fees to $50 from the existing $5/unit over 90% increase with no justification, have increased its building inspection fees by more than 50% with no notification or justification whatsoever, and now this. You are all like a walking contradiction DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO hypocrisy.
Please let me explain how we make a decent and hard working living at Concord. We wake up at 6 am every morning six days a week in order to clean our apartment complex, attend to our maintenance requests, attend to our tenants, help our disabled tenants get their mail, help them carry their groceries, etc. And at the end of decades of hard work having nothing to show but to have our property devalued, being harrassed, and bullied by the so- called rental advocates, the state, and now this city council why? Please let AB 1482 work even though it was not voted for but imposed upon us by the state of California. In fact it has worked far better than expected at the city of Concord according to your own staff research. Do not be misled or bullied by the rental advocates and their actors since they have yet to provide any shred of evidence of what they claim. Please have the courage and integrity to do the right thing by opposing the proposal before this city council and do not destroy this city that you proclaim to protect and preserve. Let the city of Concord prosper and become a vibrant city like Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Lafayett, Orinda as opposed to destroying it like Oakland, Richmond, and Antioch dominated by crime and violence. I hope you will look favorably on me as well as many hard working housing providers throughout Concord.
Thank You,
Wallace
From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:21 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Considering – adoption of Ordinance No. 25-3 amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4. We maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.
We support a discussion on re-evaluating the unsustainable and restrictive rent cap. In addition, the city should review the just cause ordinance and remove requirements that hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for Concord renters.
Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. We as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process and please vote on this as soon as possible.
Unlike the tenants advocates and their thugs we do not make threats against you and your family because you didn not vote our way but are civil in all the proceedings.
Thank You,
Wallace Freddie
From: Wallace Freddie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:27 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Considering – adoption of Ordinance No. 25-3 amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40
We support the Concord’s rent control program would raise the rent cap to a fixed 5% and exempt some single-family homes and condominiums from “just cause” eviction However, Concord should align its ordinance with the state’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019, also known as AB 1482, and supports all efforts to fix the city’s deeply flawed rental housing law.
Please vote yes on the amendments.
Thank You,
From: Sacha Simpson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:46 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Sacha Simpson <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow-Up: Urging a Balanced and Sustainable Rent Control Policy Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
I want to follow up on my previous message to underscore how critical it is that Concord adopts a rent control provision that protects tenants and fairly considers the realities facing local landlords. Getting this right is essential—not just for today’s housing climate, but for the long-term health of our city’s rental market.
I respectfully urge the council to move forward with thoughtful policy refinements that strike a better balance. Our community deserves a solution that supports both stable housing for renters and sustainable conditions for housing providers.
A special thank you to Councilmember Pablo Benavente for his leadership throughout this process. Your efforts to engage diverse perspectives and guide this conversation with integrity have not gone unnoticed.
Thank you all for your time and continued commitment to the people of Concord.
Warm regards,
Serving the Real Estate Community Since 1989
SACHA SIMPSON | REALTOR ®
Re/MAX Accord
800 S. Broadway #100 Walnut Creek,
CA 94596 M: (925) 701-1044
Lic# 01030598
E: [email protected]
From: Paul Schroeder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:06 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Committee Meeting 4/22 - Rent Stabilization Good afternoon,
My name is Paul Schroeder and I am a East Bay Resident who works in the affordable housing industry. To me, Concord is a city where families and young professionals should have a stable place to call home. As such, I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance that are on the table. Why is the Council proposing to double the allowable rent increase when families are struggling with rents that are already too high? Why is the Council already weakening the ordinance that they just passed less than a year ago?
This sudden initiative to weaken the ordinance brings up a new concern. I am worried about the influence of corporate landlords and lobbying groups. The California Apartment Association, a multi-million dollar landlord lobby group sent mailers to voters in Concord in Districts 2, 4 and 5 to influence this vote. I don’t want Concord to be a city more accountable to corporations than to working families, seniors, and young people struggling to make ends meet and to keep a roof over their heads.
I urge you to retain the current tenant protections. Renters and community members fought long and hard for eight years and finally passed it with a 4-1 vote at City Council last Spring. Please keep the allowable rent increase at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower, and make sure all renters have protections from unjust evictions.
Concord should be a place that families, seniors, and young people can call home. We are counting on you to listen to the needs of Concord’s working families over the profit interests of corporate lobby groups.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Cheers,
Paul Schroeder (he/him)
Project Manager
[email protected]
Cell: 510-626-0165
From: Eileen Sochia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:08 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: Concord Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, My name is Eileen Sochia and I am an East Bay Resident, working at an organization that does work in Concord. I have lived and worked here for 12 years. Concord is a city where everyone, including renters, should have a stable place to call home. As such, I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance that are on the table. Why is the Council proposing to double the allowable rent increase when families are struggling with rents that are already too high? Why is the Council already weakening the ordinance that they just passed less than a year ago? In a destabilizing economy, rent protections are particularly essential for our most vulnerable residents to continue to have housing.
This sudden initiative to weaken the ordinance brings up a new concern. I am worried about the influence of corporate landlords and lobbying groups. The California Apartment Association, a multi-million dollar landlord lobby group sent mailers to voters in Concord in Districts 2, 4 and 5 to influence this vote. I don’t want Concord to be a city more accountable to corporations than to working families, seniors, and young people struggling to make ends meet and to keep a roof over their heads.
I urge you to retain the current tenant protections. Renters and community members fought long and hard for eight years and finally passed it with a 4-1 vote at City Council last Spring. Please keep the allowable rent increase at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower, and make sure all renters have protections from unjust evictions.
Concord should be a place that families, seniors, and young people can call home. We are counting on you to listen to the needs of Concord’s working families over the profit interests of corporate lobby groups.
Sincerely,
Eileen Sochia (she/they)
Senior Project Manager
510-519-1867 Direct
[email protected]
The Unity Council
1900 Fruitvale Ave, Suite 2A
Oakland CA 94601
www.unitycouncil.org
From: RAQUEL RATH <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 12:28 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Cc: Carole O'Hare <[email protected]>; vince ohare <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Concord City Council Introduces Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
Yes please use my email below as this is doing nothing to help tenants, this will hurt Concord renters if they continue with this. Thank you.
On 03/31/2025 1:07 PM MDT Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Raquel,
I apologize for the frustration.
The 2nd reading and adoption of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled to occur during the regularly scheduled city council meeting on April 22, 2025. If you are happy with me doing so, I can submit your email below as part of the public correspondence packet for City Council to review for the April 22nd meeting. Your comment will be available for viewing by the general public as well. You can also write to City Council directly at [email protected].
Please let me know if you would like for me to include your email as part of the April 22nd meeting’s public correspondence packet.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3032 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
From: RAQUEL RATH <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 12:03 PM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Cc: Carole O'Hare <[email protected]>; vince ohare <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Concord City Council Introduces Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
I will reach out to Echo housing as this really leaves no good options for tenants or owners, we don't want to evict however help her move to where she can afford. Forcing us to evict rather than work out a good deal that helps both is really hurtful to all parties. I don't think the city has thought about any of this from all options that happen in the real world. This all is causing a lot of chaos to all parties dealing with homes in Concord. I have more owners that will sell now because of all of this.
On 03/31/2025 12:40 PM MDT Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Raquel,
Thank you for reaching out with your questions.
As of today, the current provisions provide that rented single family homes and condos are covered by the Just Cause for Eviction provisions. This requires that owners cite one of the allowed reasons in the Ordinance to terminate a tenancy. Sale of a property is not one of the Just Cause reasons for eviction. This does not prevent the owner from selling the property, but rather just prevents them from terminating the tenancy to sell the unit. There is a Just Cause reason listed in the Ordinance for default in rent. It is always suggested that you reach out to ECHO Housing for housing counseling services to assist with determining if your scenario might meet this requirement and/or that the property owner obtain legal advice. ECHO Housing can be reached at 925-732-3919.
Under the proposed amendment, the rental unit would become exempt from the Just Cause for Eviction provisions, if the single family home or condo is owned by an owner who
owns 2 or fewer of these properties that are rented out to tenants. As provided in the prior email, it is important to note that the new ordinance is not yet in effect. The Council will consider the Ordinance for the second time, as required by law, at the public Council Meeting of April 22, 2025. If approved at this meeting, the Ordinance would go into effect 30 days later on May 22, 2025. Thie effective date would be the point in which the unit would not be subject to the Just Cause for Eviction provisions.
Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3032 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
From: RAQUEL RATH <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 7:12 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Cc: Carole O'Hare <[email protected]>; vince ohare <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Concord City Council Introduces Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
This is making being a manager or investor very difficult with so much confusion. My owner was just told by someone at your office that she can't give a 60 day notice so she can sell her unit. She doesn't own more than 2 properties in Concord so reading this it sounds like she can. We have a tenant that is 20 days late or more every month and because of all the Concord chaos we've been dealing with it as there was so much confusion.
Could we get in writing that yes, we can give notice and sell her place without the city of Concord coming after any of us for all these changed laws.
Raquel Rath
Mount Diablo Realty & Property Management
On 03/27/2025 6:52 PM MDT Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
March 25, 2025 - Concord City Council Introduces Ordinance Amending the Residential Tenant Protection Program for Single-Family Homes and Condominiums and Amending the Annual Rent Increase Cap
Dear Interested Party:
Last Tuesday night, Concord City Council took the first step in amending the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program in the following ways:
• For Units Subject by the Ordinance to an Annual Rent Cap (In general multifamily complexes built before Feb 1995): The new Ordinance will change the annual rent increase cap to a flat maximum annual increase of 5% (as opposed to the current Ordinance which establishes the cap at 3% or 60% of CPI whichever is lower).
• For Rented Single Family Homes and Condominiums: The new Ordinance will apply just cause for eviction regulations to rented single-family homes/condominiums if a landlord rents out three or more of those units. Landlords with two or fewer rented single-family homes/condominiums will be exempt from just cause for eviction regulations. (The current regulations apply just cause for eviction regulations to all rented single-family homes/condos.) Please note that all rental properties will still be required to participate in the City’s Rent Registry Program—although registration of these units is currently suspended until further notice.
It is Important to Note that the New Ordinance Is Not Yet In Effect The Council will consider the Ordinance for the second time, as required by law, at the public Council Meeting of April 22, 2025. The Ordinance would go into effect 30 days later on May 22, 2025. In other words, the soonest that the amended Ordinance would go into effect is May 22nd.
A link to the new Ordinance, which is not yet in effect, can be found here. The March 25, 2025 City Council discussion on this item is available to watch on video beginning at minute 26:23 here.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3032 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
From: Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:43 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment to proposed changes in "Residential Tenant Protection Program" Dear Concord City Clerk and Concord City Council Members, My name is Ann Chen. I am a resident of East Bay who has done work in the Concord area for the last 5 years at a non-profit focused on providing services to the low-income community members of Concord.
As someone who works on behalf of families that already have to fight for access to basic resources, this change in policies is extremely disconcerting. The proposed changes would allow landlords to double the rent increases on families that live in rent-controlled units.
Meanwhile, there’s monumental evidence that increasing income gaps and wage stagnation among low-income folks are very much central elements of the housing affordability crisis.
In addition, I’m very concerned about the change to eviction restrictions. What are the grounds for changing the eviction conditions for homeowners? This change would put 33% of Concord’s renters at risk of unjust evictions. When those families face those evictions and face housing insecurity and potentially homelessness, what will the City of Concord do? These policy changes only exacerbate the problems already being faced by Bay Area residents every day.
In addition, this ordinance had not even been completely implemented before this proposal for change was pushed. What policy outcomes warrant the changes that are being proposed if no data has even been collected? This sudden initiative to weaken the ordinance brings concerns about how Concord may respond to lobbyists and stakeholders
with capital in the future. All cities, including the City of Concord, have a responsibility to their residents, first and foremost. The renters and community members fought long and hard for these protections over 8 years, and these changes are counter to all the expressed needs of those community members. Please keep the allowable rent increase at 60% of CPI or 3%, whichever is lower, and make sure all renters have protection from unjust evictions.
I hope Concord will be a place that cares for its residents.
Sincerely,
Ann Chen
From: Carole O"Hare
To: Rush, Kelly
Cc: raquelrath; Vince O"Hare; Apryl B.
Subject: current city of concord rent control ordinance Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 11:46:24 AM
Would like to express our frustration with this ordinance.
We are owners of two condominiums for rent in the city of Concord. Have owned these for 30 years and successfully rented them with no problems until now. We are now going to sell both properties as soon as possible due to this ordinance. Our expenses have gone up with both HOA and insurance increases. Despite this our ability to raise the rent to reflect these increases is limited. We have a tenant who is consistently late with rent payments and we can do nothing about this as we were advised not to give her notice due to the ordinance.
You will lose owners like us who have good single family homes and condominiums for rent in Concord and be left with limited supply of apartments.
When you restrict the ability of owners to have a viable business in your city you will no longer have these owners.
--
Carole O'Hare
Moyer Place Interiors
2455 Southview Dr.
Alamo, Ca. 94507
925 855-1016
925 334-0435
From: Carole O'Hare [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 12:34 PM
To: Rush, Kelly [email protected]
Subject: Re: Concord City Council Introduces Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
Yes, please include our e-mail. Hopefully this will highlight the total frustration, confusion and generally destructive effect of this ordinance.
From: Carole O'Hare <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 11:58 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Cc: RAQUEL RATH <[email protected]>; vince ohare <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Concord City Council Introduces Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
I am not clear what"default in rent" means. Is there any place where that is better defined? Our tenant is consistently 25 days late in paying rent. She is now a full month behind in the rent. We have accepted her payments, though late, as we want to avoid eviction. However, based on what you are saying, our only recourse to get her out is to refuse the late rent and evict. Is that the case? Our preference would be to cite "consistent late payment of rent" as one of the just causes for giving a 60 day notice.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:40 AM Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Raquel,
Thank you for reaching out with your questions.
As of today, the current provisions provide that rented single family homes and condos are covered by the Just Cause for Eviction provisions. This requires that owners cite one of the allowed reasons in the Ordinance to terminate a tenancy. Sale of a property is not one of the Just Cause reasons for eviction. This does not prevent the owner from selling the property, but rather just prevents them from terminating the tenancy to sell the unit. There is a Just Cause reason listed in the Ordinance for default in rent. It is always suggested that you reach out to ECHO Housing for housing counseling services to assist with determining if your scenario might meet this requirement and/or that the property owner obtain legal advice. ECHO Housing can be reached at 925-732-3919.
Under the proposed amendment, the rental unit would become exempt from the Just Cause for Eviction provisions, if the single family home or condo is owned by an owner who owns 2 or fewer of these properties that are rented out to tenants. As provided in the prior email, it is important to note that the new ordinance is not yet in effect. The Council will consider the Ordinance for the second time, as required by law, at the public Council Meeting of April 22, 2025. If approved at this meeting, the Ordinance would go into effect 30 days later on May 22, 2025. Thie effective date would be the point in which the unit would not be subject to the Just Cause for Eviction provisions.
Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3032 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here.
From: RAQUEL RATH <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 7:12 AM
To: Rush, Kelly <[email protected]>
Cc: Carole O'Hare <[email protected]>; vince ohare <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Concord City Council Introduces Amendments to the Residential Tenant Protection Program
This is making being a manager or investor very difficult with so much confusion. My owner was just told by someone at your office that she can't give a 60 day notice so she can sell her unit. She doesn't own more than 2 properties in Concord so reading this it sounds like she can. We have a tenant that is 20 days late or more every month and because of all the Concord chaos we've been dealing with it as there was so much confusion.
Could we get in writing that yes, we can give notice and sell her place without the city of Concord coming after any of us for all these changed laws.
Raquel Rath
Mount Diablo Realty & Property Management
On 03/27/2025 6:52 PM MDT Rush, Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
March 25, 2025 - Concord City Council Introduces Ordinance Amending the Residential Tenant Protection Program for Single-Family Homes and Condominiums and Amending the Annual Rent Increase Cap
Dear Interested Party:
Last Tuesday night, Concord City Council took the first step in amending the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program in the following ways:
• For Units Subject by the Ordinance to an Annual Rent Cap (In general multifamily complexes built before Feb 1995): The new Ordinance will change the annual rent increase cap to a flat maximum annual increase of 5% (as opposed to the current Ordinance which establishes the cap at 3% or 60% of CPI whichever is lower). • For Rented Single Family Homes and Condominiums: The new Ordinance will apply just cause for eviction regulations to rented single-family homes/condominiums if a landlord rents out three or more of those units. Landlords with two or fewer rented single-family homes/condominiums will be exempt from just cause for eviction regulations. (The current regulations apply just cause for eviction regulations to all rented single-family homes/condos.) Please note that all rental properties will still be required to participate in the City’s Rent Registry Program—although registration of these units is currently suspended until further notice.
It is Important to Note that the New Ordinance Is Not Yet In Effect
The Council will consider the Ordinance for the second time, as required by law, at the public Council Meeting of April 22, 2025. The Ordinance would go into effect 30 days later on May 22, 2025. In other words, the soonest that the amended Ordinance would go into effect is May 22nd.
A link to the new Ordinance, which is not yet in effect, can be found here. The March 25, 2025 City Council discussion on this item is available to watch on video beginning at minute 26:23 here.
Thank you.
Kelly Rush (She/Her/Hers)
Housing Program Analyst
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3032 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/10A, Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org | www.concordfirst.com
Please take a moment to fill out our customer service survey, click here --
Carole O'Hare
Moyer Place Interiors
2455 Southview Dr.
Alamo, Ca. 94507
925 855-1016
925 334-0435
March 28, 2025
The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Support for East Bay Regional Park District South of Bailey Road – Community Development Project
Dear Representative DeSaulnier,
I am writing to express my strong support of the East Bay Regional Park District’s request for $2,000,000 in funding for the South of Bailey Road Community Development Project.
This important initiative, located within Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port Chicago 50, represents a significant step toward revitalizing former military land and increasing public access to one of the East Bay’s most notable historical and natural landmarks. The requested funding will be crucial in completing essential infrastructure improvements, including the construction of visitor facilities, restrooms, drinking fountains, public parking, and upgrades to Bailey Road to improve traffic flow and access. These improvements will open the southern 890-acre section of the property to the public, providing over one million residents in Contra Costa County and the surrounding East Bay area with enhanced outdoor opportunities. The project will also contribute to sharing the history of the Port Chicago Naval Explosion site and offer valuable educational experiences for the community.
The South of Bailey Road Community Development Project will have a lasting and positive impact on the region by creating new opportunities for outdoor activities, conservation education and historical interpretation. I fully support this initiative and believe it will bring substantial long-term economic and health benefits to both the local community and the broader East Bay region.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I strongly encourage your support for this important project.
Sincerely,
Carlyn S. Obringer
City of Concord Mayor
cc: Concord City Council
City Manager Valerie Barone
Concord City Clerk
6.a
6.b
6.c
April 14, 2025
RE: Support for La Concordia Wellness Center
Dear Grant Committee,
I am pleased to offer my full support for La Concordia Wellness Center’s grant application. Their commitment to providing accessible mental health and wellness services is an invaluable asset to our community. The proposed initiative aims to expand critical support services for individuals and families who may otherwise face challenges in accessing care.
La Concordia Wellness Center’s work aligns with our shared goal of fostering a healthier, more resilient community. By offering professional support, group services, and assistance tailored to diverse needs, they are making a meaningful difference in the lives of many. Their dedication to serving vulnerable populations further underscores the importance of their work.
In an era where mental health and well-being are more critical than ever, organizations like La Concordia Wellness Center provide essential lifelines to those in need. Their comprehensive and culturally attuned approach ensures that individuals receive not just immediate support, but also the long-term care necessary to thrive. The impact of this initiative will be felt not only by those directly served but also by the broader community, strengthening the social fabric and promoting overall well- being.
I strongly encourage your consideration of this funding request. Supporting La Concordia Wellness Center will ensure that essential services remain available to those who need them most. I have no doubt that this investment will lead to lasting positive change for countless individuals. Please do not hesitate to reach out if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
Carlyn S. Obringer
City of Concord Mayor
cc: Concord City Council
City Manager Valerie Barone
Assistant City Manager Justin Ezell
City Clerk Joelle Fockler
6.d
April 8, 2025
The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier
United States House of Representatives
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Support for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s Station LED Lighting Program
Dear Congressman DeSaulnier:
As Mayor of Concord, I write to support the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s (BART) Fiscal Year 2026 Community Project Funding request for $400,000 to support the District’s Station LED Lighting Program.
BART continues to embark on projects to modernize its stations and half-century-old infrastructure. This funding would allow BART to install more efficient light-emitting diode (LED) lighting at six stations within your district: Lafayette, Orinda, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre Station, Walnut Creek, and our own Concord and North Concord/Martinez stations.
By upgrading lighting in core stations and parking garages to LEDs, BART is saving money on energy and maintenance costs while providing brighter and more reliable lighting for increased safety and visibility. Once completed, this program is anticipated to reduce energy use from station lighting by 50%.
We appreciate your consideration of this request. Should you have any questions about our support, please contact Justin Ezell at [email protected] or (925) 671-3155.
Sincerely,
Carlyn S. Obringer
City of Concord Mayor
cc: Concord City Council
City Manager Valerie Barone
Concord City Clerk
6.e
6.f