Good evening. Armando Cruz. If you're in the audience, Armando Cruz, are you in the audience?
I'm looking for my Spanish translator. Armando.
Okay, it's 703, and I'm calling to order the January 12, 2026 meeting of the San Leandro
City Council. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Madam Clerk, would you please take a roll?
Vice Mayor Viviros Walton.
Present.
Council Member Azevedo is absent.
Council Member Aguilar.
Present.
Council Member Simon.
Present.
Council Member Bowen.
Present.
Council Member Bolt.
Present.
And Mayor Gonzalez.
Present.
The City of San Fernando conducts orderly meetings to fulfill its mandate, discriminatory
statements for conduct that would potentially violate the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
and or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
California Penal Code sections 4-3 or 4-15 are per se disruptive to meeting and will
not be tolerated.
Please see the City Council Handbook and City Council Meeting Rules of Decorum for more
information.
And I won't offer this because we've got a lot of people here today.
It's important that people be on their best behavior.
So in this chamber, we don't allow cheering, screaming, behavior that disrupts our meeting.
This is our meeting, and you guys are here to give us some feedback, that there will
be no disruptions or anything like that.
If there is, I'll offer a warning, and at some point we may just clear the room.
in the past has been behaved after they get this kind of initial admonition, so
let's all be on our best behavior today. Madam Clerk, your announcement. If you
would like to make a public comment during the meeting, you can do so in
person or via Zoom. If you are present at the meeting, please complete a speaker
card and submit it to the city clerk before the item is presented. If you wish
to participate in public comment via Zoom, you can use the raise your hand
tool when the item is called. During the public comment session, speakers will be
invited to speak and will have a set time to share their comments. A countdown
timer will appear for their convenience and when time is up the microphone will
be muted. All raised hands outside of public comment will be lowered to avoid
confusion. Once public comment is opened hands may be raised to speak and we will
now ask our interpreters to come forward
and repeat the information in Chinese and Spanish.
Hi, this is Wei-Kuan Chen, Chinese interpreter.
I am going to speak in Cantonese
in case there are Chinese-speaking members
of the public here, in case they need the interpretation,
let them know the rules.
In the end, we have a relationship between the two companies.
We have a relationship between the two companies.
In the end, we have a relationship between the two companies.
We have a relationship between the two companies.
We have a relationship between the two companies.
We have a relationship between the two companies.
We have been working with the government for a long time.
We have been working with the government for a long time.
We have been working with the government for a long time.
We have been working with the government for a long time.
We have been working with the government for a long time.
We have been working with the government for a long time.
Thank you very much.
In the last few years, the interpretation of the original language and the communication of the Secretary, the Secretary of the State, has been interpreted.
Recorder a ser pausas períodicas para que el interpreté pueda propocionar una traducion presisa.
Nos veradores despondran de dos minutos para exponer sus commentarios.
No muy uno interpreté hablará primero y dará las instructiones. No muy dos.
El commentario publico commentsar a entonces si initiera un chronometro un redo de los minutos.
El commentatista commentarista puede commentsar hablar por favor aga pauces periodicas para
permiter que el interpreté tradusca.
When they interpret it, they say that the chronometer is spent on a paper.
Don't worry.
When they interpret it, they say that the chronometer is spent on a paper.
They continue to consider the process, and they repeat what they have done in the last few minutes.
They say that it is spent on a paper.
okay at this point in time we will come to our city manager for an announcement
thank you mr. mayor good evening council members and community members I'm
excited to announce that last Thursday governor Newsom in his state of the
state address highlighted the city of San Leandro he talked about how the Cal
competes tax credit program is supporting the expansion of innovation in
the state he highlighted the fusion energy research and development that
Fuse Energy is doing in San Leandro. With their pulse power fusion machines,
Fuse is working to create a safe, abundant, zero carbon emitting source of
reliable energy. With the help of a ten million dollar credit, Fuse is planning
to make investments and hiring in San Leandro and the East Bay. We are proud to
have the governor recognize San Leandro's thriving tech and manufacturing
cluster, where companies are working to create what's next. Bring good jobs,
investment, and clean energy solutions to our community. Mayor, that concludes my
announcement. Thank you. One final announcement. Last week's edition of
Sandilator Times stated, the City Council votes to put tax on the ballot, and I
know that this headline caused some confusion. So to be clear, the Council
authorized staff to explore the feasibility of potential measures.
Council has not decided whether to place a measure on a future ballot. The
announcements being done, I'll come for a closed session. Did we have any
reportable action? Thank You Mayor. No reportable actions were taken in close
session this evening but direction was provided to staff. At this point in time
we'll move to our consent calendar. Are there any amendments to the consent
calendar. Seeing none is there a motion. Councillor
Wilder. I would like to make a motion to accept the consent calendar.
Okay. Councillor Aguilar. That was vice mayor, so councilmember Aguilar.
I'll second. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. We'll
take public comment on this item at this time. Mayor, we have not received any comment cards
and there are no hands raised. So we'll close public comment, come back to
Council any further discussion seeing none please vote. All votes are in and
the motion carries with six ayes and council member Azevedo absent. Okay at
this point in time we move to our presentations or presentations we'll
begin with our review of the federal 2026 federal and state legislative
platforms and we'll receive an annual update from Jen Covino from Covino and
Covino Smith and Simon as well as a state government liaison, the former being
our federal government liaison and that being Nicola DeLuca. So we'll begin with
Jen as she is on the East Coast. I want to make sure that she can get to bed at a
reasonable hour tonight. I guess you're introducing the item. My apologies.
Deputy City Manager Eric Engelbart. Sure, good evening mayor and council members.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this presentation to you all. As you may
recall both Jen and Niccolo who the mayor kindly introduced have each been
working with the city for many years and their key role is to advocate for San
Landros interests both in Washington DC as well as in Sacramento. Before you and
your packets this evening are two key documents for which we're seeking your
feedback. The first is the draft federal platform for 2026 calendar year and the
other document is the draft state platform for 2026. The primary purpose
of these documents is to serve as our work plan for the upcoming calendar year
for any efforts that involve coordination with either the federal or state governments.
And related efforts could include attending meetings, advocating for projects or funding
or other related needs.
As always, the legislative process is inherently dynamic, so your council retains the authority
to modify this document should needs arise or if any other changes need to be made.
And since this item is agendized as a presentation tonight, we'll, of course, take your feedback
and then come back at a subsequent meeting with a with a final version of the document that
incorporates any of your feedback for for a final action. And with that I'll now hand things over
to Jen who will be joining us remotely from Washington DC. And after Jen finishes up we'll
help Nick hello here in person to give his presentation and then we'll be prepared all
of us will be prepared to answer any questions once they've concluded their presentations.
Thank you and with that I'll hand things over to Jen via Zoom.
Hey, good evening. Thanks so much for that introduction, Eric, and for all of your help
coordinating the federal legislative platform this year for the council's review. I'd like to say
good evening to the mayor, to the city council, the city manager, city attorney, other city staff
and constituents who are in the room there. I'm going to provide a brief overview of the federal
landscape for 2026. And at the end of my presentation, I'm happy to take any questions
or answers you may have about my presentation or the platform. So I am going to begin screen sharing
and I've sent the request to share my screen. Sorry about that. Can everyone see okay? Can
everyone see my screen all right? Yes. Okay, great. Sorry about that. And here we go. So over in the
executive branch, President Trump, Vice President Vance and the administration have set forth an
agenda to advance their America First foreign policy and domestic policy this year, and
we're going to spend most of 2026 focused on a few items or what I would refer to as
the known known. So the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will continue
as the administration is now six months into the implementation of this budget reconciliation
measure that was passed with a simple majority last year that includes a number of different
policy matters including health care and tax reform. They'll also be pursuing a number of
domestic policy reforms across issues of concern to the city of San Leandro, largely focused on
housing, law enforcement and public safety, clean energy, and public infrastructure. Of course,
we've seen across the country a prioritization of enforcing current immigration laws on the books,
And obviously what happened in Minneapolis last week
will certainly complicate politics back here
over the weeks and months ahead as members of Congress
try to finalize the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process
and work toward a resolution
on the Homeland Security spending bill
with some potential considerations
and concerns being expressed by certain members of Congress.
We expect that on the world stage,
President Trump will continue to assert his America
first foreign policy agenda as the Supreme Court
is likely to consider the fate of tariffs
that have been imposed unilaterally
by the executive branch.
Finally, you all saw efforts through the Doge Initiative
led by Elon Musk across the whole of federal government
last year seeking to reduce the federal workforce
as well as federal administrative bureaucracy.
We expect entering 2026 for the downsized workforce
to encounter some perhaps challenges ahead
with administrative capacity,
considering the fact that we have lost
more than 300,000 federal workers over the past 12 months.
Shifting gears, we will continue to advise
the city of San Leandro on a variety of executive orders
and actions that have been taken.
And I would like to start just with the reflection
on memorandum entitled Regulatory Freeze Penning Review
that was issued by the White House Office
of Management and Budget at this time last year,
last January, which at that moment in time
instructed a whole of government freeze on federal funding.
That was later rescinded pending judicial action.
And instead, the White House issued executive order 14332
entitled, Improving Oversight of Federal Grant Making.
I want to note that this executive order included
a directive to all federal agencies
to update uniform guidance around all federal grant
terms and conditions.
And so I would call your attention to the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 200-340,
which includes provisions related to termination for convenience.
This provision within the Code of Federal Regulations, moving forward, will instruct
federal agencies to include terms and conditions on all federal grants and contracts for assistance
that would allow the federal agency to terminate a grant agreement for convenience if that
project or proposal no longer serves the administration's goals or objectives being
carried out by that federal agency. Of course, sometimes the City looks to the federal government
for resources to support short-term projects or operations. However, many times the City is looking
to the federal government for long-term investments in our physical infrastructure that carry a
multi-year project period, and so we just want to urge your caution as we go forward and be mindful
of those grant agreements as they come across your desks.
Over the past 12 months, we've also seen a variety
of other executive orders,
some pertaining to so-called diversity, equity
and inclusion initiatives that are referenced
here on the screen.
We've seen executive order 14154,
which is entitled, unleashing American energy
that provided directive
for the administration's energy investments moving forward,
placing restrictions on solar and wind energy,
as well as use of EB charging infrastructure.
And then finally, we come to the suite
of executive orders pertaining
to federal immigration enforcement.
There are a variety, almost half a dozen executive orders
that instruct the administration's operations
when it comes to immigration enforcement.
Of course, we've been in close consultation
with the city throughout the past 12 months.
And we expect to continue advising you in the year ahead
on the implementation of these EOs moving forward.
Shifting gears quickly to the legislative branch,
it's really important to note the very slim majorities
that we have in both chambers right now.
And even since I first sent this presentation,
we've had updates to the majority
in the House of Representatives
following the death of Congressman Doug LaMalfa
of Southern California,
as well as the resignation of Marjorie Taylor Greene
Georgia, which has left the Republican majority with 218 votes and basically no wiggle room when
it comes to ensuring a majority to pass any legislation with the simple majority. Over in
the Senate, Republicans have 53 votes to Democrats 45 votes. And of course, there are two independent
senators who typically caucus with the Democrats. I would just note that as we anticipate the
legislative agenda moving forward in 2026, it's important to note that Republicans are seven vote
shy of the 60 vote threshold needed to circumvent the filibuster. Instead, last year we saw
the Republican majority relying on a simple majority vote through a budget reconciliation
process that can be utilized to circumvent the 60 vote threshold.
Of course, you're all familiar with your members of the congressional delegation. Senator Padilla
is now serving as the senior senator. He enjoys committee assignments on the environment and
and Public Works Committee,
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Judiciary, Budget, and Rules.
Your junior Senator, Adam Schiff, was elected in 2024
and enjoys committee assignments,
including environment and public works,
agriculture, judiciary, and small business.
And of course, Representative Simon serves on committees,
including oversight and government reform,
as well as small business.
Now we're coming to an end
on the federal fiscal year 2026 budget appropriations process.
25% of the federal government has been funded
by a previous mini bus that funded their operations
through September 30th.
That includes agriculture, military construction,
veterans affairs, and legislative branch.
Notably, the agriculture funding will ensure
that nutrition assistance will not be interrupted
for the rest of the year.
And the military construction and VA bill
also ensures that veterans will receive access
to their healthcare and other programs
while military construction of projects
and initiatives will be ongoing.
The continuing resolution, which is a short-term stopgap
that funds the rest of the government
through nine other spending bills,
will expire January 30th,
and I've got a list on your screen for your awareness.
It's worth noting that this past week,
there was another second minibus introduced
that included the Energy and Water Spending Bill,
the Commerce Justice Science Spending Bill,
and finally, the Interior and Environment Spending Bill.
The Interior and Environment Spending Bill is notable
because it includes a $1 million earmark
for the city of San Leandro
that was sponsored by Congresswoman Simon
in support of water infrastructure needs
along the shoreline there.
That bill has now passed the House
and we're hopeful that the Senate will consider
and advance that measure sometime
perhaps as early as this week.
We do not expect major complications with that legislation
and so we're very hopeful for resolution
that is favorable to the city
on that community project fund request
for your water infrastructure needs at Shoreline.
As we prepare to turn a page on FY27,
we would encourage city staff to consider
potential submissions for requests
for additional community project funding requests,
looking ahead to federal fiscal year 2027,
which starts October 1st of this year.
Continuing our focus on the legislative agenda,
Congress does have some urgent business ahead of it
over the immediate weeks ahead.
That includes addressing healthcare subsidies
such as the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits
that expired at the start of the calendar year.
The House has voted on a three-year extension,
however, over in the Senate,
a bipartisan group of senators are coming up
with an alternative proposal
that should be introduced sometime this week.
The House and the Senate are also working
on reconciling their versions
of two comprehensive spending bills,
the Road to Housing Act,
that's come out of the Senate with vast bipartisan support,
along with the House counter proposal to that,
are of immense interest,
particularly in this midterm election year.
Of course, housing supply and affordability
are challenges across the nation.
And so we are hopeful that there will be a good faith effort
over the immediate weeks and months ahead
to attempt to reconcile those two housing proposals
that are on the table.
And finally, just noting,
looking ahead later in the federal fiscal year,
September 30th is the expiration
of the surface transportation reauthorization.
And so Congress is working hard to draft
the successor legislation
to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
otherwise known as the bipartisan infrastructure law.
That is where we see authorizations and funding
for our surface transportation programs,
including highways, transit and rail.
Some considerations for the year ahead,
obviously with those elections in November,
we anticipate there will be political challenges ahead of us.
So we're gonna see Congress come out the gate hot here
in January, trying to do as much as it possibly can
before an anticipated slowdown later on in the summer.
We also wanna recognize that the first session
of the 119th session of Congress,
meaning the first 12 months,
had historically low productivity
in terms of the numbers of bills
that were ultimately enacted into law.
That being said, I think that both sides of the aisle
want to score some victories, looking ahead to November.
And so again, we're hoping that things like healthcare,
housing and transportation can be resolved here early in,
in 2026.
We hope-
Hey Jen, Jen.
So your time has passed.
I'm going to give you two minutes as a courtesy to wrap up.
So finally, we hope to see the mayor and the council
at some upcoming intergovernmental conferences,
including the US Conference of Mayors meetings
and the National Leagues of Cities.
And if we don't see you here,
then I hope to see you there in California very soon.
With that, happy to take any questions
you all have later on in time, thanks.
Perfect, thank you for your presentation.
At this point in time we will go to Mr. Niccolo DeLuca.
So we hear our update from the state
and then we'll toss it open for questions.
Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Council Members,
Madam City Manager, Mr. City Attorney and City Staff,
Nico DeLuca here from Towns and Public Affairs,
happy to provide a state update on,
we're doing a look back on 2025 and then themes for 26.
Also be very respectful of your time
because I know you've got a full agenda.
So what we're gonna talk about is gonna be
what happened in the 2025 session, major themes,
key bills that passed, and then of course,
how we're gonna plan to engage in 2026.
So, what happened last year, extremely active legislative session, over 2,700 bills introduced.
Kind of want to let that magnitude stick, just kind of hang out there, 2,700 bills introduced.
Of those, 917 passed the legislature, 794 were chaptered, while 123 were either vetoed,
and that's a veto rate of about 13%.
The reason why I like to give these stats
is because it's really helpful to show
at the very beginning of every legislative session,
high volume, but then through a lot of meaningful
work discussions and what have you,
some good filtering at the end.
Really, really wanna thank you,
honorable mayor and city staff,
because at the end of the legislative session,
I think it might've been September 2nd,
we got our hands on a legislative proposal
that would really have impacted the city
and the real estate transfer tax.
appreciate how quickly you all mobilized
because you were able to put that bill on ice,
which would have been devastating to cities
such as San Leandro, so personally, thank you.
So now, what are we gonna think?
Another little quick overview.
So last year, around this time,
they were predicting our budget deficit
would be about 18 billion.
The good news is last year, there was a big budget deficit,
but they were able to close it.
just this past week, the governor did his legislative
proposal in his budget.
We're looking at a $2 billion deficit.
So the LAO was talking about an $18 billion deficit.
This year we're looking at a $2 billion deficit.
Now I know as cities, you guys must be rolling your eyes
because you have to pass a balanced budget
and $18 billion to $2 billion is a really good drop off.
So we're hoping that these numbers continue to drop.
Hopefully the AI boom can be really effective because it helps the state's general fund
Later on we're all going to talk about our strategy to ask for specific funding for the city of San Leandro
One thing that's kind of also overhanging for our budget this year is the different dynamics that Jen touched upon
Between DC and the state and what that's some of the impacts from HR one and other federal efforts
Um, so a lot of the major issues this past year were of course the
immigration response, a lot of great legislation that was out there to make
sure, um, undocumented community was safe and that there are certain tools
for public safety to address various concerns. Cap and invest reauthorization
happened that we worked on and really, really proud to say that we were a part
of different efforts to make sure that there's adequate funding for parks and
affordable housing production. Of course we've got new Senate leadership. The new
pro tem is Senator Monique Lamone from Santa Barbara. She's already put in some
of her chairs. They're gonna start, they will become chairs starting in February
for the various policy committees. And then of course Prop 50 and the
congressional redistricting which we're still beginning to see some of the
after effects of. A couple bills I'm just gonna quickly talk about that were
or of note, definitely one was Senate Bill 79
from Senator Weiner.
As you all know, this was one of the biggest housing
and transit oriented development measures
in quite a few years.
What SB 79 does is it requires certain housing projects
near existing or playing high quality transit stops
to be allowed on residential mixed use
or commercial sites if various conditions are met.
And also gives transit agencies authority to set T.O.D zoning standards.
There is currently a bill in place, SB 677, that seeks to do some clean-up of SB 79,
and we're also watching that closely along with other housing bills.
Then just quickly, another bill that you all are very familiar with, SB 707 from Senator
Rosso about Brand Act modernization.
really expanded a lot of the requirements for how public agencies such as San Leandro
conduct and provide access to public meetings. Now I know this bill when it initially came
out. This was this bill is far from perfect and I definitely want to acknowledge some
of the negative impacts. Proud to say working with on our own and with different coalitions
we were able to get an extension and to get other items removed from this bill. There
There is a discussion if Senator Durrazzo might consider additional elements and that's
to be decided as we go through the next few weeks of the legislative process.
And then just quickly because I want to get on your time.
So a lot of what we do and really grateful for Mr. Engelbert and the city team.
We have regular check ins with city staff as you know we provide a lot of written updates
on whether the budget or the state of the state.
And so we're very grateful for this ongoing relationship.
It's clear that funding to address the unhoused,
funding for infrastructure, funding for housing,
funding for wildfire resilience
and other electrification efforts
are priorities of this city
and we'll continue to push on that.
We're also going to work on a strategy of Mr. Mayor
went to bring you up to Sacramento
and work on some of our funding asks.
And we continue with so many new members,
a lot of ongoing relationship,
maintaining those relationships
building out new relationships especially with so many committee chairs that are changing hands.
So I just want to also show off we love our team we're proud of them whereas I'm the one presenting
tonight these are some of the key members that work on behalf of the city of San Leandro in
addition to many other members in our Sacramento office. So with that said we are done under time
happy to answer any questions you all may have and again thank you very much.
Perfect. So what I'd like to do on this item for ease, I'd like to take public comment on the item first
And then we will engage in dialogue questions
This is a presentation. So at the end of that presentation, we'll see if there's any modification
To the legislative platform, but right now it's just let's let's take public comment on this item. Do we have any?
Mayor we have not received any comment cards. There are presently three hands raised on zoom
Okay, so let's close public comment in person and let's go to the three hands and let's just we'll confirm that this is specifically
on the legislative platform
The first please proceed. Thank you. The first speaker is Mike Katz lakabe
Good evening honorable mayor city council members staff and residents attending tonight's meeting
First of all, I'm kind of surprised that DC lobbyists doesn't know where representative of the malpha represents
It's certainly not Southern California.
That aside, since there's no public comment item
on tonight's meeting, I'm taking this opportunity
for an unagendized comment.
So the city of San Diego will be quiet long.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We follow order.
The next speaker is Douglas Spalding.
He stopped you, did he?
Thank you.
Good try, Mike.
just shouldn't announce it in advance. I wanted to understand better the million
dollars that a congressman Simon secured for the for the waterfront and maybe I
missed it but is it specifically earmarked for like the FEMA floodplain
work or for other like seawall or or horizontal levy or like is there anything
more specific we can know what that million dollar is going to go towards.
The next speaker is Alvaro Ramos. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, I one question that I
have is that you know I really would like to see an initiative proposed that
the state of California should withhold taxes from the federal government and I
I think it's because California would get more use out of the taxes than Washington,
D.C. right now.
I mean, we're talking about how we should be talking about how the current administration
in control of the federal government has delivered a higher cost of living through inequality,
inflation, tariffs, health care cuts and food cuts.
I mean, they've got us fighting over the crumbs, but they're robbing us blind and taking it
all the way to the bank.
They have proven that they have plenty of resources for food and for health care to
do military coups.
Funding immigration of customs enforcement alone is funded to be the size of the Russian
army.
That's significant resources.
And so we see them hoarding and this hoarding of power and resources, and they continue
to violate the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to
the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.
Federalism is supposed to be about the sharing of power between the governments, and it should
be about serving the needs of the people.
We are living in the richest nation on earth in one of the wealthiest periods of history,
And we are not getting any benefit and on top of it, the administration is leaving local
governments and state governments with crippling deficits that they have to deal with alone.
And we see the priorities.
The president is focused on culture wars attached to grants and not actually funding the things
we need in this community.
That's it.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Marka.
Hello.
Hello, this is Margala Cabez. The current administration has been violating the human
rights and the civil liberties of California and San Leandro citizens, but we should not,
as a city, follow their lead. For example, we should not violate the brownout and the right of
citizens to speak during a city council meeting. What you guys did it to, Mike, was wrong.
Moreover, the city should stop collaborating with ICE by sharing license plate data with
authorities that is then shared by ICE.
We don't know how many San Lorenzo citizens have been kidnapped.
Because of information, the city has facilitated to other police departments and ended up
on ISIS's database. Finally, we should not be using Twitter. Twitter, as you guys know,
belongs to Masque, who has spent most of the administration taking money away from
necessary services for salianderans among other people. And yet, the city, by using Twitter,
is actually enriching the person who has been hurting California and some of the other citizens.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Mayor that's the last raised hand. I'll close public comment online.
There was a public commenter that asked about the million dollars and it was described as having
secured as as I understand it that money hasn't been secured yet is that correct? Yes mayor thank
Thank you for your question. That is correct while the House of Representatives has passed
the measure including that funding the Senate has not yet taken action. So it is not yet
fully secured. But he did ask what that specific application was for. Can you provide a very
brief summary of that? Certainly, Mayor. The approximate is a little
bit more than a million dollars is for the water quality infrastructure elements of the
shoreline park project
So at this point in time, we're gonna come back to council members for discussion about the legislative platform or questions for either of our
Two representatives at Sacramento or Washington, please proceed council member bolt
Yes, thank you. I
Have a question about the SP 79
this senator previously did SP 330 and it was about TODs and being able to develop up to 10 stories without
a half a mile. So hold on just a second, please. Okay, please proceed. I'll start over just
to be clear the SB 79 by the same senator earlier six years ago maybe gave us SB 330
which allowed us to build up 10 stories, TOD projects within a half a mile. And then I
read in this additionally authorized transit agencies to set TOD zoning standards for their
own land. Is that still within the state regulation or are we saying like if
they want to go 21 stories down here by BART they could do it.
SP 79 has already been signed into law so the height limits are set and what it
was saying was in addition to allowing greater density within close proximity
to transportation in addition whether it be say BART property or AC transit
property they could set those design standards. I do want to flag that there
was commitment to, so the end of session in September which you all know, end of
session is chaotic. There was a lot of portions of that bill that weren't
explicitly clear so there was a commitment for cleanup not just on some
the language but Senator Wahab had concerns about mobile park homes
protecting them and there's some other desires for cleanup. So last, early last
S. P. six seven seven was introduced as the S. P. seventy nine clean up. Um, that bill
is going to be narrowed as to what specific cleanup it can be primarily making sure the
code sections merge making sure it's crystal clear because there's even some concern amongst
the sponsors that some of that some of it wasn't clear. In addition though, Senator
winner did say he's interested in taking some of the SP 79 standards and applying that as
a transit stop to various ferry stops. Just flagging that because obviously ferry WIDA
is very prominent throughout the barrier and the east bay. So that's something we're also
watching closely. But that was a really long winded way of answering your question that
the height limits already set the cleanups more on the technical side and the bill gave
transit agencies authority and some of the design standards.
And is that, has it been set at 10?
Oh God, let me double check that.
Okay, fair enough, yeah.
Let me double check that.
Okay, thank you.
It's funny because during the ledge session,
we memorize bills and once session is done,
we clear the memory bank,
but I'll double check that for you.
Understood, thank you.
Okay, so I'm gonna interrupt what we're doing.
We did have a public commenter
who didn't identify the item number.
And so what we're gonna do is we're gonna take
that public comment because it's clear
with plenty of time that it probably correlates
to this item, and then we're gonna come right back
to our speakers with our Councilman Conner.
So Mr. West, please approach the podium.
You wanted to speak, you said, in response to Covino.
So I'm assuming that that's this item.
Yeah, the advocate for the city actually came to make
anti-government presentation.
The people of this country, the majority voted Trump
to do a specific job domestically
to get rid of the illegal scalps
and not to allow one to destroy cities.
And that's what he's doing.
I'm gonna pause you for a minute.
Did you say?
I'm gonna pause you for a minute.
You have plenty of time.
You can have all the time that you're allowed to,
so I'll put pause in your timer.
Did you say illegal scum?
Illegal scabs, people who come to take jobs
from West Pointless.
Okay, so I'm gonna ask you.
Those are called scabs in their union language.
Okay, so I want to just be very sensitive
to the environment that we operate in here.
We operate in a professional environment,
so please proceed.
You are not gonna regulate my language.
our use and language or union language.
Please proceed.
Now, the majority of the people voted for Trump to do this
and to drain the swamp.
Drain the swamp means those billions and billions of dollars
or people who are getting wages doing nothing.
We saw that ministry or education or whatever they do,
Department of Education in Washington, a huge building with like a thousand offices, each
state has a Department of Education, each city has Education Department. What are those people doing
there? Getting money for doing nothing and passing laws actually against the proper education.
Now, the person that was killed in Minnesota,
it seems that the people here are advocating
for disobeying authorities, not stopping,
but they are told to stop and run.
That's why you are advocating.
Thank you, sir, your time has elapsed.
So coming to Councilmember Bolt,
had you completed the discussion
that you wanted to engage in? Yes, that's correct. It was SB 50, not 330.
Thank you. Perfect. So we'll proceed with Councillor
Bowen at this time. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry, I just needed a second
to process public comment. My question is going to be both for Nickel
and for Jen Covino. I don't know which is easier to start with in terms of our logistics.
But in terms of the FY26 budgets and the shifts
in what is possible this year,
what are the greatest risks or opportunities
for the city of San Leandro
and where should we really be thinking about
trying to fill in any gaps proactively
and what might be at risk?
Absolutely, through the mayor, Councilwoman, great question.
So on the opportunities propped for the climate bond,
A lot of great opportunities there for affordable housing,
for park funding, which there's already the park projects
are already going out for applications soon.
And then for some of the overall electrification efforts,
a lot of the state funding is gonna be one time
and it's gonna be capital.
So we're working closely with Mr. Engelbart
and the city team on the various grants.
Concerns would be any impact to the general fund,
which could limit the opportunity
of what we like to call earmarks,
but that's a good phrase,
where we've asked for funding before.
As you recall,
Assemblywoman Ortega got funding for the Nimitz Motel
through one of the earmarks,
so we're eager to press on those
to just to both the Assemblywoman
and then to Senator Grayson.
I think the biggest concerns are gonna be
whatever the feds do,
and then how the state might backfill that.
So as an example,
last year's agenda session due to HROI,
there's a lot of concern on the Medicare funding,
how it impacts Medi-Cal.
The state did a really good job of using
some of its general fund and other funding sources
to kind of backfill what the feds did.
So there's definitely concern again this year as to
how it's gonna impact low income people
on their medical coverage.
So I'd say that's probably the biggest threat.
As that impacts the city,
certainly that's more kind of the health safety net
to working with the county
and kind of a lot of those social services.
I would say this year, like years past,
other threats are not only on the budget,
but any proposals that could impact our budget,
such as the real estate transfer tax
or some of those proposals.
We're excited about how the AI boom
has really been driving the state's general fund
and that the governor mentioned that
and this Department of Finance also mentioned it
as a reason why they were expecting an $18 billion deficit
and now it's down to 2 billion.
In about my 19 years of being a state and federal lobbyist,
$2 billion budget deficit is like kind of a walk in the park.
They could hopefully get that filled quickly
and not to have major impacts.
But I would say the thing that we're all kind of waiting
and holding our breath on is depending on what happens
on the federal side, how that impacts the state,
meaning this state has been clear that they wanna commit
to back filling any of those funds lost.
Just a quick follow up on that.
Is there great to hear that there will be funding
for capital projects?
Really sad to hear that it's gonna impact
general fund we kind of need that money but is there is there a recommendation
on from your perspective about collaborations with the county or with
other cities like what's going to make it much more attractive to the state and
the second part of the question is about the AI boom great that there's a boom
now but the reality is there's going to be a bust and then how do we actually
account for that because you don't want to hedge your bets on something that is
you know, very likely to go away. Absolutely. My co-worker, Casey Elliott,
always calls it the sugar rush, whether it's like the tech boom or the AI boom,
it's like that sugar rush, then that kind of what happens with the crash
afterwards, which is probably why the Department of Finance is so
conservative and the legislature is usually a little bit more aggressive. When
it comes to, so that our formula on state funding is number one, continue to be
support of our delegation.
So many women are taking support some of her legislation.
Senator Grayson continue to support some of his legislation
and then just keep doing what we're doing.
Ongoing updates of what's happening in San Leandro.
What's new?
What do they care about?
What could we share with them?
When it comes to funding requests,
we always love to get support from others,
say hypothetically, maybe the county
or other municipalities within the area.
Having some of our neighbors support some of our funding
asks to prove that it would have an impact on them too in a positive way. Of
course having community groups express support for the various funding asks so
they know when they get the ask and we like to spell it out in those letters
it's not just impacting the city directly but other community groups other
regional groups things of that nature. So yeah we like to make the coalition big
ensure that the funding helps go right to you guys. Wonderful. I'll now go to
councilmember Aguilar. Yeah thank you Mayor Gonzalez. Thank you Janet and Nicole
for your for your presentations. Nicole, my question is with regards to Senate
Bill 2 for the ongoing engagement on homelessness and funding. Yes. I know we've
you know Newsom has set aside some some funding but what can we anticipate in 26?
For homeless funding? So in 26 it's gonna be the same discourse as
years pass on the HAP funding, HHAP funding, it's an acronym that goes to
all 58 counties in all 13 largest populated cities and the continuance of
care. Over the years the legislature has been very supportive of full HAP funding
than the number that they use is a billion. Last year, with debates and
negotiations with the governor and his administration, they landed on half a
billion. The push continues to do a full billion. In addition to those entities I
named a lot of the affordable housing associations pushed that also. So HAB
funding is gonna be a big one. The on SB 2 as you all might recall that was the
$70, $75 surcharge on various real estate transactions. There has been some
discussion to kind of almost add a COLA to that $75. So maybe the 75 becomes
150 and that's a direct allocation to you also your allocation would go up I'm
not sure if there's an appetite to do it this year the second year of a two
year cycle I could see probably greater success having next year and then in
addition to all of that there's a housing bond assemblymember Wicks has
her iteration of a housing bond that's around 10 billion senator Cobaldon sorry
I don't know why I'm now suddenly losing my voice senator Cobaldon has his
iteration of a housing bond that's around 10 billion. I think a place where
the city could get engaged in is voicing support for various pots and maybe
making suggestions on other pots where we think those funds should go to. So
that's a lot of it. I remember hearing some discussion about maybe an ED bond
but they've been having ED bonds over the last few years so I don't think
appetite's there and then potentially also an infrastructure bond. There has
also been some discussion on the housing bond to include infrastructure funding
which would be roads, sewer, lights, water,
however that would take away from the housing side,
but actually have a good one time funding pot
for real infrastructure to help build out
some of your neighborhoods.
Thank you for that.
And with regards to the LGBTQ community,
what is going on with gender affirming care,
what do we anticipate in 26?
I definitely expect the caucus to push
some really strong legislation.
And they've been doing that in years past.
I was speaking with Assemblymember Ward recently.
He's not the chair of the caucus anymore,
but he's definitely very engaged
that there are some specific issues
that they will be putting forward.
When we do our legislative matrices,
ensure them happy to flag a lot of those bills
that are coming out.
And I will say, even though we're in week two
of the 26th session,
bill introduction deadline is the end of February.
So we still have a long way to go.
What we've been talking about lately
been two-year bills that have been converted to be active right now, but for
all the upcoming bills I'll make sure to work with Mr. Engelbart and city staff
to make sure we've got all good policy topics so you guys can easily identify
what's being introduced and I'll include the caucus bills. Wonderful, thank you.
My question next is for Jen. Jen, we talked about the interior environment
supporting, you know, advocating for a million dollars with regards to the
shoreline. Thank you for that. Can we talk a little bit more about enforcing
immigration laws in ICE and what happened, you know, and may she rest in
peace, Renee, good with regards to what happened in Minneapolis. How is this
going to affect the current administration with regards to enforcing
immigration laws and funding? Sure, happy to take that question. And just actually
on the topic of the interior environment spending bill,
even in the time that we've started this meeting,
we actually had some forward progress.
The Senate has voted on the rule
to move forward with the package.
That includes your airmark by vote of,
they had more than 80 senators supporting that.
So hopefully we'll have a final vote tomorrow.
The White House has already expressed support
for that package.
So we're really close to securing that airmark
for the shoreline water infrastructure improvements.
Thank you for that.
moving on to what happened in Minneapolis.
And I alluded to this earlier,
and I apologize for anyone in the audience
who misconstrued what I said.
What I meant to say earlier is that
we anticipate per responses from the Democratic minority
is that they have already offered that they believe
that what occurred last week
will complicate the appropriations process
on finalizing spending for federal fiscal year 2026,
where midway through the federal fiscal year,
which runs until September 30th of this year,
folks on both sides of the aisle are reporting
that the developments coming from Minnesota
are going to complicate their negotiations
on the Homeland Security spending bill.
And if they're unable to reach a resolution
over the immediate days ahead, leading up to January 30th,
we would expect there to be a need for Congress
to move forward with another stopgap resolution
for any of the spending bills that are unresolved
to avoid a partial government shutdown
beginning February 1st.
So those are their words coming from Capitol Hill, not mine.
Of course, we expect that the democratic minority,
they wanna see guard reels against
the enforcement activities.
Of course, the states of Minnesota and Illinois
filed litigation or a lawsuit against the administration
claiming 10th Amendment rights earlier today.
I will tell you as a legal observer,
I am not sure I have not yet read the plaintiffs' cases,
but I expect there to be a lot of back and forth
in the courts on this issue.
I expect potentially other states to be looking at this,
just seeing the deployments across the United States.
Certainly, I think all are concerned
with just the lack of coordination
between federal immigration officials
and local law enforcement.
I know that the US Conference of Mayors
and National League of City have historically weighed in
and encouraged not only this administration
but every administration to ensure a level of coordination
between federal, state and local law enforcement officials
to ensure that public safety and trust are maintained
throughout these processes.
Going forward, I won't pretend to have a crystal ball here
what the implications are, but I certainly think both sides are married to their convictions in
all of this. It'll be interesting to see what the collective responses are going forward.
I do expect in the immediate days ahead to have a wider variety of responses from the
likes of mayors, governors across the country as things settle down.
Thank you. At this point in time, we'll come to Vice Mayor Vivitas-Welston.
Thank you. If possible, I'd actually like to consolidate my comments and suggestions to the
platform. So I will start off with the federal platform. Just a quick piece of feedback. It'd
be helpful to number the pages so that as we reference the document, we're able to go through
that easier. I'm looking at what I think is page one on cannabis regulation. Is
it still the case that the Department of Health and Human Services recommends to
modify schedule one status of cannabis at the federal level? Thank you Vice
Mayor for your question. That is my understanding. Related to that as well I
really believe there was a recent executive order by the President
directing the Department of Justice to expeditiously as possible to reschedule from schedule one to
schedule three. Jan you may I don't know if you have any additional details on that.
There's just been so many changes that I wasn't sure my and I'll just overstate my goal and you'll
You'll hear me say this throughout the whole year.
My goal is to be explicit about the implicit.
So I'm just kind of asking questions.
And my goal here is to really clarify
and clean up the both documents.
Now on page two,
I think in terms of early childhood,
food access and a bunch of other I think there is language there that supports funding but I think
when we look at what's happening from the federal level I think we need to either include protecting
include that language both in the state and in the federal because at this point I think it'll be
hard to advocate for additional funding we're really protecting what is there now and protecting
those appropriations so I would like to include protection language on early
childhood policy youth engagement and care infrastructure especially as we see
the current oh the current lawsuit from the state of California to the federal
government protecting early childhood monies for families who need those
subsidies. Also like to include protection language around food access,
protect funding that benefits food access. I would also like to include
regardless of status. I would like to also, in terms of immigration policies,
just keeping in mind what Councilmember Aguilar mentioned around sanctuary cities
and kind of what's happening.
As much as I would want to include to protect DREAMers
and find a pathway for citizenships to DACA recipients,
I think that's kind of a car
that has gone past us at this point.
But I would like to,
anyway, so just kind of,
I don't know that I wanna strike that,
but we do need to kind of update that language
because I think at this point,
that seems a little restrictive
in terms of what's happening in California.
Now I'm going through the other.
There was something around, did I miss it?
Is AI only,
Yes, so that's also on page one of the federal policy.
I had some, hold, just one second.
Okay, I'll skip that for now.
I'll go on to the state policy.
I also appreciate the page numbers on that.
Thank you very much.
I'll start on page one.
Let me just go back to that document on my, okay.
So page one on autonomous vehicles,
I would like to ensure that we include local control.
As we see autonomous vehicles kind of go
beyond San Francisco, I think it's important for us
in the Bay Area to prioritize local control.
So if we do have applications to do that,
we'd like to ensure that it goes before us
since we know the community best,
we'd like to think about that.
In terms of education, I just have three more points, mayor.
May I have? Okay, so now I'm looking at education and I did not put a page number. I'm just
looking for it in the document. Can someone help me out on the page number for education?
Yes, it's page seven. Thank you. I would actually want to include
that education be expanded to P16 education since we do include currently in the language
it includes pre-K which is actually called transitional kindergarten so we should update
that language. I don't know that prenatal care is part of this bucket of work but I
would like it to be expanded into P16 education and then a second bullet around workforce
development particularly around the governor's push on the master plan for
education. I think San Leandro has a lot of training facilities that we have here
that I think we would benefit from monitoring this as this policy moves
forward and as it gets implemented would like to ensure that we're monitoring it
in case there's opportunities for us to leverage what's happening there in terms
of our post-secondary landscape and the folks that we serve here in San Leandro.
There is also on page 9 on public finance and administration.
I would like to include language around ongoing funding generation.
is conversations around a billionaire tax.
I think what we have seen is that sustained investment through the years actually improves
outcomes, whether it's health, education, through a variety of phases of a person's
life.
And so I think what we are seeing now is we were expecting an $18 million deficit, but
because of this AI boom, we're kind of saved for now.
But really what we must be thinking about is ongoing revenue generation.
And would like that included maybe a bullet after Prop 13 reform, which is also one form
of ongoing revenue generation.
I don't know that I particularly like to call out what is right now being called the California
wealth tax.
but I think that should come back to us
if there is discussion in the legislature
around ongoing revenue generation options.
Those are all my comments for now, thank you.
Okay, so I do wanna clarify a couple of things
because in the end we're gonna have to build consensus
around this.
So on the very first one, cannabis regulation,
it wasn't quite clear what the ask was.
Mayor, one point of clarification.
Sorry, please.
so you know here president issued an executive order that came after our draft here. And so he has ordered the attorney general to reschedule cannabis to a class three under the CSA, which would recognize medicinal uses of marijuana. So that is in process. The attorney general has not yet issued their implementation guidance on that. But we expect that to be forthcoming very shortly because we're coming up to a month long horizon that she has to do that.
Okay.
So does that address your concern?
Sorry, let's see
Yes, it does I was just wondering just I haven't been following cannabis regulation at the federal level
I just want to make sure that that was still applicable to what our overall goal is
Perfect and then the I'm just trying to make sure that we've got these captured because then we're gonna
Come back and try to build consensus. The second primary area was the use of
Protection language. Let's protect funding for existing funding for early childhood education for food access
I didn't get the third one
For food access regardless of status. I was a third one
Was there a third one? Well, no, um early childhood policy youth engagement and care infrastructure is one
That's one bucket. It's on page two
second bullet
or second
header, yep
So I would like it to include support and protect funding
support and protect perfect that type of language
Work on the details. That's right similar to what's on the housing and homelessness. So it says protect and support federal funding, too
so follow that thread on
Particular areas of interest. Thank you. You mentioned DACA and I was not clear in my notes
I put actually strike, and I'm not sure that that's what you said or meant to say, but
either way, I'm trying to understand, is there a desire to change the language that's there?
So this document takes us through 2026.
I just don't think that that is something that is even in the universe of possibilities
at this point.
I'm fine leaving it if people feel strongly about it.
I mean, I'm inclined to leave it in.
I'm just...
Okay.
Then you mentioned AI, but I did not get a thing there was I looked at the language and the AI language was fine
What I was flagging I had confused AI with autonomous vehicles on the state policy
Perfect and autonomous vehicles and it's ensuring local control that we keep promoting
Local control for education. It's expanding
The framework the way that we think about it to T through 16
It's technically P, but PK-16, the education lingo is usually P-16.
Okay, P-16 or TK-16, and including workforce development.
A second bullet underneath it, workforce development is not usually in that, or, I mean, you can,
it's usually a separate bucket of work.
Yes.
It's not, in terms of policy, it's not.
Agreed.
And specifically to monitor the master plan for career education.
Okay and then the last one.
Underneath the prop 13 ongoing funding generation.
And it's, I'm not quite sure what the ask is.
So there is conversation currently in the legislature around California wealthy wealth
tax, commonly known as a billionaire tax, but the legislature is currently exploring
various avenues of ongoing revenue generation particularly because we're
just so dependent we're on a boom bus type budget and so I just would like to
monitor all those so that if if the legislature does come to a consensus or
votes a majority or whatever the process will be that we're able to we have the
ability to comment on it if we wish. Okay but as of right now you're not saying
that we should take a specific legislative position. Not on the tax
itself but do monitor revenue ongoing revenue generation strategies discussed
by the legislature. Perfect thank you. Okay vice council member Bowen please.
Thank you Mayor. Yeah I just wanted to be able to give Jen
Covino an opportunity to answer the question that I asked the first time
around and then I'm happy to repeat the question if needed but it's really
focused around the federal funding shifts and what the risks are for San
Leandro and opportunities if there are any and in particular you mentioned it
with a potential continued government shutdown but the one that just ended and
some of the funding that was stalled because of that and in particular the
Federal Highway Administration and FEMA
and any of the monies that we were supposedly guaranteed
but may not have been given.
So looking forward, what are some things for us
to really be thinking about to be realistic about funding?
Sure.
And really quickly, not to jump around,
but on immigration and preservation of a position on DACA,
I would just inform you, very senior Republicans,
including James Langford of Oklahoma,
who were key authors of the previous attempt
that immigration reform have announced
that they are intending to take up
comprehensive immigration reform immediately
after the midterm elections.
So I would just encourage the city to consider preserving
any positions related to immigration reform.
Council member Bowen, back to your statement.
I will tell you it has been helpful to understand
or recognize sort of the difference
between what we have seen presented
in the president's budget proposal
versus what we are seeing coming off out of Capitol Hill.
I will tell you Senator Susan Collins of Maine
and Senator Patty Murray of Washington State,
they serve as the chair and vice chair
of the Senate Appropriations Committee respectively.
Then you have Tom Cole of Oklahoma's
chair of the House Appropriations Committee.
The four corners of the Appropriations Committees,
they get work done on a bipartisan, bicameral basis.
And I will tell you,
If you're looking at the first two sets
of appropriations bills that have been considered,
we have three bills that have been
passed and enacted into law thus far.
We have another three that are going forward.
They're 75% of the way they're getting through,
already passed the House,
getting through the Senate this week.
I will tell you those bills represent
largely enacted levels of funding
that date back to the Biden administration.
We have seen little desire on the part of appropriators
to enact the substantial cuts
that the Trump administration has proposed
in the budget presented by the president.
So it's really important to understand the disconnect
between what we see coming out of the White House
in the spring and what we ultimately see enacted
into appropriations law,
roughly anywhere from six to 12 months later.
With that being said, in terms of risks and liabilities,
I wanna encourage the city as it has done
over the past 12 months to continue ensuring compliance
with all federal rules and regulations
around various federal programs.
I will tell you requirements vary
by each federal program, of course,
but the city's done a good job remaining compliant
with those federal laws and regulations.
Where do I see risks ahead?
Well, of course, as you alluded to,
There has been a change in administration priorities.
We have seen some FEMA funding targeted.
There is ongoing litigation of the courts right now
around the BRIC program,
which is intended to serve as a discretionary
funding opportunity to promote resiliency.
However, we've seen the courts largely siding
on the sides of the plaintiffs in a number of cases
that have been filed this year.
And ultimately seeing those grants
either restored to grantees
or in many cases, basically the court is placing a hold
on the administration's action.
So, I wanna tell you the way I've been advising folks
is very either project or program specific.
It is hard to speak in terms of generalities
without understanding the very local context
of either the citywide policies
or specific projects and priorities.
That being said, again, as I've said,
the city has done a really good job keeping up
with new updates via executive orders, et cetera.
I will tell you, one of the largest risks we encountered
over the past year, at one point in time,
the attorney general did release a list of sanctuary cities.
When we saw more than 600 jurisdictions
included on that list,
ultimately the administration admitted
that they went a little bit too wide in their understanding,
and that list was ultimately narrowed down
to fewer than three dozen jurisdictions,
which is in alignment with what we saw
during the first Trump administration on that issue.
So that continues to be an important issue
to continue to monitor as we go forward,
but I will just say calling undue attention
to certain populations within the community
is something that the administration is monitoring
in real time.
Through my engagement with the White House Office
of Intergovernmental Affairs over the past year,
it has been clear to me that they are paying attention
to local news publications and keeping a close eye
on what local officials are saying
in their communities nationwide, so.
Thank you, and then I just have one more thing to add.
In terms of immigration, I would actually say
that we should be expanding it in terms
of what is included in that.
And I'll share one specific thing.
I am a refugee from Laos.
And refugee status, Asali status,
is very, very difficult to even get now.
I think the quota is basically down to almost zero,
which means that how I was able to come to the United States
is no longer possible for many people.
And in fact, the entire country of Laos
is on the travel ban right now,
along with many other countries, many of which are API.
And so I would want to expand the language
to include the protection of and support
for legal opportunities to gain status.
And right now, I fear that removing it,
that last sentence takes away from what we are trying
to say as a community we want to be able to do,
which is uplift and support our community,
especially one that is really reflective
of the city of San Leandro.
And then in terms of protections,
I would also expand that across many of our policy ideas,
both at the state and federal level,
given the current policies that we have,
I think across the board,
before we would not have to say protect,
but at this point, I think we do.
And I really appreciate,
and clearly I'm cloudened to members,
I think as mothers especially,
we're thinking about SNAP and childcare subsidies,
because that's on my list as well,
but really thinking through the fact that
that funding is constantly at risk,
and it's going back and forth in the courts,
and we're playing catch up with that funding to begin with.
And so thinking through how we can really fill in those gaps.
And so we can discuss that once we get to changes in it,
just wanted to add that. Okay, so I took in addition to those that were offered
before I took down two notes, and let's make sure that we are aligned that we're
we've got this the same. The first one being to that we have as part of our
platform that we work to expand legal opportunities for folks to immigrate
into our country, and the second one being that we expand our use of the
protection language across all federal funding so what I'm going to do I'm just
cognizant of our time and the fact we've got a lot of people from the public here
so I think that my thoughts are based on what I know about my council members I
think that we will by consensus agree to all of the recommendations that have
been made if someone has an objection to one of the recommendations that has been
made this would be the time to speak up seeing no objections you have your
direction and we've been tracking notes here you'll come back to us deputy
city manager Engelbart I know that you'll come back to us with an actual
adjusted legislative platform that we will then adopt through resolution at a
future meeting yes thank you thank you for all the work that you've done thank
you to Nikolo to Jen for all that you do for us we will see you Jen at the end of
January and Nickelodeon March. At this point in time we're gonna move to our
first action item. That's item 6a. First reading of an ordinance to mendsand
intermissible code by adding chapter 4-46 to establish residential rent
stabilization. The deputy significant manager. That's what I've got
introducing this item. Will it be Tom Liao instead? Okay. Then we will go with
Community Development Director, Tom Liao.
Thank you Mayor Gonzalez and thank you Council.
Good evening.
So tonight we'll just start with a brief background as we bring this first reading
to you.
Go over key components of the draft ordinance and end with some talking about some next
steps.
At the last council meeting on December, you provided, the majority of you provide helpful
guidance on setting the rent cap threshold with a lower of 3% or 65% CPI consumer price
index setting the base year at 20 to 25 which have been incorporated into this
first draft, first reading draft and also supported the program of the rent
registry plus rent stabilization enhanced enforcement option that is
coming back to you probably at this point more likely early March with the
final fees and budget so stay tuned on that and then today again we are here
for the first reading.
And I would say, so again, this is based on your guidance,
setting the base year at 2025.
And also, we've established in this ordinance,
the base rent year therefore being July 1, 2025.
That sort of syncs up with the city's fiscal year,
as well as a similar timeline for our peer cities around us.
This also dovetails close to the state fiscal year
for AB 1482 and allowing us all to use the same CPI index for April.
The state's fiscal year is about a month off, though, but it's close.
This section of exemptions, again, I just wanted to reiterate, has not changed much.
But again, the types of units that are exempt from this, again, due to the State Cost of
Hawkins Act is single-family rentals are exempted.
Units that can be sold separately, like condos or townhomes that are rented out individually
are typically exempted as well as all new rental housing units that have been built
after February 1 of 1995. Some ongoing exemptions, two additional ones to remember is ADUs or in-law
units, that is a state priority we know. Golden duplexes where the owner occupies one of the two
duplexes would be exempted. Airbnb, short-term rentals, permanent affordable rental housing,
which we have several of here in the city that's actually nonprofit owned and they already have long-term affordable restrictions
and are highly regulated for rent increases as well by the state and federal government.
Emergency transitional housing, most recent project being our low-welling interim housing project.
And then situations of shared housing where somebody is renting a room from an individual homeowner,
particularly a senior for example. Also our mobile homes that has its own separate rent
stabilization ordinance. One again we are also similar to what we present in December
recommending an implementation or effective date of the ordinance. It's different from the base
year of January 1, 2027 where the annual increase again will kick in at that date and then ongoing
every fiscal year period, July 1 through June 30th.
And so I think key considerations
that we had mentioned in December
is that as we are starting up a program,
this is allowing us to refine that program budget,
which we will be bringing forward to you
in early March, most likely.
It also will allow us to staff up
over the next several months,
because we know this is a critical piece
to help us develop important educational materials, forms,
and be able to communicate with the housing providers
and the tenants to do outreach in workshops.
And most importantly, as you know,
we have a rent registry ordinance that is in play
and expected to be up and running by July 31st of this year.
So we really also, that will be a critical piece
to complement rent stabilization,
and we are working hard to make sure
that is up and running in July as well.
if we were to have an earlier implementation date,
that could affect our timing and our ability
to launch the rent registry in that timely manner.
So, this is why we are,
and also to do the effective adequate outreach.
This is why we are recommending maintaining this January 1,
2027 implementation date.
I want to walk you through some of what this might look like.
And again, I want to be careful to stress that it's going
to really be case by case in terms of,
for some of these projects
and how they're impacted by the ordinance.
This is to give you just a general sense
of how implementing the ordinance,
starting January 1, 2027, could look.
So again, the base rent that's been recommended
is July 1, 2025.
So you're going backwards, as you had suggested,
with the base rent and year.
Now, the main thing is that between July 1 of 2025
to January 1 of 2027,
When our potential ordinance kicks in, basically,
units are going to be subject to AB1482 in that period.
So what we've said is based on the CPI allowances or I'm sorry,
based on the threshold allowance of AB1482,
which is 5% plus CPI, no more than 10%.
We've estimated that most recently to be 6.3, for example.
That is what's going to guide potential rent increases
between when this passes and from July 1 until our start date of January 1, 2027.
So, keep in mind, and then starting July 1, 2027, then that becomes very more normalized.
That's one random increase, and that's much more straightforward going forward.
So, it's this 18-month transition period we wanted to kind of lay out for you to just,
and mentioned that from January 1, 2027,
when our ordinance potentially kicks in,
there will be an automatic like you would automatically
do a 65% CPI rent increase, for example,
that's the lower of.
If we are raising your possibilities
of a wide range of options here,
if a provider does not do a rent increase from July 1
until January 1, 2027, there is a possibility
they can have what we call a rollover increase
that takes into account that period from July 1 to 2025
where they allowed one CPI increase from our ordinance.
So the next slide is kind of meant to show you
more of a concrete example
of what that looks like using actual numbers.
And again, this is a sort of a modeling.
So we are assuming that CPI is the same
for the next two to three fiscal years.
Again, that will change we know coming up.
But you can say if you start with a $2,000 rent
and that becomes the base rent as of July 1, 2025
in this case, then there's a possibility
between July 1, 2025 and January 1, 27,
there is landlord can between those periods,
those two fiscal cycles have AB2 allowed rent increase.
Starting January 1, 2027,
Automatically, they also get the 1 June, 2026 rent increase.
Again, in the possibility that they have not raised the rent
since before July 1, 2025,
they can also add in another rent increase
based on our new ordinance
that allows it to go from 2000 to 2036.
Now, one thing to keep in mind here
is that on January 1, 2027,
If a provider uses the AB 1482 increases before that,
it does default back to July 1, 2025,
starting January 1, 2027,
because that's our base rent.
So that's where that starts.
And then again, July 1, 2027,
you're looking at what the base rent was
as of June 30th, 2027.
And going forward, it's much more straightforward.
In terms of the section regarding limit on rent increases,
Again, this is not very new,
but just some key things.
We can only allow one increase per 12 month period.
The city has to post this information
after January 1, 27 in a timely manner in the spring.
Banking is prohibited as direction you provided.
Again, a key component of Krista Hawkins
is vacancy control.
Housing providers can reset
whenever a tenant voluntarily moves out.
They can reset that to whatever the market can bear
that point and that is allowed under state law and we are not regulating that
and then rent increases are only allowed if the units registered and fees are
paid. Again it's one to highlight as you read there's there's a lot of sections
here these are some notable sections in the ordinance going through the rent
petition process the two types would be fair return and decrease in housing
services the disclosure noticing requirements are very important the
program fee section where 50% could be passed on to the tenant but again we're
to bring that back more in March. There's an annual review and again a slightly new section
just for clarity that was added with our city attorneys was to mention again that the ordinance
does not become binding and effective until January 1 of 2027. So in terms of next steps,
again tonight's the first reading we are going to be bringing the rent registry software to you.
There is a slight correction here because after the agenda was published we are doing some final
negotiations with a selected vendor so we are actually going to probably bring
that to you on February 2nd. And then depending on the outcome tonight
potentially a second reading on February 2nd and then we are working on the fee
study and finalizing the budget and again very likely that this would come
back to you probably at the beginning of March and with that I think I'm on point
here happy to answer questions we have our team. Okay at this point in time what
we're gonna do is we're gonna take public comment public's been waiting a
really long time and so we're gonna go to the take public comment and then we
will come back for questions and discussion. How many cards do we have?
Mayor we've received 38 speaker cards. Okay and how many hands do we have online?
There are presently seven nine eight hands raised on zoom. Okay so what we're
We're going to take a break at approximately 9 o'clock, maybe 9.15 if we push it.
I do not think that we will get through every speaker before that break.
So just be aware we're going to try to get through the speakers as quickly as possible.
But biology does kick in at some point, and so we take a break around 9 o'clock for about
5 to 10 minutes, closer to 10 minutes.
Then we will continue with our public comment at that time.
So let's begin in person.
Public commenters.
would ask that you line up. She's going to call you about three or four at a
time. If you can just line up along the wall so we minimize the amount of
walking time to our podium. Okay, please proceed, Madam Clerk. The first three
speakers are David Stark, Chris Tipton, and Ramona Chang. Good evening, Mr.
Mayor and City Council, members of the city staff. I'm David Stark. I represent the Bay East
Association of Realtors. Just gonna break this down into kind of two
approaches. Voting yes on this ordinance means that you're voting yes on deficit
spending, increasing the burden on mom-and-pop housing providers, making
housing providers and tenants pay for a rent control ordinance, and adding more
city employees, salaries, benefits, and pension costs. You are not fixing roads,
attracting businesses, adding jobs with the exception of some city staff, making
neighborhoods safer, adding a single new unit of rental housing to San Leandro,
and you are not living within your means. You don't have to say yes to this
ordinance. Tenant protections are in place. Take a breath, listen to all San
Leandro residents. Please vote no on rent control. Thank you. Thank you. The next
three speakers are Chris Tipton Ramona Chang followed by Carol Habacross.
Good evening mayor and City Council members my name is Chris Tipton I'm a
rental housing provider and also I work with the East Bay Rental Housing
Association. I'm here to urge you not to advance this extreme rent stabilization
policy and instead adopt a balanced approach that truly protects renters
while preserving the quality of housing in San Leandro. Rent control is often
represented as renter protection but evidence shows that strict rent caps
ultimately harm renters. When rental income is disconnected from rising
operating costs, owners are forced to defer maintenance and delay reinvestment.
That is how housing conditions decline. The majority of economists agree that
extreme rent control increases habitability problems over time.
San Leno cannot afford policies that unintentionally trap renters in aging
poorly maintained housing or reduce their choices by pushing homes off the
rental market. There is a reasonable alternative. Allowing rental housing
providers the ability to adjust rents up to a 5% cap annually, if necessary, is
already a significant reduction from the state cap. It recognizes the reality of
rising costs while still offering renters protection from unfair increases.
This approach allows you to tell renters the truth that you made a fair
compromise that protects housing stability without sacrificing safety,
maintenance or long-term housing growth. It also avoids creating an expensive new
bureaucracy at a time when the city is facing several budget challenges, serious
budget challenges. Council members, good housing policy is not about choosing
sides, it's about ensuring renters have safe, well-maintained homes today and in
the future. Please do not advance this extreme policy that will undermine those
goals. Choose a balanced solution that works for renters, housing providers, and
the city of San Leandro. Thank you for your time. Thank you. The next speakers
are Ramona Chang, Carol Hapacross, and Archie Overton. Hi, I'm Ramona Chang. I'm
a resident of San Leandro. I come here with special knowledge. I was with the
city of Oakland as the rent board commissioner for six years. I I've heard
more cases than you'd ever want to know about but every Thursday that's what I
did. City of San Leandro has a rent review board. From 2023 to 2024 there was
only one hearing. There were three other cases but they were mitigated because
as they just had to go back and reschedule the rents.
2025, there were no hearings.
So I don't see why there would be need
for this rent commission to buy,
you're gonna have to buy software from a vendor.
You're gonna have to buy it,
you're gonna have to support it,
you're gonna have to have staff to support it.
It's make work, low productivity.
and the City of San Leandro has better things
to spend their money on.
I hope you'll pay attention
to what your own Met Review Board has said.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Carol Haberkoss,
Archie Overton, and Robert Batanek.
Good evening, City Council, Mayor, staff.
My name is Carol Haberkoss.
I'm a renter here.
I'm also a senior.
So, I'm on a fixed income.
So, and I have found that going, raising the rent 10%,
here's an example, year one is $1,000
and you raise the rent 5% for five years,
you end up with paying $1,610.51.
That's out of reach for a lot of people
that are on social security and a fixed income.
I spent over 10 years working with seniors
that were on fixed income in San Leandro.
Many of them were struggling to get by
in tiny little apartments.
And a lot of them had to leave
and try to find housing, they could not find it.
They could barely live.
They didn't have money for food.
They didn't have anyone to help them.
So I've seen the struggle.
And I'm going to be living the struggle
because I, myself now, am on a fixed income and a senior.
So I definitely, 10% is way too high.
Five, it should be the limit of 5%.
And again, I just feel like this is something
where a lot of renters probably don't wanna come out
because they're afraid of retaliation.
I think a lot of renters are afraid to come out
and stand up because they're afraid
that something's gonna happen to them
because there is no strong rent control.
So I urge you to pass this resolution
and no higher than 5% rent increase.
In fact, it could be 3%.
That would be even better if it was 3%.
But again, think about all the seniors that live here
that are low income on fixed incomes
and do not have enough money to live on and buy food.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Archie Overton, Robert Battenek, and John Sullivan.
Hello my name. My name is Archie. I'm a landlord here and I am opposed to the
rent control stuff. One of the issues that comes into play, tenants can raise
rents. We'll just pick school fees. I thought my head. I've got to pay for
that. They don't, other than I can only raise the rent, but if I'm limited to
what I can do, then I'm losing out.
My insurance went up $2,000 this last year.
Why?
Because California has forced insurance companies out
where they've left because of California rules.
I can't make that up.
Trying to figure out this 3% or 0.65,
and that means the 0.65, anywhere between 3.01,
if the CPI goes up, 3.01 to 4.6, I lose money every year.
Because I'm not even keeping up with that because that's the difference between that 3% and where 0.65 makes up equal to 3%
There's plenty of rent control
In the state there's plenty of render protections already the courts for the most part seem to side with the tenants
When you take in there, and then you've got a you got a service person
But then you got to serve that person and they've got 15 days to come back
Then then the court sets it out another month to get to it. That's all time. I've lost that's money. I've lost
If you have an office of whoever, I would love to see a person in there because I don't
fit any rule I've seen in there other than I'm older than 1995 and the fact that loaning
purposes are one to four units are residential, five is commercial, but you guys are going
to drop it down at a duplex, the loaning is all wrong.
By the way, your clock is off.
It's real hard to know the time.
I think that's about all I have on here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Robert Batinich,
John Sullivan and John Barsky.
Hello, Council members and mayor.
My name is Robert Batinich.
I moved to San Leandro 72 years ago.
My parents were going to lose their home, 20, at my age of 20,
I started to go to work to support them.
Now, I own almost 13 acres of property in San Leandro.
I had to not, I wasn't able to go to college because I started working.
I had to work the hard way, and I vowed I'd never be poor like my parents.
I now pay $150,000 in property tax to the city of San Leandro,
yet I've been robbed 27 times in the last three years.
The city tried to condemn my property 25 years ago,
part of it to build a super mall.
And at that time, and now it would have been a failure
because malls are dying in all these cities.
The community came together and stopped it.
And today the community is coming together to stop this.
Now we are threatened again
with the rent stabilization ordinance.
It failed in New York in 1945, and I invite all of you
to look at Milton Friedman's assessment of rent control.
In Berkeley, 20 years ago it failed.
This is a communist agenda, and stop it now.
Council members, please vote no on this mess.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are John Sullivan,
John Barsky and Yvette Rice.
Good evening Mayor Gonzalez and council members.
I'm John Sullivan, a San Leandro housing provider.
I'm the guy who bugs you so much with these emails.
But a wide back, former council member Catalina Reyes
declared that she would impose in San Leandro
the most extreme tenant protections and rent control.
Or worse to that effect.
by your 65% of CPI consensus,
you are following through with that.
With no regard really for input from housing providers.
Looks like it was from day one, just a done deal.
Don't listen.
Consequently, housing providers anxious to protect
their investments are calling upon a polling
to evaluate the potential of a referendum and recall drive.
this will be disastrous to our city. Divisive and very expensive to San Diego. San Diego, tenants and so forth. With the sky, with the expensive skyrocketing, the housing providers want to hold to the state rent control regulations. But I would say let's compromise. Let's settle for this 5% cap. That's 5% cap. It's not. There'll be no 10%.
There will be no 10% there.
Annual increase and dispense with this referendum
and recall drive.
Please, I respectfully ask you, I beg of you really,
to vote for this compromise.
Do it for San Leandro and get rid of this turmoil
and this talk of referendum, et cetera.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are John Barsky, Yvette Rice and John Day.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
About seven years ago, my wife and I bought a rental house
and for investment.
And that decision was based upon feeling
that San Leandro had a very good environment.
for investment I would have to say that even though the property we bought may
not be subject to the existing ordinance at this point it's not quite
clear how that's going to transition into law and enforcement so I if that
That decision was made today by my wife and I. I don't think we would have made that investment.
And at the time shortly after making the investment, we spent close to $200,000 on an ADU, which
the existing discussion and what will be ensuing controversy over the
implementation of this ordinance we definitely would not have made that
additional investment therefore I don't think that this ordinance is going to be
in the long-term benefit for the city and I am curious as to why there appears
to be no effort to increase the supply of housing rather than try to manipulate the
existing set of regulations concerning rental property.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speakers are Yvette Rice, John Day, and Michael Demordont. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Yvette Rice, and my grandmother moved with my mother to San Leandro in 1941.
She raised my mother here. My mother and father got married. They bought a house here.
I got married. I bought a house here. My wonderful husband and I raised our children here.
We own rentals because we saved and worked hard, did all that, whatever.
I just want to also ask.
So every year the city makes me buy a business license for the rentals I own.
And yet I did not get one notice about this rental change, not one.
You sent me all kinds of notices about other stuff that is around the houses
that I own, but not one.
I accidentally got a message from someone last night.
Hey, did you hear about this?
No. So why did no one look on my business license and see the list?
You make me itemized each property I own, and I pay a separate fee for each one of those.
What happened to the notice? Why was no one... I can't be the only person who didn't get that notice.
The CPI is a made-up number by some government that we don't... just that's magic number.
We own rentals and they're all families and I was concerned during COVID because it is just his
salary we're living on that maybe we might not be able to make it because if people didn't pay the
rent and yet every tenant we have respected us enough to come through somewhere late who cares
they got paid we respect that we take good care of our tenants our tenants take good care of us
I don't think raising this number up is a good idea I don't think San Leandro should try and
be like other fancy places like San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, whatever. We
are just a bedroom, I believe, we're a bedroom community who has families and I
don't, if we have the ordinance like that lady said, there's already an ordinance
in line or in place if a tenant has a complaint. Thank you. Thank you. The next
speakers are John Day, Michael Demmerdott, and Robert Jones.
Mr. Mayor, council members, thank you.
I'm against rent control.
Can you hear me OK?
Thank you.
Not too loud, right?
OK, thank you.
The rent stabilization ordinance comes
at a time when San Leandro is already relying on reserves
and one-time funds to balance the budget.
City reserves exist to protect essential services,
especially public safety during economic downturns,
emergencies, or unexpected increases in crime
or service needs.
Committing limited resources to a new,
ongoing rent stabilization program
weakens the city's ability to respond
when residents need police, fire,
emergency service the most.
This ordinance would require permanent spending on staff,
legal oversight, and enforcement,
even as the city faces difficult financial trade-offs.
That increases the risk of future cuts to public safety,
deferred infrastructure maintenance,
or new taxes and fees once reserves are depleted.
Residents expect the city to prioritize safe neighborhoods,
reliable emergency response, and well-maintained streets.
Rent stabilization does not address those needs,
nor does it solve housing affordability
or create new housing.
This ordinance won't create any new rental housing
or will probably cause some landlords to sell their units.
We already have rent control.
With AB 1482, please protect public safety
and San Leandro's financial stability
by preserving reserves and focusing city resources
on core services and long-term solutions.
Thank you, sir.
The next three speakers are Michael Demmerdant,
Robert Jones, and Rick Kislingberry.
We try to save money by buying a rental house
and the renter that stayed there for a long time
ended up from day one, which I didn't figure out
till way too late, flushing her stuff down the toilet,
which broke the pipe, which broke the foundation,
which broke the wall, which broke the roof,
which ruined the whole unit.
So I have now lost all the money
that I may have obtained from having a rental house.
So that one fact right there,
it makes it kind of like I'm an idiot,
but also it's a risk that we all take everyone here.
And so to think that we're now gonna have to pay
some additional amount, it just seems to me,
it's like, why am I trying?
It's just like, this is hard, I have two girls,
everybody said don't have kids, they're too expensive.
But I love my girls.
And I want to try to provide something for them.
And it's really hard.
So if you could help and just not do something like this,
it doesn't make sense to anyone, really.
I mean, there's one lady that said, elderly people
have to pay a lot of rent.
That's true.
But everywhere, it's like that.
If you want to have something, if you
try to maybe take another little step in life
and enjoy your life and help your kids.
That's what I was trying to do.
It's not working already.
So just help, do the right thing.
And I would say that would be no on this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Robert Jones,
Rick Kislingberry, and Ed Klossu.
Where do you get the right to impose rank control?
We represent many good landlords who have kept their rents low.
Maintenance costs have gone up, and insurance costs have rocketed, I mean, huge increases.
Rent control penalizes good landlords.
The state already has rent control.
Why do you want more?
It just doesn't make sense.
Why invest in San Leandro if you're going to be off of regulation?
Thank you.
The next speakers are Rick Kislingberry, Ed Klossu, and Luxwig Moore.
Luxwig Moore.
Council members and the mayor, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you.
I'm I live in San Leandro I've been a real estate broker for 55 years I handle
a property management and down by Bayfair Shopping Center have my office
their family business wife son and daughter I managed right now about 32
units in San Leandro small small apartments and houses the the expenses
that you're proposing to put together a team of staff. It seems like a large
waste of money just to put that program. I don't think we need that and I've been
doing that you know the property manager for more than 50 years. So I'm in the
trenches working with tenants all the time trying to make things fair for the
and fair for the owners.
But this seems unfair for the owners.
It's a little bit one-sided.
The 3%, I mean we go up, our taxes go up 2%.
And then if you can't raise your rents to stay even,
insurance and the PG&E and all of the expenses,
I mean it's hard to make everything make it,
everything to balance.
So the owners that I represent,
and I own a couple of properties myself,
it just makes it a very difficult situation.
I'm asking that you won't know on this,
the rent registry,
I mean, I've been dealing with Alameda right now
and every time that they send us the paperwork,
I mean, it's difficult to make everything match.
You don't have it exactly right.
They send it back to you.
You got to redo them.
I'm asking you to vote no.
Thank you, sir.
Your time has elapsed.
The next three speakers are Ed Klossu, Lixwig Moore.
Last name is definitely Moore.
Can't quite read the first name.
Followed by Jennifer Rizzo.
Like this, raising the rent, I mean, rent control.
Yeah, you talk about senior.
property owners are senior too.
Can we ask the city, this county stabilizing the tax?
Can we do that?
So why punish the landlord who work so hard
saving all the life for property,
thought that they could use that
for the golden age of retirement.
and the 3%, what is your property tax right now?
What is a CD sales tax?
And we are going up and going up,
but now you tell me that property owners
should not raise rent more than 3%.
This is a losing battle.
This man tried to save money
and worked for 40, 50 years to own a house.
And now you tell me, well, you're in a losing business.
I vote, I submerge all you city council members,
city managers, city council, city attorney
to look into it carefully and vote no.
All that program that is going up
that say that education and stuff is for what?
Some consulting company to make money.
How much you pay for this consulting
to come up with this proposal?
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Lixwig Moore,
Jennifer Rizzo, and Chris Urban-Reslife Longoria.
Hi, Mayor. Hi, Council members.
My name is Jennifer Rizzo,
and I'm with the California Apartment Association,
a nonprofit trade organization
representing housing providers in San Leandro.
We respectfully oppose this proposal
to enact additional rent control measures in San Leandro.
If adopted, this ordinance would impose rent control
that is significantly more restrictive
than the existing state law.
And history and experience show
that overly restrictive rent control
discourages investment in rental housing,
it reduces new construction,
and ultimately results in fewer available homes.
Over time, tighter housing supply harms residents,
working class families, and seniors
by making rental housing harder to find and more expensive.
There is no evidence that rents in San Leandro
have been increasing at a rate that warrants
this level of government intervention.
In fact, the city already has a rent review program,
And according to your annual report,
the Rent Review Board received only 28 inquiries,
many of which involved just general questions
about the ordinance and did not require additional follow-up.
You also report having zero cases or hearings.
The report states, quote,
the city has experienced a decrease in cases
since the adoption of Assembly Bill 1482, end quote.
This clearly demonstrates that the current rent control law
is already working in San Leandro.
There is no economic or empirical justification
for creating a new punitive regulatory bureaucracy.
San Leandro also fell significantly short
of its prior RINA housing goals,
particularly for the very low, low and moderate income units.
The city's new housing element emphasizes
the need to preserve existing housing
and incentivize new development.
This ordinance undermines these goals
precisely when more supply is needed.
Instead, we encourage city to educate renters
about existing state protections and local...
Thank you, your time has elapsed.
The next speakers are Chris Urban Res Life,
followed by Andrew...
So we're gonna take two more speakers
and then jump into our break.
Thank you, Mayor.
Two more speakers.
Chris Urban Res Life, Longoria,
followed by Andrew Corrader.
Hi, my name is Chris Urban Res Life,
of Longoria.
First, I'd like to acknowledge the Loni's people
whose territory that we occupy.
I am a resident of San Leandro for 40 years.
I've been a renter for 40 years in this city.
My family and my grandmother was relocated
to San Francisco due to the relocation act
and came from Oklahoma right after boarding school.
We all know about boarding schools now.
I moved here for a better life for me and my daughter.
looking for a sense of community of something
that was different than I had in San Francisco.
I found that here in San Leandro,
and I've always been a part of San Leandro
with the community and being involved, but always a renter.
I really hope that you can really think about this
and support the renters that are in San Leandro.
As you can see, I'm the first one up here as a renter.
And I have to agree with something that was said.
The community outreach for this has not been good.
Because if I'm the only renter that has been up here so far,
you're gonna hear everybody say yes,
that they don't want it.
I want you to think about the renters, the community,
the people that are the paycheck to paycheck,
I'm paycheck to paycheck.
I used to be, I was a civil servant for 35 years.
You know, now my rent goes up.
I will be houseless, houseless.
I hope that you really will take this into consideration
and think about us renters.
We are voters too.
And just a reminder, we all live on stolen land.
Ah-ho, thank you.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Andrew Correter.
Good evening, Mayor, council members, and city staff,
and my fellow citizens.
My name's Andrew Greider.
San Leandro is my hometown.
I've grown up here, I went to school here,
I started my family here.
I'm lucky enough to be living in a mom and pop rental unit.
I believe that this rent cap
on top of the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019
will only harm San Leandro.
It won't be sustainable to own, maintain,
or improve rental properties
with such minimal rent increases imposed by this ordinance,
while other utilities, taxes, bonds,
and insurances go unchecked.
If they are not able to raise costs
to compete with surrounding cities
to with the cost of operation,
then it will not be worth it
to keep San Landro rental properties.
This could lead to an exodus of small landlords
and reduction of rental operations here in the city.
The fee for the rent stabilization will be no different from an additional tax on the
renters and landlords that we the people have not voted for.
While I hope to be able to buy a home one day here in San Landro, I fear that the fallout
from this ordinance could upset both the housing and rental market for years to come.
I believe the intentions behind this ordinance are good, but the increase in rent costs are
a result of a failed system.
monopoly of PG&E, the deregulation of insurance companies, private equity and investment firms
buying one out of every four single family homes. I feel like I'm the youngest person
to speak so far, so please listen to me. I urge you to focus on the cause of the system failures,
not to create more hurdles for my generation to jump through. Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
So this time it's 9, 10.
We are going to take a 10-minute recess.
Be back at 9, 20, please.
The order, if we could please come back to order,
we will take our next speaker.
The next three speakers are Diana Snyder,
followed by Chun Chi, followed by Adelis.
thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this is your neighbor my father
Jerry he's known to many as Papa he's 94 has dementia and is tucked into bed
right now he's lived in San Leandro since 1950 and lives in the house that
he and my mother purchased on LC he's been an active member in the city in his
church community of st. Leander and is a man that many including myself respect
for his honesty and values. With just a high school education and working a blue color
job that did not offer a retirement plan, he sought a way to provide for the future.
My parents were frugal, saved, and along with siblings invested in a couple of rental properties
to have a secure retirement. This income is extremely important to the family now due
due to my aunt and my father's declining health and care needs.
Papa is a man with high principles and has been fair and a kind landlord.
He very frequently skipped any rent increases to keep his long-term tenants and help families
and housed refugee family at one time in the past as well.
What disturbs me and should be clear to all here is that this proposal will most penalize
the most generous housing providers that include my father, who kept rents low.
This proposal with a rent rollback and eliminating bank rent increases plus the extremely low
permissible increase will create a situation that not keep up with basic yearly increases
of insurance, which for him went up 38% last year, and property tax annual tax increases.
Now we'll add in additional fees of the rent registry this year. The truth. Thank you. Your
time has elapsed. The next three speakers are Chun Chi, followed by Adelis, followed by
Louise Lovewell? The balance for both sides and data-based decision making
reject the extreme form of rent control and adopt a more moderate like for example 5% fixed
kind of rent cap as initially proposed by the housing department. I just ask everyone here
a simple question, are you going to accept a 65% of CPI increase in your salary?
Anybody, yes. Please vote yes. And housing stat too. If you don't think it's fair,
but how come you think it's fair to apply to our housing provider. Second, more strict housing
policy won't add a single unit to the supply. Actually will cause existing rental inventory
to drop as in San Francisco. A study of a twin city in Minnesota, they already show the one city
implement extreme rent control of 3%
and leading to 80% drop in development.
The other one have a more relaxed rent control
actually have a lower average rent.
That's a very shocking for you guys.
Lower average rent than the one have higher rent control.
Look at the study.
I already sent you a link to that.
So please use that for your decision making.
Sir, city is facing a $50 million budget hole
in such a tough financial period,
tough to justify borrowing 2 million
to create a brand new rent control program with six staff.
Instead, those 2 million, it can directly help
maybe dozens or hundreds of housing household
in San Diego who can show the need
without the need for any extra housing program.
By the way, Oakland, thank you.
Your time has elapsed.
The next three speakers are Adelez,
followed by Luis Lovewell, then Anthony Adesi.
Good evening, mayor and the council members.
My name is Adelez.
I'm a board member of a business and housing network.
I'm also a small housing provider in San Diego.
For the last three years,
we have kept our rent low and affordable
to maintain for lower vacancy rate.
However, during this same period,
our operating expenses have raising dramatically
compared to 2022.
Our property insurance costs have increased by 80%.
PG&E bills are up 46%.
Trash and recycling costs are up 50%.
And water payment have increased by 60%.
Contractor costs have also increased a lot.
Altogether, those have created substantial
financial pressure on small housing providers like us.
Importantly, all those causes increase,
far is see the consumer price index, CPI.
Also reference with the proposal
that housing department proposed tonight,
only 18%, only $18 rent increase is allowed on 2027
for a 2,000 rent base,
I bet at that time, McDonald's Big Mac combo
might already cost over $18.
Seriously, 18 times 12, that's only 218 a year.
To unclog a toilet is cost more than that.
A healthy housing market depends on balance.
People need housing and the landlord need tenants.
When policies become overly restricted,
that will discourage small housing providers
and the reducing supply of quality rental housing.
So I'm here tonight to ask all city councils
to vote no on any straighter proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Louise Lovewell, Anthony Adesi
and Craig William.
Good evening city council, mayor, attorney
and fellow residents of San Leandro.
My family and I have lived in this city since 1979.
We have bought property in San Leandro
and we have been kind to our tenants
by keeping the rents low, maintaining the property.
Passing this rent control ordinance will punish us,
will punish us and all the other people
who have done their best to keep their rents low.
For us, it's unfair.
Maybe it's even unlawful.
So I want you to really consider your city says
where kindness matters.
Rent control is not kindness, not kindness.
So please consider voting no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Anthony Adesi, Craig William
and Bill Espinola.
Good evening, Ms. Zahn.
Good evening, mayor and city council members.
I provide housing here in the city of San Leandro.
I want housing to be affordable and well-maintained.
My concern is with rent control,
that this applies the same role to very different situations
and isn't based on need.
Over time, it weakens the housing stock we all rely on.
Costs keep rising, insurance, utilities, payroll materials,
mandated upgrades, and when rent increases our cap
below those costs, owners have to cut somewhere.
Repairs get delayed, seismic and energy work gets pushed out
and maintenance gets reduced.
also concerned about setting the base rent year of July 1, 2025 and rolling rents back.
Retroactive rollbacks rewrite signed leases and budgets after the fact,
often undoing lawful increases that were used to keep up with real expenses and required work.
Rent control can be a short-term answer with long-term downsides. Less reinvestment, less supply,
less focus on building more homes, supporting pay growth and strengthening San Leandro's economy.
Given it seems like we don't even have a final budget, I can't understand the full impact to
the city's tight budget and how we could proceed with this ordinance. I would love to see some
data on how many families we could help if the money was instead used to help renters that truly
need payment assistance. Finally, after hearing all of the data today on how much the current
rent review program is not used, I'm not sure this was even warranted by the majority of the
constituents and I'm thinking this might be brought forward due to city council members and their own interest and not representing their constituents
If San Leandro really wanted this, maybe we should go ahead and put it on the ballot
Thank you. The next speakers are okay. That's your warning
That's your warning. The next speakers are craig william
Bill espanola and emily rich
Hi, my name is craig william
is it working? Hello? Okay, good. You know, in terms of the proposed limits on rent,
you know, you have the five percent, and I think that the CPI rate is sort of a middle rate,
but throughout the country now, cities are advocating a freeze on rents. So this middle
road of the CPI is really a moderate solution.
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, they're
advocating a freeze on rents.
New York had a freeze on rents for three years under de Blasio.
You know, there are people who know a lot about the profit
margins of landlords, and they're
advocating a freeze on rents.
You know, usually bankers are not gonna invest
in a property unless they're making a 10% profit.
You know, we had that and also we had a tech boom
where the profits went up much higher than 10%.
So, you know, landlords are making quite a bit of money.
Also, there are a lot of landlords in San Leandro
who have Section 8 housing.
That's a form of welfare for them.
They're getting welfare dollars
And those dollars are coming from San Leandro taxpayers.
So there's a lot of money that's coming
into the landlord's pockets
because of San Leandro tenants.
And the last thing I just like to briefly say
is I've spoken with lots and lots of tenants
and almost no one knows about
this rent stabilization ordinance,
which is probably the most important issue
that tenants face in San Leandro now.
I think that the city should do some sort of analysis
of this because it's close to zero percent.
Thank you, your time has elapsed.
The next speakers are Bill Espinola,
Emily Rich, and Sandeep Sukija.
Good evening.
My name is Bill Espinola.
I'm the President of the Bay's Association of Realtors.
I'm also a resident of San Leandro.
I grew up in San Leandro.
My family's been a part of San Leandro for over 70 years.
I have experience in San Leandro.
I know what it's like to live in San Leandro.
I'm also a housing provider.
I am what you would call a mom and pop housing provider.
I've been at that for a long time as well.
40 years, believe it or not.
I know the business.
I know what it takes to provide housing for people.
I take pride in providing quality housing at an affordable price.
This ordinance, the way it is written, will not work.
In fact, it will make it much harder for tenants to find clean affordable housing in San Leandro.
Over time, this ordinance, if it's passed this evening, will result in lower amount
of rental properties available for people, families coming into San Leandro.
We're a basic supply and demand.
It will actually increase costs for clean, affordable rental housing in San Leandro.
It will also, the 65% of the CPI, it's not enough to keep rental property well maintained.
It's not.
You've heard these people.
Thank you.
three speakers are Emily Rich followed by Sandeep Sukija and Rob Rich. Hi I'm
Emily Rich and I'm a member of the housing platform of the Big Tent San
Leandro. We congratulate you, the council, on getting to the first reading of this
significant legislation. We hope you feel great pride in this achievement. We know
there has been significant disagreement on the terms of the proposed ordinance,
the city of Toronto. We have a
keep in mind that the so-called free market is not optimally balancing supply and demand
for housing in the U.S., in California, or in San Leandro. Providers of housing are in an
increasingly stronger economic position compared to the seekers of housing because California
developers have failed to create adequate housing for five decades. This market failure has many
antecedents, but this dearth of housing has exponentially increased the power of housing
providers. As staff's presentation at the January 22, 2025 Rules Committee showed, median rents in
the area have increased by 82 percent since 2010, which significantly outspaced CPI, which increased
by only 44 percent. San Leandro renters need relief both by incentivizing increased housing
production and by enacting rent stabilization. Follow the lead of Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward,
Richmond and Alameda. Please do not delay based on the notion that the housing market is somehow free
and will magically come to a happy balance. Thanks. And since I have six seconds, I'd like to say
this scarf was woven by Ginny Madsen. Just to let you know. Thank you. The next three speakers
are Sandeep Sukijia, Rob Rich, and Garak Yann.
Hello, council members.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening.
My name is Sandeep Sukijia, and I do not
live in the city of San Leandro.
However, I put all my savings towards owning
one fourplex and one triplex in this city.
I'm the typical, small landlord.
While I do not live here, I consider this wonderful city
to be my workplace. I maintain and operate these two buildings provide
great housing to seven families and in return try to make a small income for my
family. The last several years have been extremely difficult to make any income
from these properties. The soaring interest rates combined with massive
increases in utility rates and insurance costs have made it impossible to have
anything left over. Despite this I have continued to spend on the property
upkeep so that my tenants have safe and well-maintained homes. The only hope was
that eventually I can raise rents so that my so-called income producing
property will produce actually some income, any income. I respectfully ask
the council to not take away this hope from me by implementing rent control.
Thank you. Thank you. The next three speakers are Rob Rich, Garic Yahn and
Jenny Madsen. Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, thank you for the
opportunity to speak. My name is Rob Rich and I'm lucky enough to live here in
San Leandro. I'm speaking as an individual and not on behalf of any
organization. I believe the draft ordinance represents a tremendous
amount of work over a long period of time and you should be proud. Of course
it's not perfect. Frankly perfection is not even a realistic goal for an
ordinance but a unanimous vote can be. Unanimity can make an
ordinance stronger by ensuring that it's better able to weather changes in
political winds. It's no secret that this council has issues. Well there's always
going to be policy differences and even personality conflicts this council has
members who are deeply wounded and in pain and acting a strong local rent
stabilization ordinance will be a significant achievement doing so
unanimously will not only ensure a stronger ordinance but it also can help
heal some of the divides plaguing this council there is no magic bomb but
healing starts with a step I respectfully request that you seek
unanimity tonight and if that means tweaking certain deal points without
making substantial modifications that would only cause further delay, then so be it. Because
through unanimity you can not only make a stronger more durable ordinance, but you can
also take a critical step towards building a healthier council. And that is in the best
interest of all of us. Thank you.
The next three speakers are Garrick Yahn, Jenny Madsen, and Sandra Frost.
Hello, council. Hello, council. I'm a San Leandro resident, homeowner, taxpayer, and
a voter. Don't waste my tax dollars on an ordinance that won't help San Leandro. It
won't fix our streets or keep us safe or produce more housing. There are already plenty of
rental protections in the state law. Instead of wasting money hiring new staff, do something
that will protect all San Leandro residents, like fixing our streets or attracting new
businesses or even building more housing.
Thank you.
The next three speakers are Jenny Madsen,
Sandra Frost and Chris Moore.
Okay, I should know how to do this.
Look, I know that you guys understand the ordinance.
I also know that most of the people behind me do not.
I believe that you are building something
for the future of San Leandro.
this will have, this will make a difference
in the housing situation in San Lander.
You cannot make plans with bad data.
And right now the city doesn't know
because you're listening to people who are saying,
oh, this is my situation.
You need to know what the rental landscape is.
You need to know who owns the properties.
But when you build something, you have to clear the ground.
You have to build a foundation.
You have to lay the groundwork.
And yes, that's what this is.
But all these people who are saying
it's going to put them out of business,
I've paid rent in Alameda County since 1969.
In those 56 years, I have watched it become an investment.
People plan on it as a way.
It's their bank.
This is how they expect to make money so they can survive.
And yes, all the costs are going up.
Everything, and this is not keeping up.
It can't because it's not sustainable.
Having rents continually go up is not sustainable.
You're building something,
and the one point that I wanna make here
is all these people who think
that they're not gonna be able to survive on this,
they're ignoring the fact
that there's a fair rate of return process.
So if they really can't make it,
They go to the program and get it reviewed.
And their costs are looked at, what their rate of rent is.
And they can get it adjusted.
This is a living thing.
Thank you.
Your time is up.
The next three speakers are Sandra Frost, Chris Moore,
and Tuan Ngo.
Good evening.
So this is an amazing document.
I am so pleased to learn about the work that's gone into this.
And this is remarkable for our community here in the East Bay.
And listening to all the commenters,
I just really am questioning, you know, risk for whom.
Like when people lose their homes
And when people fall behind or come into catastrophe,
if they're renting and they don't own their property
or they don't have the privilege of buying land
for investment, it's just really hard.
And it's hard for the landlords, too.
I mean, my heart goes out to people
who bought into the dream of buying real estate,
hoping that their kids or their grandkids
we're going to benefit from this crazy proposition.
And there's so much risk in that, so much risk.
And with the way things are going now,
just with the world and this country in particular,
I applaud you for taking the chance
on having this rent stabilization ordinance.
I'm doing tenant justice work in an incorporated county,
and we don't have a city council to go to.
We have to go to the Board of Supervisors in Oakland
and this is much friendlier.
It's like we're neighbors with each other.
We can speak from the heart
and feel like we're being heard.
I don't wanna take up any more of your time,
but thanks for letting me speak and I applaud you.
I applaud you all and I wanna say the speaker
that came ahead of me and said,
I hope that there's unity in this council.
And good luck to you. It's been really difficult. I know thank you the next speakers are
Chris Moore
Tuan know and John Minot Schwartz
Thank you Chris Moore East Bay Rental Housing Association. We represent about
1500 1600 actually property owners across the county and
They represent somewhere along the range of 60,000 units. So
you know, speaking to a woman before me, she said we don't understand this, the policy
or the ordinance, we do. We understand how to provide housing to the community. And we
represent largely small mom and pop, 10 units or less, most are four units or less. And
they understand that policies like these actually make it very difficult for them to operate.
And I think you've heard that, but also makes it very difficult for new people to get in.
They won't be interested in investing in the community, particularly small housing providers.
And you heard that from a gentleman earlier.
I think you also heard from a renter early on where they said they started with 5 percent,
but they were actually saying, hey, a 3 percent max, not 65 percent, but a 3 percent is actually
reasonable for the community, so a flat fee, let's say, a flat increase of 3%.
I think that would be helpful for the small property owners.
The $18 that Tom gave earlier on a 2000 rent, most rents are actually lower than that for
small housing providers.
I had to hire a plumber yesterday for a larger job than normal, but it was in one unit, cost
me five hundred twelve dollars and that's common it was a toilet issue that
would take two years of those rent increases to get to that so I think what
we're asking for is either a carve out or something but something that can
help these small providers really continue to provide housing to the
community thank you the next speakers are Tuan No John Minot Schwartz and K Lee
figure on? I have passed out a handout from small mom and pop immigrant
housing providers basically that's our ask and if you could please look at it
when you make your decisions and consider each item as it relates to the
cap increase we're asking for something balanced and reasonable there was
discussion of 5% which is half of the state max and then 3% which is what's
before you were asking for something in the middle which is 4% where and make it
flat just because CPI could go up and down it's confusing and I think this
year CPI calculation in Oakland is 0.8% it's just not sustainable and then we
We also wanted to make sure that there's banking
which allows flexibility of a tenant's car breaks down.
They might say, don't raise rent on this this year,
maybe do it next year.
We don't want you to lose being able to keep up
with inflation.
So allow us that flexibility to work with our tenants.
That's helpful.
And then allow for capital improvement pass through
so that we could help maintain our buildings
which helps both renters and housing providers.
But I'd also like to mention that George Wu, who came before you, who provided housing
in San Leandro and went on a hunger strike during the eviction moratorium, he waited
on the phone for two hours and he ran out of batteries, he contacted me and he said
that to just pass on the message that he liked policy that's sustainable and unfortunately
he lost his home because of the eviction moratorium and he was, he's struggling to pay his college
tuition for his kids and then also he had to do a lot of struggling for years financially
and he's...
Thank you.
The next speakers are John Minow-Schwartz, Kay Lee Figueroa and Michael McGuire.
Good evening, Councilmembers Mayor. John Midot Schwartz, Sandaland resident homeowner.
Thank you for your careful development of this ordinance over the past couple of years.
I hope Sandaland removes positively on this to protect the vulnerable from displacement
and to make housing fairer. I would like to look at this with the aspect of youth.
I would invite the mayor and council members to think of their personal journeys,
how they got here, and what their housing circumstances were at the time.
And what it might have been like differently if from year one as an adult you had had to pay rent
at current levels, which averaged $2,350 for new units in San Leandro. The crush of rent leaves
young people less and less able to engage in any kind of civic activities, anything other than
working on their career. I have friends in other cities who are pursuing political engagement in
in their own cities before being priced out
of the entire region.
I think if we think about what 2040 will look like,
if we have a San Leandro
with substantial youth engagement in politics,
it will be people who were supported
by a rent stabilization policy.
I also hope our city will,
after dealing with this ordinance,
be able to take up the,
spend more of the limited legislating bandwidth
on getting more of that vitally needed new housing bill,
that is the other side of the coin of tenant protection,
which has the potential to not only flatten rent
in real terms, but actually reduce it.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Kay Lee Figueroa,
Michael McGuire, and Edward Escobar.
I want to address the letter that John Sullivan wrote
in this last issue of the San Leandro Times,
where he said that, quote,
The caliber of tenants will change
if this ordinance goes through.
How can you be more insulting to tenants in this city
than to describe us like we are trash?
Okay, we are your livelihood, okay?
We are the ones who pay rents.
This whole idea of pass-through.
There is such a thing.
It's called rent.
we pay rent so that you fix the roof,
so that you fix the toilets, okay?
And then John Sullivan talking about it costs $20,000
to renovate an apartment that becomes vacant.
At $2,500, you make that money back what?
In less than what, eight months?
And where do I make my money back from?
Since I've been here,
My rent has been raised over the years by $800 a month.
That means that I am now paying twice, almost twice,
as much as when I moved in here.
How do these landlords talk about they're going poor
and broke when I have to keep coughing up money?
And I am on Social Security now.
I don't have any extra means of making more money
and they get all kinds of tax rights
that they're not telling you about
because they don't want you to know, okay?
And that they charge.
And also my last point, when it was tenants that came here.
Thank you, your time has elapsed.
The next three speakers are Michael McGuire,
Edward Escobar, and Chris Schiltz.
Hi there. I'm a homeowner who does not rent out any property.
I have been a tenant in the past and that perhaps shapes how I feel about some of the
landlords I've had in the past. There were some nice ones and others who really
should be in jail someplace. First of all, there are no paid lobbyists
for sadly Andrew's tenants who are 40% of the city's residents.
You see lots of paid lobbyists here tonight from landlords,
most of whom do not live in San Leandro,
most of the lobbyists.
Stable rents, which is the point of this ordinance,
bring stable and prosperous communities.
That is why we got the idea of doing this,
not out of any innate need to torture landlords.
Landlords with unusual cost can, in fact,
under this ordinance, apply to have those covered
and the rents they're allowed to charge.
So I don't see how their expenses
are gonna run ahead of what's allowed
because they are allowed to make that back.
The Red Review Board, which we have, stinks.
That is why tenants don't use it.
The state protections are inadequate.
That is why we need local protections
that close some of the loopholes and go further.
Sorry, can I go back to another page here?
There is this mythology that landlords work very hard.
That's how they came to be landlords.
Some of them inherited their property.
Somebody did work very hard.
Some of them did work very hard.
Landlords work their tails, and not landlords,
tenants, too, work their tails off.
And this needs to be recognized.
And they're not a criminal class who live only
to rip off landlords.
And that's it.
thank you thank you the next speakers are Edward before our next speaker we
have come up to the limit of our council time so we'll need a motion to extend so
vice mayor please thank you I'd like to make a motion to extend to 1130 please
so we've got a motion to extend to 1130 councilmember Bowen I as I will suck in
that motion and I may have to leave before that time. Okay so we've got a
motion by council member Bowen did you need to clarify something so just a
point of inquiry from council member Bolt. How many more speakers do we have?
That would be four cards and 12 hands raised online. I would hate to see us
I'm sorry so you're making a substitute motion or a motion for 11 instead of 1130.
Okay do I have a second on the substitute motion councilmember Simon on the
substitute motion. Okay so essentially we have a request to extend to 11. I think
we can agree because we do have to vote so please vote. All votes are in. Motion
carries unanimously with Councilmember Azaveto absent. If you would please
proceed with our next set of speakers. The next speakers are Edward Escobar,
Chris Schilt and Jimmy Kelly. Edward Escobar here, founder of Citizens Unite.
While rent stabilization will most likely pass in San Leandro, property
owners and housing providers will take note of how each council member voted.
You will be held accountable either through recall or voted out next election.
If you drive out housing providers you'll worsen the very housing crisis
we're trying to solve. Small housing providers, retirees, working families,
longtime residents are the backbone of our rental market. They're not corporate
landlords, but when policies ignore the rising costs, insurance, maintenance,
property taxes, they're forced to sell, exit, or disinvest. That shrinks the
housing supply renters depend on. Now we've seen this in Oakland over
regulation led to disinvestment, deteriorating housing stock and fewer
available units. Let's not repeat those mistakes here in San Leandro. My
associates who are also housing providers state a balanced implementation
if passed tonight should include a 4% annual rent cap to account for
inflation and rising costs and exemption for small housing providers who own eight
or fewer units, a capital improvement pass-through to maintain safe quality housing, and banking
provisions to allow flexibility because, well, that helps both renters and providers weather
economic shifts.
This isn't about rolling back protections.
This is really about making them, making it work.
You can protect tenants without punishing the people who provide them homes.
keep San Leandro livable, equitable and sustainable for all. Now, my family moved here and have
been property owners here in San Leandro since 1978. We led the historical successful recalls
and policy changes in Oakland, Alameda County removing elected officials from office who failed
to listen to the residents who actually bought into the city's existence. We did it there and we
and we can do it here.
You've been put on notice.
Stanley, Andrew.
Thank you.
The next three speakers are Chris Schelt,
Jimmy Kelly and Lawrence Abbott.
Hi, good evening.
My name is Chris Schelt.
I'm Director of Housing Justice at Urban Habitat
and we work with communities around the Bay Area
to advance more affordable housing and tenant protections.
Just wanna thank you for what you're doing here tonight.
This ordinance is very thoughtfully constructed.
We've seen similar ordinances pass in cities
like Antioch has almost exactly the same terms
in terms of rent cap, it's worked very well there.
Mountain View, Richmond, Los Gatos, Berkeley,
have very similar terms as to what you're looking at
and we know that this works.
It stabilizes renters, it keeps people in their homes,
it stabilizes communities.
So thank you for your action tonight.
Thank you. The next speakers are Jimmy Kelly and Lawrence Abbott.
Hi, I'm a working-class person and I retiree, but I'm still a working-class person.
And since I've lived here, my rent's doubled.
But I'll tell you what, I work three jobs,
and it still doesn't keep up with the cost of living.
What the question is is affordability and what's fair.
And what you put together is something that is fair.
And when we talk about kindness, being
able to afford to stay in your home
is very, very important to me and all renters.
And for landlords, if you lose your renter,
you lose your income.
And when you lose your income as a renter, you have to move.
But when you own property, you don't have to move.
You have the choice to sell that property.
And all that proposition 13 that you've had over the years,
you've saved that money.
And it's all about money.
And we wanna be able to afford to live here.
And this ordinance is a way to do that.
And it's for retirees, for old people, for disabled people.
It's essential.
So support affordability and have the backbone
to stand up against the money and interest
that are pouring into this room
to try to get you to support their cause.
Remember, there's people, they can't come here.
They're busy working, raising families, taking care of kids.
They're not worried about their investments,
but these people are.
So support the ordinance
and support the people that live in your town.
I work as a musician.
I work as a sales rep.
And I work as a letter carrier for 27 years.
When I got here, when I first started renting,
I could afford the rent on just my retirement, not anymore.
It's like half of that.
It takes two incomes, what once took one.
So affordability is the most important issue.
And if you want your tenants to stay in your apartments,
be affordable.
And if you're a mom and pop, you're already covered.
This ordinance is gonna protect you too.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Lawrence Abbott.
It's funny, but Jimmy and I just went to the Alameda
Labor Council meeting and came here afterwards.
And I was gonna use up my whole two minutes,
but he said a lot of what I was gonna say,
so I won't repeat myself.
But when I got here late,
I did notice the nicest cars I've ever seen
parked in front of this place.
All kinds of Tesla, Cybertrucks,
and they're not just right off the showroom floor,
they've got custom wraps,
and then I come in here and hear all the crying,
and it's pretty impressive.
I wanted to say a couple of things, though,
that I do think that in this market that we live in,
the times that we live in,
Landlords now have unrealistic expectations for profits.
And that's one of the reasons why they're fighting too hard.
They want the gravy train to continue.
And there are a few, I'm sure, that bought too high.
And they're in a tough financial situation
because if you spend a million dollars on a house
and you're trying to make rental income,
it's not gonna work out.
So even though this ordinance is incredibly fair
to both landlords and renters,
there will definitely be some landlords
will probably want to sell and that'll be super great especially for the young
guy I heard when I just got here that really is hoping to buy a house because
some properties will come on the market and they'll switch over from being
rental units to home ownership or condo ownership so this is a really great
thing that you guys have done you guys have been working hard on it kudos to
y'all and I hope we get this done quick thank you. Thank you mayor that concludes
the in-person comment cards we've received.
Okay, and how many hands do we have online?
14 hands raised.
Okay, so to try to manage this process,
just like we require people to turn in their cards here,
we're going to keep reminding people
for about one minute here, no, not even 30 seconds,
we've been going for a while.
Please, this is the opportunity to raise your hand,
because what we're gonna do is we're gonna identify
everyone who's raised their hand.
We're gonna flag them.
Everyone who has raised their hand will have the opportunity to speak and those will be the only people that are allowed to speak
Because we will create that list will do the capture. So again
For those that are online that have been listening to our meeting that have been waiting patiently to speak
This is your opportunity to raise your hand
We will take note those that have raised their hand and those will be the people that are given the opportunity to speak
So at this point in time, do we have a list? It's good
We have taken a picture and we will proceed
with the hands that were raised as of this point in time.
Those will be the speakers for the rest of the evening.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
The first speaker is Meena Young.
Hi, my name's Meena Young.
I'm the president of Business and Housing Network,
many immigrant small mom and pop owners
who are also seniors and disabled.
So the vulnerable landlords that we're talking about
and small homeowners who try really hard
to and sacrifice a lot to own a house
just to secure their home.
And some of the tenants say
that we are all part of the community.
And one person actually said came from San Francisco
because she felt that San Diego would be more community-like.
And I really applaud that because San Diego
without rent control is actually more community-like
than San Francisco, precisely because rent control actually
divides people.
And San Francisco actually has increased vacancy
throughout the last few decades.
In 2000, the vacancy rate was 4.9%.
I'm looking at the city's report.
And 2020 is 8.6%.
So more and more mom and pops cannot afford the risk
of renting out because the rent cap is too low,
they can't recoup,
because it's multi-million investment.
If that money I could put in the bank more than the rent cap,
then why should I do all the work and the risk?
Even insurance company are telling us,
because in order to provide us a coverage for rental,
you can actually double the premium.
So rent control directly adds to the housing costs.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Douglas Spalding.
Thank you, council members.
I appreciate the generosity of your time.
You will have heard nearly 60 public speakers tonight.
I also appreciate the diligence with which you've approached
this issue and the erudite manner in which you studied it.
I am a landlord in San Leandro.
My family came here in 1872.
I am recently retired as a public school teacher.
I'm on a fixed income.
I'm a senior.
The only reason I have a house
is thanks to my family's generational wealth.
I purchased this home for my grandmother
for way under market in order to pay for her end of life care.
So I, as a landlord, also suffer the same increases
property taxes and my housing insurance and in the last three months I've probably I let's see what
have I done I put in a new dishwasher I had to have the dryer made over I put an insulation
the attic so I understand cost go up but since my grandmother is generous with me I am generous
with my uh my tenants my housemates I feel it's important for us to provide housing I'm a housing
provider. I think it's important that in your um ruminations that that that we are fair to uh
to uh uh property owners and that we acknowledge that right and that there's a fair rate of return
but not the right to unfettered profits because there's also a right to housing that everyone
has and we need to provide that in the city. Uh you know I read some of the stuff that went
out from the California apartment association they they believe that you don't really know
what's going on. You're being ignorant. And so they're here to educate you tonight. But like,
you know, all these things they're saying, like, this is an extreme rent increase. You know,
3% is pretty common these days and CPI is the new norm. All that baloney about how rent control is
going to make the the sky fall. There's no thank you. The next three speakers are Angel S,
Ava and Jim Carney. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Thank you
very much Major on Council and everybody present there. Seems you had something something good
there. The bones of the ordinance seem legitimate. The only thing I was going to say was to change
the day of enactment instead of January 2027, move it to July maybe, but I saw the presentation
and I understand. So maybe just have a moratorium, a rent increase moratorium until it's enacted.
That's one of my suggestions. Close a loophole maybe on the fair return rules, which would
allow landlords to just claim their own labor cost without any kind of like third party
proof, you know, allow them to just pretty much have like a logbook entry and claim,
do their claim. So I like to have something that has like real invoices from licensed
contractors and stuff like that. If possible, pass the full protection cost to the landlords
instead of having tenants pay for their own protection,
you know, 50% of the cost, those are...
But as a whole, I think it's a great thing
that you're working with.
I wanna salute you, congratulate you,
and thank you for the time and effort
that you're putting into this.
Encourage you, I believe you're smart enough
to tell who, you know, did their chat GPT speeches,
who spoke from the heart,
And even though misguided,
I think that some people that show their anger,
their frustration,
because we're trying to play monopoly
with something as precious as land in real life,
like a precious, something as basic
as putting a roof over our heads,
it was bound to cause problems.
But I believe that together we can fix it.
And this rent control civilization.
Thank you. The next speaker is Eva.
I'm sorry about that.
I was on mute.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Okay.
My name is Eva Poon
and I am here today to speak on behalf of my family
and our small business based here in San Leandro.
We are residents, neighbors, and community members
of San Leandro who have owned
and managed rental housing since 2008.
We've done our part to keep rents affordable
by partnering with the Section A program
and delaying rent increases on our market rate tenants
as well as building additional housing
to improve accessibility.
But our locally based and family operated
community enriching style of ownership
is under threat from San Leandro's
proposed rent control ordinance.
Capping annual rent increases at 65% of CPI or 3%
means that our rents cannot keep up with inflation.
Our expenses, however, will keep up with inflation
and we may quickly reach a point
where we financially cannot continue
with the basic upkeep of our properties.
This will hurt our tenants
and this will hurt our properties.
On a more personal note,
my parents came to this country with nothing.
But through their own hard work and discipline savings,
they were able to plan for their retirement
by investing in San Leandro Real Estate.
during the housing crash of 2008.
My parents are now elderly San Leandro residents
who almost exclusively depend on their rental properties
for their retirement.
Capping annual rent increases that less than CPI
would effectively cap their retirement income
at a rate where it cannot even keep up
with the local cost of living.
Over the long term, this may price them out
of the San Leandro community that they know and love.
Please do not support this rent control ordinance.
Please oppose it and support the local
and responsible housing providers such as my family.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Jim Carney.
Jim, are you there?
Jim, if you're there, please unmute yourself.
Otherwise, the next speaker is Jim Prola.
This is Jim Prola.
I can speak now.
Can you hear me?
to the city. Yes, Thank you.
Okay Um. Council members. You
know who I am. I was on the
same position you were, uh,
years ago. Um right now, the
city already has rent control.
The rent is controlled by the
landlords and the apartment
Association. And the rent has
become unreasonably high. We
need rent stabilization, which
that is what 3% or 65% of the cost of living does.
And it keeps low and middle wage earners
able to afford the rent in our city.
The rent review board was a joke
and the reason very few people,
and that was the reason very few people use it.
It wasn't mandatory.
And one council person made all the appointments, frankly.
It was controlled by the apartment association
and the landlords.
people need to live in the city where they work and play
and avoid the unhealthy pollution
by people driving in from far destinations.
Here's the statistic I read in the paper the other day.
82% of Bay Area retirees,
Social Security is their main source of income.
I wanna repeat that.
82% of Bay Area retirees,
Social Security is their main source of income,
and Social Security went up only 2.5% in 2025
and 2.8% in 2026.
Over the last decade,
the cost of living Social Security average went up about 3%.
So if you allow anywhere near a 5% increase,
you'll see a huge increase in senior citizens
to become homeless,
because they won't be able to afford the rent.
Thank you very much.
You know what the right thing to do is and that's the passes.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Pan.
Hi, this is the Pan.
Can you hear me?
Yes, yes.
Hi, this is the Pan.
Year 2020,
this city council vote to defund the police.
At the time, it seemed to be a very good idea.
And by it turn out, it's a big mistake.
Luckily, it was, you know, already fast.
Now we are going to, you are going to do something
that's going to define the housing.
This, the consequence may not show up as fast,
but it's inevitable.
Eventually, people will not invest in new housing
and you're going to make the housing price much worse.
Because if you don't get the fare returns
and you have tremendous risk,
especially for child court division,
if you got a tenant, you can never evict them.
A monthly tenant can turn out to be a lifelong tenant.
And if this tenant is bad,
you're going to have a lifetime nightmare.
So that the risk is so big that,
and plus you cannot get the fair return.
Who is going to invest in real estate?
Now, the apartment value in Oakland has decreased by 30%.
Apparent value in Berkeley, in Richmond,
in San Francisco all decreased.
So this is, there's something about the rent control.
It's just going to destroy property value
and together the city will get less tax
and the housing stock is going to reduce.
So really don't do something that's going to destroy the city.
Argentina solve the housing problems
just to buy get rid of the rent control.
So maybe seeing something about not doing anything
and let the free market work is where.
Thank you. The next speaker is Becky Kay. Good evening council members, mayor,
staff, and everyone who's present in person and online. I just want to thank you for the
opportunity to speak and especially over Zoom. I really appreciate you allowing that. This
evening I am speaking on behalf of my elderly mother who's a small mom and pop landlord in
San Leandro, where I was born and raised and my family, some of my family resides.
She relies on the rental income to pay for basic living expenses, medical care, property taxes,
and of course the rising cost of insurance. This is just an investment for her, this is her
retirement. And while this ordinance is intended to prevent displacement, it unintentionally places
a burden on seniors like my mom. The proposed rent cap doesn't come near matching the real
increases in insurance, utilities, maintenance, or property taxes. Over time, the gap forces
elderly landlords to subsidize housing out of their own fixed incomes. And although the
ordinance mentions a fair return, the process is very difficult for seniors like my mother
to be able to take advantage of.
This policy risks driving small landlords
out of the rental market, reducing housing stability
and transferring properties to, who knows,
large corporations, corporate owners,
landlords who don't care the way that landlords like my mom
do and have well taken care of their tenants.
I respectfully urge the council to oppose this ordinance
and alternatively adopt meaningful protections
for elderly landlords like my mom.
I think there's a fair middle ground here
but what's currently being proposed is just not it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Ram.
Hello.
Oh. Go ahead.
Okay.
Good evening city council and fellow residents.
My name is Ramses and I have been a lifetime resident
and tenant in San Leandro.
I've also been a renter for the past 10 years.
You know, the most interesting thing that I hear
is that when the landlords speak of their burdens
that could come of this,
they speak of like possibly not being able to house
or find housing for their parents or care for them
or a difficulty with college tuitions.
I had earlier, it's gonna be such a burden on landlords
as their incomes are going to be affected.
I hear that's threats from landlords,
that vow that people in this council will be voted out
and the pleadings from Nippo babies.
Let me remind landlords,
you are not doing any favors by owning houses.
We the tenants are the source of your income.
If people lived in the houses they owned,
the housing market would look more like a market
unless like an assignment or your lack of wealth
condemns you to a lifetime of tendency.
Housing is a human right.
Please release your grip to the decades old marketing myth
that real estate has sold you.
I invite you to take a grip on reality.
A human right should not be commercialized.
Our income should not be your savings account.
When we can't come up with money to pay our rent,
we get told to leave, to evict.
Houselessness has become not only an unfortunate option,
but a consistent inevitability.
My raise at work this year was the same amount
as my rent increase.
We're living paycheck to paycheck.
However, when you don't get rent,
just on logical economics,
it's a margin of your profit because of your assets.
You don't get a portion of your income.
You maybe start worrying about how you're gonna have
to start pulling from your savings, et cetera, et cetera.
I get a notice, I have to visit the community pantry.
I don't leave my house.
Like I don't get to.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Shana Mabiyaga.
Good evening, mayor and city council members.
Thank you for listening through all the public comments
this evening.
My name is Shana, and I currently
work with the housing providers in San Leandro.
I would like to express my proposal
of this proposed rent control.
When creating our yearly budgets,
we use the current regulated rent control
to estimate renewal increases.
In addition to insurance, taxes, mortgage,
and employment costs,
this gives us the opportunity to propose a budget
for renovations of our older units and properties,
providing a well-maintained and modernized home.
I truly believe if this rent control policy is passed,
we will see a significant reduction
in the improvements in quality
of the housing units in San Leandro.
If residents are satisfied with the quality of their home,
things get fixed promptly, the building isn't dilapidated,
they are more likely to continue to stay on as a resident
year after year and in turn invest into the businesses
and build a community in San Leandro.
I respect all of you that are voting on this matter
and thank you for your time and effort
you have put into this.
Thank you, the next speaker is Marilyn Villanueva.
Hi there.
We can hear you.
Marilyn?
Oh yes.
Can I start?
Yes, please proceed.
Okay, perfect.
My name is Marilyn.
I grew up in San Leandro.
I graduated from San Leandro High in 2011.
Since then, I have myself been a tenant in San Leandro.
I've lived here for about 10 years as a tenant,
not with my parents, but renting myself.
Since those 10 years, I've been displaced
four times at this point.
I've received several rent increases,
several landlords needing the unit to increase the rent
or to bring in family members
because the rental prices keep going up.
And then someone made a mention of the rent review board.
Can someone please let them know to give me a call back?
Because I have been calling them since early December
because my current landlord just increased the rent
right at the year mark.
So as soon as that lease ends, they wanna increase the rent.
I keep hearing landlords talk about their investment
and their financial losses.
While it might be a financial gain to you
or a financial gain financial loss for a lot of us,
it is a basic necessity.
We need housing.
We need housing to exist.
Everybody needs housing.
As a matter of fact,
I think that on the agenda before this public comment,
we were talking about unhoused
and kind of needing funds for that.
and it just seems like that issue just keeps increasing.
And one of the reasons is housing insecurity.
And so to those voting today,
I ask that you please consider your constituents
that are not able to be here today
because many of them work two jobs, three jobs,
many of them are out there hustling.
Many of them didn't know that this was happening.
I agree with one of the landlords that said
that she didn't know about today's meeting until today.
I didn't know about today's meeting until today.
So I'm sure many of other renters out there
didn't hear about this either.
Please protect us, please help us, please vote yes.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Amanda Gold.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes.
OK, my name is Amanda Gold and I own AC Gold Realty
and Property Management.
And I had to send out a number of emails
to different clients of mine, because they had no idea
that this meeting was taking place.
So I feel that this meeting, the outreach,
was not as good as it could have been.
There's a couple of other things
that are affecting landlords
that no one has spoke about today.
And it is in regards to the mandated elevated elements
and also the soft story.
And so I have a couple of clients
that have small units, but they have elevated elements,
which means they've had to redo all of their walkways
to the apartment doors and all of the rear entrance
stairwells to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars.
And so in trying to keep up with these mandates,
which are our government requirements,
I don't see this feasible to have this,
there's already in place the rent control
from the state of California.
I just don't see this as a realistic solve.
And the rollback is very confusing.
I think if you have to go this route,
I think a flat amount, a fixed amount is more appropriate.
the percentage of the CPI is absolutely not feasible,
not considering the expenses that are affecting the landlords. Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is E-B-R-A-H-A.
Hi, Madam Clerk. Can you hear me?
Yes.
Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and council members and staff.
Derek Barnes with East Bay Rental Housing Association.
I want you to please understand that if you vote yes on this ordinance as written,
you are effectively saying yes to more habitability issues
within our older housing stock.
We know that over 80% of the homes in the area
are more than 70 years old.
You're also saying yes to more community blight,
more vacancies and higher crime,
more exodus of our small owner operators
who are already providing the below market rate rents
in the area.
Also adding to the budget deficit
and adding more bureaucracy that could be used
to provide rental assistance
and ultimately closing the door
to the only retirement option many elderly immigrants
and communities of color have access to.
While you're adopting neighboring cities' rent control
and housing policies, do not ignore the harmful realities
and negative conditions that these policies
have also created.
Listen to your San Leandro homeowners and housing providers.
Many of these folks are your community stewards.
Don't go down the path that Concord did in 2024.
Strike a balance today, tonight,
and do these things instead.
Implement smart housing production
and bring vacant and affordable units back into the market.
There's some really interesting programs
out there being developed.
Let's tap into those.
Implement a needs testing to target our disabled,
our elderly and most vulnerable renters at 50% AMI or less.
We talked about this before.
This is another option to be used and tapped into
and use the flat rate of 5% and don't tether it to CPI.
It's too complex.
And then ultimately, I hear this too tonight,
fix the current rent review board.
If you do these things,
I think we can come to a middle ground here
that helps and to support both renters and owners.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Alvaro Ramos.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Yes.
So I'm calling in support of the rent stabilization ordinance.
I did think that the property speculators could not
agree on a specific plan to address our housing crisis.
There was no proposed solution to decrease
the cost of living for household budgets.
And maybe I missed it, but I'm just gonna say
I did not hear a word about the way
that the Medicare premium increases
and the Affordable Care Act cut subsidies
would have the effects on the households.
These cuts made by the federal government
are gonna hurt everyone, even if you don't realize it yet.
So we have to stop picking on renters,
no more divide and conquer.
We have to start picking on the healthcare industry
because they have the profits.
it's shameful to live in a developed first world country
with third world standards.
And somebody said something important tonight.
What happens when the economy goes bust?
Markets fail when governments do not regulate them.
The council is trying to alleviate costs for all residents.
For decades, we have chosen the expensive option,
which is for people to live on the streets
and then have residents pay for those costs.
The bare minimum we need is rent stabilization.
Renters are trying to pay their bills as much as everyone.
God forbid anyone here loses their house
and becomes a renter or unhoused.
What kind of social safety net will you have?
You'll be thanking the people who cared enough
to keep you housed.
No one is above being a renter.
It could happen to you.
Rent stabilization is fair, and it is in your interest.
It is in everyone's interest.
Build on this foundation for future generations.
I support it.
That's it.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Randall Paperniac.
Randall, are you there?
Randall, if you're there, please.
I'm here.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Oh, sorry.
As I understand it, San Leandro is facing a budget shortfall.
Also, I want to let you know that I
have been investing in the commercial property
for over 40 years in various cities,
Castoralla, San Leandro, various places.
And as I understand it, the city is the second biggest
revenue to sales tax.
And I can tell you that I've been working with retailers
for a long time and what I hear is,
retailers interpret severe rent control as anti-growth.
They see that future customer growth is reduced.
They also see it as anti-business.
They see a higher chance of excessive regulations.
Essentially, I've seen it over and over again,
rent control, when it's severe,
makes retailers go to other cities
and we lose sales tax revenue.
I've been told over and over again,
retailers have often told me
that cities are either growing or dying.
There is no in-between.
Unfortunately, you guys are about to put San Landro
in the dying department.
As I understand it, a reasonable 5% rent cap
but work for everyone and put you away from being
in that dying category.
I would hate to see San Leandro lose future retailers.
It's just, it's counterproductive.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Mayor that concludes the raised hands online.
Okay, so we'll close public comment.
Thank all of our commenters for taking the time
to spend time with us this evening.
At this point in time we will go to any questions
might exist, or discussions and likes. So we'll begin with Councillor Bowen.
Thank you Mayor. I'm going to ask questions, comments together just because of the time
we have left. One of the things that I want to express to start off with is that this
conversation has been ongoing for a very long time in great detail, certainly long before
I got here and long before I was on the rules committee. That being said, you know, there
have been ebbs and flows of who shows up to our meetings and who sends emails and I appreciate
all of the stories and arguments that both housing providers and tenants have shared
in the last few weeks, especially I've met with many of you in my district and across
the city that provide housing and many that are renting it throughout the city. And so
The one thing that I want to acknowledge,
and I think that this is something
that my council colleagues could support,
is that the last thing that we want
is for anybody to feel like they are dismissed
or not heard or part of this conversation.
And so that is very much central
to what we're trying to do here.
And I have been very upfront and honest
about my approach towards this
and trying to understand what is the best policy.
And what I will say is that the notion
of supporting an effective run stabilization policy
as an instrument for us to be able to increase
housing affordability and stability
is very much a goal and an approach that I support.
But the strength of that ordinance really depends
on whether it's durable and if it's balanced.
And I do fear that what we have right now,
and I hear the comments that are very low cap
and especially with our 65% of CPI,
we feel really protective today,
but if it leads to deferred maintenance,
administrative strain or reduced housing supply,
we risk undermining our own goals
and that's something that we as a council
really have to think about in terms of figuring out
if this is the ordinance that we wanna pass
with the understanding that we do have
one of the more restrictive policies in the Bay Area,
I would just hope that we would be open
to adjusting it, if possible,
to address some of the concerns
that we have been hearing on both parts.
And then that's what I'll just start off with.
Thank you.
This is my time, I'll go to Vice Mayor.
Thank you, and appreciate everyone's generosity of time,
is this is a particularly important issue for everyone.
I did wanna set the table a little bit about
kind of what our profile looks like as a city,
but also the work that we've been doing.
So we have 3,800 people in San Leandro
that make less than $25,000 a year.
42% of residents in San Leandro are renters.
one in five households spend at least 50%
of their income in housing.
56% of senior households are low income.
And in terms of the work that the city has been doing,
our housing element in 2016, section 6.1 talks about
the need for looking at policies that
prioritize fair housing and renter protections.
Our median income, household income in San Leander
is 98,000 for folks that are here.
And in terms of kind of what that looks like
in other cities, our median income is actually lower
and also our average income.
And I say this because it has been suggested to me that this is really not an urgent issue
for San Leandro residents.
And it has been suggested to me that this would be to the detriment of all residents
of San Leandro.
What I would like to propose in talking to many stakeholders, including many of the people
in this room, is I would actually like to propose that we eliminate CPI and stick with
a 3% just flat.
I think it addresses, it will essentially increase from where we were of 65% of CPI.
I think it makes it easier for everyone to understand both landlords, tenants and the
community at large and I think that you know actually just in the interest of
time that I'm just I'm looking at the time I want to make sure that my
colleagues also have a time to speak so that's what I would like to propose to
do just to reiterate and bottom line it to be explicit is to eliminate the CPI
and just stick to a three percent I don't know I've now is the time to make
emotion I feel like it's a little early but with the time I'm just trying to
move it along so just a couple of things I do want to be respectful everyone
having a chance to at least weigh in for a few minutes I think that will likely
require a new first reading. It's a material change to the ordinance.
This is the advice that I'm getting here. So how would you like to
handle that piece of information? I just don't think that it's such a substantive
change from eliminating a CPI to just keeping it to where the ordinance
already has it. It would just be eliminating the CPI. It's already in the
draft ordinance. So government code section 3 6 9 3 4 just want to be clear
is that when urgency ordinance is altered after introduction and
alteration this is in the ordinance already you're going to be deleting it
from the ordinance that it was 65% CPI you're removing the 65 or CPI or 3% is
Is that accurate?
Yeah, just keeping it at 3%, which is already
in the draft ordinance.
I understand.
It's just that it can, if it's altered this way,
if it's altered after introduction,
and this is not a typographical error or a clerical error,
then that's a new first reading.
It's got to be passed at a regular
or an adjourned regular meeting held at least five days
after the alteration.
And this is not a typo.
Okay.
Okay, well, I'm out of time,
But I think it's a good compromise
based on the feedback and the thoughts from folks.
I think it's middle ground.
I think it's reasonable and I think we may,
I'm just looking at my colleagues
hoping to get some consensus.
But I'll leave that at that since I'm out of time.
Okay, council member Bolt.
Yes, we did a lot of work on it,
or staff did a lot of work on this with input
and I appreciate all that work.
And I know you're not unappreciative of it
with these thoughts.
I wanna see this be the first reading,
leaving 65% of CPI in there.
I don't want this to change right now at this point.
I know there's been a lot of pressure
from the landlords to make a change.
get it. We got the emails. But the real pressure is working man and woman every
day getting up going to work and hoping they can pay the rent. And when December
comes and you get that letter in the mail that you're getting an increase
again, that's real pressure. I get it. You guys are protecting your interests. But
the thought that we're gonna do some recalls or some referendums, to me
that's no pressure and that's a fact. I said it to you John I don't agree with
it we talked about this in person at one point you said you're good you don't
raise it more than 3% so to hear this change now which we talked about you
said to me things change well for years things changed for me up and down income
not knowing if work was out there three kids to support the last thing I wanted
to see on December 1st is January 1st you're getting a red increase that's
pressure don't let this minimal pressure sway us right now we're on the verge of
doing something amazing for the city I hope we stick to it I'll leave it right
there councilmember Aguilar thank you Americans also thank you Tom for this
For this presentation, I think you know and listening to what my colleagues are saying and I didn't meet with
some of the the
housing providers and thank you for
Taking the time out of your day to you know, try to help me understand I you know and having the conversations
You know these housing providers mentioned that they don't raise rents
So my question is you know, what how would this?
3% increase impact your your your business if you have not raised rent
so I you know and I think you know we had another commenter who who you know
posed or postured some sort of threat if we pass you know this ordinance with
regards to a recall referendum you know that that happened to me already I
I already had allegations of fraud against me.
When I first ran for office to intimidate me
with over 186 counts,
all those allegations were unsustainable.
So I just, you know, those tactics don't work with me
because I am unapologetic.
I'm a fighter and I advocate for the community.
So I just, you know, wanna strongly support passing
around stabilization.
At 3% in San Leandro, this policy strikes a fair balance
between protecting the tenants
from sudden excessive rent increases
while still allowing landlord predictable,
reasonable growth to cover rising costs.
Housing stability keeps families in their homes,
supports local businesses, and strengthens our communities.
Overall, so, you know, a 3% cap is practical.
With 65% RCPI, it's a reasonable step
that reflects San Leandro's values of fairness,
equity, and economic stability.
so a 3% rent stabilization policy is not about freezing your mens, it's about
keeping San Leandro livable for the people who call it home. So that's my...
Just I do want to clarify, I think that Vice Mayor was proposing going to 3%
and ignoring the 65% like deleting that and I think I heard both pieces so are
you supporting her recommendation or you're sticking with councilmember bolt
I'm sticking with what's on paper right now it's on paper right now thank you
appreciate the clarification councilmember Simon please thank you
everyone from coming out and speaking it's been a few hours but listen to all
of them and I've met with renters, I've met with property owners. This past week
I probably met with more property owners than I had and throughout this whole
process but I had a chance to see their property, check out some of the upgrades
that they do and I'm very happy to see when some tenants move out that they are
upgrading. So that was really nice to see because I saw some before pictures
and it was it was pretty personally to me it was disturbing to see how some
people would have to live in a 40 year old unit with paint on it. I mean it was
habitable. It wasn't rain coming in but still you want to have something nice. So
I appreciate those landlords that are doing the upgrades. I really appreciate
it. I also met with mom and pops and biggers and a comment that I heard from the mom and pops is
the we heard it tonight as well. Looking at not just the duplex to allow to be waived
from this ordinance but also triplex and fourplex because they're still struggling they're still
fighting to fix up their units and go to work and other things that they do so they're smaller
and they have a difficult more difficult time. So I heard that and I am listening and that's
one thing that I've heard is that sometimes when you don't hear the answer that you get
we're not listening. That's not the case. We are listening and we have to really
understand and try to feel for both sides and not just jump on one but really look for both sides
because even the Chamber of Commerce, I understand, does not support this. And I understand business,
you know, wants to make money, they need profit in order to make things nicer in our city.
But in the same token, we have our renters who have it really tough. I mean, tough.
I mean, my ultimate goal is that everyone is a homeowner, period. We don't even talk about rent.
that's not even a discussion because it's just really not fair to be a renter.
I'm not a renter. I was a renter when I was in college and after that I said there's no way I
could do this and I was fortunate and lucky that my parents loaned me some money. I mean I was
fortunate that I was in that opportunity. Not everyone has that opportunity so I was lucky
and not everyone has that luck and I mean I just to me rinsing is a very very very difficult life
to live especially as you grow older and when you grow older you can't really work three jobs you
get tired and it's just really really hard to do so I mean this is tough I mean it is tough because
I feel for the landlords I understand their position I hear you I hear what you're saying
But in the same token, the renters are just trying to survive because one paycheck, they could be
under the freeway at MacArthur where people are right now. I just got a text message today
about tents at Estadillo under the freeway, making fires to stay warm.
and I meet so many homeless people it's unbelievable people that lived in San
Leandro that lived in San Lorenzo and they're they're they're homeless now so we got to do
something to help people in my opinion because we're not talking about a luxury we're talking
about life or death because if you don't have a place to live I've seen them I've seen these
homeless people I don't know how they're surviving out there so I mean I've heard
the threats too that we could be recalled and that's more time with my
family so my wife might be happy but I'm but I'm here to fight for the people all
the people and I mean I do care about the landlords too I really do and that's
why when a pass through or you know you have an expenditure that has to go
through there is a fair return process and it should be fair you should not be
turned down if you have a real cost that you have to help get paid for and I'm
gonna give you an example and I'll mention John Sullivan's name I met with
you this weekend your sons and I lived in the manor for so keep going we need
to do a couple of things we're running out of time so what I'd like to do is I
would like for you to pause and figure out are people willing to extend the
time. Okay so what we're gonna do is we're going to take a motion to extend
we're gonna take a motion I heard off mic a motion to extend to 1115 from
council member bone I've got a second from vice mayor please vote. All votes
are in the motion carries unanimously with council member Acevedo absent. Okay
so council member Simon I'm gonna ask you to take one minute so that okay I'll
go real fast but I bet I've lived in a manner for 30 years and the Chateau
manners owned by mr. Sullivan is a nice property I've always been admired the
way it looks aesthetically from the outside I had a chance to tour it looks
doing some nice upgrades but from a safety perspective for example fire
hydrants I think we need to do safety improvements at some of these units to
improve safety we had a major gas leak in the manner people probably remember
it six or nine months ago could have been a major blow-up and additional
hydrants in some of these apartments would help which means you guys have
costs you could have more costs so we have to figure out a way that you could
do improvements and if it's a fair pass through that's a fair review process we
have to find a way to make sure you can pay for these things and you're not
stuck so I really want to understand both sides however I am going to stick
with our original proposal. I agree with council member Bo and Aguilar. I want to stick with
it and that's my that's my vote. Thank you mayor in in an effort to ensure that we pass
a policy that can be effective. This is a question to to the city attorney as well.
If we were, what I would like to see built into the ordinance is after the January one
effective date from a year after that, so 2028, to have a review from staff.
We are going to be implementing something new and we are also going to be collecting
information to better understand the landscape and the effectiveness of it and hoping that
that all things are great and it's gonna be great
and everybody will be happy.
But evaluating and making changes in course correction
is standard in project management design thinking
just good practice.
So would we be able to have an evaluation
that examines displacement and affordability outcomes,
housing quality and maintenance, fair return petitions,
impacts on rental supply, overall program costs
and cost recovery up until that year.
I know that there's gonna be some incomplete data
because it's not that much time,
but at least then we would have some information
and then also to be able to include
meaningful stakeholder engagement with both tenants,
housing providers, and community-based organizations
so that we ensure that we are doing something
that we're on the right track.
Thank you, Council Member Bowen.
The review process is already included in the ordinance
or is language for that.
However, what you've just commented to,
I think staff has heard it,
and at least we would provide the language
as you just described it without having to amend
the ordinance or make it part of the motion.
So I think the comments could be taken
and that the review, the report would be provided
with that information.
Okay, and for what it's worth,
I would be supportive, Councilmember Revers-Walton,
of what you were suggesting,
to remove the 65% CPI from the ordinance.
Vice Mayor please thank you I'll just quickly state I was my impression that
in terms of eliminating a portion of the ordinance it wouldn't trigger a whole
first reading but the legal opinion has been it's out there so I know the mayor
hasn't spoken and would like to I'll just yield my time to the chair and I
also want to note that people here have hot mics that are not off yet okay so
this one in time I am looking for a motion okay council member bolt I'd like
to make a motion to accept the first reading of our ordinance council member
Aguilar and I'll second so we've got a motion from council member bolt with a
second council member Aguilar in terms of commentary I do believe that this is
is the way that this has been crafted is extreme.
There is no other way to describe it, it's extreme.
We've taken the tightest provisions
of various cities ordinances and we've lumped them together.
And I don't think that that reflects balance.
When I came into this office,
I came with a promise that I would advocate for balance.
And I don't think that what we have in front of us
reflects balance.
And so I'm gonna be voting no.
I will have a much more extensive explanation
my thinking at the second reading. At this time, please vote. All votes are in.
All votes are now in and the motion carries with five yeses. Mayor Gonzales
voting no and Councilmember Azevedo absent. So at this point in time we'll
move to item 6b and this involves a potential adoption of a resolution to
amend the administrative code title 3 as identified or laid out in our agenda
here to introduce the item is city attorney Richard Pierotto. Thank you
mayor just to highlight some of the items this is returning to the council
as a resolution because a resolution is required by the Brown Act to pass this
policy please take your excuse me please take your conversations outside thank
you please proceed thank you mayor so this is a resolution that's required by
the Brown Act to authorize the City Council in this case by resolution to
designate clerk or myself in this case to attend closed session meetings and to
keep an eye and enter into a confidential minute book a record of
topics discussed and decisions made.
This is all taken directly from the statute.
The statute further provides that the minute book may,
but is not required to,
consist of a recording of the closed session.
That is the decision before you today
and through a resolution is to memorialize
under the Brown Act this new requirement
that'll be included in the administrative code.
So what you'd be approving today is a resolution
to approve the administrative code to make this effective.
Just some highlights from that code
that the minutes would be retained permanently and because the city
concurrently keeps all meeting minutes permanently. The second is that video
recordings which would be part of the minute-taking would be retained for 10
years after the date. We've gone through the analysis there's minimal financial
impact and we are following the Brown Act in the proposal to to approve this
item I'm available and answer any questions okay so what I want to do just
for ease of trying to move this along we've got any public comment on this
item mayor we have not received any comment cards on this and we have one
hand raised on zoom please take that Douglas balding you are the speaker
thank you very much counsel thank you for releasing the report of the
administrative investigation. I apologize, I've not been able to read through it all.
I have started to read it. The allegations are very clear and very
troubling, and yet I have to say I'm a little troubled because I'm having a
hard time finding real good evidence. It's a lot of circumstantial evidence,
And so I think the the value of this ordinance, and I'm sorry, I don't I don't remember where it came from
I missed the last meeting. So I'm probably a little bit out of the loop
Uh, but I think keeping a permanent record of your
closed door procedures that are out of the
public eye
might be helpful in terms of
clarifying
some of what's going on, you know the
the effects of what has gone on are very clear,
the effects of what has gone on are very clear.
And while I know, you know,
there will be another hearing about the current situation,
I, you know, continue to urge you to,
whatever is going to happen legalistically,
to also pursue a restorative process
that might heal the relationships
within the council, I think you've actually been doing
a good job of legislating and I forget
who the public comment, maybe it was Rod Richmond.
I think consensus is kind of a healing thing
or a good majority is a healing thing,
but I urge you to go ahead and pass this resolution.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor, that's the only hand raised.
So we'll close public comment,
and then we'll come back to councilmember Simon.
Sorry, please proceed.
I'd like to move this item.
Okay, so I've got a motion by councilmember Simon.
Councilmember Riele?
Thank you, Mayor.
I'll second.
Okay.
At this point in time,
I'm gonna make a substitute motion.
I'm gonna move that this item be moved
to Rules Committee for discussion and formulation of policy
that underlines the underlying,
like how we actually implement this
make it actually happen. Is there a second for that motion? Seeing none I
will withdraw the motion. Is there any further discussion? Because I will not be
supporting this motion as drafted. Okay please vote. All votes are in. The motion
carries with four yeses, one no from Mayor Gonzalez and two absent being
councilmember Bowen and councilmember Azevedo. Okay, it is 11-10 and we are
adjourned.