Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Armando Cruz are if you're in the audience Armando Cruz are you in the

audience I'm looking for my Spanish translator Armando

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, it's 7.03 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 which it stands, one nation under God,

indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, would you please take a roll?

Vice Mayor Viveros 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.

City of San Lano conducts early meetings

to fulfill its mandate, discriminatory statements for conduct.

It 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.

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

everyone 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 Quenteng, 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.

and further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further further

Let's look at the terms and terms and terms and terms

Let's look at the terms and terms and terms

Let's look at the terms and terms and terms

Let's look at terms and terms and terms

Let's look at terms and terms and terms and terms

Let's look at terms and terms and terms and terms

Thank you.

un intérprete. Recuerde hacer pausas periódicas para que el intérprete pueda proporcionar una

traducción precisa. Los oradores dispondrán de dos minutos para exponer sus comentarios.

Número uno, el intérprete hablará primero y dará las instrucciones. Número dos, el comentario

public comenzará entonces. Se iniciará un cronómetro, un reloj de dos minutos. El comentarista puede

comenzar a hablar. Por favor, haga pausas periódicas para permitir que el intérprete traduzca. Cuando

el intérprete está hablando, el cronómetro se pondrá en pausa, no va a correr. Una vez que el

intérprete haya terminado, el cronómetro se pondrá en marcha nuevamente y podrá continuar

con su siguiente idea. El proceso se repite hasta que se agotan los dos minutos.

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 $10 million 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, bringing good jobs, investment, and clean energy solutions to our community.

Mayor, that concludes my announcement.

Thank you.

One final announcement.

last week's edition the san lato 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 close session did we

have any reportable action thank you mayor no reportable actions were taken in closed session

this evening but direction was provided to staff 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 councilman riveras walton i'd like to make a motion to accept the

consent calendar okay councilmember Aguilar and that was vice mayor we go to

Swalton so councilmember Aguilar I'll second okay so we've got a motion in 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 on 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 eyes and council member azevedo absent

okay at this point in time we move to our presentations our 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 Smith and Simon, as well

as a state government liaison, the former being our federal government liaison, and

that being Nicolo De Luca.

So we'll begin with Jen as she is on the East Coast, and we're going 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 Nicola, who the Mayor kindly introduced, have each been

working with the city for many years, and their key role is to advocate for San Andro's

interests both in Washington, D.C., as well as in Sacramento.

Before you and your packets this evening are two key documents for which we're seeking

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 counsel retains the authority

to modify this document should new 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 final version of the document that

incorporates any of your feedback for a final action.

And with that, I'll now hand things over to Jen, who will be joining us remotely from

Washington, D.C.

after Jen finishes up, we'll have Nicolo here in person to give his presentation.

And then they'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.

Okay. 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 downsize 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 a 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 Grantmaking. 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 Regulation 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 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 EV 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

Green of 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 votes 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 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

minibus 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 health care 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 a 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

health care 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 counterproposal 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 going to 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 want to 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. So your time has passed. I'm going to be 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 U.S. 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. Nicolo 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

nicolo de luca here from townsend 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 going to talk about is going to be what happened in the 2025 session,

major themes, key bills that passed,

and then, of course, how we're going to 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 percent 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 want to thank you, Honorable Mayor and city staff, because at

the end of the legislative session, I think it might have 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're able to put that bill on ice, which would

have been devastating the city such as san leandro so firstly thank you um so now what are we going

to 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 um just this past week the governor did his legislative um 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 that 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 D.C. and the state and what some of the impacts from H.R.1 and other federal efforts.

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 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 part of different

efforts to make sure that there's an adequate funding for parks and for 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 going to 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 of bills I'm just going to quickly talk about

that were 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 planned high-quality transit stops

to be allowed on residential mixed-use or commercial sites

if various conditions are met.

It also gives transit agencies authority to set TOD zoning standards.

There is currently a bill in place, SB 677, that seeks to do some cleanup 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

DeRazzo about Bran Act modernization.

that 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 bill was far from perfect, and I definitely want to acknowledge some of the negative impacts.

Proud to say working on our own and with different coalitions, we were able to get an extension

and to get other items removed from this bill. There is a discussion if Senator Durazo might

consider additional elements and that's to be decided as we go through the next few weeks of

the legislative process um and then just quickly because i want to be good on your time so a lot

of what we do and really grateful for mr engelbart 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, I want 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 and building up 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 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 we'll confirm that this is specifically on the legislative platform.

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 the D.C. lobbyist doesn't know where Representative LaMalfa 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.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

We follow order.

The next speaker is Douglas Spaulding.

Thank you. Good try, Mike. You just shouldn't announce it in advance. I wanted to understand better the million dollars that Congresswoman 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 horizontal levy?

Or like, is there anything more specific we can know what that million dollars is going to go towards?

The next speaker is Alvaro Ramos.

Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. I I one question that I have is that, you know, I really would like to see an initiative propose that the state of California should withhold taxes from the federal government.

And 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 Marga.

Hello, this is Marga Lacabe.

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

For example, we should not violate the Brown Act and the right of citizens to speak during a city council meeting.

What you guys did 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 Leandran citizens have been kidnapped because of information the city has facilitated to other police departments and ended up on ICE'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 San Leandrons, among other people.

And yet the city, by using Twitter, is actually enriching the person

who has been hurting California and San Leandron citizens.

Thank you very much.

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

thank you so at this point in time we're going to 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 SB 79.

The senator previously did SB 330,

and it was about TODs and being able to develop

up to 10 stories within a half a mile of TOD.

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?

Are we saying like if they want to go 21 stories down here by BART, they could do it?

SB 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 is a commitment for cleanup, not just on some of 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 week, SB 677 was introduced as the SB 79 cleanup.

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 it wasn't clear.

In addition, though, Senator Wiener did say he's interested in taking some of the SB79 standards and applying that as a transit stop to various ferry stops.

Just flagging that because obviously ferry WIDA is very prominent throughout the Bay Area 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 cleanup's 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.

Let me double check that.

Okay, thank you.

It's funny because during the ledge session, we memorized bills, and when session is done, we cleared 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 council member of the council.

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 an anti-government presentation.

The people of this country, the majority,

voted Trump to do a specific job domestically,

to get rid of the illegal scabs, and not

to allow bundles to destroy cities.

I'm going to pause you for a minute.

Did you say illegal scum?

Illegal scabs, people who come to take jobs from US workers.

Those are called scabs in the 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 going to regulate my language.

I use a language or a 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

for people who are getting wages doing nothing.

We saw that Ministry of Education or whatever,

the Department of Education in Washington,

a huge building with 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 disobeyed authorities, not stopping where they are told to stop and run.

That's why you are obligated.

Thank you, sir.

Your time has elapsed.

So, Council, coming to Council Member Bolt, had you completed the discussion that you

wanted to engage in?

Yes, that's correct.

It was SB 50, not 3.30.

Thank you.

Perfect. So we'll proceed with Council Member 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 Nicola 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 prop for the climate bond, a lot of great opportunities there for affordable housing, for park funding, which there's already the park projects already going out for application soon.

And then for some of the overall electrification efforts, a lot of the state funding is going to be one time and it's going to 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 going to be whatever the feds do and then how the state

might backfill that. So as an example, last year's agenda session due to H.R. 1, 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 going to 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 so working with the county and kind of a lot of those social services

um 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 um we're excited about how the ai boom has really been driving the state's general fund

and that the governor mentioned that and his department of finance also mentioned it as a

reason why they were expecting an 18 billion dollar deficit and now it's down to 2 billion

and about my 19 years of being a state and federal lobbyist a 2 billion dollar 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 want to commit to backfilling 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 going to impact our general fund. We kind of need that

money. But is there a recommendation from your perspective about collaborations with the county

or with other cities? 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 um 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 kind of what happens with the crash afterwards um which is

probably why the department of finance is so conservative and the legislature is usually a

bit more aggressive. When it comes to, so our formula on state funding is number one, continue

to be supportive of our delegation. So the woman Ortega supports some of her legislation. Senator

Grayson continues 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? But 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'd like to spell it out in those,

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 and ensure that the funding helps go right to you guys.

Wonderful.

I'll now go to Council Member Aguilar.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Gonzalez.

Thank you, Janet and Nicole, for your presentations.

Nicole, my question is with regards to Senate Bill 2 for the ongoing engagement on homelessness and funding stability.

I know Newstom has set aside some funding, but what can we anticipate in 26?

For homeless funding?

For homeless.

So in 26, it's going to be the same discourse as years past on the HAP funding, HHAP funding.

It's an acronym that goes to all 58 counties and all 13 largest populated cities and the continuums of care.

Over the years, the legislature has been very supportive of full HAP funding.

then 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 HAP funding is going to be a big one.

On SB2, as you all might recall, that was the $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 all, so 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 Cobaldin, sorry, I don't know why I'm now suddenly losing my voice. Senator Cobaldin 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.

I don't think the 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.

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

has 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 the 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 and ice and

what happened, you know, and may she rest in peace,

Renee good with regards to what happened in, in Minneapolis.

How is this going to affect the current administration with regards to

enforcing immigration laws and funding?

Sure.

We're 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 earmark by a 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 earmark 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.

We're 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 are 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 want to see guardrails against, you know, 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 plaintiff's cases, but, you know, 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.

You know, it certainly I think all are concerned with just the lack of coordination between federal immigration officials and local law enforcement.

I know that the U.S. 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 about 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 so at this point thank you at this point in time we'll come to

Vice Mayor Rivera Swalston. 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 believe there was a recent executive order

by the president directing the Department of Justice

to expeditiously as possible to reschedule

from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3.

Jen, 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.

And I'll just overstate my goal,

and you'll hear me say this throughout the whole year.

I'm my 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 the both both documents now on 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 I 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 council member Aguilar mentioned around sanctuary cities and kind of

what's happening um as much as i um 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

um but um i would like to uh anyway so just kind of i don't know that i want to 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.

Hold on, now I'm going through the other...

There was something around...

Did I miss it?

Is AI only...

Oh, AI, 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,

would like to think about that.

In terms of education, I just have three more points, Mayor.

And 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, Maestro Ferrer, 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 P-16 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 nine on public finance and administration, I would like to include language around ongoing funding generation.

There 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'd particularly like to call out what is right now being called the California wealth tax.

But I think we should, 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 want to clarify a couple of things because in the end we're going to 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 the month long horizon that she has to do that.

Okay. So does that address your concern?

Sorry. Let's see.

yes it 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.

That's right.

What was the third one?

Was there a third one?

Well, no.

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, the 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 through 16.

The education lingo is usually P16.

Okay, P16 or TK16.

And including workforce development.

A second bullet underneath it.

Workforce development is not usually in that.

I mean, it's usually a separate bucket of work.

yes it's not in terms of policy it's not agreed yeah okay 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 wealth tax, commonly known as the 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 bust type budget. And so I just would like to monitor all those

so that 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, Councilman 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 Jen, 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 at 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. Councilmember 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 as 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 want to 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 in 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, you know,

I want to 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 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, etc.

I will tell you, you know, 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, you know, 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, you know, calling undue attention to certain populations within the

community is something that, you know, 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.

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, asylee 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 a 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 clouded to members I think as as mothers especially we're

thinking about SNAP and child care 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 but

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 or 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.

Okay.

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 I know we've been

tracking notes here. You'll come back to us, Deputy State 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, Mayor, we will. Thank you for all the work that you've done.

thank you to Nicolo to Jen for all that you do for us we will see you Jen at the

end of January and Nicolo in March take care at this point in time we're going

to move to our first action item that's item 6a first reading of an ordinance

to amend sandalian remissible code by adding chapter 4-46 to establish

residential rent stabilization the deputy city manager that's what I've got

introducing this item will it be Tom leo instead okay then we will go with

Community Development Director Tom leo thank you mayor Gonzalez and thank you

counsel 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 it's 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, 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 Costa-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

usually 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 Llewellyn 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 presented in December, recommending an implementation

or effective date of the ordinance, 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 and 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 wanted 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 in year.

Now, the main thing is that between July 1 of 2025 to January 1 of 2027, when our potential ordinance kicks in, basically the units are going to be subject to AB 1482 in that period.

So what we've said is based on the CPI allowances, or I'm sorry, based on the threshold allowance of AB 1482, 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

or july 1 until our start date of january 1 2027 so keeping that in mind and then starting july 1

2027 then that just becomes very more normalized that's one rent 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 mention 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 here 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, 2027, there is a landlord can between those periods, those two

fiscal cycles have AB2 allowed rent increase.

Starting January 1, 2027, automatically they also get the one June 2026 rent increase.

Again, in the possibility they have not raised the rent since before July 1, 2025, they can

and 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 AB4 to 1882 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, 2027 in a timely manner in the spring.

Banking is prohibited as direction you provided.

Again, a key component of Costa-Hawkins

is vacancy decontrol.

Housing providers can reset

whenever a tenant voluntarily moves out.

They can reset that to whatever the market can bear

at that point.

And that is allowed under state law,

and we are not regulating that.

And then rent increases are only allowed

if the unit's registered and fees are paid.

And again, I just wanted to highlight,

as you read, 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 going 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 going to do is we're going to take public comment.

Public has been waiting a really long time.

And so we're going to go to take public comment, and then we'll 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 going to do we're going to take a break

at approximately nine 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 nine

o'clock for about five 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. We 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 and City Staff.

I'm David Stark. I represent the Bay East Association of Realtors.

I'm just going to 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 Habercross.

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 presented 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.

sand lando 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

five percent cap annually if necessary is already a significant reduction from the state cap

it recognizes the reality of rising costs while still offered 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 Happercross, and Archie Overton.

Hi.

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'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 was three other cases but they were mitigated because they just had to go back and

reschedule the rents. 2025, there were no hearings. So I don't see why there would be a need for

this rent commission to buy. You're going to have to buy software from a vendor. You're going to

have to buy it. You're going to have to support it. You're going to 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 rent review board has said.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speakers are Carol Haberkos, Archie Overton, and Robert Batanek.

Good evening, city council, mayor, staff.

my name is carol habrikas i'm a renter here i'm also a senior so um i'm on a fixed income

so and i have found that going raising the rent 10 here's an example year one is one thousand

dollars and you raise the rent five percent for five years you end up with paying sixteen hundred

$510.51. 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

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. It should be the limit of 5%. And again, I just feel like this is something

where a lot of renters probably don't want to 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 going to 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.

Thank you.

The next speakers are Archie Overton, Robert Batanick, 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

out off the top of 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 two thousand

dollars 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 service person,

but then you've got to serve that person and they've got 15 days to come back,

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 Matanek, John Sullivan, and John Barsky.

Hello, council members and mayor.

My name is Robert Batnich.

I moved to San Leandro 72 years ago.

My parents were going to lose their home.

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 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.

And Berkeley 20 years ago had 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 while 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 would be disastrous to our city, divisive and very expensive to San Leandro, San Leandro

tenants and so forth.

With the expenses 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.

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 quit this, get rid of this turmoil and this talk of referendum, etc.

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 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 if 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, given 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.

The next speakers are Yvette Rice, John Day, and Michael de Mordaunt.

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 some were late who

cares they got paid we respect that we take good care of our tenants our tenants take good care of

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 Demerdont, and Robert Jones.

Mr. Mayor, council members, thank you.

I'm against rent control.

Can you hear me okay?

Thank you.

Not too loud, right?

Okay, 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 tradeoffs.

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 Demerdont, Robert Jones, and Rick Kisslingberry.

I'm just a normal guy.

My name is Michael Cimor-Dons.

I just retired.

I tried 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 until 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 going to 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 you know 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 you know elderly people have to pay a lot of rent that's true but everywhere that's

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 you know 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 kisslingberry and ed clausso

Where do you get the right to impose rent 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 over regulated

thank you the next speakers are rick kisslingberry

ed clausso and luxwig moore lickswood moore council members and the mayor thank you for

the opportunity to talk to you.

I live in San Leandro.

I've been a real estate broker for 55 years.

I handle property management down by Bayfair Shopping Center.

I have my office there.

Family business, wife, son, and daughter.

I manage right now about 32 units in San Leandro.

Small apartments and houses.

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 the property management for more than 50 years.

So I'm in the trenches working with tenants all the time,

trying to make things fair for the tenants 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 PGE 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 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'm dealing with Alameda right now,

and every time 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 Klausu 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 worked so hard saving all their lives 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 city sales tax?

and we're 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 them, well, you're in a losing business.

I urge 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 RHNA 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 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 thank you your time has elapsed the next speakers

are Chris Urban Res Life followed by Andrew. So we're going to take two more speakers and then

jump into our break. Thank you Mayor. Two more speakers. Chris Urban Res Life Longoria followed

by Andrew Correiter. Hi my name is Chris Urban Res Life Longoria. First I'd like to acknowledge

Ohlone's people whose territory that we occupy. I'm a resident of San Leandro for 40 years. I've

been a renter for 40 years in this city. My family, 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 going to 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, I was a civil servant for 30, 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. Oh, thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Andrew Corrider.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members, and city staff, and my fellow citizens. My name is Andrew

Grider 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

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 a 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 in the intentions behind this ordinance are good

but the increase in rent costs are a result of a failed system.

The 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.

Thank you for checking.

Yeah.

But it was clearly...

Plus it was closed.

So I just...

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If we could please come back to order.

We will take our next speaker.

Thank you.

The next three speakers are Diana Snyder, followed by Chun Qi, 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 St. Leandra since 1950 and lives in the house that he and my mother purchased on Elsie.

He's been an active member in the city, in his church community of St. Leandra,

and is a man that many, including myself, respect for his honesty and values.

With just a high school education and working a blue-collar 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 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.

So this proposal with a rent rollback and eliminating banked 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 annual tax increases.

Now we'll add in additional fees of the rent registry this year.

The truth is...

Thank you. Your time has elapsed.

The next three speakers are Chunqi, followed by Adelis, followed by Louise Lovewell.

balance for both side 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 housing department. I just ask everyone here a simple question. Are you going to assess

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.

It 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 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, CT is facing a $50 million budget hole in such a tough financial period,

hard to justify borrowing $2 million to create a brand new rent control program with six steps.

Instead, those $2 million, it can directly help maybe dozens or hundreds of households in San Diego

who can show the need without the need for any extra housing new program.

By the way, Oakland.

Thank you. Your time has elapsed.

The next three speakers are Adelis, followed by Louise Lovewell, then Anthony Adessi.

Good evening, Mayor and the council members.

My name is Adelis. I'm a board member of a business and housing network.

I'm also a small housing provider in San Leandro.

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 risen 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 payments 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 costs increase far exceed the consumer price index, CPI.

Also reference with the proposal that housing department proposed tonight, only 18 percent,

only $18 rent increase is allowed on 2027 for a 2000 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 restrictive,

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 Adessi, 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. Okay. Good evening. Is on? 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 rule 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. I'm 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 interests and not representing their constituents.

If San Leandro really wanted this, maybe we should go ahead and put it on the ballot.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next speakers are.

Okay, that's your warning.

That's your warning.

The next speakers are Craig William, Bill Espinola, and Emily Rich.

Hi, my name is Craig Williams.

Is that working?

Hello?

Okay, good.

You know, in terms of the proposed limits on rent,

you know the you have the five percent and i think that the 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 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 going to 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

It's because of San Leandro tenants.

And the last thing I'd 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 East 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 where 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. The next 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,

disagreement that has been inflamed by personal antagonism between council members.

It has been almost three years since the council voted to prioritize tenant protection

and council and city staff have managed the process successfully.

We salute you.

We know that the California Apartment Association and the East Bay Rental Housing Association

are fiercely advocating against the enactment of this ordinance

and are rallying their members to lobby the council.

But we admonish you to 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% since 2010, which significantly outspaced CPI, which increased by only 44%.

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 Sukhija, Rob Rich, and Garrick Yon.

Hello council members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this

evening. My name is Sandeep Sukhija 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,

garrick yon and jenny madsen mr mayor ms 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 or 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.

While there's always going to be policy differences and even personality conflicts, this council has members who are deeply wounded and in pain.

Enacting 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 Jan, 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 renter protections in the state law.

instead of wasting money hiring new staff do something that will protect all

sanely under 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 the most of the people behind me do not I believe that you are building something

for the future of San Leandro.

This will make a difference in the housing situation in San Leandro.

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 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 want to make here is all these people who think

that they're not going to 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 the

and get it reviewed and their costs are looked at what they're they're 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 no

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 were 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 want to take up any more of your time,

but thanks for letting me speak, and I applaud you.

I applaud you all, and I want to say the speaker

that came ahead of me and said, you know,

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 Ngo, and John Minot-Schwartz.

Thank you, Chris Moore, East Bay Rental Housing Association.

We represent about 1,500, 1,600 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 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% max, not 65%, but a 3% is actually reasonable for the community.

So a flat fee, let's say, a flat increase of 3%.

And I think that would be helpful for the small property owners.

The $18 that Tom gave earlier on a $2,000 rent, most rents are actually lower than that for small housing providers.

You know, I had to hire a plumber yesterday for a larger job than normal, but it was in one unit.

It cost me $512, 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 Ngo, John Minor-Schwartz, and Kay Lee Figueroa.

I had 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 before you were asking for something in the middle,

which is 4%.

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 also wanted to make sure that there's banking,

which allows flexibility if 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 struggling to pay his college tuition for his kids.

And then also, he had to do a lot of struggling

for years financially.

Thank you.

The next speakers are John Minot Schwartz,

Kay Lee Figueroa and Michael McGuire. Good evening council members mayor um John Midas Schwartz

San Leandro resident homeowner uh thank you for your careful development of this ordinance

over the past couple of years I hope San Leandro moves 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 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 spend more of the limited legislating bandwidth

on getting more of that vitally needed new housing built.

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.

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

of 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 ride walk 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 Schilt.

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's there were some nice ones and others who really should be in jail some place

first of all there are no paid lobbyists for san leandro's tenants who are 40 percent of the city's

residents we 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 going to run ahead of what's allowed because they are

allowed to make that back. The rent 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 patron?

Oh, 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 worked their tails, not landlords, tenants too,

worked 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 11 30 please so we've got a motion to extend to 11 30 council member Bowen I

I will second 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 lose a council member i'm gonna say 11.

i'm sorry so you're making a substitute motion for 11 instead of 11 30.

okay do I have a second on the substitute motion councilmember Simon on

the substitute motion it's okay so essentially we have a request to extend

till 11 I think we can agree but as we do have to vote so please vote

all votes are in

Motion carries unanimously with Councilmember Azevedo 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, long-time 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.

Overregulation 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 it work. You can protect tenants without punishing the people who provide them homes. Let's 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 can do it here.

You've been put on notice, San Leandro.

Thank you. The next three speakers are Chris Schilt, Jimmy Kelly, and Lawrence Abbott.

Hey, good evening. My name is Chris Schilt. 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 want to 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 want to 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 interests

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 worked here 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 going to protect

you too thank you the next speaker is lawrence abbott

it's funny but uh 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, you know,

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

realistic 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 going to work out. So even though this

ordinance is incredibly fair to both landlords and renters, there will definitely be some

landlords that will probably want to sell and that will 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 you 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 though, 30 seconds.

We've been going for a while.

So please, this is the opportunity to raise your hand because what we're going to do is

we're going to identify everyone who's raised their hand.

We're going to 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.

We'll 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 Mina Young.

Hi, my name is Mayna Young. I'm the president of Business and Housing Network,

Mayneem 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 as some of the tenants say that we are all part of the community,

and one person actually 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.

You know, 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 companies 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 from my grandmother for way under market in order to pay for her end of life care.

so i uh as a landlord also you know suffer the same uh increases in property taxes and

my housing insurance and in the last three months i've probably let's see what have i done i put in

a new dishwasher i had to uh have the dryer made over i put in insulation in the attic so i

understand costs 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 ruminations that we are fair to 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.

You know, I read some of the stuff that went out from the California Apartment Association.

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 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 um good evening everyone thank you very much uh major

on council and and everybody present there um seems you got something something good there the

the the bones of the ordinance are seem seem legitimate um the only thing i was gonna say

was to to change the day of enactment instead of january 2027 move it to july maybe um but i saw

the presentation and i understand so maybe just uh have a moratorium a rent increase moratorium

until it's enacted that's one of my suggestions um close a loophole maybe on the fair return

rules uh 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 um so i'd like to have something that has like real invoices from licensed

contractors and and stuff like that um if possible pass the full protection uh cost

to the landlords instead of having tenants pay for their own protection uh you know 50 of the cost

those are but but but as a whole i think it's a great thing that you're working with um i want

to 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, you know, because we're trying to play monopoly with something as

precious as land, you know, in real life, like precious, something as basic as putting a roof

of our heads, it was bound to cause problems.

But I believe that together we can fix it.

And this rent controls 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 8 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 disciplined 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 at 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 uh jim prola i can speak now can you hear me 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 is fair for both parties and both sides.

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 a statistic I read in the paper the other day.

82% of Bay Area retirees, Social Security is their main source of income.

I want to 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 who 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 to pass this.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Pan.

Hi, this is Pan. Can you hear me?

Yes, yes.

Hi, this is Pan.

In the year 2020, this city council vote to defund the police.

At the time, it seemed to be a very good idea.

But it turned out that it's a big mistake.

Luckily, it was already fast.

Now, you are going to do something that's going to define housing.

The consequence may not show up as fast, but it's inevitable.

Eventually, people will not invest in new housing,

and you are going to make the housing price much worse

because if you don't get a fair return

and you have tremendous risk,

especially for charge cost eviction,

if you get 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 the risk is so big

that in class you cannot get a fair return.

who is going to invest in real estate.

Now, the apartment value in Auckland has decreased by 30%.

Apartment value in Berkeley, in Richmond, in San Francisco, all decreased.

So this is something about the rain 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 please don't

don't do something that's going to

destroy the city

Argentina

solve the housing

problems just by

get rid of the rain control

so maybe think something about

not doing anything and let

the free market work

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. And this isn't 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.

um hello oh go ahead okay uh good evening city council and fellow residents um 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 possibly not being able to find housing for their

parents or care for them or difficulty with college tuitions. I had earlier, it's going to 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 NEPO

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 and less like an assignment where your lack of wealth condemns you to a

lifetime of tenancy. 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 going to 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. I don't get to. Thank you. The next speaker is Shawna,

Mimbiaga. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. Thank you for listening through all

the public comments this evening. My name is Shauna, and I currently work with the housing

providers in San Leandro. I would like to express my apposal 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 and 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.

Hello?

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 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 increase the rent right at the year mark.

So as soon as that lease ends, they want to 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, this, you know, 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, you know, 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.

Okay. My name is Amanda Golt and I own AC Golt 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 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 um i don't see this feasible to have this uh this this

it's all there's already in place the rent control from the state of california

uh uh i just don't see this as a realistic real realistic solve and uh 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 Councilmembers 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 or 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 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 going to say I did not hear a word about the way that the Medicare premium increases and the Affordable Care Act cut subsidies would have on the effects on households.

These cuts made by the federal government are going to 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 health care 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 Papyrniak.

Randall, are you there?

Randall, if you're there, please.

I'm here.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

As I understand it, San Leandro is facing a budget shortfall.

I also want to let you know that I have been investing in a commercial property for over

40 years in various cities, gas, rally, salient, various places.

And as I understand it, cities, their second biggest revenue is 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 Leandro

in the dying department.

As I understand it, a reasonable 5% rate cap would work for everyone and would put you away from being in that dying category.

I would hate to see San Leandro lose future retailers.

It's just counterproductive.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mayor.

that concludes the raised hands online. Okay so we'll close public comment and 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 that might exist or discussions and the like. So we'll begin with Council Member Bowen.

Thank you Mayor. I'm going to kind of 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.

um 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 um in the last few weeks especially i've met with many of you in my

district um 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 you know 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 and what I will say

is that the notion of supporting

an effective rent 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 a very low cap

and especially with our 65% of CPI may 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 want to 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 that's what I'll just start off with.

Thank you.

At this point, I'll go to Vice Mayor.

Thank you and appreciate everyone's generosity of time as this is a particularly important issue for everyone.

I did want to 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 um and i think that um you know um actually just in the interest of time

um 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 um that's what i would like to propose um to do just to reiterate and bottom line it

to be explicit is to eliminate the CPI and just stick to a 3%.

I don't know if now is the time to make a motion.

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 of everyone having a chance to at least weigh in for a few minutes.

I think that will likely require a new first reading.

some material change to the ordinance at least that's the advice that i'm getting here

so would you like to 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 36934,

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 that accurate?

yeah just keeping it at three percent 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 um I think I think it's a good

compromise based on the feedback and the thoughts uh from folks um I think it's middle ground um I

think it's reasonable and I think we may I'm looking to 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.

um i want to see this be the first reading leaving 65 percent of cpi in there um 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 i 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 going to 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 a 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, Mayor Gonzalez.

Thank you, Tom, for this presentation.

I think, you know, and listening to what my colleagues are saying, and I did meet with some of the housing providers.

And thank you for taking the time out of your day to, you know, try to help me understand, you know, and having the conversations.

You know, these housing providers mentioned that they don't raise rents.

um so my question is you know what how would this um three percent increase um impact your

your your business uh if you have not raised a rent so i you know and i think you know we had

another commenter who who you know posed or um postured some sort of threat if we pass uh you

know this ordinance with regards to recall referendum you know that that happened to me

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 unsustained.

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, want to 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

landlords 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%

of our CPI. 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

rents. It's about keeping San Leandro livable

for the people who call it home.

So that's my

comment. 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 council member bolt i'm i'm sticking with uh

like what's on paper right now it's on paper right now thank you i appreciate the clarification

uh council member simon please uh 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've had

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 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 um so i appreciate those landlords that are doing the upgrades um i

really appreciate it um i also met with mom and pops biggers and a comment that i heard from the

mom and pops is the, and 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 the other

things they have to do. So they're smaller and they have a 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,

renting 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 Estadilio under

the freeway making fires to stay warm and I meet so many homeless people it's unbelievable people

that lived in San L'Eandro, that lived in San Lorenzo, and 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

going to give you an example. And I'll mention John Sullivan's name. I met with you this week

and 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'd 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 gonna take a motion

to extend we're gonna take a motion I heard off mic a motion to extend to 1115 from Council

Marbon I've got a second from vice mayor please vote all votes are in the motion carries unanimously

with Council Member Azevedo absent.

Okay, so Council Member Simon,

I'm going to ask you to take one minute

so that others can speak.

Okay, I'll go real fast.

But I've lived in a manor for 30 years

and the Chateau Manor is owned by Mr. Sullivan.

It's a nice property.

I've always been admired the way it looks

aesthetically from the outside.

I had a chance to tour it,

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 manor.

People probably remember it six or nine months ago.

Could have been a major blow up.

And additional hydrants at 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 Bolt and Aguilar.

I want to stick with it.

And that's my vote.

Council Member Bowen.

Thank you, Mayor.

in an effort to ensure that we pass a policy that can be effective.

This is a question to the city attorney as well.

If we were, what I would like to see built into the ordinance

is the January 1 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 all things

are great and it's going to be great and everybody will be happy but you know 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 cost 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 councilmember Bowen. The review process is already included in the

ordinance there's 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, Councilman Rivera-Sewalton, of what you were suggesting to remove the 65% CPI from the ordinance.

Vice Mayor, please.

Thank you.

I'll just quickly state, it 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 out there.

So I know the mayor hasn't spoken and would like to just, 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 at this point 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 from Council Member Aguilar.

In terms of commentary, I do believe that the way that this has been crafted is extreme.

There's 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 going to be voting no.

I will have a much more extensive explanation of 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 gonzalez voting no and council member 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 three as identified or laid out in our agenda.

Here to introduce the item is city attorney, Richard Pierrotta.

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 in the 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 is 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 approve this item. I'm available to answer any questions,

Mayor. 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 Spaulding, 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 value of this ordinance, and I'm sorry, I don't remember where it came from.

I missed the last meeting, so I'm probably a little bit out of the loop.

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 effects of what has gone on are very clear. The affects 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 Rob Rich, but 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

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 to mention my Councilmember Simon. Councilmember Elias.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll second. Okay.

At this point in time, I'm going to make a substitute motion.

I want to 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 and 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 Gonzales

and two absent being council member Bowen and council member Azevedo.

Okay it is 11 10 and we are adjourned.