It is seven o'clock and I'm calling to order the meeting in San Landro City Council today is Monday December 15th
It is 7 p.m. I will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand if you're able to please join
Madam clerk, would you please take roll
Councilmember Vivros Walton
Present. Council member Azevedo is absent. Council member Aguilar.
Present. Council member Simon. Present. Vice mayor Bowen. Present. Council member
Bolt. Here. And Mayor Gonzalez. Present. The City of San
Fernando conducts orderly meetings to fulfill its mandate. Discriminatory
statements or conduct that would potentially violate the Federal Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and or the California for Employment and Housing Act.
California code sections for three or four fifteen are per se disruptive to a
meeting and will not be tolerated. Please see the City Council handbook and City
Council meeting will sub decorum for more information. Madam Clerk your
announcement please. If you would like to make a public comment during the
meeting you can do so in person or via zoom. If you're 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 the time is up the microphone will be muted. All hands raised outside
of public comment will be lowered to avoid confusion. Once public comment is
opened hands may be raised to speak there will be a 30-minute window for
public comments which will take place under item 7 public comments as per the
published agenda after this time is up the council will proceed with the rest
of the meetings agenda if you have not had the opportunity to speak during the
initial 30-minute period there will be another chance to do so after item 12
council reports so on item number 3 is there a report on closed session thank
Thank you Mayor. No reportable action was taken in closed session but direction was
provided to staff. So there are no recognitions under item four today so we
will move to our consent calendar. And would any councilman would like to pull an
item from consent? Seeing none we will move to public comment. Did you want to
pull something? No. So we're gonna move to public comment on this item. Do we have
any comment on item five thank you mayor we have one speaker card submitted from
here in the room and we have one hand raised on zoom please proceed in the
room so we will open public comment in person in the room
Jenny Madsen so my name is Jenny Madsen and having attended all of the rent
review board meetings for like the last 10 years I need to tell you guys
something that you won't hear unless you listen to the recording because at the
end of it Tom Silva actually said out loud he does not believe that the rent
review board serves any purpose any longer because seven percent which is
what you have to have to get a hearing is less
than the state's rent cap,
which is 5% plus the CPI.
So he doesn't think that he has any purpose
and he actually stated this.
Of course, it's not in the minutes.
But, and maybe he did it just for my benefit
because I've been staring him in the face
for all these years.
I didn't ask him to do it.
I never would have.
I never made his life harder, but he said it,
and you guys need to know that that is not a path forward.
And I'm not just telling you,
but I'm telling the people behind me in the audience.
So thank you for letting me say that.
Thank you.
Mayor, that is our only comment from in the room.
Okay, so we will close public comment here in the room
as folks need to turn in their card before the item.
We will open public comment online.
the first speaker online is Douglas Spaulding. Thank you so much. Courage to Ginny Mattson
for going in person to comment even though she's in incredible discomfort. I know in
terms of this consent calendar, I am really happy about item five F, which earmarks nearly
$2.2 million in homelessness grants. This is really the best of what we do as a city.
is an identified priority addressing homelessness and while other things on
the consent calendar I say are not so much a priority later in the meeting
we're going to be debating over a million dollars here or there and
before we ask other essential services to go through finance or contortions I
think we should look to see where there may be some fat and I'm looking at about
four hundred thousand dollars here. So first of all I'm looking at all the
money being thrown at the golf course. There's an incentive management fee
payment due to American Golf Corporation. That's because the agreement provides
money to AGC if revenues exceed 750,000. Seems a little crazy to me. It's like
kind of making money on top of money. I wonder where all those proceeds go and
if we need to get them more money then maybe what we need to do is increase
green fees there so that's a that's a big chunk of money then I'm looking at
45,000 for a couple items on the police San Leandro something sounds like we're
going to fight a war in Ukraine if what we need are ballistic armored plates
it doesn't need. Then I'm
looking at 5C. This CSA we
have for accounting. Why don't
we just hire somebody with that
expertise? It would cost less
than $175,000. And then there's
a few things we can dip our
money, dip from. I don't know
if they're restricted.
Thank you, sir. Your time has
elapsed. The next speaker on
Zoom is Randall.
the city of San Leonardo. The
consent calendar or are you speaking on rent control? Rent control. Okay that will
come up in two items. I'll be right back to you, no worries.
Mayor there are no further hands raised. We close public comment online on our
consent calendar. If there's no discussion I'm going to come to council
member Aguilar. I'm assuming you'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move the
consent calendar okay do I have a second you can just raise your hand or point
out a council member Simon so I've got a motion from council member I yield I'd
with a second one council member Simon signal for the discussion please vote
all votes are in and the motion carries with six yeses council member as a VEDO
absent okay at this point in time for item number six I do not believe we have
reports. I'll look left and right and confirm. Seeing none we will proceed to
proceed to public comment. This is the time when the public can comment on
items that are not on our agenda but are within our subject matter jurisdiction.
So how many cards do you have? Mayor we've received four cards. Okay and as of
right now how many hands do we have online? One raised. Okay let us proceed
in-person first for public comment on items that are not on our agenda. The
first three speakers are Noelle Rashid, Mason Rashid, and Rob Rich. Hello, good
evening. My name is Noelle Rashid. I am a property owner in Davis West and I'd
like to address a safety concern we have. November 30th our home was our property
was hit by a vehicle that caused damage to our gate, the gate hit our vehicle and
our vehicle hit our home so there was multiple damage involved. This is not the
first time this has happened, it's happened previously. A few years ago the
same incident happened, a girl on her motorcycle hit our gate, the gate hit our
vehicle and there is damage and there are other instances as well so our
property is on Cascade and Tudor Road it's an intersection if there's
obviously a faulty design when incidents when the prior incident happened where
the more the young woman in the motorcycle hit our property and there
was property damage consequently we did reach out to traffic engineering to
police put up a traffic stop sign to help with the situation, they came out,
they felt there was no need for one. So now we have to incur the cost because
the person who hit us was underinsured. So now we have to eat up the cost on our
vehicle which is now totally considered totaled. It was a brand new Subaru 2024.
our iron gate. We have to eat up the cost on that and now also we have
structural damage on our home and we have to eat up that cost. We're actually
really concerned about even notifying our home insurance with with the issue
of home insurance leaving California. So we're in a pickle right now and we're
looking for help. Thank you. Your time has elapsed and our next speaker... Just to be
clear, we don't go back and forth but I will inform you that Sheila Marchesis
from Public Works will be connecting with you if you can meet her in the
back corner there. Thank you. The next speaker is Mason Rashid followed by Rob
up, Rich, then Stephen Ha or Stephen H.
Good evening, City Council, City Manager.
Yeah, I'm Mason Rashid, I live at 705 Tudor Road.
I just sustained $60,000 in damage to my car,
my house, my gate.
This has got to stop.
This is the fourth accident in less than two and a half years.
The fourth one.
So my wife was right.
The motorcycle hit us the last time.
Our rental car was hit.
Her super room, 1998 Subaru was totaled.
We have two totaled Subarus, right?
Our house is damaged.
We're out like 60 grand right now.
We need some help.
I've been sending letters.
I've been calling people.
I've been sending emails since 2012.
Yeah, so I mean something's got to be done out there.
This is a mess.
And everyone says, well, it's your neighbors
that are hidden, not necessarily.
And even if they are, and this last guy was our neighbor,
something's wrong with that intersection.
I mean, if a neighbor can hit a car that's parked,
drive by it every day and manage to hit it, something's wrong.
So we're asking for traffic mitigation out there.
something has to be done.
I think it's more of a stop sign.
I think it's redesigning that whole intersection.
Something has to be done.
Something has to be done to call attention to our house,
which is getting T-boned now,
and our cars and our neighbor's cars too.
I mean, it's not just our cars.
Our neighbor's cars are being hit as well.
Sometimes we call the police, sometimes we don't.
I mean, if it's something minor,
like last time one of my mirrors was hit,
I didn't bother calling the police.
My neighbor's got an older car.
His car was hit.
He didn't bother calling the police,
but something really needs to be done
and I'm looking for some help and I thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Rob Rich
followed by Steven H.
Mr. Mayor, Ms. Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Manager.
My name is Rob Rich
and I'm lucky enough to live here in San Leandro.
Yesterday marked the 11th anniversary
of Joel Ramirez's unsolved murder.
He should have turned 32 last week.
He was our neighbor, a good kid.
In a case of mistaken identity,
he was shot while parking his car in his own driveway.
Last year, this council raised the reward
for Joel's unsolved murder,
as well as the rewards for the unsolved murders
of Marios Robinson, Kwame Nunn, Del Allen Pan,
to $150,000.
Thank you.
I know it meant a lot to Joel's mom, Magdalena,
His aunt Delia, his brother Eric, his grandpa in Mexico,
all of his family and friends.
There is something more I'm going to ask
and I promise it won't cost much.
Maybe it's already been done and I've missed it.
Let's periodically remind the public
that we are offering these rewards.
That might just create the spark
that helps to solve one or more of these cold cases.
When you think about it,
victims' families are also victims.
They can't forget they won't give up.
Let's support them by reminding everyone,
even the bad guys, that this community doesn't forget.
We don't give up.
And to prove it, we're offering $150,000.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Stephen H.
Mayor, that's our last in-person comment card.
So we will close public comment in person
on non-agenda items.
We will open it up online.
The first speaker online is Douglas Spalding.
Well, I don't know about y'all, but I'm
having trouble focusing on the specifics of this meeting.
And I just want to give recognition
to the general trauma that I believe all of us
are experiencing, stemming from the anti-Semitic attack
on Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia yesterday.
All the kids I'm hearing from at Brown who to this moment
are still barricading at the slightest loud noise
that suggests gunfire.
Our DA Ursula Jones Dixon canceling the life
of Stephen Taylor by virtually pardoning the officer
who murdered him, Jason Fletcher.
The deaths of Mayor Cassidy and today the news
of Barbara Lubin, the leader of Middle East Children's
Alliance and many many many more.
So it's hard to tune in and listen to the dysfunction
of this City Council. It's really been very hard listening to your meetings. And you struggle
to get through meetings. And the distrust is so heavy. It's like right there. It's completely
palpable. So again, I make the request of y'all to embrace a private internal restorative
process that is different than and probably separate from the you know
whatever else you're considering. It's a process that requires facilitation and
it's not hard to go online and and see there are lots of organizations that
provide this service. CircleUpCenter.org, Polak Peace Building, Mediators
Beyond Borders maybe that's international. I mean it's just on and on
As a result of that, if you
would like to move on to
Advise, Institute for Restorative
Practices, call somebody up and
get some help, please.
I beg of you.
I beseech you.
Get some help.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Your time is up.
Mayor, there are no further
hands raised online.
Okay.
So we will close public comment
online.
So then we move to our presentation.
Our sole presentation today is proposed rights,
rent stabilization budget,
and draft residential rent stabilization
ordinance presentation.
We've got community development director,
Tom Liao here to present.
Good evening, mayor and council.
So we come back to you today
since October 13th, the last work session.
Tonight's presentation will provide a brief background.
We're gonna kind of invert the order.
going to talk about the proposed program budget for a rent program. Then we'll get into the key
changes from the draft ordinance, followed up with City Council direction, and then ending with
next steps. Just a quick summary. I won't go through the entire background, but this item,
of course, has been going on since 2023, but here's the last year's worth of work. As you can
see, a lot has been invested with the council and the public, and tonight we're coming to you with
with a proposed rent registry and rent civilization budget
and then an update on the draft ordinance
for rent stabilization.
Council direction from October 13th was very helpful,
providing for a maximum rent increase of 3 to 3.75%
or lower of 65% CPI.
Your guidance included no capital improvements pass through,
property owners to use the fair return process,
no banking, no exemptions for smaller rental properties,
and maintaining the exemption for golden duplexes
where the owner lives in one of the units.
So again, I'm gonna begin first,
and one of the things we started with last,
in October two, was to show now that if,
as this potentially proceeds,
the bill of rent, civilization, rent registries
sort of merged into a program and a budget.
Some kind of background here,
As many of you were given guidance from finance
as part of the two year biennial budget,
know that we are in challenging times.
The general fund revenues have not kept up
with rising expenditures.
We are in deficit and reliant on reserves.
And council provided direction to all departments
to come back with a balanced budget for fiscal year 26-27.
And departments including mine
and community development are preparing
for this 15 million mid-cycle budget cut
that will be forthcoming in the spring.
So implications for not only a new rent protection program,
but any program that require general fund support
needs to weigh ongoing deficit issues.
Council needs to evaluate budget implications of these costs,
which is part of what we're bringing forward initially here.
And then one of the new concepts that we've been analyzing
as a staff is the general fund loan to fund the program
until it can become more cost-recoverable
over the next three to six years.
So based on the direction and what we showed you all
as different options, I think the direction
that you all majority guided us towards
was this kind of enhanced rent registry
rent stabilization option.
This includes the rent registry ordinance
that's been adopted including a budget
that you've approved for it and staffing.
So this six full-time and this total budget amount
includes the two full-time rent registry staff
that you'd approved as part of the two-year budget,
and also about the 650,000 we've allocated into the program.
We're adding on top of that,
the potential for the draft rent stabilization ordinance.
This would cover all units,
both what we call fully regulated under rent stabilization.
That's the number we generally estimated
over 7,000 for you, plus the partially regulated.
Those are the Costa Hawkins units.
So primarily single-family rental housing
and condos and townhomes that are rented out.
And so that universe, we've estimated as a range again,
is about 9,000 to 10,000 units
of fully and partially regulated.
And putting in this range,
because these numbers are estimates
and we're gonna be coming back with you
with more refinements,
is a range of a general fund loan of about 1.3
on optimistic side million
to up to maybe a max of 2.2 million that would be repaid.
So this is the program option
that we're gonna focus on tonight with our analysis.
We also wanted to show you all as well as the public
that we did consider some other options.
Some that were also sort of brought up in October.
One is kind of a middle level called basic enforcement
where it's focused rent registry and rent stabilization.
That would be a little bit less staff at four full time.
What we would propose there would have been to come back
and maybe amend at your discretion and rent registry
to pull out maybe some of the partially regulated units,
particularly the single family homes
and again, the cost of hockey units
that really would not be regulated,
but really would be time intensive to monitor to registry.
There would be just focused on rent stabilization units,
which is estimated about 65 to 75, 7,600.
So that was one middle option.
The one other option that was a little bit more,
just given the budget context was more extreme,
we looked at, but again,
the focus was on the more robust one,
was what we call the passive enforcement,
where it would be up to the two employees
that you've improved.
It really would involve repealing the rent registry,
which is not, again, a direction you've given,
but that is one option because of the cost of the software,
the intensiveness of the large number of units
that would fall under the rent registry.
If that were an option,
that program could be implemented six months earlier,
again, mainly because the rent registry
would have been repealed.
But going forward again,
we've put front and center here,
the enhanced enforcement option of both rent registry
and the proposed rent civilization.
And again, that's the focus for tonight.
Just wanted to share some assumptions
that went into our modeling of the enhanced rent registry
and rent civilization option.
Again, we've talked about a general fund loan,
but we'd also, working closely with finance,
establish a special revenue fund.
So what that will do is help us track
both revenue and expenditure of this program separately,
almost like an independent program.
We also made some assumptions again,
and these are subject to change,
but we have to start somewhere
with our county parcel data of what we consider
to be the fully regulated units
and then partially regulated.
So you can see there's a range
and we've played around different modeling scenarios there.
We've also, again, this will be subject to change
and we're gonna bring forward the final fee study
for the program, probably in about a month and a half or two,
but we had this just show you and all the public
what the range of the cost per unit would be.
So for fully regulated, for now,
and again, subject to change,
it could be 250 to 300 per unit.
This would be a staff intensive program,
as we've mentioned over the months or so,
or the years of talking about this,
and then the partial regulated,
which could fall between 125 to $175 per unit.
A critical piece of full cost recovery
would be enforcement for late penalties.
And then again, we'll walk you through
on the next couple of slides, what that would entail.
The more aggressive the city could be
for late penalty fees, the quicker you could recover the loan.
We'll recover the loan regardless,
But depending on the length of time you're interested in.
In addition, there's also liens or special assessments
for fully regulated units.
And that will ensure that this program can be paid back
in a timely way.
In terms of budget, staff and program,
operational cost considerations,
some factors that we brought up before for a program
are salaries, benefits and indirect service costs,
but also services that come with the program
such and the critical services that are very time intensive involve outreach and education
to the public, both landlords and tenants, legal counseling, tenant landlord services
as well.
And then at the more robust enhanced option, we're looking at potentially a six full time
above the two, there's a good likelihood that we may be looking to lease some office space
for some of that staff, if not all of them, and also building out some new office space
for them as well.
wanted to share this table this again would show you again back to the
enforcement level depending on you know council sort of thoughts about
enforcement you know the higher the the late penalty enforcement the quicker you
can have the short term shorter term payback same with the lien if we impose
more of a stronger hundred percent enforcement quicker payback if there's
some flexibility given because we know it's a new program for owners and it's
ratcheted down so that the enforcement levels are a little bit lower that could
go to a longer term of five to six years of the general fund loan being
repaid back. And then in terms of the staff recommendation for what we call a
full-cost recovery framework or enough for the program to be self-sufficient I
think we are again looking at this initial general fund loan that would get
through the first year or two, and it could be repaid back within three to six years.
And then again, that payback period, as I noted on the prior table, really falls and
depends on the fee level that's set, the compliance rate, and the levels of enforcement.
And then these considerations that we've listed kind of highlight what I've said in the prior
two slides.
This is a service and staff drive this program budget, it's very critical, this is a time-intensive
program to go forward with a program needs to get launched we know and so the
fee reason why we suggested alone is because the fee revenue will not be
there at the get-go compliance and fee will increase over time and we've seen
that from other cities it just takes a while to start that we as we've said so
that three to six year startup period and settling period is very important
and the critical piece for a successful program is education enforcement but
These are staff intensive costs going forward.
And then again, the collection of late and missed payments
will be important to us achieving full cost recovery,
particularly of the general fund loan potentially.
So I'm gonna pivot now to the ordinance
where you also gave us some explicit directions in October.
Some of those key changes that we've put in now
to the current draft is to remove
the capital improvement section related to the pass-through.
We've heard from you all and both the public
to add a definition of landlord, which has been in there,
and then putting in an ordinance implementation date.
Again, getting back to the staffing up
and getting things ready for rent registry,
which is due to be in effect in July,
we are proposing the rent stabilization be implemented
and have the base rent in effect January 1 of 2027.
The base year then would be in 2026,
it's usually the preceding year.
We understand that to help,
there are existing protections
that could help the tenants potentially
as we ramp into implementation of this program.
That's the state AB 1482 rent cap,
which is 5% plus CPI up to a max of 10%.
We still have our rent review board,
and we do have also the tenant relocation ordinance as well.
Again, our question for council tonight
is to help determine that set percentage
between 3 to 3.75%.
You've established a 65% CPI.
One piece of data that we wanted to share with you though
was we did kind of look at CPI since 2020
and we looked at the AB 1482 cap
and we projected a 65% CPI.
And we actually even looked further back at CPI
and over 30 years, if you took the 65% number,
only once in 30 years,
65% of CPI exceed 3%.
And that was right at the heels in 2022 of COVID.
So that's the one time.
Otherwise, in other words, as you're deliberating
between the three to 3.75%,
it's going to likely be the lower of 65% CPI.
So moving on to council direction.
Again, requesting a specific number from you all
between three to 3.75% per your direction in October
versus lower 65% of CPI,
confirming staff continuing forward
with this full cost recovery model
for the rent registry plus rent stabilization,
enhanced enforcement option
with an estimated range for a general fund loan,
but with plan paid back over three to six years.
And again, I would say this budget continues to be refined
The first time we showed it to you in very preliminary form was October.
We've had more time to analyze and present more refinements.
But we do plan to come back to you with a finalized fee study for the program in the early part.
Probably in, we assume, February, potentially March of early next year.
So just following the calendar and following in line with the work plan under your housing homeless priority,
We are trying we would be trying to move to get the first reading of your the rent stabilization ordinance to you all
on January 12th in the new year
Just FYI our housing staff led by housing manager Carrie use learner team are working very hard
To potentially bring in to bring in the rent registry software vendor
That would probably be coming to you on January 20th, and that's very close to being determined
Second reading of the ordinance would be February 2nd. And as I mentioned again
We are really delving in estimates right now,
and having to project different ranges of units and costs,
but we will definitely, I think,
have a more definitive presentation for you
in February, March, when the fee study is completed,
that provides the program fees,
the program budget appropriations,
and more about the general fund loan payback.
And so with that, I will begin.
So thank you for your presentation.
We'll begin with questions.
Please clarify questions.
Only a commentary will come later
after we hear from the public with our public comment.
So questions at this time.
Councilmember Bolt.
Yes, thank you for the presentation.
I wanna be clear on what I'm hearing.
So you need direction from us tonight to build in
so that you can give us the information built out, right?
Like, the decision we make tonight has to inform you so that when you come back in February,
I think you said for the total fee of what it's going to cost us.
Or is that something you can get done before we decide on the three?
Or do you need us to give you a portion to get it done?
I think what we heard from you all in October
was to go with the first option.
Of course, you'll hear public comments
and you'll take in that feedback.
So we know we would come back
with probably more refined budget
probably in February and March
when we're looking to get a fee study done
depending on the direction you give us tonight.
That's how you want us to proceed.
I think that's why I'm confused
because we gave direction once
and now we're asking for direction again
for that fee study.
Right, so I think we are proceeding with the program
that will be most effective and that will,
and a fee study would have been included
for any of those options.
All three, yeah.
But the one that we presented as the enhanced option,
both the rent registry plus potential draft
rent civilization is the one that we are gonna move forward
with unless we hear otherwise.
Okay, got it, unless you hear otherwise, got it, okay.
Council member, are you allowed to please?
thank you American tools and thank you Tom for the presentation I just wanted
to clarify that the staff recommendation for full cost recovery framework is what
we were directed staff to conduct but you're just here to verify if that's
the route we choose right and with you know when we pass civilian police
oversight there were grants available is that something with regards to the
program, rent review and stabilization, is that something, have you heard of any
types of grants available for this type of program? I haven't seen it in other
programs, and one of the key reasons is when you're dealing with state and
federal funding, you have to target a certain income level, particularly low
income, so take a CDPG. So that's one reason why in the past we have not
applied CDPG to the rent review program, because rent review program really we
wanted to keep it open to all renters. You know, so it's it's a challenge when
this program would affect all renters. So, and so finding an income, you know,
mostly federal grants are sort of income based, income need based. Gotcha. Okay, thank
you, Tom. And can you define what golden duplex means? Yeah, again, that would be a
a duplex of two-unit property where the owner lists one of the units and rents out the other.
Okay those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Vivotas-Walton please.
Thank you for your presentation and to the rest of the team for your work. Thank you very much.
I'm going back to slide eight. I have a question just regarding on the blue
So, if I'm hearing correctly, the six FTE, that already includes two FTEs for rent registry,
correct?
Right.
So, it's not six plus the two for rent registry, just to be extra clear.
So, in terms, so now, kind of, let's double-click on that and go one more layer.
So then that means it would be four FTEs for rent to either enforce and manage the program
or how is the staffing looking like in terms of roles?
Is it like one person doing enforcement, only enforcement, or others are doing program implementation
and launch?
How is that looking like?
How are you envisioning it?
I think what we've seen from other cities is now if depending on the forwarding of the
the ordinance and the adoption of the rent stabilization,
these merge programs, you're going
to see the staff be doing kind of both,
trying to probably monitor for the rent registry,
but also implementing and administering the rent
stabilization.
So they'll be kind of both activities.
But I think in this more effective model, enhanced
model, you're probably see a little bit more hierarchy too.
So again, generally, we're still refining it,
but you would probably see somebody who's
gonna be at the program manager level,
and then you might even have an admin support.
And then you'd have four others
that are gonna be sort of specialists, so to speak,
at different skill levels.
Kind of management to a senior analyst
to like a specialist level.
So kind of that sort of tearing of staffing
that we've seen elsewhere.
Thank you.
And the slide in terms of the next slide, slide nine.
I'm having a little bit of trouble
understanding the distinction between partially the eligible units partially regulated fully
regulated and its nexus to the per unit fee can you can you just go through that one more time
sure um and i could start and you actually i might even just have our assistant director
on that. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Dr. Avalon. She'll
take a response for that. Hi.
Good evening, Mayor and Council
members. So what we've seen done
in other cities is that
typically the costs of a
program are not equal for
partially regulated units and
fully regulated units because
the enforcement for rent
stabilization tends to require
components of the programs and so as you're building your program budget you
want to see what of those costs are attributable to which of the populations
of units and the fee will reflect that so it's a tiered fee structure. Can you
just clarify for the record the difference between a regulated unit and
a partially regulated unit? Yes so under the rent registry ordinance that Council
adopted the rental units are required to register so that would be somewhat
regulated and that a registry is a requirement the fully regulated in this
instance would would refer to the rent cap so they're both required to register
and they're regulated in terms of the rent. Thank you. And I'm having trouble
squaring up in my mind bullet number three on staffing and program cost
considerations leasing and furnishing new office space does that mean that
there is no space anywhere in City Hall that we can put six FTEs well I think
right now that we have space for the two for the rent registry I know with the
recent move the school district another may be a look at City Hall so but we are
also wanted to be prepared to explain that there might be a need to there's a
your chance there would be a need to potentially leave space outside of this
building unless space can be found or in another city facility so okay
those are all my questions I'm out of time vice mayor please thank you mayor
thank you Tom and team for working on this just two quick questions on slide
slide seven for the challenges budget implications for new run. No, sorry. I'm on the wrong page
on my maybe I'm sorry. It's I don't know what slide I was just on. But my questions
are this around the oh no it is slide seven. I was right. Sorry for the 15 million the
city departments are preparing for a $15 million mid cycle budget. I know we've had conversations
Up here and with staff about this the
one point three to two point five million dollars for the
Program that is not included in the fifteen million dollar mid-cycle budget cut, correct?
Thank you for the question that is correct
The 15 million does not include the potential loan if authorized by the City Council this evening
So would that mean that for the mid-cycle budget cut we would have to
plan to cut 17 up to 17 point five million from the budget
That would be the case we would also build in the repayment
So that would be taken into consideration as well because it would not be an ongoing expense
The $15 million reduction is an ongoing expense moving forward.
Got it.
So can you then, the second question was going to be around the general fund loan to fund
the program.
Can you speak to what that means?
That in terms of, I think you kind of alluded to some of that, of how it would be categorized,
but how it's a general fund loan and how that would impact funding for other programs.
Sure.
To clarify, as part of this program, we are creating a new fund that's specific to the
rent program. The idea again is director Tom has stated is that it should be
self-sufficient that is the intent of the program so it would be a loan from
the general fund and would be repaid anywhere from three to six years. There
is a interest rate which would be applied to that repayment as well so just
depending on the parameters of the program on how quickly the loan could be
repaid back to the general fund. And so then going forward all payments to this
fund would come specifically out of that to this program would come specifically
out of that fund and not the general fund? Correct it would come out of the
specific fund that supports the rent program. Okay great thank you. And then
the last question I have is for Tom it's to do with staffing if we have the
six FTE that are working on this and the next item that we will be looking at is
is the mobile home rent ordinance.
Who is, what full-time employee that works on additional,
like any changes to the mobile home ordinance,
is that your, would it include,
would that be in the work plan for the new employees
that would be hired under this program
or separate from that?
I don't want to preempt that policy discussion.
So part of it would be what issues come up.
But I can say that currently,
since the mobile home ordinance was adopted in 2019,
it's been staffed by the existing housing staff.
It had not had the opportunity to go through this process
of developing a program budget and staff staffing.
So it has been absorbed for the time being by that
and some third party hearing officer, legal hearing officers.
So it sounds like that means that there could be a possibility depending on how we structure the program
Okay
I guess it really depends on what kind of changes we have to make to the mobile home
Okay, thank you very much
Councilmember Simon, please
Yes question or
Clarification questions on the staffing and program cause considerations as well
considering the lease furnishing of office space
and salaries benefits.
Have you looked at consultant services
to augment your staff?
Yeah, I think we've factored that
into that kind of operating budget,
especially for the first year or so,
because we may not be able to hire everybody all at once.
At the six person,
I think realistically you're probably seeing
a two year process to getting ramped up.
So I think we have factored in,
which is part of the staff intensiveness,
but even potential third-party help
to assist with some of that outreach and administration.
My question is, instead of six FTEs
having a consultant support long-term on this,
have you explored that concept?
Well, I think we've kind of explored it in other programs
where even if this is going to be an ongoing city program,
think what we've heard from you all too is the need to build in that experience
of staff that are here on the ground. Sometimes we know in planning and even
building where we've used through parties people change out and that can
be a problem for retention of knowledge of San Leandro and our issues so part of
it you know was the need to and talking to other cities too we did explain and
talking to others is how they explored that and their consensus was oftentimes
know you want this to be once it's adopted you would want this to be more in-house okay
yeah I'm just from a cost standpoint just want to explore all options to keep this as
cost effective as possible we will come back to council Marugo to Swapton thank you I am
actually looking for a clarification on the budget so I'll save my comment but I'll frame
this is a question. I guess we're going back to the Jeopardy challenge where you
try to frame your statement as a question. So on the fourth bullet of
slide seven on the biennial budget, in terms of context, you know there's a 50
million dollar gap that we are all solving for. But when we look at the blue
row on slide 8 the reality is that it is not an additional 1.3 to 2.2 because we
are assuming a 650 cost to implement rent registry so really rent
stabilization is depending on kind of what you're backing out from it could be
an additional 650 and beyond to make it up to the delta to 2.2 million right
that's correct so the the general fund loan premise would give back an
appropriation that we were counting on going from the general fund to the rent
registry program so there is a Delta there that does help with the budget
reduction exercise if council is supportive of the general fund loan to
get the program up and running so just to for the sake of clarity
it's not the $15 million amount that we're solving for,
we've already budgeted rent registry
in the previous adopted budget, correct?
So it's not an additional on top of that.
I just wanna make sure that that's clear,
that we're not adding unfunded,
we've already funded rent registry.
So really the cost, new cost to the program
is wherever we land in 1.3 to 2.2 minus what we allocated,
which is 650,000?
648.
So 650 for the sake of rounding numbers.
So I just wanna be clear that that's really
where we are in terms of numbers, correct?
Okay.
But one, I just wanna make sure we're all totally clear.
In what they're proposing,
that money actually goes back into the general fund
and then there is a full loan.
So just be really, really precise.
Your point is very well taken,
but just so that there's not later surprised by the public.
Okay.
Okay, so coming back to Councilmember Bolt.
I'm not done yet.
Okay, please proceed.
Thank you.
So I have a question regarding
I don't wanna be redundant.
the basis for putting in the base rent at 2026
versus the current fiscal current year.
I'm a little concerned about essentially
setting tenants up for a hike that sets the base rent
at a higher amount.
Can you tell me a little bit about the thought process
around a 2026 base rate versus a 2025 base rate?
Yeah, maybe I have Alex, maybe from the legal side
to address that.
So the council can choose whatever date it wants.
Part of, if you have a base rent date that is far before
when the ordinance goes into effect, quote unquote,
it just creates a big administrative hassle,
know, it's hard to keep track of it. It's hard to get a lot of questions and all that. And so it
would increase probably staff time to support that because you just get a lot of administrative
work. So that's why those dates were proposed to give staff the lead time to sort of be fully
ready to hit the ground and answer those questions that come in from landlords and tenants.
So currently, I'm pulling up the draft ordinance right now.
So currently we're looking at a effective date of,
do you note off the top of your head?
January 1 of 2027.
Okay.
So there is no, so just to be clear, there's no legal,
it's purely keeping it administratively clean.
Correct.
But there's no kind of legal argument for having it in terms of some sort of.
I mean in individual circumstances, you know, individual landlords for their if they ever
apply for a fair return application, that might be something that they raise as to why
that the base front wasn't appropriate.
The fair return standard isn't appropriate for that particular year, but in general,
There's no at a high level, there's no reason the city can't select that.
For reference, when the city adopted mobile home rent stabilization, the base rent date
was like a year prior to when that ordinance went into effect.
Okay.
Thank you.
Going to council member bolt.
Thank you.
I just want to be clear on this part.
Let's just say the 2.2, the max one-time startup.
Is there a way, if we're going to spread this out
over a couple of years of repayment,
you couldn't even get started without 2.2 million?
What if we spread out $500,000 a year as we went forward?
Or is that a no-go?
Instead of putting 2.2 million into a fund
and then you guys draw it down, save us from that
and put less in, to start with what you need.
Like, is that feasible or is it just a,
we're gonna have a 750 year,
we're gonna have a 1.1 year, like we need it now.
So, the full version that aligns with Council's direction
is essentially in that range per year to operate.
So it has to be a startup cost.
The program wouldn't function
if a small amount was provided over time.
Because as Director Liao mentioned,
the costs of providing education and outreach
is highest before you have any revenue coming in.
So it's truly a startup cost that is needed.
And then what I think I just heard you say
is it could be in a year from now,
we may need more than this.
If it's not being fully funded on its own,
within three years, you're gonna have to come back
get another loan from the city's general fund? So the modeling is a great question
and the modeling is conservative on purpose to try to figure out the worst
case scenario for the loan amount and by the time the loan documentation is
brought before the council we will have the fee study and have more refined
budget estimates so the thinking is that there would not be a scenario in which
were coming back for additional funds barring any very unforeseen circumstances but that
would require certain enforcement actions that may be challenging such as special assessments
that council votes on to hold property owners accountable and get that revenue into the
program. So the assumptions do require actions that aren't always the most popular.
No fair enough I just I I look at this and I think about when I would ask for
money do you need it all right now right and the answer very well could be
yeah I need it all to get this done right and that's fair so thank you
Vice mayor please thank you mayor and thank you COSWER Vice
Waltham for following up I just had just to confirm so I understand these
numbers going forward because I know it's gonna be an important part of a lot
conversations are having coming up minus the 675 that has already been
allocated for the rent registry 650 okay I heard 675 yes it's a 650 then that
that means that the one-time startup funding need is 650 to 1.875 and right
there says one-time startup funding need but then we're talking about per year so
the the rent registry assumption was an annual allocation of 648 until the
program was self-sufficient. We're proposing for a cost recovery program to
say thank you but no thank you to that annual allocation and instead have a
one-time startup loan that would be repaid with interest to the general fund.
So it's a different model entirely and so this amount is one time and the
precise number will come back once we've done our reports and due diligence in
in the new year, but it is not an annual allocation.
Okay, thank you.
Seeing no further questions, a couple of my own page.
One that says passive enforcement.
I believe that's slide seven.
Is it eight or eight?
Where do we talk about passive enforcement?
Maybe it's right there, okay, thank you.
So what do you mean by passive enforcement?
Think so with that enforcement. It's having the staff you're basically again with the outreach we that's very time incentive
So probably more limited outreach
Using the website
Would it be fair to characterize it as complaint based?
I think yeah, you'd be less able to enforce that's correct
You would still have an enforcement hearing officer so adjudicate that situation, but right the ability to enforce would be lower
So we've got the startup loan of some number perhaps as much as 2.2 million dollars
What is the?
Operating so this thing is running. It's just all in place. It's operating each year. What is the cost?
Yes, I mean you can give it and give me three different numbers if you want to but just in steady state
forget ramp up, forget loans, forget any of that stuff in steady state in today's
dollars. What is our estimated cost? For a full year we're estimating around 1.2
million for the base option, 1.9 million for the mid-range
option, and a little over 2.4 million for the full option. And this is the
annual run rate? Yes. Okay. And then if I'm understanding base correctly, the 1.2
million dollar option, that's passive enforcement. As director Leo stated, it's
complaint basis, the right to a hearing, but it is not proactive enforcement and
review of this would have no rent registry, so there wouldn't be data
coming in that staff is reviewing. Okay without rent registry. Number two kind of
the mid tier is rent registry on all price controlled units and then the full
option is full rent registry on all units as well as and there's the last
the enhanced enforcement is proactive enforcement,
really going out and looking for all the bells and whistles.
Personal, full, rightful.
Okay, thank you.
The other question that I have here
with respect to enforcement penalties,
the way that they were framed was in the context
of percent of registry fee.
So, for example, if you fail to register
in or in the fully regulated realm of $300 per unit,
hypothetically speaking,
if you fail to register for two years,
I'm assuming that's $300 extra
on top of your fee as a penalty.
So it'd be 300 plus a $300 penalty.
Okay, my question is a little bit beyond that.
And this might be a legal question,
so I'll let you defer to legal,
if that's the right way to go.
Why is it a percentage of the fee,
as opposed to they are operating, you know,
outside of the way that they're allowed to operate,
particularly if they don't, for instance,
have a business license?
Because if they had a business license,
then presumably we'd know that they were there.
So why couldn't we charge them a month's rent
or two months rent or some number
that's more than a very small registration fee?
I'll start from the staff perspective.
For the modeling that we're doing
to give the council these estimates
to inform policy direction,
using the percentage was a way for the modeling
to be dynamic.
we will be using the fee study to determine
a legally defensible fee for penalties
because of the cost that goes in
to tracking them down and enforcing.
So the fee study will have the base fees
and the penalty fees.
But I will defer to legal if you have questions
about how a penalty fee is.
That gives my question is,
can our penalty be a month's rent?
So there are some restrictions in state law
about what we can set our penalties at.
We'd have to look at if that high amount would be legal,
but it doesn't have to be a percentage-based fee.
Presumably also the fee would be different
if you were one month late on registering
versus 12 months late.
You know, there'd be some differential there,
But as Avalon said, this percentage was really used
for modeling purposes.
It does not have to be how the fee is actually structured.
Thank you.
So with that, we'll close questions and come to public comment
on this item.
Mayor, we have 15 cards from the room.
How many hands were raised online?
Presently four.
OK, if you are online, please raise your hand,
because we're going to count you off.
We're going to set the time that we allocate based
on the number of hands that are raised.
So this is your opportunity online to raise your hand
and to be accounted for
because we're allocating time accordingly.
How many do you have?
Still four, Mayor.
Okay, so what we're gonna do is we're gonna take
those four speakers online first
and then we're coming in person.
Who are the four speakers that we'll be taking today?
The four speakers are Carol Haberkoss,
Douglas Balding, John Minow-Schwartz, and Mina Young.
Perfect, and then so what we will do
is we will start online given the number of speakers
that we have that have represented that they want to speak,
we're gonna give people two minutes.
Please proceed.
The first speaker is Carol.
Good evening, mayor, city council and staff.
My name is Carol Haberkos and I'm speaking
I'm also here with Richard Becker, who wants to make some comments. So I'm going to get him
started and I might need to help him. Okay, I'm going to continue for him. So I'm speaking for
Richard Becker. My name is Richard Becker and I've been a renter in San Leandra for 45 years
where I worked and retired from being a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service.
I urge you to approve the rent stabilization ordinance because it is good public policy.
We need to have housing that provides people with the ability to build neighborhoods
that are safe and vibrant. Rent stabilization creates stable neighborhoods and communities.
Cities who have realization are more desirable destinations, rent stabilization helps the
local economy by bringing and maintaining long-term businesses which in turn gives the city a more
sizable tax base to provide for the city's needs. The people in government who do this will be
reelected again and again because they provide good governments, good governance for citizens
since we voted them into office.
I would also like to make my own.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Douglas Spalding.
Part of the stress I'm feeling is
this game of shoots and ladders that the rent stabilization
ordinance has become.
You, the council, took an important step up
the first rung in the ladder by passing the rent registry.
Please do not repeal or revamp the rent registry.
as my friend Emily Rich likes to say, don't do it.
You took a second important step on October 13th
by acknowledging these five common points.
There was a majority for the five points on slide five.
And I might add that it was not a CPI or percent,
it was an and, 65% of CPI with a cap of,
I would argue 3%, it's a combination of the two.
So now we're faced with a wrench in the works.
my god the cost and what it means for housing to be a priority in the city of San Leandro is that
you pay for it this is an essential service you don't force the program to go take out a loan
from the general fund and then play a penalty if it's not paid in time you figure out how to do it
you know i was talking earlier about the consent calendar gosh i found 336 000 in the affordable
housing trust fund. Sounds like it might be something housing related. I don't
know how transferable money from the development fee is, but there's like
eight and a half million dollars there. I'm sure you can figure it out. So the
problem is, the more that these kind of wrenches are thrown in the works, the
longer it takes. This should not be delayed until January of 2027. Okay, maybe
that you're using. That's
not the case. Maybe it's an
inconvenience to the staff.
But what you're doing is
you're allowing landlords to
jack up their rents over the
next year. You're giving them
a big wide open pass. This
should take effect on December
31st of this year with a base
year of 2025. If you really
want to protect the renters in
this city. Thank you very
much.
Thank you. The next speaker is
John Minow-Schwartz.
toward a more robust rent stabilization ordinance
to protect renters in the city.
I think that speaking as an owner,
I think that the kinds of protections
in the strong version of this ordinance
that they're seeking confirmation on
are ones that would be fair for renters and owners alike.
I think owners have an obligation
to figure out what is going to work for them
and live with the regulations that are designed
to make their product higher quality
and reduce risk of evictions.
I want to note, by the way,
that relating to the amount of the cap,
I think that the...
Emphasize that if we are able to turn things around
for housing production
and meet our regional housing needs assessment goals
3,855 new homes built in the city by 2031. Just bear with me on this. The sign of that success,
if we were to do that, would be that market rate, market rate rents would stop growing and would
indeed likely drop as we have seen in places like Austin, Texas, where there was significant
construction. So this outcome that we have all said we want to achieve means that prevailing
rents would drop, either in real terms or hopefully even in nominal terms. So I hope
we can move toward this fairer system. And regarding the enforcement, I just think that
if we're passing a law, we should be seeking to do the best we can to see that law enforced and
not go the passive route. Thanks and have a good evening. Thank you. The next speaker is Meena
or Maena Yang. Hi my name is Maena Yang. I'm the president of Business and Housing Network with
thousands of mom and pop owners throughout California. We are trying to stay afloat with
all the regulations, state level already, very challenging and local levels are just putting us
to the borderline and as you can see in San Francisco, a lot of the owners have given up.
They cannot afford to stay in business because insurance is going up. It's very difficult to get
insurance. Rent regulations are causing a lot of litigation and even the insurance companies
cannot stay in San Francisco, they are pulling out the market. As you can see with the increased costs
and at the same time you are putting a lower cap, you know remember if you put in a million dollars
in the bank you can get a 4% without any risk, okay, that's the interest without any
work done. So mom and pop owners, they're usually hands on, and they have to do a lot
of work with more regulation and less return on investment. It just doesn't pencil out.
They will leave the market, exit the market. And so fewer housing availability for the
the renters. So it's not going to help anybody. So please reconsider if you want to keep the
housing stock. Places without rent control, they're actually having a better time. I mean,
they have better housing prospects. And more people are willing to develop.
Thank you. Your time is up. Mayor, that concludes the forehand.
So we'll close public comment online and we will do the same process here all the cards that were turned in
Those will be the speakers that we call no additional speakers
the first speaker cards are from Jenny Madsen
Craig
Williams and
Chun Chi mom
I don't want to take up too much of your time
I've already done this. There's a group of people who were clear we need to have a 2025 base year
in order to go forward. We need to have three percent rent cap. We need to have no banking and
no capital improvement pass-throughs and no exemptions for smaller rental properties.
I still don't, you know, I don't know anybody who lives in a golden duplex, but I think
they exist.
And I think from the last mom and pop landlord speaker that you heard, we're looking at a
black market and there will be a ramp-up period in how fast this gets adopted.
There's going to be, there are landlords who are already trying to figure out how they
are not going to allow themselves to be registered.
I know people who rent now who are told, have been told by their landlords for the last
10 years, if anybody asked, tell them you're my wife, tell them you're my aunt, tell them
you're my sister.
This is a standard operating procedure, but I do not believe that this is going to affect
any mom and pops actual ability to stay in business because they're already, they've
invested in the property and are they just going to leave it empty?
not going to bring him any income either. So please listen to people like Richard Becker.
He's a really important person to me. He has Parkinson's. I'm trying to stand up here for
all the people that I've met over 20 years in this town who don't feel that they can
come forward and ask you for anything now. So please do your best.
Thank you. Your time has elapsed. I'd also like to note for the administrative record
that we've been joined by Councilmember Azevedo on Zoom. The next speakers are Craig Williams,
Chun Chi Ma, and David Stark. I'd like to also advocate that we support a rent date
that's maybe 2025 so that we don't have these big rent increases, you know, before the date starts.
I'm also, I'd also really like to see the city, including the staff, do some sort of
educated estimate of what the profit rate is for, uh, for landlords. Um, you know, if
we know that 80% of landlords own the property before the tech boom, then they probably were
making a 10% profit then, and it's probably much higher. So, you know, if the staff could come up
with that, it would be very, very helpful, um, for the city. In terms of the CPI, the CPI actually
might become an issue that is not that accurate,
especially with the tariffs.
The tariffs are way beyond,
increased the inflation rate way beyond the two or 3%.
So that's something that we should consider.
The final thing I'd like to just say is that,
I just heard a central banker say that
There are three types of inflation.
There's good inflation, which is like around 2%.
Then there's what they call bad inflation,
which is when you have oil spikes or food spikes,
the price goes up, but also the price comes down.
And then you have a third type,
which is where the price goes up and it doesn't come down.
And that's what tenants are facing, this third type.
So you have the good, the bad,
and they call the third type the ugly.
So it's pretty easy to remember.
So keep that in mind, that is the good, the bad and the ugly.
Thank you, sir, your time is up.
The next speakers are Chun-Chi Ma, David Stark,
Chris Tipton.
Hi, good evening.
My name is Chun-Chi Ma, housing provider in San Angel
and a member of bond.
Two data points to share tonight.
My own rental stator, our rent had been flat
for last couple of years due to assault rental market
in Alameda, a few hundred dollars below market level,
but very challenging operation environment.
Starting from 2022 to 24 in three years span,
property insurance premium increased by 80%, nearly double.
Water bill 38%, PG&E 33, trash recycle 45%,
all of this number much larger than the 2.8% CPI number.
Such a huge spike in costs are really challenging
the normal rental operation.
If any of the city council wanted or have some doubt,
we can send you the bill, a copy of the bill,
so you can verify the authenticity.
Number two, Oakland began its rent control program in 1980.
By 2016, they began charging $30 a door
to generate about two million a year.
Fast forward to 2025, basically less than 10 years later,
they are charging 137 a door to bring in 30 million,
30 million for running their rent control program.
The cost increase workout took counting at 19% a year.
I believe the current, whatever,
the 1.3 to 2 million annual budget proposal
from housing department will prove insufficient
in a few years time.
Performing city's budget deficit that you guys facing
raised to the bottom of this rabbit hole
of draining more and more resources,
which could otherwise offer more direct relief
to those in need if applied appropriately.
Thank you again for listening to both sides.
rejecting the extreme policy and may sound and data driven.
Thank you, sir, your time is up.
The next speakers are David Stark,
Chris Tipton and Anthony Adesi.
Good evening, I'm David Stark representing
the Bay East Association of Realtors.
Tonight, you're considering a funding mechanism
without any economic impact analysis,
including what happens
if there isn't enough program fee revenue.
deficit spending cut more city services and staff. You're also asking rental
housing providers and their tenants to pay ongoing operational costs. During
June, you passed a budget that including cutting sitting staff, eliminating
vacant positions, cutting public works, libraries, recreations, human services
and community development. In that budget, you also stayed your priorities.
Quality of life, economic development, public safety, infrastructure and
housing and homelessness. This new rent stabilization program and the new staff
positions discussed tonight won't repair streets, fix potholes, or maintain parks.
They won't put out fires, improve emergency response time, or increase
police or fire capacity. They won't work in your libraries, on recreation programs,
or in community services. They won't create a single new rental housing unit
or incentivize new development. These new staff will implement a program that
brings more cost to housing providers,
especially mom and pop providers,
which directly conflicts with the city's stated goal
of encouraging investment and economic activity.
You had to use several million from your reserve
to balance your budget.
Are you sure San Leandro residents want you to spend
millions in startup costs and hire new city staff
for a program that will actually reduce
the rental housing supply?
As policy makers and stewards of city resources,
I encourage you to reconsider rent stabilization,
given San Leandro's fiscal constraints.
Before you proceed with this ordinance,
please figure out how to pay for it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Chris Tipton, Anthony Adesi,
and Sandeep Sukija.
Hello, my name is Chris Tipton.
I'm with the East Bay Rental Housing Association.
Our goal is not only to educate housing providers
for the rental community,
but also to work with local and state legislators
to help them understand the complexities
and difficulties of providing rental housing
and essential thing that we need.
I'd like to ask a simple question.
What does it really actually cost to provide housing?
For example, a two bedroom apartment in San Leandro.
Today, the average rent for two bedroom is 2282 a month.
Let's say 2300 a month for an apartment.
To someone that may seem like a lot and that may sound high,
but let's look at what it really costs to provide housing.
Probably taxes alone are about $500 a month for that unit.
Insurance after sharp increases runs about $200 a month.
Water, sewer, garbage, other utilities about $150 a month.
Routine maintenance and repairs
which have gone up significantly.
Let's go with a low side of $200 a month.
That's before any major repairs.
There are legal compliance, license fees,
accounting, let's say $100 a month.
Rental owners have to pay for vacancy losses
when they turn over apartments.
Long-term capital improvements now,
which we can't pass through, like roofs, windows,
sewer lattles, electrical systems.
There's new balcony inspections.
Our owners are paying thousands and thousands of dollars
for these improvements.
Let's budget maybe 300 a month on a low end just for that.
So the rent is $2,300 a month.
We've already at about $1,800 a month.
We haven't even included, if you've got a mortgage,
mortgage would cost probably about $1,500
for a two bedroom unit.
So if the bedroom unit is rented for $2,300 a month,
my real world expenses are $3,200 a month,
you can see how there's real concern from owners
about these random rent caps and numbers
that you guys are discussing.
It doesn't even include the rent registering
these additional fees to run this program
that you'll be charging owners for.
60% of the CPI is only 0.8% right now.
Thank you.
Thank you, your time has elapsed.
The next speakers are Anthony Adesi, Sandeep Sukhijo, and John Sullivan.
All right, good evening Mayor and City Council members.
I want to say that I'm proud to be a housing provider in the City of San Leandro and I
quite enjoy that.
I take a lot of pride in providing apartments that people lease from us that they can call
their home, although some days are great and some days are bad.
This means that we make sure families have clean, safe, and reliable homes.
I'm the person who knows when a unit needs a full renovation,
just minor repairs,
and we are the people that get the call
when the heater fails in the middle of the night.
I want housing to be both affordable and well-maintained,
but rent control is a one-size-fits-all policy
and is not need-based.
It over time weakens the housing we depend on.
Cost keeps rising every year.
Insurance, utilities, materials, payroll,
required upgrades that governments put in place, such as seismic. When rent increases are held
below those real costs, owners are forced to cut somewhere, repairs get pushed out,
seismic work gets delayed, energy updates don't happen, and the maintenance gets reduced.
Without, then, vacancies tighten, families get stuck living in less than ideal conditions,
and new families are searching for housing, have fewer options or choices at increased costs.
affordability is also about income. The widening gap before rent and their compensation is
fundamentally a wage problem. Capping housing prices doesn't fix that mismatch.
Rent control is a short-sighted solution that has long-term costs by discouraging reinvestment and
limiting supply, and I think we should focus on building more homes, support pay growth,
and strengthening San Leandro's local economy. Thank you. Thank you. The next speakers
are Sandeep Sukija, John Sullivan, and Jennifer Rizzo.
Hello council members.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity
to speak this evening.
My name is Sandeep Sukija
and I do not live in the city of San Leandro.
I own one fourplex and one triplex in this city
for the last five years.
So I'm that typical smallish landlord
that is often discussed in these conversations.
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 sorting interest rates,
combined with massive increase in the utility rates
and insurance costs has made it impossible
to have anything left over.
Operating expenses continue to rise
far faster than rents. Despite this I have continued to spend on maintenance
and upkeep so that my tenants have safe well-maintained homes. The only hope in
this situation is that eventually I can raise rents in line with the market to
be able to get in a position where a so-called income-producing property will
actually produce an income. I respectfully ask the council to not take
away this hope from me by implementing rent control. Thank you. Thank you. The next speakers
are John Sullivan, Jennifer Rizzo and Chuyet Lian. Good evening, Mayor Tram, Mayor Gonzales
and the City Council members. I'm John Sullivan, being a housing provider here in San Leandro
for the last over 50 years really covering some of 400 units. The rentals
we own were built way back in the 1950, 1970 era, as is with most properties
most apartments in San Leandro and other housing providers are in the same
dilemma and that is major renovations absolute major renovations and upgrades
when a tenant moves out because of the age of the properties. I've provided to
each of you an outline of this project, before and after photographs and so forth
and you were invited to come and see the work in progress. Mighty expensive,
mighty expensive, cost in excess, went in excess of $20,000 per unit. That
invitation is still open by the way and we could review your contracts and
invoices and so forth. When it's money well spent a a positive cost really to
our city you're creating top-notch like new units here right here in San
Leandro not in you know Stockton or Manteca. So to finish up to do this our
budgeting was built around our state rent regulations so please I sincerely
If we can't continue to do this
operating work or apartment or stock,
we'll decline and be just because of age.
And that will cause a blight that don't turn to
our vibrance and the underneighborhoods.
So please don't let that happen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Jennifer Rowell.
The next speaker is Jennifer Rizzo followed by Chiu Leon followed by Emily Rich.
Hi my name is Jennifer Rizzo and with the California Apartment Association and we respectfully
oppose this proposal to enact additional rent control measures in San Leandro.
Just a few years ago the state of California established a statewide tenant protections
including rent caps and just cause eviction protections.
That law, AB 1482, was intended to create a balance,
protecting renters from excessive increases
while still allowing housing providers to operate
and maintain their properties responsibly.
The city staff's proposal of limiting rents in San Leandro
to either 65% CPI or a percentage around 3 to 3.75
is significantly more restrictive than the state's cap at 5% plus CPI. Even Section 8 has a higher
allowable rent increase than what San Leandro is proposing. History and experience shows that rent
control discourages investment in rental housing, reduces new construction, and leads to fewer
available units over time. When housing providers can't keep pace with rising costs, the result is
deferred maintenance, fewer improvements, and in some cases, owners exiting the rental market
altogether. This ultimately hurts renters, especially those searching for housing,
as tighter supply drives up the costs and makes it harder for new residents,
seniors, and working families to find a home in our community. We respectfully ask the City to
consider the impacts of this proposal and to recognize that California already has rent caps
place. Thanks for your time. Thank you. The next speakers are Chuyit Lian, Emily Rich, and
Deborah Acosta. My name is Chuyit Lian. Thank you, Mayor and City Council. Yeah, I want to
tell you I'm a retired nurse. I own three units and San Leandro. I pulled by, I'm a
proud property owner and rental property manager for my own property for 10 years.
And I want to tell you after I seen all this restriction coming, I decided get
out of the rental market in San Diego. That's all I'm going to tell you. Thank
you. The next speakers are Emily Rich, Deborah Acosta and Derek Barnes. Hi, I'm
Emily Rich and I'm a member of the housing platform of the Big Tent San
Leandro. We sent two emails to the council and staff in the past couple of
days and I hope you've had a chance to read them. But in case you haven't I'd
like to summarize them, our points. First, it is a very bad idea to set the base
rent date a full year in the future if you do that many landlords will elevate
rents as much as they can during 2026 why incentivize rate hikes likewise it
is unwise to set the base year for purposes of setting a landlord standard
return on investment for the coming year 2026 if you do that many landlords will
forego any and all maintenance and capital improvements until 2027 in order
to maximize their apparent return on investment for 2026.
Why incentivize the neglect of San Leandro's rental housing stock?
Second, please do not adopt either of the two programs with cheaper estimated
startup costs. The proposal with no rent registry and lessened enforcement
by the city clearly will not serve either the renters or the city.
The second more mid level proposal offers a three hundred thousand dollar
to $700,000 startup savings, but you would be buying a pig in a poke to use an antiquated idiom.
How much more effective would what staff calls enhanced outreach and enforcement be than the
basic outreach and enforcement? How many people will you be leaving behind? How could the council
choose one program over another without any understanding of what bureaucracy they are buying?
because this decision will affect not just the startup costs, but the entire program going forward.
Lastly, and this is a song we've been singing for over two years, please limit annual rent
increases to 65 percent of CPI or 3 percent of current rent, whichever is less. Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is Deborah Acosta, followed by Derek Barnes, then Emily Grago.
Deborah Costa, League of San Leandro Voters and Mission Bay Residence Association.
So I had some very pointed comments to make today about the specific in the ordinance,
but I think I'd rather see the actual ordinance itself before I address those issues because it
sounds to me like tonight's about budgets. But what I did hear, Tong, which was very interesting,
is that elimination of capital improvement pass-throughs.
What I didn't hear was anything about elimination
of capital replacement pass-throughs,
and there's a big difference.
The ordinance needs to address that.
Capital improvements is about increasing the value
of the property and adding amenities.
Capital replacement is about bringing the property
up to code and up to living standards.
There's a big difference.
I look forward to seeing how that's going to be addressed
in the ordinance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Derek Barnes,
Emily Grago, Mike McGuire.
Good evening, council members and mayor.
This is Derek Barnes with East Bay Runnal Housing Association.
So when I think about housing,
and I've been up here before to talk about data,
I always go back to what are the problems
that we're trying to solve and what are those goals?
Problem number one is reduce eviction and eviction filings.
And the way to do that is with emergency rental assistance.
For the $2 million that I heard that would take
to fund this program for the first year,
we could fund 400 households at a cost of 5,000 per year
if we wanted to keep people housed
that were most vulnerable.
Also, I wanted to add that county funds
will be made available through Measure W
and that will be in mid-2026.
And we have been strongly advocating this
to the tune of about $20 million across the county,
which would go to help keep
our more vulnerable residents housed.
Number two, reduce renter and owner conflicts.
This is alternative dispute resolution.
You heard me talk about this before.
I think we need to reactivate the rent review board.
It is underutilized and we need to figure out
what the data is telling us about that.
Number three, reduce homelessness.
The point in time counts for San Leandro in 2022
suggests that about 404 people who are on the streets
that are unhoused.
In 2024, that number reduced down to 283.
So you're making progress in that regard
and I think we need to look for ways to continue that.
with more affordable unit production as many of the speakers said earlier.
We are not meeting the city's arena targets, that's problematic and we really need to bring
our vacant units back into the market because that is the low-hanging fruit in this equation,
the lowest cost we can re-rental housing back into the market. Thank you.
The next speakers are Emily Grago and Mike McGuire.
Hi everybody. Good evening. Emily Grego with the San Leandro Chamber of Commerce. So I'm here again
just to reiterate that the Chamber of Commerce does oppose this rental stabilization ordinance.
We do share the city's goal of housing stability and affordability but believe this ordinance will
create unintended economic and administrative consequences that undermine that goal. We did
survey our members and of those who responded 60 percent oppose the ordinance and 70 percent
are very concerned it will negatively affect investment in San Leandro. Some of their comments
that were written on those surveys additional regulation discourages housing investment
and reinvestment many rental units are owned by middle class and immigrant families often
as a retirement safety net. Skyrocketing insurance, maintenance, taxes and utilities are not reflected
in rent caps. Responsible housing providers who have kept rents low are being penalized.
Members recognize the challenges faced by seniors on fixed incomes. However, they believe broad rent
stabilization does not guarantee relief for the most vulnerable. So we believe that the bottom line
is this ordinance is well intentioned but risks creating new bureaucracy, discouraging
housing investment, and reducing long term housing and supply quality are inevitable.
Better alternatives would be to explore targeted rental assistance for vulnerable seniors and
families to prevent them from being displaced, support job creation, income growth, and housing
production. The San Leandro Chamber urges the City Council to pursue practical fiscally
responsible solutions that can be realistically implemented given current and looming budget
concerns and constraints. At a time of significant financial uncertainty, the city should avoid
creating new departments or programs when existing resources can be strengthened and
better utilized. Thank you. Your time has elapsed. The next
speaker is Mike McGuire. Hi there. I've taught economics for a long
time for a couple decades and all pretty much the local community colleges including Chabon
and Las Tacitas. And I'm really struck by the economic nonsense that has been put forward by
the landlords here. First of all, housing is not a free market. The pure laws of supply and demand
do not apply. You know, some perverted versions of them do, but the pure laws do not apply. You
You know, you raise a price a little bit
that's already excessive,
and it doesn't make supply collapse catastrophically.
And also, I think we should see what the actual numbers are.
What are the actual costs?
What are the actual revenues that landlords are getting?
Some of them have paid off mortgages
that are making money hand over fist
and still trying to raise rents.
Some of them are barely scraping by.
Some of them paid too much for their properties
in the first place so that they couldn't make a living
with what tenants were able to pay.
That's bad business practice.
And when people are talking about taxpayer subsidies
to landlords to pay for low income people's rent,
we have to ask the question of whether that rent
is at all reasonable in the first place.
We are always hearing about a fair rate
of return for landlords.
We're not hearing what a fair rate of rent for tenants is.
We don't seem to use the word fair
when it comes to tenants very often.
And incidentally, I am a homeowner, I am not a tenant,
I don't rent out anything.
And also in terms of preventing evictions,
most people evicted were fully current on their rents
in the last few years.
It is a myth that they did not pay their rent.
They had landlords just wanting to do that.
Thank you, sir, your time has elapsed.
Mayor, that concludes the speaker cards.
So with that, we will close public comment.
We will come back to council for the questions,
discussions, and guidance.
We will begin with council member Vivitas Walton.
Thank you.
I did want to ask a question that was brought up
by one of the public commenters,
And I just wanted to, I don't know if it's a legal question.
So I'll have the chair decide.
Capital replacement versus capital improvement.
Is there a legal definition to the difference?
Yeah, excuse me, a great question.
I think part of the confusion is because
in mobile home rent control ordinance that the city has,
we use both terms and they mean different things
that ordinance capital replacement in the mobile home rent control ordinance
has the same meaning as capital improvement and our ordinance which
that's talking about you know you your roof has reached the end of its useful
life and you need to repair it or doing seismic upgrades. In the mobile home rent
control ordinance the term capital improvement refers to a improvement
you're making to the property, adding a pool or something
like that.
This current ordinance has never included any provisions
that would allow capital improvement, quote, unquote,
you know, a new pool, something like a gym
that you've added to the facility to be passed through.
It used to allow those sort of capital repairs
of replacing your roof at the end of its life
to be passed through per the council's prior direction
that was taken out of the ordinance.
And so now, if someone wants to recover those costs,
it would only be possible through the fair return process.
Thank you, thanks for that clarification.
So just to bottom line,
it sounds like we don't need to have that clarification
within the context of rent stabilization.
Okay, thank you for that clarification.
Okay.
I would like to propose that we stay, if there's agreement, start off at 3% and or 65% of CPI,
whichever is lower.
I would like to propose that we keep the base rents at 2025.
understanding that I understand that there's an administrative burden here
but we have the staff to support it and would like to discourage would like to
discourage spiking rent to ensure that you you know folks are that that the
base rent is spiked and I know that it won't happen everywhere but it might
happen to some people. So want to ensure that we prevent that. I also would like to propose
that we move forward with the six FTE proposal which includes both rent stabilization folks
and rent registry start up costs and then in terms of I'm looking at the direction
council direction slide on page 16 I would just leave that at that I think I'm interested
in learning more from my colleagues kind of what model we're looking at in terms of cost
recovery and the fee part but that's I think part of it is going to come back to us early
next year but I would like to put that out there to see if there's some consensus that
we can form around these parameters. I think we're really, really close based on our previous
discussion and would like to start off the year with some sort of agreement around those
parameters which I think were almost there so I'm hopeful and with that I'll
yield my time back to the chair. Councilmember Aguilar please. Thank you
Mayor Gonzalez and thank you staff for you know I know this has been a lot of
work your hard work is appreciated I think you know we're finally moving
along as many many years of advocacy and and generation of council members who
have been advocating to finally get this through to fruition I think you know we
have heard from some of the public with regards to given direction with regards
to 3% or 65% of CPI whichever is lower. I also like to I know this is not on
here but to adopt a base rent date of July 1st, 2025 and a base year of
of 2025 and I would also, you know, with regards
to the direction, confirm the staff recommendation
on the full cost recovery model.
So what we have listed here with regards
to the rent registry, rent stabilization
has enhanced enforcement options,
which is estimated to be 1.3 to 2.2 million.
I think this is, you know, this is a great start
and I'm looking forward to this entire process
and the next, the next readings on this.
But I think, Mayor, are we looking
for an action or a motion on this?
Right now we'll just take everybody's commentary
and then I'll come back for a motion
or for to build some sort of consensus explicitly.
Gotcha, okay, that's my comment
and with regards to direction, thank you.
Thank you.
Nobody else seeks to weigh in, is that correct?
Okay, Council Member Simon, please.
I support both of my colleagues' recommendations.
I also would like to look at efficiencies, though.
As I mentioned before, bringing on six staff members
and furnishings and leasing.
And I understand what you're saying you'd like knowledge
to continue on with permanent staff.
However, I have seen consultants in other fields,
but I have seen consultants that serve long-term
and specialty fields, and any way we could save money,
I think we should explore those.
We are in a unique time where we are
in a difficult financial situation.
I think we should really keep our options open
to alternate means to staff this.
But as far as the percentages,
I agree with both of my colleagues who've just spoken.
Any other comments at this time?
Seeing no other comments,
I think you have probably the guidance
that you needed this time.
Okay.
Okay, I agree with them.
So I'll just move on.
We'll close this item.
Okay, so we've closed this item.
We're moving to item 10A, those guidance.
There are four people, or three people, I agreed.
That bills as majority guidance.
I think just for the record,
I just would like to ensure that we're all on the same page.
Just to clarify what there's consensus on.
manager would you please read thank you I appreciate it thank you mr. mayor
councilmember Veras Walton so what I have here is three percent or 65% of CPI
whatever is lower base rents at 2025 rents also confirming the staff
recommendation which is on slide 16 thank you for the clarification thank
you we're closing a side of moving to 10a so for this item we have a city
attorney here introducing this item yes let us take a break until cell phone
time says 9 o'clock so we are in recess let's go ahead and reassemble okay it is
9 o'clock and we are reassembling we have quorum in the room city attorney
would you please introduce the item thank you mayor I'll have the city clerk
Next slide, please.
This is reconsideration of council action.
We'll call it one or 10A.
And under the charter, here's the charter section
that provides the mayor this particular power.
And the mayor does possess the authority
to suspend implementation of any action
taken by the council by filing with the city clerk
within three days after such council action
and notice of suspension thereof.
That information was provided in the packet
that's attached to this agenda item.
and its suspension shall constitute automatically
a motion for reconsideration of the action taken,
which would be voted upon
at the council's next regular meeting.
Next slide, please.
This was the motion to approve and authorize
the city manager in coordination with the city attorney
to execute a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege
for the purpose of releasing the June 2024 revenue measure
tracking survey results.
The votes were council member Aguilar abstained,
council member Rezavedo no,
Council Member Bolt, yes.
Vice Mayor Bowen, absent.
Council Member Simon, abstain.
Council Member Ferris-Walton, yes.
Mayor Gonzalez, yes.
So the action tonight, according to the charter,
is the first vote on the mayor's motion to reconsider.
Again, that motion is automatic,
based on the mayor's submittal of the motion
under the power vested in him by the charter.
And if the motion to reconsider
achieves the four affirmative votes,
then the item is brought back and there's council can discuss reconsider adoption of
a resolution to approve and authorize the city manager in coordination with the city
attorney to execute a limited waiver of the attorney client privilege for the purpose
of releasing the June 2024 revenue measure tracking survey results staff and I are available
to answer any questions any questions seeing no questions I just want to be clear so it's
It's a two-step process if people want to waive the privilege on the document, which
our number of us had the opportunity to look at physically, if they're willing to waive
the privilege on that, they first have to vote yes on the motion to reconsider and then
they would vote yes on the second motion.
Is that the correct legally?
That is accurate, yes.
Okay.
Seeing no questions, I'm going to go to public comment on this item.
we have one comment card and there are three hands raised on zoom. Okay please
proceed in person then we'll go to zoom. The first speaker is Kat Wellman. Good
evening mayor and council members I guess I'm actually talking then on both
steps of the procedure because I'm going to encourage you to reconsider it. I'm
here tonight because I'm very deeply concerned that the city may be creating
more distressed in voters minds by choosing not to release the raw data of the most recent poll.
Transparency is not a political issue. It is also not something to be neutral about. It is
the cornerstone of good government which is denigrated when the city spends public funds
and then refuses to share the results of that expenditure with the public. Based on the
the information that has been released from the 2023 and 2024 surveys, public
confidence in the city's management of public funds appears to have dropped by
12% in just one year. Today only 40.6% of respondents view the city's
financial management favorably. That is not a small decline and it should
concern all of us. If we expect voters to support funding for critical
infrastructure and public safety projects, no matter what funding mechanism is used,
we must first rebuild trust. Trust does not come from withholding information. It comes
from openness and accountability. We are not asking the City to release the consultants'
interpretations or analysis. We are simply asking that the raw poll data be made public
so residents can view it for themselves. When information is withheld, people naturally
assume there is a reason, and that perception alone can damage confidence in city leadership.
By voting to release this data tonight, the city has an opportunity to demonstrate a genuine
commitment to transparency and to show that the city council stands united in its belief
that the public has a right to know and that there is nothing to hide. I urge you to vote
Yes, and ensure that the city your time has elapsed
Mayor that concludes the speaker cards in person, please proceed online
As we close public comment in person
The first speaker is douglas spaulding
I'm I'm a little confused by the previous speaker because of course transparency is political
in the case of the administrative
Investigation concerning councilwoman bowens, um complaints
The city does not want to release the information, why? Because it disadvantages them in their
litigation with a former city manager Fran Robustelli. In this case, transparency means
the information will be used by a citizens committee to figure out a electoral strategy
in order to pass the so-called citizens bond or a parcel tax measure. So, you know, let's be clear
about the interests in the room. I actually would like to see the
administrative investigation released, and I don't mind the the survey on
Revenue Bond being released, with a couple of caveats. The first is that, you
know, like a lot of surveys I do online or engagements I have within these,
I always check the box.
I do not want my information shared.
And when I took the survey on the revenue measured,
I assumed that information would not be shared.
So I don't mind the basic information being shared,
but I sure as heck would like my name
and my address to be redacted.
And I'm sure there's a lot of other people
in the city of San Landro who might well feel the same
because we have a privacy interest.
My other interest is, I could be wrong,
But when this came up at the last meeting,
it seemed to me that the current city manager
and the current city attorney had concerns
about waiving client attorney privilege.
And I would sure love to know what their thinking is.
I'd like to understand what their concerns are
because they're probably much wiser on this than I am.
And there's something I'm not considering.
So maybe the deal will start with the privilege
and then be able to waive it.
Thank you, sir, your time is elapsed.
The next speakers are Gwendolyn Olson.
Hi, my name is Gwendolyn Olson,
and I'm here to ask you not to weigh
the attorney-client privilege of the survey results.
It's not a matter of government transparency,
as Kat has said.
It's a matter of preserving information for city use,
not for sharing it with the mayor's wife
and the citizens bond committee
their own competing revenue measure at the so-called citizen-led parcel tax. That's all I have to say.
Thank you. The next speaker is San Leandro Chamber of Commerce.
Hi everybody, it's Emily Grego with the San Leandro Chamber once again. I would like to ask that you
all reconsider releasing the results of this survey. I believe that they could be helpful
in determining where the community sits with any kind of a bond measure, whether it's the
citizen-led bond measure or whether it's the city council's bond measure that they were
potentially thinking about. I think it would be helpful. It would also be really helpful
to determine if the city has to take the expense on doing another survey before any of these pond
measures go out. So I think that they would be really helpful. I do understand to both of those
other speakers, there's a lot of players in the room that want them for whatever their reasons are,
but survey results are helpful. They give you some some answers just like I shared earlier.
This is not what the chamber says, this is what their members were saying. So I think they're
helpful I would hope that all of you reconsider and and release those results. Thank you.
Thank you. Mayor that concludes the raised hands online.
Okay so with that we'll close public comment. There was something that was in the newspaper
and that was repeated here in the chamber in the online comments. I'll come to you city manager.
We have seen a document that is the survey document itself.
In that survey document,
is there any personally identifiable information
in the document that was created?
I'd have to go to Deputy City Manager Eric Engelbart.
Thank you, Mayor, for the question.
The document that is the subject of this action tonight,
there is no, that information is not in here.
So we wouldn't know somebody's name,
someone's address, somebody's agency.
There's no personal identifiable names.
It's all aggregated information.
Correct.
And then said-
Anonymized, correct.
Thank you.
And anonymous.
Thank you.
And then city manager, do you personally have any concerns about waiving the attorney-client
privilege specifically on the document in question?
I do not, Mayor.
Okay.
Are there any other questions or comments that people would like to raise on this topic?
Okay.
So there is a motion on the table for reconsideration.
Please vote.
Councilmember Azevedo, may we have your vote?
Thank you.
All votes are in.
One moment while we get our technology in line.
The motion carries with five yeses, one no, I'm sorry, two nos with Councilmember Aguilar
voting no, as a VEDO voting no, Vice Mayor Bowen voting yes, council member
Bolt voting yes, council member Simon voting yes, council member Viveros
Walton voting yes, and Mayor Gonzales voting yes. Okay so we have had we are
now permitted to talk about waiving the attorney-client privilege because the
other was just in essence giving us permission to have this discussion to
reopen the discussion. Is there any further discussion questions dialogue
etc. If not I will entertain a motion. Council member Simon. Yes I have a
question. I think I heard the question to the city manager she had any concerns
with releasing the information and I heard no but my question was for our
city attorney this is a concern that I had previously to the attorney do you
have any concerns with this release of information to an outside group which
is a citizens group and I wanted to make sure that we're not clouding the line
between a city measure and the citizens measure and don't want it coming back to
us later and us being challenged that the city was involved which should be a
purely citizen committee so I just want to confirm there won't be any coming
back to us about this if we release this information.
Please recede to the Attorney.
Thank you, Councillor Simon, thank you, Mayor.
So what is on the table, the motion is the approval of the resolution that was presented
to the council at the last regular meeting and it's a limited waiver so the council would
resolve that it's a limited waiver of attorney client privilege for the document titled revenue
measure tracking survey results dated June 2024 and that that document be
released to any requesting parties and that the waiver applies only to the
document and shall not be construed as a waiver of privilege regarding any other
communication. So based on those parameters, guardrails if you will, I
don't see an issue with the release of this document as a waiver of the turn
clemency related specifically to this document affecting any interference if
you will or risk that the City Council is collaborating or colluding or doing
anything related to connecting with or supporting or not supporting a citizens
initiative. This is strictly a limited waiver of a document that the Council
held attorney-client privilege upon. Okay, thank you. Council member Rivera
I don't have a comment, but I would like to move that we execute a limited waiver of
attorney-client privilege for the purpose of releasing the June 2024 revenue measure
tracking survey results.
Okay.
Have received your motion.
Let's see if there's a second or further discussion.
Vice Mayor, please.
Yes.
I have a few questions.
I appreciate that there's clarity on this council of exactly what would be released
that is limited to that survey.
Can we define when we say that it is, is it the actual survey or is it a draft survey?
And the reason why I'm asking is because I want to understand, because I'm sure there
There was robust discussion about this at the meeting
that I was not at.
The rationale behind releasing this particular document,
and if that rationale will be applied
to all similar documents going forward
as it relates to our city paying for surveys.
So the initial interest came from myself
and from Councilmember Rivera-Swalton
have this released. So I'll go to you councilmember if you would like to address that or I'm happy
to address it. Please proceed.
It's my understanding that there was a public records act request to get the information
and the direction from the city manager was just that she needed to get council action
to release it. So I submitted a council referral item to release them so that we could have
vote on it but it was information that in my experience and other jurisdictions
has been released via public records act request and at this particular juncture
the city manager requested council action. I just want to confirm that first
part of the question what how would we define or consider the document that
we're releasing. So the question I think is is it a draft document or a final
document is that correct yes is it I mean either like whatever it's called
what exactly is it so I'm going to go because it was prepared under the
direction of city attorney I'm gonna go to city attorney for that question
thank you mayor first it's my understanding and I'll look to the
WCD manager at King of art there is only this document it's a one document set
and there's no other document except that which was subject to the privilege
that was provided to the council in their role as reviewing the attorney
client privilege documents. It is a draft though so if the deputy city
manager can clarify that. Certainly it is it is a draft work product that was
prepared following the community survey work that took place in June of 2024. It
was a preliminary draft that was not finalized and ultimately as we'll call
the council ultimately directed us in July of 2024 to cease all efforts
associated with the potential revenue measure that could appear on the
November 2024 ballot and as a result all that work stopped and the draft work
product was never was never finalized. Understood okay that's that's super
helpful because let's say we did not cease at that juncture that draft
document would have been used to create the final presentation of the survey
results. It's just that that was the final version that we we asked for from
the consultant. I would say it was yet to be determined. Okay. At that time. What do
you mean? As far as if it had, I mean now we're into hypotheticals, but if the city
council had not directed us to see saw efforts and instead directed us to
continue the exploration of a revenue measure it's it's hypothetically
possible that the document could have been finalized as to whether or not
where it would have gone at that point is it's a hypothetical okay the only the
reason why I'm trying to understand in this way is because I do remember the
meetings that we had as council members to learn about the information and then
we had a presentation with the consultants
about it, so a lot of them, you know,
I have been part now of other organizations
that do do surveys to try to understand
if there is an appetite for it,
and I have received information in staff reports
of the findings, I am not sure about whether or not
actually the survey I think the final survey may or may not have been included
in it but are you able to share I'm not sure who it goes to but is it common I
have my own ideas about whether you know it should or should not be but is it
common then to include that survey result as part of the final report of
whether or not we should go forward with a revenue measure or not thank you
advice may have for your question I can share that there are a variety of
examples from various jurisdictions I'm aware of jurisdictions that have
released that information comparable information and other jurisdictions that
have not okay thank you I'll go to councilmember bolt next second is there
any other discussion on this item seeing none please vote and to be clear this
the motion to waive the attorney client privilege on this specific document to pass the resolution.
Thank you. Councilmember Azevedo, your vote, please. Thank you. All votes are in. The motion
passes with five yeses, two noes. Councilmember Vivreaux-Walton voting yes. Councilmember
Aguilar voting no council members Simon voting. Yes, Vice Mayor Bowen voting. Yes
Councilmember bolt voting. Yes, Mayor Gonzalez voting. Yes, and council member as a veto voting no
Okay, so close that item. We will move to item 10 B, which follows a similar structure as a motion for
Reconsideration city attorney. Would you like to introduce the item?
Thank you, Mayor Gonzalez and we'll have a presentation another presentation on this item
Thank you city clerk similar to the last item to rehash charter section 305 H provides that the mayor has the power
provided by the charter
to
Suspend implementation of any action taken by the council by filing with the city clerk within three days after such council action a notice of suspension
thereof
That was provided in time and is provided in the packet for this item agenda item
Such suspension shall constitute a motion for reconsideration of the action taken to be voted upon by the council at its next regular meeting
The motion was as follows to direct staff to continue to explore potential revenue measures that could appear on the November
2026 ballot including a consulting services agreement with Clifford Moss for outreach and survey work to consider feasibility
That the work would be conducted under attorney-client privilege and that the council could later decide whether to waive that privilege
The vote was councilmember Aguilar. Yes councilmember as if they don't know
Councilmember bolt abstain Vice Mayor Bowen of his absent
Councilmember Simon. Yes councilmember of the various Walton. Yes mere Gonzales. No
so the action this evening is again to vote on the mayor's motion to reconsider the
Last motion that was just read at the regular meeting of two weeks ago
If the motion to reconsider passes then the motion directing staff
Would come before this body with a need for a second to either a continue to explore potential revenue measures that could appear on
The November 2026 ballot including a consulting services agreement with Clifford Moss for outreach and survey work to consider feasibility
Or, and this is from staff, staff would like to know through a motion whether the Council
should direct staff to cease all efforts associated with placing a revenue measure on the November
2026 ballot.
We're here to answer any questions.
We'll begin with Councilmember Agadad.
Thank you, Rich, for that explanation.
So we're here to make a motion on either A or B.
first we have to do item number one before we get into the discussion of A
or B so get on the mayor's motion to reconsider so we would have to vote on
reconsidering basically we're voting to if we vote yes we're gonna open up the
discussion of item number two so voting yes constitutes voting on permission to
discuss gotcha so to speak would you agree with that characterization that's
That is accurate. Yes, it's that's two-step process. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you
Councilmember
Bolt, please
I'd like us to take the vote on the mayor's motion to reconsider
So that would be
Your emotion
Okay
Before we do that
I do need to take public comment and I also want to make sure that we've got all the
Questions answered if there are any questions. So are there any questions before I take public comment. I'm gonna come to vice mayor, please
Yes, my question and I meant to ask it for the last one just for clarity
Mayor if you could share the rationale as to why you made the motion to reconsider
This particular vote. Yes. So last time we were considering this notion of doing survey work under attorney-client privilege and
Based on the discussion that was transpiring. There appeared to be some confusion
About what a waiver of attorney-client privilege would look like
and in particular
there was some discussion that suggested that some people might have thought that it was a blanket waiver of
All privilege related to this type of work of for a new revenue measure
My interest was specifically on the survey document like the document that
Deputy City Manager Eric Engelbart
Talked about on which we just agreed to waive privilege
I was looking for a limited waiver on that specific document we go into a survey
I want to be able to share that result with the public
Any other kind of communication with City Attorney?
City manager amongst ourselves. It's deliberative
I have no interest in waving that and so because of that and because of the confusion that I felt was happening at the time
I said I got the vote but I'd like for us to reconsider this
Seeing no other questions. I'm gonna go to public comment on the side of if there is any
Mayor, we don't have any cards from in the room, but there's one hand raised on zoom
Okay, closing public comment in person opening up zoom
Douglas balding you're the first speaker
Thank you. My my understanding is that when this item came up before it it did not pass it did not get the requisite for
Yes votes
Now, um given everything else that's been discussed tonight. It seems clear
The city needs money
Uh, it occurs to me. Wow, what what could the city raise with the revenue bond? Well, maybe 2.5 million dollars
to support
a rent stabilization ordinance. You know, the three million dollars from Neptune
dried. But you know, there's there's a lot of things that are in the wind. So
so I have to assume when when a council member votes no
or abstains, either they are not thinking along the same lines as I that that the city does need
money or it's a automatic ole. We're not going to do a revenue bond as a city. Let's just hand
And I think there's so many
things that we can do with this
pandemic to hand it over to the
citizens committee and let them
do the work.
I have my doubts about what the
citizens committee has proposed
because I don't think it can
pass with the Lake Chabot Road
project included.
I think to proceed with a survey
on a bond measure now will get
us, will garner us some new
information.
I agree with Ms. Gregor that the
previous bond survey will also
time. Trump is in office. People are really concerned about affordability. So, I think,
you know, attitudes among the electric are bound to be somewhat different. But, you know,
whether we do, in fact, go forward with the revenue measure for November 2026 ballot or
not, the survey will be helpful to the city and, well, also to the citizens committee
If that's the only game left in town, so I urge you all to vote yes
Reconsider it and yes, let's pass it this time. Thanks
Thank you mayor. There are no more hands raised on some closed public comment and come back into the chambers for
discussion I interpret
Councilmember bolt your statement as a request to have a vote on this motion. Is that correct?
Okay, and I need a second on that correct. I do not need a second. It's an automatic
motion.
It's an automatic motion.
Perfect. Thank you. And let's just proceed to a vote.
Councilmember Azevedo, your vote, please. Thank you. All votes are in. The motion carries
with six yes votes and one no vote. Councilmember Vivros-Walton voting yes. Councilmember Aguilar
voting yes councilmember Simon voting yes Vice Mayor Bowen voting yes council
member bolt voting yes mayor Gonzales voting yes and councilmember Azaveto
voting no at this point in time we will then move to a discussion on the
question that has been raised whether we should proceed with a survey work as
well or instead to cease operations on a potential revenue measure and to be
very precise it's first a pursue revenue measure in the work that would be
associated with that and if I remember correctly city manager I believe there
was ninety two thousand dollars already budgeted before that would be spent as
the first phase of that thought thank you followed by there might be a need
for additional expenditures going forward,
but there was an initial amount,
I think the first two months of work,
if I remember correctly, had already been budgeted for.
So initially there's no incremental budget,
but there could be additional monies required as we proceed.
I will start with council member Aguilar.
Thank you, Mayor.
I think the last item on this
when we were deciding there was a caveat.
So I'd like to just move forward to continue
to explore potential revenue measures
that could appear on the November 26th ballot,
including a consulting service agreement
with Clifford Moss for outreach and survey work
to consider feasibility.
That's my motion.
Thank you.
Council Member Bolt.
Yes, and as it was explained the last time,
there are some off-ramps.
So if we go forward with this feasibility study,
Regardless of whatever comes back we can cease and desist the city's
Efforts or continue we're gonna have another vote after we get this survey back on what we want to do. I'm cautious of
Entering into the you know going all the way to the four hundred thousand dollars after this
So I just I want to make sure I'm remembering it correctly and that we will once if we choose to go forward
We will then get the information and we will be able to decide at that point if the city wants to continue in its path
additionally lastly
There will be no attorney client privilege put on this survey
So there's a couple of things going on here. So I'm going to separate them, but thank you
So I'm going to try to address the first one. I believe that your description of off-ramps was correct
But I'm gonna go to deputy city manager
Dustin to kind of guide us through this and make sure that that part of his statement is correct that that's correct mayor
So what we would do would we would go and do this work and then we would bring council the results and essentially we'd stop
Each step of the way and say do you want us to continue? Do you want us to continue?
wants to continue and and there's nothing that says that we have to do
all of those things that we all of those steps the you know more survey work
outreach all these things at any point we could say you know we're out and so
it would it will offer counsel you know a number of times that we will we will
bring items to discuss for your all consideration and then we can proceed as
to you, you know, whichever direction that council feels appropriate at the time.
Okay, and the second part of what you stated does not match the motion that I
heard. The motion that I heard did not include anything related to attorney
client privilege, so if you seek to make a friendly amendment you need to discuss
that with a motion maker. So part of what I'd like to do actually, just
procedurally I want to get the procedure and be spot-on about this.
Technically I need a second on council member Ayala's motion before really
getting into discussion on the motion. So I'm gonna go next to council member
Ivettos-Walton. Yeah I'd like to second the motion. Okay so now let's move into
discussion. Would you like to continue with the discussion or just I can pass
wrong to somebody else? Yeah just briefly I am supportive of continue to explore
the potential revenue measures. I think that until we know what the menu of
options are I think we need to continue this very important work to figure out
what are the revenue options that we need to explore and what threshold we
need to meet. I would like to, like I mentioned at the last meeting, and this was constructive
feedback was that I would like a deeper data dive in the council presentation than what
was given to us in June of 2024 when this was presented to us. Because I think that
was the reason that there was a public records act request was because the data that was
presented was very kind of eagle eye superficial. And I think it would just be helpful for the
community to really have a deeper understanding about what all of us are thinking in terms
of city needs and yeah. So I'll leave that there. I would like to include if the maker
of the motion is amenable to this is to include releasing attorney claim privilege to ensure
that we're able to release a summary of this report so that folks, the public can understand,
a better understanding of where we all stand in terms of prioritizing city services and
city infrastructure. Also, but I'll second the motion. I'll make that suggestion to the
maker of the motion to see if he's amenable. So I'll come back to councilmember. Thank
Thank you. In order to not indemnify the city I would respectfully declined.
Okay. Going back to councilmember bolt.
Spadey just said it very eloquently. Much better than I could. I would be in the same
position of voting no if the community is not going to be able to hear or see what we've
gained. Okay Vice Mayor Bowen. Thank You Mayor. I have a I think since the very
first priority setting budget workshop that we attended when I was first elected
we had a very robust presentation about how the city needed money and we were
going to be where we are now and we need more revenue, and the council has always been very,
I think, supportive of the idea of looking for a potential revenue measure, and I was supportive
of it last time, and I have a really difficult time right now with the idea of spending even
the $92,000 we've allocated to it, because I know that even $92,000, considering how much we have
have to cut from our budget is significant. And at the same time, I appreciate the clarity
around the exploration of potential revenue measures and what that could look like. When
we got the presentation in June or July, it included things like parks and general projects
and many different things that are not just roads. That is different from the community-led
bond that is being floated out there and so I want if we are going to go forward
with doing a survey I do not want it to simply be the same thing that the
community-led bond initiative committee is doing that is their project that they
are working on I want us to be able to find potential revenue measures that
could be creative and I and you know I think staff and the consultants would
know more about what is possible and I would like for us in the survey if we
are going to do one, it sounds like there's an appetite for doing one that
we are not just more open about the information that we are sharing and I
will say that when we talk about data collection it only makes sense when you
have experts you know how to read the data because there is a very specific
specific way to ask questions.
Surveys are designed a particular way
to understand certain information,
and so I will caution people from assuming to know
by looking at raw data what the answers are,
that if we're going to do one,
that we do explore different things
that the community would want.
Obviously, we've talked about infrastructure needs and roads,
but we often hear about public safety,
and we talk about the firehouse,
and are people willing to do that?
you know Hayward has their measure that focused their sales tax on roads and
public safety. Emeryville has one on public safety and child care which I
personally adore and wish that we could do. We have again we also have to be
really careful about which potential bond revenue we support because it may
or may not go into the general fund so it may or may not actually impact these
very real needs that we have and while I really do love our roads and it is the
number one thing that people talk to me about. I know that people care about
roads but people also care about many other things that will direct them in
much more real ways. People are going to lose or have their health benefits
tripled or quadrupled possibly in the new year. People are still not on SNAP
benefits even though they need to and so I just want us to be really open to the
idea of what we're trying to do and what services we're truly trying to provide
for the city. Those are my comments for right now. Thank you. So come to
Councilmember Simon. Yes I support option A exploring our revenue measure and as I
mentioned the last discussion looking at funding all of our needs across the
entire city so I am fully supportive of that and I look at as an investment the
ninety two thousand dollars I think is what we need to invest in getting the
hundreds of millions of dollars that we need to keep our city running so I'm
fully supportive but I do have a question on this release of liability or
waiver of information excuse me now the previous item that we discussed it
sounded like there's draft information that were we've decided to provide
because it didn't get presented. So if we move forward with this and we present
this new survey data, is there a need to waive any rights since we're already
presenting to the public in a council meeting? So I will start with city
manager and we can also go to legal. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Simon and I
needed a little bit of clarification on what you stated. The information that was
that privilege was just waved on from 2024 in the previous item was presented
to council in a confidential setting through the process when we did it in
2024 it was not presented in a council meeting so for this time I'm not sure
exactly what you that has not been decided by the council or directed for
us to do the same yet for the future. Okay you just clarified that it was a
closed session. Okay got it. So I just I want to have a clear record. So it was
presented in two to threes. So we individually in pairs or in groups of
threes received the information and then at council the same information was
presented in a summary form. There is a public document out there that people
have seen which is what triggered I think the request by Mr. Cassidy for
this information. So the difference being that the version that we saw had the actual
questions attached to it. Okay. And a few other, a few other things, but. Okay. And
is the request on this item the same level of detail of data as in 24 that we have agreed
to release in the previous item? Is that what the request is? So it is my understanding
from the motion that I've heard.
The discussion is about that,
but the current motion does not include
a release of that data.
I understand, I'm just trying to understand
what the request is.
Is that the request?
I'm trying to understand what data is being requested.
Right now, there's not a request
from the public on the new data.
We have the opportunity, and in the last meeting,
I was suggesting, I think some others have suggested
that we affirmatively just make that decision right now,
that we will release the analogous document.
But the current motion does not include
the release of that document.
All right, in the last meeting, I recall, correct me
if I'm wrong, the city manager and city attorney
wanted to wait on that until we have the data in hand
before we made the decision.
Is that still the same process?
So I think this is where I had spoken at the beginning.
I think there was some confusion
about the nature of the waiver,
but I will just kind of confirm with city manager.
So the release of an analogous document,
so whatever the survey results are in January or February,
whenever they come, in the form that deputy city manager,
Eric Engelbart, already showed us
and that we agreed to release,
Do you have concerns about releasing
just that set of survey results?
Let me back up one second.
So at last meeting, that question was not posted.
Can you hear me now?
So at the last meeting, the question regarding
releasing the polling data, which is similar to
what was just waived, I actually asked that question
in the last meeting, and that was not the question.
So when I said last meeting that I was uncomfortable
a waiver at that moment was because when I asked the question on what we're
talking about polling that was made clear that that was not what we were
talking about and so I said because of its unknown nature of a waiver I was
uncomfortable with waiving the unknown future related to everything attached to
revenue measure work because anything could happen there could be a claim
against the city all types of things could happen and because of what is
unknown I was uncomfortable with the unknown. If the council's today if the
council wants to waive what would be very similar to what was just waived
from the 2024 data, I do not have an objection today. Okay. City attorney. City
attorney. I concur with the city manager I would just advise I'm advising the
council that in the motion if that were indeed to be the case you would want
that to be explicit that that's what the waiver would be for specifically to
data, that particular type of data, and nothing else would be waived.
Okay, and like my question on the previous item, if we did release that type of data,
you feel that there would be no clouding of the lines between city measure and citizens
measure if that information was released out?
I'll go to City Attorney.
So this is this information again paid for by the city it's it belongs to the city I
don't see an issue with that information becoming public it's up to the council so
no issue at all that I see reliability exposure or risk exposure for the city council to release
that information that it had its own consultant had prepared thank you thank you both spoken
already is that correct? Okay so I'm just gonna come down the line so starting
with vote. Councilmember Bold. Thank you thank you for the dialogue because it's
making it clearer for me and so with that said I will go back to the
motion-maker and ask for a friendly amendment to release the same
information we have just released on the previous vote.
Taking into consideration the idea that we don't do a blanket
attorney client privilege waiver as the city manager has suggested we don't.
And I agree with that, but that on this vote when we take it,
it's clear that we will have some type of presentation to the council once it's done.
And then there will be a release to the public that can use the information like we just
Released for the 2024. Is that is that clear mr. Motion maker?
But I would respectfully decline
councilmember Veras Walton
I'd like to make a substitute motion
Do I have to withdraw my second or well? How does that work as a matter of procedure? Yes
Withdraw the second. Okay, so I would like to withdraw the second
So then it's just a motion now. So just a motion
Well, no, there's still a motion on the floor. So if someone seconds it then it continues
But if no one seconds it it dies, correct? That's correct. So do I need to wait for the second is my question. So
No, not necessarily. Do you have a motion on the floor if she submits she may submit a substitute motion and
And then if that gets seconded, you would discuss that period.
That takes precedence.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Please proceed with your substitute motion.
Thank you.
I'd like to make a substitute motion to continue to explore potential revenue measures that
could appear in the November 2026 ballot, including a consulting services agreement
with Clifford Moss for outreach and survey work to consider feasibility.
Additionally, I would like to include that the we release attorney claim privilege for
the same level of survey data that was just released in the previous, for the June 2024
survey results.
I'm going to clarify one word choice, release attorney client privilege. I'd like to use
the word wave. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So as stated in the record, that is the motion
subject to that one word amendment. Is there a second for that? I'm going to go to council
member bolt. Second.
So I've got a motion as read into the record with a second.
Is there any further discussion at this time?
Okay.
Is that Vice Mayor, please?
Yes, I'm not sure who this question goes to,
but going back to my previous comments,
can you clarify or confirm what we mean
in the scope of work when we say continue
to explore potential revenue measures?
So I will start with City Manager,
which I'm gonna go to Deputy City Manager.
Okay, so we will start with City Manager on this item,
on that question.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Vice Mayor.
So in the packet, there is the presentation
that was provided on December 1st.
And I'm looking now at what is slide four,
and it talks about community outreach
and says provide community information,
distribute annual report and community listening sessions,
And then it also says survey work, determine viability,
determine feasibility levels, community prioritization
of use of funds and the type of measure.
And that's what, once we do the survey,
we would come back to council with the information
that we've garnered from that work
and have a decision point on whether the council
would like us to continue and put a measure on,
and the type of measure, continue with a measure
and the type of measure to put on the November 2026 ballot
or to cease the work in that effort.
Okay, so it really is a repetition
of the previous survey again.
The only difference is because of the timing.
So staff brought this to council in June with the budget,
but we did not get direction at the time.
And so what I say to the council at that time
is that we didn't have to,
the council didn't have to make a final decision that day.
I could come back to the council
once we have closure or close enough closure
on the fiscal year 2025 budget information.
And we did that.
And so we came on December 1st with that information.
And because of the timing,
because basically six months we did not have,
there is one step that won't be included.
And that would be a second tracking poll
that was included in the previous step
that wouldn't be included.
So there wouldn't be two different steps of polling.
Okay, so I'm just gonna summarize that back
so that I understand.
We received the information regarding the survey results.
And the council made a decision at that time,
given the information that we had to,
did we make a decision on whether or not
continue or we said we just wanted to come we wanted to consider continuing it
once we actually got the budget which time why we saw it again last month so
why you saw the question of whether or not we continue why did that come back
again because when we came to council in June with the budget council did not
decide at that point to fund any of the work related to a revenue measure and so
So at that point I said, okay, I can come back later
once we know how we close the fiscal year 25
because we thought there may be,
if there's money left over,
then we could use that money for this purpose.
Well, the December 1st meeting, 2025,
Finance Director Nicole Gonzalez,
part of the presentation showed there was no money left over.
And so this truncated work that we could do now,
which there's still time to do work
for a November 2026 revenue measure,
would not need additional dollars at this time but if this work was to
continue let's say after we do the survey and it looks like it could be
successful the slide seven of the last slide a the last presentation shows that
the estimated cost could be somewhere between 300 to 600 thousand dollars for
the total revenue measure including the actual ballot and that last figure we do
not have budgeted that is correct okay but that's not a decision point the
council has to make today right right okay okay seeing no further questions
or comments I just I will be voting yes on this on this measure with that please
vote yeah so is there further discussion councilmember I get that thank you mayor
I just you know I would support the measure the the motion with item a just
with the substitute motion that's been made.
It's not that I do support a revenue measure,
just not the motion as is.
Thank you.
Vice- versa, another piece, please.
Yes, I just wanted to...
I'm having a really difficult time
with spending the $92,000 that we have budgeted for it
on this knowing that we don't have the money
to then spend on next steps and to ask the community
to potentially pay for 66% or 67% of the community
to pay for something during the current landscape
that we live in.
It just is, is, and again, I just have a,
yeah, I'm just, I just wanna,
that is, I'm having a really difficult time
trying to square that away.
So one thing that we may want to consider is that certain revenue measures would require
66 and two-thirds, but others would only require 50 percent.
So, for instance, a utility users tax would only require 50 percent or there's any of
a variety of things that's not intended to prejudice what we would consider, but just
to realize that it depends on the nature of the tax.
Okay.
So with that, let us vote.
I hear, if I may, just before we vote for the record,
if I could please ask the seconder of the motion,
of the substitute motion.
The seconder is Councilmember Bolt.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's good to have a clear record and I appreciate that.
Councilmember Azevedo, may we have your vote?
No.
Thank you.
All votes are in.
motion carries with four yes votes and three no votes. Council member Bolt
voting yes. Mayor Gonzalez voting yes. Council member Viveros Walton voting yes.
Council member Aguilar voting no. Council member Simon voting yes. Vice mayor
Bowin voting no and councilmember Azevedo voting no. So at this point in time we
before moving to item 10c I would like for a motion to extend our time. I will
begin with councilmember Simon, is that correct? There you go if you could please
proceed. I'd like the motion to extend our time to 10-15. Okay 10-15 councilmember
if we go to Swalton. Second. So please vote. Councilmember Azevedo, your vote please.
Thank you. All votes are in. The motion passes unanimously with councilmembers Bowen,
Aguilar, Simon, Rose Walton, as Avedo voting yes and Mayor Gonzalez voting yes.
At this point in time, councilmember Simon, would you please proceed?
yes please proceed okay thank you yes i'm moving this item forward or would like to
the objective of this item is to help our council move forward in january 2026 in a positive
direction i'm requesting that we record video including audio of our closed sessions which
will improve accuracy and validity of internal investigations i propose that the recordings be
held by the city attorney and use during investigations as there will be
no dispute on what is said in those meetings so I'd like to make a motion
directing staff to video record including audio of all closed session
meetings held by the city attorney for use if for use in internal
investigations okay hold on just a second okay so do I have a second for
for that motion Councilmember I get that.
Thank you Mayor Gonzales I'll second.
Okay, so I have a motion and a second.
Are there any questions for the maker of the motion?
Councilmember Vodos-Walton.
I'm interested in learning if you have identified
any revenue to fund this.
There is a significant data component to this
where we will need to store this data
as well as enhance security,
how that would change our contract
with our city attorney.
I think that this is a significant budget item
that is not necessarily just a motion
to direct city staff to implement
without having appropriate idea
of how much money it would take and staff time
and other unintended consequences like having to,
that is not currently in our contract
with our city attorney is to hold these conversations,
especially video recorded since all of our meeting notes
are recorded in accordance to the law.
I also have a question to the chair to address to whoever,
is there a, is this a best practice?
Is this something that other city councils have done?
What are, what does the landscape look like
in terms of video recording closed sessions?
And what is, is there a risk to having that
Stored somewhere. Thank you for the question. We'll start with city manager about to explore her awareness
Then I'll come to city attorney to explore his awareness
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Councilor various Watson. I'm not aware of councils that video record
But I have also not done any research on the topic as well
City attorney, please
Thank you mayor. I'm only aware of one entity
Which is in Southern California that does this procedure that's described in California government code section five four nine five seven point two
It's the metropolitan water district of Southern California, which is a multi jurisdictional joint not even a joint powers agencies
actually a multi jurisdictional body of
Water agencies throughout Southern California and they pump they follow this procedure. I'm not aware of any other city
In Northern California
Anecdotally are the wise and would have to do some research to find out
Please proceed apologies for taking myself out of the queue
So the way that this is put on the agenda
It's unclear to me how it was just put on the agenda and not through the
regular referral process that we go through in terms of having it be
Put on the City Council priority session and I believe it's March
I'm just wondering why this went straight to the agenda as opposed to going through that process
Thank you, mr. Mayor, thank you council members Walton
So the referral process in the handbook refers to work that would be related to staff and capacity
This item as it's written unless the council was to elaborate and turn into something else doesn't take much more work from staff
We already attend council meetings. We already have the technology in the room
I'm sorry
We already attend closed session meetings
we already have the technology in the room for the closed session meetings if the council was to direct to record the meetings and
Storage I spoke with our chief technology officer. There's capability to store
very basic for what we have right now if it grows into something else that could be somewhere else, but staff is currently
Using capacity to attend closed session meetings and prepare for closed session meetings
Okay
so
how
I'm concerned about data safety and
Our ability to maintain these records safe
What sort of infrastructure would we need to ensure that these if the council were to pass this?
that
we would be able to
maintain the privacy of
These records and have them not be like if we're hacked or something like what are some security measures that would need to be
Put in place so we will go to director signer for that
Well, we currently have our Microsoft 365 environment which allows for data storage and
And there is security, it's in the government cloud,
which has a level of security that we're comfortable with.
And we could set up privileges
so that only certain individuals could access that data.
It would have to be managed by the IT department.
So certain employees within the IT department
would have to have access.
There was some cost put in there
if we wanna do something where employees
and the IT department do not have access
and only if the attorney has access,
we'd have to come up with some other process,
which is why there was some cost included.
We'd have to work that out.
And we haven't fully investigated those costs yet.
Thank you.
Those are all my questions.
I cede my time back to the chair.
Thank you.
I will go next to Vice Mayor.
Thank you, Mayor.
I'm not sure if this was asked in the previous questions,
but this question is to the city attorney.
Are there, while one water district of the 400
and something cities, I don't even know how many districts
that they have, I imagine many, many more.
So most don't do it.
Is there a legal concern to doing so?
Like what are the, what is the exposure
of recording these meetings?
City attorney thank you mayor I think the exposure is the immediate risk
exposure I think as the IT director has described is mitigatable just based on
how he describes that from a legal legal risk exposure certainly any record that
is produced in closed session could become discoverable and that includes a
recording that's I think that's just the main legal risk that the council would
want to understand should understand in way and the way that our council is
structured and the way that we govern could at any point a group of four
council members vote to waive privilege on a recording or any recording or all
recordings so the minute book is not a public record and according to the
Brown Act it's not a public record subject to expect inspection under the
Public Records Act and shall be kept confidential so that's the first layer
that it's not a public record so wouldn't be subject to disclosure to a
public record request. The minute book though again would only be available to
the City Council or if a violation of the Brown Act is alleged to have
occurred at a closed session then to the court. In that context then it would go
to the court and it's my understanding that those proceedings there could be
arguments that they could be reviewed in chambers based on motions so there would
be some opportunity for the council to keep the record from being disclosed so
there are limited instances but like I said there are still instances in these
contexts for those recordings to be exposed. Could the council vote to release
the way of privilege of the recordings though. It is you know it is possible for
the council to do so. So it's only available to the council first of all
and it can only be released to the Alameda County Superior Court or any
Superior Court if a violation of the Brown Act is alleged. So no I would be I
I would argue that it is not able to be released by a majority of the council.
However, that's not to say that it couldn't be exposed in some way or in those limited
instances.
It's possible, very limited instance that it could be released.
So no, to answer your question, it's not possible to be released in that way.
Okay.
I'm going to, I have a few other questions.
I'm gonna, the follow-up to that is that is the first time about anything that
we've ever discussed on the council, that I've heard that the council of four
could not do something. So I'll follow up with you to try to understand exactly
what that means. The other question I have is, does the council member, a few
questions, does the council member have to consent to being recorded? Please
proceed. That's why I believe it is, there's a requirement that it be made my
ordinance or resolution. So that is the vote of the majority of the council
would then be the sort of consent. So the individual does not have to consent the
vote will work as okay. Correct. What would happen to, so this let's say we
record this council would have access to it. Next year we potentially may have
another new council member. Do they have access to the former the videos
previously recorded or what if you leave the council do you still have access to
that recording? To your first question yes a newly elected council member would
have access to all recordings. To your second question no because then they
would not be a member of the council would not be permitted to be in closed
session. Okay and then just the last question I have is to the motion maker
what exactly is the purpose of and again I wasn't I don't know it's not clear to
me what is the purpose of making of recording closed session meetings. If you
would please proceed. Oh sorry my vault over here. Thank you. Yeah the purpose as
mentioned in my opening statement is to improve the accuracy and validity of
internal investigations. The recordings as I'm recommending would be held by the
city attorney and I'm not recommending that we all have access to it as
council members I'm not looking for that I just would like some record to be
held if there is an investigation because we've had two of them in the
past two years and I think it would be extremely useful to confirm exactly what
was said and it would alleviate a lot of the issues that we've been going through
for two years if there was a simple recording and we have the ability to do it. We've heard
that it's cost effective means we've heard another water district does it. So I see it
as helping us as a council move forward in a positive direction in 2026.
I'm going to go next to council member bolt. Yes, actually it cleared it up as I recalled
with this, it was an audio video,
I know it's saying video on here,
but it's audio video recording, right?
That it would be retained by the city attorney
and that no council member can just go,
hey, let me go review that in the past.
That's correct?
Please proceed.
The minute book and the recording
that would have created the minute book.
So we're really talking about a recording
that would assist a clerk or other officer myself or an employee to create a minute book
of topics discussed and decisions made at closed sessions.
The according to councilmember Simon, yes, it would be the city attorney who would be
retaining the recordings.
And so I think that's a clarification that's worth mentioning here that certainly there
there is an option that the IT director just described
because I am within the city system
as the city attorney as well,
and there be some sort of way to limit access
to just the city attorney's office.
Another option, of course, is that we retain it
completely separate outside of the city as well.
But as it stands, the way that the technology is set up
is that it's just for the city.
We'd have to think of a new way for us
to retain that recording.
It could be quite simple, just a digital recorder.
To your other question, the law provides
that the minute book would be available to the whole City
Council.
And connected to that minute book
would be a recording, if there was
a recording of that particular meeting, to create the minute.
There's no reason why that minute,
I mean, if the council directed it,
We would destroy the recording,
but you'd still have the minute book.
I'm not suggesting that you do that,
but that's absolutely a council choice.
The minute book would not,
it would be a retained document.
That's what a future council member would be able to review.
If there was a recording attached to that minute book
and the council says keep all the recordings,
then they would be able to review that as well.
So at this, this is just from my clarification,
kind of left field now but can I right now as a council member can I come to
you and say hey I want to review the closed session minutes from 2023 can I
do that absolutely oh get ready buddy so who keeps those minutes there are no
minutes though we're not talking about there are this that's what this minute
book would be about is that the council will decide oh so we don't even have
have anything to do not this is Creek so going and you procedure do practice
got it and just we have run our time so I'm looking for a motion for extending
and I'm not quite sure some people are on cue to discuss so if you could just
raise your hand for the sake of okay so I'm gonna council more bolt are you
looking to extend yes so I hear a request motion from bolt to extend I have a
second. So I've got a second from Council Member Aguilar. But what was I've got an
eleven o'clock is that what you are requesting Council Member Bolt. So I've
got eleven o'clock motion extending to eleven o'clock by Council Member Bolt
with a second by Council Member Aguilar. Please vote. Council Member Aguilar I'm
sorry Council Member Azzavado may we have your vote.
aye. Thank you. All votes are in and the motion carries with six yes votes one no vote. Council
member for various Walton voting no council member Simon voting yes Americans all is voting
yes council member Aguilar voting yes council member bolt voting yes Vice Mayor Bowen voting
yes and council member as a Vito voting yes. So I'm gonna go to council member Simon just
clarify a little bit about what you are proposing because I've got some
questions I just want to make sure we're all on the same page in what you are
requesting are you requesting that these video recordings be kept in the
city of San Leandro by the IT staff with them having ultimate control or are you
asking that they be stored somewhere else or do you even is that even
relevant to what you're requesting. You're indifferent to it. So I'm going to turn your
mic on there. Thank you. Whatever's most cost effective, just as long as the city attorney
has the primary access. Perfect. And then the second question. Is it your intention
that any city council member can access those records at any time or did you have a different
intention? My original intention was for only the city
attorney to have access. However, if that is not available by law, if every council
member has to have access, then that's what I'm requesting. My goal is to have a video
and an audio recording to document what was said in those meetings.
Thank you for the clarification. I will come to city attorney to explore whether it is
legally permissible to let city attorney be the only person that has access. So that doesn't
be any restriction in this particular section so that is possible okay thank you I have
next in queue vice mayor is that correct okay so I will come back or come to you yes thank
you counselor Simon for clarifying the purpose of it if I can just you said that the reason
that you wanted to record this was so that we so that it could be accessed for the purpose
of an investigation, and my question is, is that access to file a complaint for an investigation
or only for an investigator to confirm during an investigation?
So through the chair to Councilmember Simon, perhaps City Attorney could you kind of interpret
to clarify Vice Mayor's so is there a difference I'm not sure yes so I'm gonna
I'm gonna see if we agree in our understanding it's my understanding that
Vice Mayor is asking would these documents be accessible this these
recordings would they be accessible for purposes of exploring to see whether you
want to initiate an investigation or a litigation.
Or would there used be limited to there
is an existing matter that's being investigated
and the investigator could go to a record
to confirm representations that were made by council members
about what happened in closed session?
That's why I interpreted.
Feel free to elaborate if that's a good start.
That is a good start.
And to triple confirm that the motion
is to record them for the sole purpose
of investigative confirmation.
Yeah, I agree.
My intention was for the investigation,
internal investigation process.
So there's a record.
Similar to what we've been through for two years,
we've had an investigator, yet there's
no record of what occurred in closed session.
Okay, so I'm gonna come to city attorney
to discuss any legal implications, limitations, et cetera.
So first, the minute book,
which the recording would be connected to the minute book,
you can't have the recording separate from a minute book,
shall be kept confidential.
The minute book shall be available
only to members of the city council,
or if a violation of the Brown Act is alleged
to have occurred at a closed session,
then to the Alameda County Superior Court.
Those are the only two instances available to a member,
only to members of the legislative body.
It wouldn't be available to an investigator.
Can we modify that?
No, this is what the Brown Act says.
So you can only do what you can,
as stated in the Brown Act.
And can you repeat that one more time?
The minute book shall be available only to members
of the legislative body, or if a violation of this chapter
is alleged to have occurred at a closed session,
to a court of general jurisdiction,
where in the local agency lies.
That's the Alameda County Superior Court.
So the first one you said available
to members of the council?
Correct.
So that's us?
Correct.
Okay, but I thought I heard five, 10 minutes ago,
that we could direct that only the city attorney
would have access to this information?
Well, that's because it says you can,
it's required that the city council
by ordinance or resolution designate a clerk
or other officer or employee of the city
who shall then attend each closed session
of the city council and keep an enter in a minute book,
a record of topics discussed
and decisions made at the meeting.
So quite naturally there used to be a person.
It could be me, as your motion is me,
it could be an employee, it could be a clerk.
So we could, I could designate you.
that was my initial. Yes. Yes. So that's my intention that the city attorney keeps
a record of this document. Right. But the uses, to answer a question about the use,
that's all I needed to I wanted to clarify. Okay. And to reiterate or to
confirm once more time the uses are. The minute book shall be available only to
members of the City Council or if a violation of the Brown Act is alleged to
occurred at a closed session to a court of general jurisdiction wherein the
local agency lies. Okay so if it's available to you or it's available to
council members during investigations we are interviewed about what happens in a
closed session meeting. So if we have a recording of what happened in the
closed session meeting then it's definite of what occurred. Well I would
want to make sure you were clear that that may be a record but the council
would still have to vote to authorize information be shared with a person who
was not authorized to be in closed session. That's a separate Brown Act
requirement. Which is you the city attorney? No that would be the vote of
the council. Okay that's fine that's fine and that would make sense
since they're already investigating the council members anyway then why not let
them see the record of what actually happened. So what motion do you need from
me to proceed with? I just want to make sure it's clear it's not that you would
be able to share the record the minute book or the recordings with anyone else
only the council members it's only available to the council members. But if
the council voted to release it to the investigator we would have that option
to do that? I'm saying no. That is not an option that's provided in the Brown Act.
Okay so let's explore this a little bit because I want to make sure that we're
that we're all saying the same thing. We as a council can vote to share closed
session information with our agent. An attorney that we hire, an investigator
that we hire I believe that's correct. That is correct. So we as a body can
vote to share information with someone who has fidelity to us. They have an
obligation to us. I don't know what the right legal term is. Well it's share with
someone who was not in the closed session. Share information that you
received that they was not received by them in closed session. But they have to
be our agent. We just can't share it with someone in the public so that the
public knows. No, I think that's a possibility. Information that's shared in
closed session, the council has the ability to waive that confidentiality.
Are you saying that these videos could just be waived and shown to the public?
Not the videos, though. The videos shall only be available to members of the
legislative body to the council, or if a violation of the chapters alleged have
occurred at a closed session to the court.
So we could talk to the public,
if we voted, four people voted yes,
we could choose to talk to the public
about what happened in closed session?
That's correct.
But they couldn't see the minute book.
Correct.
They couldn't see the videos.
They couldn't see any of that.
The videos are connected to the minute book
if the counsel says keep the videos.
This section, the Brown Act says
that the audio recording or the video recording
is used by the clerk person,
whoever that person is, to prepare the Minute Book.
So Council Member Simon,
I think there are going to be a lot of questions.
Are you open to this going to the Rules Committee?
Well, let's see, it sounds like this is defined
by the Brown Act, the recording of the meetings.
It sets, correct, City Attorney?
The minute book, who has access to the minute book
is defined by the Brown Act.
And the video.
Yes, correct.
And there's no around that.
That's just the way it is.
But you can keep a record of it.
That's correct.
OK.
So no, I would like to take a vote on this.
A motion to video and audio record the meetings
with the minute book and the video recording that
is stored per the Brown Act.
Okay, I'm gonna at this point in time I will come to council mari Vettis Walton
Thank you. I'll be brief. I just don't think that they intended
the intention of the of the
Item before us does not meet the need of what you said you wanted it to be it can't not be used for investigations
If we were to talk to an investigator, they cannot view that footage
They would still have to rely on a council member account of what happened if we wave privilege if we
Wave privilege. So we are still in the same situation
It would not address the issue that you're pointing to because the investigator cannot
See those recordings cannot see the meeting book the minute book
They would still rely on our account of what happened in that room
So it doesn't meet the need.
It does not address the issue that you're bringing up.
And I just, the risk of having these recordings
and having them be open for discovery
in a variety of litigation issues,
I just, the risk is too large for a really specific need
that addresses your personal need.
I don't see this problem in the context of future councils.
And I'm really hesitant to have such an important policy
decision about the way that we conduct our litigation
and our discussions of that be recorded
and have them be out there.
I know that the intention is for them not to go public
or for them not to be hacked, but it happens.
And it could put us in serious risk.
And I just don't think that what the maker of the motion
is aiming to solve with this proposal, it doesn't solve it.
We're in the same position that we were
because they cannot view the footage,
they would still rely on our accounts
what happened in that room. I do not support the motion and I will cede my
time back to the chair. So I really do want to confirm something here because
maybe I'm tired but I'm not hearing the same the same answers so let's just be
super super super super clear. When we as a body conduct an investigation, an
An internal investigation, we hire an outside person, so an external investigation, of something
that happened in closed session.
We have in the past taken a vote to waive the privilege so that the investigator can
hear from individuals.
You're saying that that waiver is different than waiving access to an actual recording?
that correct? Yes. And that's because the government code forbids the sharing of
either written minutes or recordings of those meetings. Correct. Okay. Okay I'm
going to come back to Councilmember Simon and then Vice Mayor. Yeah just just to
clarify this is not for my personal gain, my personal anything, this is to protect
the city as a whole this is to save us from years of investigations this is to
get to the heart of the facts the heart of the information and if each of us
council members can watch the video which we can for the Brown Act we can
each watch this video then the investigator can ask those questions and
we will have watched that video five minutes ahead of time because we have
the access to watch that video and there shouldn't be any conflict amongst what
the people are saying what the council members saying we're having massive
conflict now and what council members are saying which is causing us to go on
for a long period of time so I would like to call the question this item and
go for a vote so is there a second on calling the question so we've got a
motion to call the question is there a second on that council member I'll
second okay so it's not debatable so this is a vote to call the question
meaning if you vote yes we then proceed to a vote immediately without any further
discussion please vote council member as a Vito may we have your vote aye thank
Thank you. All votes are in. The motion carries with
three yes, sorry, four yes votes, three no votes. Vice Mayor Bowen voting no. Vice Council
Member Aguilar voting yes. Council Member Bolt voting yes. Council Member Simon voting yes.
Mayor Gonzales voting no. Council Member Viveris-Walton voting no. And Council Member Azevedo voting
yes.
Okay, so at this point in time we will vote on the motion that will have video recording so to be
Yes, so we will vote on the motion that was made by councilmember Simon and seconded by councilmember. I get that
Councilmember Azevedo your vote. I
Thank you
All votes are in
The motion carries with three yeses and three nos
Councilmember bolt
Sorry for yeses
councilmember bolt voting yes
Mayor Gonzales voting no
Councilmember Aguilar voting yes councilmember Simon voting yes
Vice Mayor Bowen voting no councilmember Viveros Walton voting no and councilmember Azevedo voting yes
So what we will do next is we will have a resolution at a future meeting that confirms the precise
Direction that has been given so that it's in written form and then we'll vote on that
Vice mayor are you set
At this point in time we will move to item
12
We have any announcements?
Okay, seeing no announcements I'd like to I
Don't have
So were any requests submitted to you for item 11? So, thank you. So moving to item number 12
Any announcements councilmember a lad and then vice mayor. Oh
Thank you mayor. Sorry
on
December 10th, I attended the
42nd meeting of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement.
We have new officers, Kaashif Kaadri,
from Dublin as the president.
John Bowders will be vice president
and John Zaklik will be the secretary.
We honored President Tyler Savage
with accommodation for his service as president.
We completed our annual comprehensive financial report
audited by Mays and Associates
and we were awarded the Government Financial Officers
Association Award. There is no West Nile virus to report in Alameda County, no
new detection of 80s invasive, 80s aegypti, and there were three cases
reported for West Nile virus, one in Merced County and two in Orange County. So we
have the Victory Institute, I attended the Victory Institute from December 4th
through 6th. I paid for my airfare and accommodations and the city paid for the
the entry fee into the conference.
I attended the Building Futures panel
with a housing support system
for LGBTQ youth in all residents.
We talked about the foundation providing housing support
for DC's LGBTQ youth with the Alston Foundation.
We also discussed psychological safety and trauma,
transportation, economic mobility,
housing and homelessness every year.
The Victory Institute has over 700 LGBTQ elected leaders
that are gathered together every year.
We also had a special guest.
President Joe Biden was accepted an award.
He signed the Respect for Marriage Act,
which required the states to recognize
same marriage from other states.
And what President Biden had mentioned,
he said that he got himself into a bit of trouble
with his speech.
And he said that there are a lot of young people
sitting alone as I speak, scrolling through social media,
wondering whether they will ever truly be accepted
for who they are.
He said that you are heard, you belong.
And what is currently happening in the community,
especially with the Republicans and their anti-bills
regards to transgender community we sat there to encourage one another to get
out and run for office and to get involved and to stand up and speak out
but I also just wanted to recognize that after we had voted I had looked
over to council to Vice Mayor Bowen and you know the the candor reaction of the
facial remark was not appreciated Vice Mayor and I just wanted to call that out.
Thank you. Those are those are my comments. Thank you. So coming to Vice
Mayor Bowen. Sure I'll respond to that and then I'll give my report. I actually
didn't appreciate the candor of your expression to me and how I interpret it.
So we can both feel that way. One of the things that I wanted to share is that I
want to encourage the community to continue to donate to the San Leandro
food pantry especially for recurring donations. They are in need, they are
volunteer run but they do have operational costs that they do need to
fund every month. Alameda County Food Bank is also continuing to look for
donations and to work with your neighbors to become grocery buddies
especially through the schools or through any of the mobile home parks. I'm
working through the organizers there. I'd like to share that I attended the
National League of Cities conference on November 19th to the 22nd and happy to
report that I was elected as the president of the Asian Pacific American
Municipal Officers for 2026 and looking forward to working with leaders across
the country to promote the A&H PI community as well as leadership so that
API leaders and their community members are seen and heard and respected in
their communities. I also attended the East Bay Division League of California
City's Board Director Strategy meeting on December 8th and we went over our
legislative and the discussion of the 2025 legislation about measures as a
review of 2026 priorities of note that I wanted to share that is available as a
recording on the Cal Cities website are changes to the Brown Act which will
impact our city and I would like to give a shout out for the city of San Leandro
for being proactive about translation services and accessibility because that
is a significant piece of that and I imagine that in the new year or at the
next time when we talk about the Brown Act
that we would go over those things
because I know there is a vast amount of changes
that are happening.
And then the last thing that I wanted to share
from November that has been pushed back.
Council received an email from Serena Flores,
an eighth grader at Bancroft Middle School.
And she followed up with me in emailing a concern
about vaping both at the school as well in the community
and asked for help and not just to talk about it
is part of that. She wanted council members to say out loud that teen vaping is a big
problem and shared a message that she wanted me to pass along to the council as well as
to the community. And so I wanted to share that. Now a lot of kids have started to vape
at school way more than you can imagine. Most students get vapes from other students who
buy from stores in San Leandro or contact people, adults, strangers on Instagram. Our
administrators and staff seem really blind to this and don't do a really good job of
handling it. I'm not sure who to talk to about this and I really want to express
what is happening. We must stop stores from selling vapes to minors, educate
children on the dangers of vaping, and openly acknowledge that teen vaping is
a significant problem. I want to share that along to the rest of the council
because I think it is really brave of her to go for or share this her message
and to advocate for it. Thank you both. Coming now to Councilmember Simon. Yes I
wanted to announce and make a comment on an issue of concern. I wanted to thank
staff for staying here to 11 o'clock on a regular basis, professional holding
your composure even though you're tired your facts are still there and it's I
mean you have to experience a lot of uncomfortableness up here and each of
you are all professional and you carry yourselves very well so I just want to
thank you you guys are doing and gals you're doing great thank you okay so
just very quickly I do want to highlight that are in so many different community
events great things happening in the city that are bringing and building
community whether it was our cookies with the cops that happened here whether
it's a wonderful night celebration that occurred downtown the Chamber of
Commerce joined with two other chambers of commerce for a big mixer that took
place. Literally, it was like 200 people attended. In the city of San
Lander, we held a senior prom led by the Lend-A-Hand Foundation to just bring
seniors together at our senior center. Again, a couple, about 200 people were
present for that. I do want to be very grateful for all the Europe interns
that the city has had over the last three years. Interns have done an amazing
job of bringing new perspective to the city
and had the opportunity to spend lunch with them
last week or the week before.
Washington Manor Pickleball family,
I posted about this online.
One of the most interesting things
that came out of their celebration for the holidays,
they did a little toy drive,
but it was just fascinating to hear them talk
about the community that's been built.
Who would have thought that a couple of nets
and some painted lines would turn into family
And people that are coming from around the area,
not just the city of San Leandro.
And they know each other and they care for each other.
When people are sick, they check in with each other.
Also, just wanted to let you know
that I'm out there carrying the flag,
spent some time with Senator Grayson at his holiday party,
spent time with Supervisor Tam at her toy drive,
or at the toy giveaway that happened here in San Leandro,
and with the firefighters at Station 9 for their toy drive.
So lots of things are happening,
and it just feels very uplifting
when we think about all the people
that are working together to make positive change occur.
I do wanna close this meeting
in honor of Isabel Pulvarosa.
Isabel was a long-time community activist,
served on the San Lorenzo Unified School District,
very active in the manner for many years. Most recently, I think, was involved here
at the Altamira house, at a number of Altamira house events and the like. So, I'd like to
take just a few seconds here in memory of Isabel Pulverosa before we close. And so with
That is 10.50 and we are adjourned.