2025 and I am calling to order the board of directors meeting of the San Leandro Hillside Geological Hazard Abatement District.

Madam Clerk, would you please take role at this time of all the directors?

Yes.

If every director would please tap in with our mic.

Councilmember Aguilar.

Director Aguilar.

For a roll call.

There you go.

Present.

Thank you.

Director Azevedo.

Present.

Director Bolt.

Present.

Thank you.

Director Simon.

Present.

Director Viverous Walton.

Present.

Director Bowen present.

And Chair Gonzalez.

Present.

At this point in time, we will move to our action item.

And this is the initiation of proceedings for the dissolution of the San Leo Hillside Geological Hazard Abatement District and the setting of a November 17th, 2025 public hearing date.

At this point in time, I think we have the agent of the district, Erwin Chang, here to present on this topic.

Welcome.

Good evening, GAD board directors, GAD chair, board staff and the public.

My name is Irwin Ching.

I'm an agent for GAD.

It's my pleasure to present to you this evening the initiation of dissolution proceedings for the San Leandro Hillside Geologic Hazard Abatement District or GAD.

Before I begin, I would like to mention that there is a change in slide 10 compared to the presentation that was published last week.

The change was to clarify the steps of the GAD dissolution proceedings.

During my presentation, I will be discussing the background why GAD was formed, the sequence of events that led us to this point, and the next steps.

This defines the boundary of the GAD.

The GAD was formed following the El Niño storms in February 1998, where the storms caused a major landslide on the hillside drive slope.

After the slide, support in the form of grants from FEMA and the state were approved.

However, a separate entity from the city will need to be formed to accept the grant and to manage the repairs on the private property.

This entity is the GAD, which serves as the vehicle to perform these duties.

Subsequently, in 2002, the landslide was repaired using the grant funds.

However, not all the grant funds were expended, and the remaining funds were used by GAD to perform its duties and responsibilities until the winter storm of 2022, when new erosion occurred on the slopes.

The city acting as a limited capacity agent to the GAD hired a contractor to place erosion control measures on the slope.

This depleted the remaining GAD funds.

Note that the property owners were never assessed a levy to increase the funding in the GAD and relied solely on the remaining grant funds to fund the GAD.

The work performed after the winter storm include the following covering slope erosion at two locations within the GAD boundary by placing plastic tarps.

Plastic tarps will prevent the erosion from getting worse, but it's only a temporary measure.

The repairs to the erosion remains incomplete to this day.

The repairs also included reconnecting a private drainage pipe, clear clearing and cleaning of private V ditches, and private storm drain inlets.

The GAD duties and responsibilities are mainly to construct, maintain or repair slopes with potential impact to geologic stability.

However, GAD's responsibilities have limitations.

GAD is not responsible to repair instability outside of the GAD boundary.

GAD also has no responsibility on a single parcel if there is no severe risk of damage to an adjacent parcel.

GAD ceases to exist without available funding, and GAD has no responsibility to act beyond its funding capacity.

When GAD exercises these limitations, the responsibility to maintain and repair damaged slopes will revert to the property owners of the properties where the damages occurred.

After the winter storm of 2022, two surveys were sent out to the 26 property owners with GAD within GAD.

The survey from August 2023 asked all 26 property owners if they are interested in receiving additional information regarding a suggested new assessment levy to fund GAD.

The second survey was sent in July 2024, which polled the property owners if they are if they agree or object to a proposed dissolution of the GAD.

The results of the survey were as follows.

Only seven of the 26 property owners responded to having interest in learning more about a possible assessment levy.

The second survey asking if the property owners will be in favor of or against the GAD dissolution, resulted in less than 50% objecting to the dissolution, with three out of 26 in favor and 13 did not respond.

What are the next steps?

Because of the outcome of the surveys, the staff acting as an agent to GAD is recommending the GAD board to initiate the dissolution proceedings.

By statute, the GAD board will need to determine if it would like to move forward with dissolution through an approved resolution.

If the resolution is approved, a public hearing date will be set and notices will be sent to property owners by city staff acting as an agent to GAD at no later than 30 days prior to the public hearing date.

This will trigger a minimum 30-day protest period for the property owners, and the property owners will be given an opportunity to vote to object to the dissolution of GAD up to and including the time of the public hearing.

The ballots will then be counted after the public hearing is closed and will be based on the weighted assessed value of the real property.

If more than 50% objects to the dissolution, the board will then abandon the dissolution proceedings.

If greater than 50%, the board can move forward with approving the resolution ordering dissolution.

The approval of the resolution ordering dissolution will trigger a second vote and a 90-day period for the property owners to once again take a vote to object to the dissolution.

The 90-day period will end on February 15, 2026, and we'll confirm the GAD decision.

The 90-day period is required by statute when the city council is also acting as the GAD board of directors.

If the results of the ballot objecting to the dissolution, again based on the weighted assessed value of real property, is greater than 50%, then GAD will continue to exist.

Otherwise, it will be dissolved.

It is important to note that if this procedure is followed and GAD dissolution is not approved, then any legal risk to the city would have been mitigated through these actions.

What are the pros and cons?

If GAD is dissolved, this eliminates any GAD risk of exposure to the city.

This further eliminates time, effort, and cost associated with GAD administration.

However, it means that the property owners will no longer receive additional support from GAD and will be responsible for any repair and maintenance of any geologic damage that occurs on their property.

In case and in case of future landslides, there will be no entity available to receive or administer grant funds and to manage a private project.

If GAD is not dissolved, GAD may continue to act as a vehicle to receive future state and FEMA grants.

If property owners agree to be assessed a levy, GAD would continue its functions with available funding.

With GAD existing, procedures can be set for future assessment of a levy.

Since GAD is unfunded, any claims against the city regarding GAD could prompt the city to look to underlying properties of GAD for contribution.

Staff acting as an agent for GAD recommends initiating the dissolution procedures for the San Leandro Hillside Geologic Hazard Abatement District, or GAD, and to set the public hearing date on November 17, 2025 for the proposed dissolution.

This concludes my presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions.

So thank you for your presentation.

Prior to taking questions or engaging in discussion, we will hear from members of the public on what it would like for this board to do.

At this time, no chairperson, there's no speaker cards received, and there are no hands raised on Zoom.

Thank you very much.

At this point in time, we'll close public comment and come back to the board for questions, discussions.

So if you would like to speak, you push the icon.

There we go.

We'll start with council with Director Simon.

Hold on to a second.

Please proceed.

Thank you for the presentation.

In your presentation, the repairs in 2022 or 23 storm, were those completed.

What was installed in a in the after the winter storm of 2022 only was a temporary measure so that the slope erosion uh does not get worse.

However, the repairs uh are still outstanding to this day.

Okay.

Uh could you elaborate on what those repairs are that are outstanding?

So probably uh because there has been no official uh plans that would have been designed how to fix the slope, but it will probably involve uh grading, removing the surface soil, and then keying it into the slope to make it uh less less probable uh to slide again in the future.

Okay, so there are is it safe to say are there known deficiencies on this slope that are have not been repaired?

There are deficiencies on the slope currently.

Okay, and the property owners within GAD, they have been made aware that there are deficiencies on this slope that have not been repaired.

I think in the near future, uh the staff acting as an agent to GAD uh will be notifying the property owners uh about uh the removal of the TARP and uh informing them also uh that uh it's now their responsibility to uh install TARP to protect the slope and also to repair uh the slope, uh slope slide.

Okay, so when they the survey was sent out to them if they want to dissolve this or not, were would they have known that there's more work to be done on the slope?

Um it was noted in the letter that was sent to them.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

And then how am I doing on time?

Okay, as far as staff time when this GAD was developed, was that staff time charged back to the GAD and paid for?

Not the staff time, uh it was the contract of the contractor who placed the temporary TARP uh was charged uh to the GAD, depleting the funds.

Okay, I have a wait to comments or comments now.

Keep going.

Okay, so I I would agree dissolving it if it reduces the city liability is a good thing because it sounds like there is liability out there if there's known deficiencies on that slope.

How well and the other side of it is more staff time will be necessary to reform the GAD, potentially if it fails again and we have to start this process all over again.

That's that's the other side of it.

So my question to city attorney or city manager, is there a way to mitigate our risk if if the GAD stayed in place?

Is there a way to indemnify ourselves somehow?

Just to keep it as a vehicle to accept funds from a grant.

So we are uh this action this evening, director and directors is part of that mitigation process, that legal mitigation to obviously create a clear demarcation of uh responsibility between the GAD and any other entity that may have been involved in working on the private property.

The city was serving as an agent of the GAD, performed all the work that the GAD had contracted or had been the response the responsibility of the GAD to do with the funding that it had.

And so uh we are proceeding right now and in this process, continuing on with all the legal risk mitigation that we're able to do.

If the GAD is not dissolved, then we will clearly make uh notices to the uh 26 property owners about these are your responsibilities.

The GAD is unfunded, you have a GAD agreement.

Uh the city was acting as an agent of the GAD, the city does not operate on private property, and so responsibility for maintaining the slopes is on the private property owners.

All of that will be conveyed, it has been conveyed and will continue to be conveyed.

At this point in time, I will go to Director Rivetus Walton, please.

Thank you for your time and for your presentation.

I was um I did want to ask in terms of uh if a property changes hands, is it required for the GAD to be part of the disclosures?

If the property changes hands, I'm just concerned that there are people that may have lived there on the first slide and are aware of the GAD, but then if the property changed hands, I'm concerned that those folks don't understand the context.

Do we know if this is part of disclosures?

I'm not aware.

So um I look to city engineer, but it is my understanding that the GAD plan is a recorded, is recorded on the property.

So it would be part of any title report or title search.

Okay, that it exists within a district that that's record notice.

Um city engineer may have more information.

Hi, good uh good evening.

Uh, Jason, my city engineer acting on behalf of the GAD.

Uh that is correct.

I'll um confirm what uh city attorney Rich Pierota said.

Uh so like any other assessment district, it's recorded against the land.

Uh so anytime the land transfers, it is it it runs with the land.

It will show up on a disclosure or the title report saying that this property is part of this assessment district.

Thank you for that.

Um, in addition to the regular process that we're legally bound to do as directors of GAD, I think I would also like to suggest to have a virtual meeting with people in Baya Vista.

I think the presentation was very useful.

I am looking at the property owner notice.

Um it does not provide as much context as I think would be useful for people to understand and to know what's happening.

Um I'm happy to provide um to work with the Bay of Vista community, specifically with the property owners, um, but I I think I think we would benefit from having uh an opportunity to relay this information outside of the notice that people may have received, um, because I, as I'm reading it, I now know what it means within the context of the presentation.

So I don't know if that's something that we need to provide direction to do before November 17th.

So I just want to clarify.

I believe that they will receive a notice about the dissolution.

Will that include the clarification of what it means for this to be resolved?

Uh yes, it would.

Uh it would uh let them know that uh they need they will need to vote uh up up to the date and time of the public hearing uh to dissolve the GAD.

Uh I'm sorry to interrupt, but will there be some of the pros and cons and the the robustness of what we have here today?

We we could uh we could make the notice uh to be more detailed to inform them if that is the direction.

And I will include the attorney as agent for the district.

Uh yes, council.

I'm sorry, Director of Verse Walton.

What we can uh we've already talked somewhat about what additional information we can include in the notice.

I want to be clear that the first part is they have to register a protest to the dissolution.

It's not actually voting just yet, it's just a road registering protest.

Uh but to your second question about what the directors can do.

Um, I'll look to city engineers, not a problem for us to include as much information, links, links to this presentation, things like that.

That's I think that was already contemplated in the draft.

Updated draft notice.

We can do that.

Great.

I think that would be a good middle ground instead of hosting a meeting, but providing more context.

Um link to the presentation and the recording would also be useful.

Um, and then after this question, I will go to director as veto.

Okay, I'll the rest is comments, so I'll get up.

Uh Director Azevito, please.

Thank you for your presentation.

I was on the recommend facilities and transportation meeting and already asked some questions, but I have some more.

Excuse me, I'm losing my voice.

Um, has there been discussion with GAD about um them paying like a certain amount property tax or something where they can pay towards it instead of since they don't have the funding through a grant?

Um so the there was discussion on uh prop 218 uh that's the uh proposition that uh would levy a tax onto the property owners, uh but not very extensively.

Uh the first survey that was sent was was to invite them to learn more about uh the assessment of a levy.

Okay, can we go back to the slide where it had um how many the how many respondents of the homeowners?

Because I believe there was 13.

Okay, seven of them out of the 26 responded positive.

13 of them was it I think it was another slide where it says 13 of them didn't respond.

So half of them didn't even respond.

So we we should yeah, make sure that they know what's going on because they might not even know what's going on right now.

Right.

Okay, that's all my comments.

Thank you.

Okay, at this point in time we've had some discussion, some questions, some exploration.

Is there a motion to adopt staff's recommendation?

Director Aguilar.

So moved.

So I have a motion from Director Aguilar, and I've got coming next to Director Bowen.

I will second that.

Okay, directors.

Having had discussion questions, presentation, and public comment, we have a motion and a second to adopt staff's recommendation.

Please vote.

All votes are in.

Uh council member Bolt, may we have your vote?

Yes.

Thank you.

On the motion to adopt all votes are ayes.

Thank you, madam clerk.

And just to be very, very, very, very clear in our language.

The presentation began with a slide that said City of San Leandro, that city of San Leandro as an agent for the hazard abatement district.

And in my words to agree on the motion, we're accepting staff's recommendation as an agent for the hazard abasement district.

That all being said, I think we are done with our business on this meeting of the board of directors.

The time let's see, I do not see you.

Here we go.

Director Viveros Walton, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I just wanted to um uh it's more of a technical thing on the noticing on the meeting central.

Um, in order for um anyone to see this meeting, you have to, because it's not a meeting of the city council.

If people are tracking meetings of the city council, this meeting did not come up.

You have to go to meeting central and make sure that it put in all meetings.

So is it possible to the public won't know that this is, I think it's an unreasonable as for people to if they're searching for meetings of the council, they would assume that this is that.

Is there a way that it would appear under all the classification so that it appears on meeting central?

So I'm just going to clarify and see if this is what you have in mind.

If you have not filtered city council, but you just go to meeting central and you search for the geological hazard abatement district.

No, you have to search for all meetings.

That's what I said.

If you're unfiltered, right, so that you haven't subset.

So you're just looking through all the meetings, and you search for that meeting for just G H A D or Geological Hazard Abatement District, I believe you will find it.

Right, as a search, you'd have to search for that.

You could alternatively, if you're looking through scheduled meetings, if you're just tracking meetings under today's meeting, you will see it.

If you don't have any filter, right.

Because it is not a meeting of the San Leandro City Council.

So we have to be very careful to keep that distinction separate.

Would you would you have a suggestion in mind?

Maybe in the um in the noticing that if people want to search for it to make sure that they search for that term.

So if I'm understanding, Quinn, when we send out notice to the home, the property owners, and any others that we communicate with to just put a little indicator of hey, keep tune, keep attuned by searching for this in meeting central.

Or whatever instructions it is for people to look.

I'm just saying I had a hard time finding it, and I am familiar with the platform.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Is there anything that you would like to add or explore city manager?

Just for clarity, Councilman Riveras Walton, when you went into without searching, like putting in any search terms, if you went to 2025 all committee, you're saying you didn't see it.

No, that's not what I said.

If a person is tracking meetings of the city council, most people would assume that this is a meeting of the city council.

I know it's not, but that's what the public I would assume that they were searching for this meeting, they would go to city council.

So I think it's just making sure that people know that it when they go to meeting central to search some instruction there so that they know that they have to go to all.

Thank you.

I think that just to be clear for our record, um, and I'll see if I see any objection from council members, but the the general consensus would be as we communicate with the public, can we let them know that they can track our discussions on this topic by searching meeting central and looking for the geological hazard abatement district?

Okay, perfect.

So with that, and thank you for that comment, director.

We are at 701 and we are adjourned.