Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

December 15th, it is 7 p.m.

I will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand if you're able to, and please join.

I pledge to the five of the United States of America

and to the recovery of the religious states,

one nation under God, indivisible,

liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, would you please take roll?

Council Member Viveros Walton.

Present.

Council Member Azevedo is absent.

Councilmember Aguilar.

Present.

Councilmember Simon.

Present.

Vice Mayor Bowen.

Present.

Councilmember Bolt.

Here.

And Mayor Gonzalez.

Present.

The City of San Orlando 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 Pre-Ellant Code Sections 403 or 415,

are per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated.

Please see the City Council Handbook and City Council Meeting Rules of 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 are present at the meeting, please complete a speaker card

and submit it to the City Clerk before the item is presented.

If you wish to participate in public comment via Zoom,

you can use the raise your hand tool when the item is called.

During the public comment session, speakers will be invited to speak

and will have a set time to share their comments.

A countdown timer will appear for their convenience,

and when 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 meeting's 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 three, is there a report on closed session?

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.

Would any councilman 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 going to 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.

Ginny Madsen.

So my name's Ginny 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 7%, 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, 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 Spalding. Thank you so much. Courage to Ginny

Madsen 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 5F, which earmarks nearly $2.2

million in homelessness grants. This is really the best of what we do as a city. This is an

identified priority addressing homelessness. 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 financial contortions,

I think we should look to see where there may be some fat. And I'm looking at about $400,000 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 give them more money, then maybe what we need to do is increase the green fees there.

So 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 and tactical camera balls.

I think these are just toys that our police department 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 so we cost less than $175,000?

And then there's a few things maybe we can dip our money from.

I don't know if they're restricted.

Thank you, sir. Your time has elapsed.

The next speaker on Zoom is Randall.

Randall are you there? Yes. Do you hear me now? Yes. Okay great. My understanding that city of St.

Landau has a budget problem. I want to point out that this rent control issue,

retailers reviewing cities to locate their next door. So I'm going to ask you to pause for just

a second and i want to confirm are you speaking on the agenda item consent calendar or are you

speaking on rent control rent control okay that will come up in two items we'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

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

Council Member Simon.

So I've got a motion from Council Member Aguilar

with a second from Council Member Simon.

Seeing no further discussion, please vote.

All votes are in.

And the motion carries with six yeses.

Council Member Azevedo absent.

Okay, at this point in time for item number six, I do not believe we have any reports,

but I'll look left and right and confirm.

Seeing none, we will proceed to public comment.

This is the time for the public to 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 Nawal 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 was damage. And there were other

instances as well. So our property is on Cascade and Tudor Road. It's an intersection.

There's obviously a faulty design. When incidents, when the prior incident happened where the

young woman in the motorcycle hit our property and there was property damage consequentially,

we did reach out to traffic engineering to please 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 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.

So just to be clear,

we don't go back and forth,

but I will inform you that Sheila Marquisis

from Public Works.

We'll be connecting with you.

You can meet her in the back corner there.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mason Rashad,

followed by Rob Rich,

then Stephen Ha, or Stephen H.

Good evening, City Council, City Manager.

Yeah, I'm Mason Rashad.

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 Subaru, 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, you know, everyone says, well, it's your neighbors that are hidden.

Not necessarily.

And even if they are and this last guy was our neighbor, you know,

something's wrong with that intersection.

I mean, if a neighbor can hit a car that's parked, right,

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 than 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, you know, 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.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speakers are Rob Rich, followed by Stephen 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 Dalia, 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, cancelling 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 million people. So it's hard to tune in and listen to

the dysfunction of the city council. It's really been very hard listening to your meetings.

And I, you know, you struggle to get through meetings and the distrust is so heavy. It's just,

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 see there are lots of organizations that provide this service.

Circle Up Center dot org, Polack Peace Building, Mediators Beyond Borders, maybe that's international.

I mean, it's just on and on.

Advoz, 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.

Move on to our next agenda item, our public hearing.

We don't have any scheduled today, so then we move to our presentation.

Our sole presentation today is proposed 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've 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.

We're gonna 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 a proposed rent registry and rent stabilization budget

and 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 percent or lower of 65 percent CPI.

Your guidance included no capital improvements pass-through,

property owners to use the fair return process,

no banking, no exemptions for small rental properties,

and maintaining the exemption for golden duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units.

So again, I'm going to begin first.

And one of the things we started with last in October, too, is to show now that as this potentially proceeds, both rent stabilization and rent registry 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 you'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 going to be coming back with you with more refinements,

is a range of a general fund loan of about 1.3 on the 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 going to 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 rent registry to pull out maybe some of the partially regulated units particularly

the single family homes and the again the cost of hawking units that really would not be regulated

but really would be time intensive to monitor to the registry there would be just focused on

the rent stabilization units which is estimated about 65 to 75 7600 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 a 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 stabilization.

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 kind of played around different modeling scenarios there.

We've also, again, this will be subject to change, and we're going to bring forward the final fee study for the program, probably in about a month and a half or two.

But we had this kind of just show you and all the public what the range of the cost per unit would be.

So if we're fully regulated for now, and again, subject to change, it could be $250 to $300 per unit.

this would be sort of a staff intensive program as we've mentioned over the

months or so or the years talking about this and then the partial regulated

which could fall between 125 to 175 dollars 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 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

program or salaries, benefits, and indirect service costs, but also services that come with the program.

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, where we're looking at potentially 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.

Just 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 late

penalty enforcement, the quicker you can have the short term, a shorter term payback.

Same with the lien.

If we impose more of a stronger 100% 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 us through the first year or two, and that could be repaid

back within three to six years. And then again, that payback period, as I noted on the prior table,

It 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, the reason why we suggested a loan 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, 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 a full cost recovery, particularly of the general fund loan potentially.

So I'm going to 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 was 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 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, 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 AP 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 would 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 3 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 3 to 3.75% per year direction in October versus the lower of 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 would be trying to move to get the first reading of the rent stabilization ordinance to you all on January 12th in the new year.

Just FYI, our housing staff led by Housing Manager Carrie Hussler and her team are working very hard to potentially bring in the rent registry software vendor.

That would probably be coming to you all 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.

so thank you for your presentation we'll begin with questions please clarify questions only

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 want to 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 like the 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 it will you'll hear public comments and you'll take in that feedback so um so

we know we would come back um with probably more refined budget probably in february march when

we're looking to get a fee study done depending on the direction you give us tonight um that you're

that's the 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 um and then and a fee

study would have been included um for any of those options right but um the one that we presented as

the enhanced option both the rent registry plus potential draft rent civilization um is the one

that we are going to move forward with unless we hear otherwise okay got it unless you hear otherwise

Got it. Okay.

Council member, are you at it, please?

Thank you, Mayor Gonzalez.

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 when we pass civilian police oversight, there were grants available.

Is that something with regards to the rent 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 lower income.

So take a CDBG.

So that's one reason why in the past we have not applied CDBG to the rent review program, because rent review program really we want to keep it open to all renters.

You know, so it's a challenge when this program would affect all renters.

So and so finding an income, you know, most state federal grants are sort of income based or income need based.

Gotcha. Okay, thank you, Tom.

And can you define what golden duplex means?

Yeah, again, that would be a duplex, a two-unit property where the owner lives in one of the units.

Gotcha.

And rents out the other.

Okay, those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member, we go to Swalton, 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 row.

So if I'm hearing correctly, the six FTE, that already includes two FTEs for rent registry, correct?

So it's not six plus the two for rent registry, just to be extra clear.

um so in terms so now kind of let's double click on that and go one more layer

uh so the then that means it would be four ftes for rent for 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 um now if

depending on the forwarding of the ordinance and adoption of the rent stabilization um you're

these merged programs um right you're going to see the staff be doing kind of both um you know

trying to probably monitor for the rent registry but also implementing administering the rent

stabilization so there'll be kind of both activities but i think in this more effective

model, enhanced model, you're probably see a little bit more of a hierarchy too. So again,

generally we're still refining it, but you would probably see somebody who's going to be at the

program manager level, and then you might even have an admin support. And then you'd have four

others that are going to be sort of specialists, so to speak, at different skill levels,

come from a management to a senior analyst to like a specialist level. So kind of that sort

of tiering 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 just go through that one more time?

Sure. And I could start. Actually, I might even just have our assistant director, Avalon Schultz, 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 more time and more resources.

And so the fees vary depending on the effort involved in those 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 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 um i think right now that we have space for the two for the rent registry

um i know with the recent move the school district i know there may be a look at city hall

so but we are also wanting to be prepared to explain that there might be a need to

uh there's a good chance there'll be a need to potentially lease space

outside of this building unless yeah 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 seven,

for the challenges budget implications for new run.

No, sorry.

I'm on the wrong page on mine 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 7 I was right sorry for the 15 million the city

departments are preparing for a 50 million dollar mid-cycle budget cut I

know we've had conversations up here and and and with staff about this the 1.3 to

2.5 million dollars for the program that is not included in the 50 million

dollar mid-cycle budget cut correct i mean i have the finance director nicole gonzalez come up

thank you for the question that is correct uh 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 up to $17.5 million from the budget?

If it was authorized in fiscal year 2027, 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 to we as part of this program we are

creating a new fund that's specific to the rent program the idea again is a 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 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 the mobile home rent ordinance it's who

What full-time employee then works on additional,

like the next, let's say,

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, you know, 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 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.

You mean overlap with, I guess it really depends on what kind of changes we have to make to the mobile home ordinance too.

But yeah.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Simon, please.

Yes, question or clarification questions on the staffing and program cost considerations as well.

Considering the lease furnishings 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, you know, we may not be able to hire everybody all at once, you know, at the six person.

And 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, you know, even if this is going to be an ongoing city program, I 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 the need to and talking to other cities too we did explore in

talking to other cities how they explored that and their consensus was oftentimes no 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

thank you we will come back to council mario to swarton i thank you i i'm actually looking for a

clarification on the budget um so um i'll save my comment but i'll frame this as 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 gap that we are all solving for. But when we look at

the blue row on slide eight, 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 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 dollar 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 want to 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?

$648,000.

So $650,000 for the sake of rounding numbers.

So I just want to be clear that that's really where we are in terms of numbers, correct?

Okay.

But one, I just want to 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 to be really, really precise.

Your point is very well taken,

but just so that there's not later surprise by the public.

Okay.

Okay, so coming back to Council Member Bolt.

I'm not done yet.

Okay, please proceed.

Thank you.

So I have a question regarding the,

I don't want to be redundant,

the basis for putting in the base rent at 2026 versus the current fiscal in the 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 you know it's hard to keep track of it

it's hard to you 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 an effective date of,

do you know it off the top of your head?

January 1 of 2027.

Okay.

So just to be clear,

there's no legal it's purely keeping it administratively clean correct okay so but

there's just 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 rent

wasn't appropriate.

The fair return standard

isn't appropriate for that particular year,

but in general,

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 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 it's let's just say the 2.2 the max uh one-time

startup do you like is there a way if if we're going to spread this out over a couple years of

repayment you couldn't even get started without 2.2 million like what if we spread out you know

$500,000 a year as we went forward, or is that like a no-go?

Instead of like 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, hey, look, we're going to have a $750 here, we're

going to have a 1.1 here.

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 um it it wouldn't the program wouldn't function

if a small amount was provided over time because as director leal mentioned the cost 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 going to have to come back and 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 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 we're 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 customer Valston for following up I just had just

to confirm so I understand these numbers going forward because I know it's going

to be an important part of a lot of conversations that have been coming up

minus the 675 that has already been allocated for the rent registry 650 okay

I heard 675 so 650 then 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 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 this 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?

I 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

the ability to enforce would be lower.

So we've got the startup loan of some number,

perhaps as much as $2.2 million.

What is the operating?

So this thing is running, it's just all in place,

it's operating each year, what is the cost?

For the full model?

Yeah, so I mean you can 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 option, that's passive enforcement.

As Director Leao 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 as the last enhanced enforcement

is proactive enforcement,

really going out and looking for all the bells and whistles.

Partial, full, right.

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

and were 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.

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,

and 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

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 in 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.

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 are raised online?

Presently four.

Okay, if you are online, please raise your hand

because we're going to count you off

and 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 going to do is we're going to 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 Spaulding, John Mina 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 going to 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.

My name is Richard Becker.

I'm asking

to be full of friends.

Okay.

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 Leandro 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 rent stabilization 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 governance for the citizens who voted down into office.

I would also like to make my own.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Douglas Spaulding.

Part of the stress I'm feeling is this game of chutes and ladders that the rent stabilization ordinance has become.

You, the council, took an important step up the first rung of 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.

So 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, a 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.

Oh, 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 three hundred thirty six thousand 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 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 Meadows-Schwartz.

Hi, good evening. I want to thank the council for moving 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 – well, emphasize that if we are able to turn things around for housing production and meet our regional housing needs assessment goals of 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 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 Mayna Young.

Hi, my name is Mayna Young.

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.

line. 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

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 four percent without any risk.

OK, 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 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 going to develop.

Thank you. Your time is up.

Mayor, that concludes the four hands raised.

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 chunchi ma

I don't want to take up too much time.

I got it. I got it. I don't want to take up too much of your time tonight. 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 3%.

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 are landlords who are already trying to figure out how they are not

going to allow themselves to be registered. But I know people who rent now who have been told by

their landlords for the last 10 years, if anybody asks, tell them you're my wife, tell them you're

my aunt tell him you're my sister this is a standard operating procedure but i do not believe

that this is going to affect any mom and pop's 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 that's not going

to bring them any income either so um please listen to people like richard becker i 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 have been joined by Council Member 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 before the date starts.

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 landlords.

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 if the staff could come up with that, it would be very, very helpful 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 2% 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 two percent 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 there's 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 Changi Ma, housing provider in San Diego and a member of BOM.

Two data points to share tonight.

My own rentals data.

Our rent has been flat for the last couple of years due to a soft rental market in Alameda,

a few hundred dollars below market level, but very challenging operation environment.

Starting from 2022 to 2024, 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 want it 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 $2 million a year.

Fast forward to 2025, basically less than 10 years later.

They are charging $137 a door to bring in $30 million for running their rent control program.

The cost increase work out to compounding 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.

ballooning city's budget deficit that you guys are facing

race 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.

Now, during June, you passed a budget that included cutting sitting staff, eliminating vacant positions, cutting public works, libraries, recreations, human services, and community development.

In that budget, you also stated 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 policymakers 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 sukhija

hello my name is chris tipton i'm with the east bay rental housing association

our goal is not only to educate housing providers and 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, an 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 a two-bedroom is $2,282 a month. Let's say $2,300

a month for an apartment. To someone, that may seem like a lot. 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 laterals, 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're already at

about $1,800 a month.

We haven't even included if you've got a mortgage.

Mortgage costs probably about $1,500 for a two-bedroom unit.

So if the bedroom unit is rented for $2,300 a month,

and my real-world expenses are $3,300 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 registry

and these additional fees to run this program

that you'll be charging owners for.

60% of CBI is only 0.8% right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your time has elapsed.

The next speakers are Anthony Adesi, Sandeep Sukija, 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.

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 Zoukija, John Sullivan, and Jennifer Rizzo.

Hello, Council members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening.

My name is Sandeep Sukhija, and I do not live in the city of San Leandro.

I own one fourplex and one triplex in this city for the last five years,

so I am 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 soaring 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 Chuyut Leung.

Good evening, Mayor Gonzalez and the City Council members.

I'm John Sullivan, been a housing provider here in San Leandro for the last over 50 years, really,

covering some of the 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.

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, well in excess of $20,000 per unit.

That invitation is still open, by the way, and we could review contracts and invoices and so forth.

But it's money well spent, a positive cost really to our city, creating top-notch, like-new units right here in San Leandro, not in Stockton or Manteca.

So to finish up, to do this, our budgeting was built around our state rent regulations.

So please, I sincerely ask you, keep any restrictions at that level, or at least at the 5% level.

If we can't continue to do this upgrading work, our apartment, our stock will decline just because of age.

And that will cause a blight, a downturn to our vibrance and the other neighborhoods.

So please don't let that happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Jennifer Rizzo, followed by Chiyu Lian, followed by Emily Rich.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Rizzo, and I'm 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 allows it 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 in 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 in San Leandro.

I provide, 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

the rental market in San Leandro 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's 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 $300,000 to $700,000 startup savings, but you would be buying a pig and 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% of CPI or 3% of current rent, whichever is less.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Deborah Acosta, followed by Derek Barnes, then Emily Grego.

Deborah Acosta, League of San Leandro Voters and Mission Bay Residents 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, Tom, which is 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 Grego, Mike McGuire.

Good evening, council members and mayor.

This is Derek Barnes with East Bay Rental 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 want 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 suggest that there are 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 way that we can bring rental housing back into the market.

Thank you.

The next speakers are Emily Grego 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.

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 Chibau and Las Placitas.

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 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 pay 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'm 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.

Their landlords just wanted more.

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 further questions,

discussions, and guidance.

We will begin with Council Member Revitas 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. Great question. I think part of the confusion is because in the mobile home rent control ordinance that the city has, we use both terms and they mean different things in 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 you're 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 did used to allow those sort of capital repairs of, you know,

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 i'm fully understanding that

i understand that there's an administrative burden here but we have the staff to support it

and would like to discourage um would like to discourage spiking rent to ensure that you

you know folks are that the 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 6-FTE proposal,

which includes both rent stabilization folks and rent registry startup 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 the fee part but

that's I think part of it is going to come back to us next 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 we're almost there so i'm i'm hopeful and with that i'll yield my time back to the chair

councilmember regular please uh thank you mayor gonzalez and thank you staff for you know i know

this has been a lot of work um your hard work is appreciated and you know we're finally moving

along as many, many years of advocacy and generation of council members who have been

advocating to finally get this through to fruition.

I think we have heard from some of the public with regards to giving 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 2020 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 um when civilization has enhanced enforcement options which is estimated

to be 1.3 to 2.2 million um i i think uh 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 um but i think uh

mayor are we looking for an action a motion on this right now we'll just take everybody's

commentary and then we'll come back for a motion or for to build some sort of

consensus explicitly. Gotcha. Okay. That's my, 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, 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 need at this

time.

Okay.

Okay, I agree with them.

So let us move on, we'll close this item.

Okay, so we've closed this item, we're moving to item 10A.

It was guidance.

There were four people, or three people, I agreed.

That bill's, that's 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.

City Manager, would you please read it?

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Rivera's Walton.

So what I have here is 3% 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 aside and moving to 10A.

So for this item, we have 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.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go ahead and reassemble.

Okay, it is nine o'clock and we are reassembling.

We have a 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 1 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 the

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 Councilmember Aguilar abstained,

Councilmember Azevedo no,

Councilmember Bolt yes,

Vice Mayor Bowen absent,

Councilmember Simon abstained,

Councilmember 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,

And 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 the council can discuss.

we consider 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 a

two-step process if people want to waive the privilege on the document which are

a number of us had the opportunity to look at physically if they're willing to

weigh 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

correct legally that is accurate yes seeing no questions I'm gonna go to

public comment on this item

Mayor, 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 distrust 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

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 percent in just one year. Today,

only 40.6 percent 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...

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 Spalding.

I'm a little confused by the previous speaker because of course transparency is political.

In the case of the administrative investigation concerning Councilwoman Bowen's complaints, the city does not want to release the information. Why? Because it disadvantages them in their litigation with former city manager Fran Robusteli.

In this case, transparency means the information will be used by a citizen's committee to figure out an electoral strategy in order to pass the so-called citizen's bond or parcel tax measure.

So, you know, let's be clear about the interests in the room.

Um, I actually would like to see the administrative investigation released, and I don't mind the, uh, the, the survey on revenue bond being released, uh, with, with a couple of caveats.

The first is that, you know, like a lot of surveys I do online or engagements I have with, uh, with entities, uh, you know, I always check the box.

I do not want my information shared.

And when I took the survey on the revenue measured, I assumed the 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 Leandro who might well feel the same because we have a privacy interest.

interest. My other interest is, you know, 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 has elapsed.

The next speakers are Gwendolyn Olson.

Hi, my name is Gwen Olson, and I'm here to ask you not to waive the attorney-client

privilege of the survey results. It's not a matter of government transparency, as Kat has said. It's

matter of preserving information for city use, not for sharing it with the mayor's wife and the

citizens bond committee for their own competing revenue measure and 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 l'ander 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 bond 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 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 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 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 there.

So we wouldn't know somebody's name, someone's address.

There's no personally identifiable names.

It's all aggregated information.

Correct.

And anonymized.

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.

Council member Azevedo, may we have your vote?

No.

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 no's with Councilmember Aguilar

voting no, Azevedo voting no, Vice Mayor Bowen voting yes, Councilmember Bolt voting yes,

Council member Simon voting yes, council member Riveros Walton voting yes, and mayor Gonzalez

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.

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 proceed city attorney

thank you councilman simon thank you mayor uh 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 deterrent cleaverage 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 citizen's initiative.

This is strictly a limited waiver of a document

that the council held attorney-client privilege upon.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Rivera-Sewalton.

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, I 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.

we define when we say that it is is it the actual survey or is it a draft of

is a draft survey and the reason why I'm asking is because I want to understand

because I'm sure there was robust discussion about this at the meeting

that I was not at the rationale behind releasing this particular document and

and if that rationale will be applied to all similar documents going forward as it relates to

cities our city paying for surveys

so the initial interest came from myself and from councilman riveras walton to have this released

and so i'll go to you council member if you would like to address that or i'm happy to address it

please proceed um 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 a 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 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 going to go to city attorney for that question

thank you mayor first it's my understanding and i'll look to deputy city manager eric engelbar

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

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 recall 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 CISO efforts

and instead directed us to continue

the exploration of a revenue measure,

it's hypothetically possible that the document

could have been finalized as to whether or not

where it would have gone at that point.

It's a hypothetical.

Okay.

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.

A lot of them, you know,

I have been part now of other organizations

that do do surveys to try to understand

if there's an appetite for it.

And I have received information in staff reports

of the findings I am not sure about whether or not the actual 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, Vice Mayor, for your question. I can share that there

are a variety of examples from various jurisdictions. I'm aware of some jurisdictions

that have released that information, comparable information, and other jurisdictions that have not.

Okay, thank you.

I'll go to Council Member Bolt next.

Second.

Is there any other discussion on this item?

Seeing none, please vote.

And to be clear, this is a motion to release,

to waive the attorney-client privilege

on this specific document.

to pass the resolution thank you council member azevedo your vote please no thank you

All votes are in. The motion passes with five yeses, two noes. Council member Vivrose Walton

voting yes, council member Aguilar voting no, council member Simon voting yes, Vice Mayor

Bowen voting yes, council member 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 10b 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 305H 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 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 Azevedo, no.

Councilmember Bolt, abstain.

Vice Mayor Bowen, absent.

Councilmember Simon, yes.

Councilmember Viveros Walton, yes.

Mayor Gonzalez, no.

So the action this evening is, again,

to vote on the mayor's motion to reconsider that 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 Council Member Aguilar.

Thank you, Rich, for that explanation.

And 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 vote 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 going to 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 that's two-step process okay

those are my questions thank you council member uh bolt please

i'd like us to take the vote on the mayor's motion to reconsider

So that would be your motion. 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 going to 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.

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 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 waiving 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 going to go to public comment on this item 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 Spaulding, you're the first speaker

Thank you, 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, given everything else that's been discussed tonight, it seems clear

the city needs money, it occurs to me

wow, what could the city raise with a revenue bond, well maybe 2.5 million

to support a rent stabilization ordinance.

The $3 million from Neptune Drive.

There's a lot of things that are in the wind.

So I have to assume when a council member votes no or abstains,

either they are not thinking along the same lines as I

that the city does need money,

or it's an automatic,

Olay, we're not going to do a revenue bond as a city. Let's just 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. Grego that the previous bond survey will also be helpful.

But, you know, we're in a slightly different 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 zoom close public comment and come back

into the chambers for discussion i interpret council member 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 it's an automatic perfect thank you

then let's just proceed to a vote

council member azevedo your vote please no thank you

All votes are in.

The motion carries with six yes votes and one no vote.

Councilmember Riveros Walton voting yes.

Councilmember Aguilar voting yes.

Councilmember Simon voting yes.

Vice Mayor Bowen voting yes.

Council Member Bolt voting yes.

Mayor Gonzalez voting yes.

And Council Member Azevedo 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 a revenue measure and the work

that would be associated with that.

And if I remember correctly, city manager,

I believe there was $92,000 already budgeted before

that would be spent as the first phase of that.

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 26 ballot,

including a consulting service agreement with Clifford Moss for outreach and survey work to consider feasibility.

That's my motion.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bolt.

Yes, and as we were, 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 going to 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 $400,000 after this.

So I just 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 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 going to 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 uh mayor um 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? Do you want us to continue?

And there's nothing that says that we have to do all of those things,

all of those steps, more survey work, outreach, all of these things.

At any point we could say, we're out.

And so it will offer council a number of times that we will bring items

to discuss for your all consideration,

and then we can proceed as to, you know,

whichever direction that counsel feels appropriate at the time.

Okay.

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 Aguilar's motion before really getting into

discussion on the motion.

So I'm going to go next to Council Member Viveros-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 it on to somebody else?

Yeah, just briefly.

I am supportive of continuing 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 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 um yeah so i'll leave that there i i would like to include if the maker of the motion

is amenable to to this is to include um releasing attorney claim privilege to ensure that

we're able to release a summary of this report um so that folks um the public can understand

have a better understanding of where we all stand in terms of prioritizing city services and city

infrastructure um also but i'll 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 council member aguilar thank you and in

In order to not indemnify the city, I would respectfully decline.

Okay.

Going back to Council Member Bolt.

Spadey just said it very eloquently, much better than I could.

So, I mean, 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.

um um i have a i think since the very first priority setting

uh budget workshop that we attended when i was first um 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 ninety two thousand dollars we've allocated to it because I know that even

ninety two thousand dollars considering how much we 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 then 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 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 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

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 I you know

Hayward has their measure that focused their sales tax on roads and public

safety Emeryville has one on public safety and childcare 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

when 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 Council Member 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'm fully supportive of that and i look at it as an investment

the 92 000 i think is 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 of or waiver of information excuse me now the previous item

that we discussed, it sounded like there's draft information that 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 I needed a little bit of clarification on what you stated

the information that was that privilege was just waived 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

of council are 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, two 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 make the decision. Is that still the same?

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 posed

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

on 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 that particular type of data and no other 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 information, again, paid for by the city.

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 from a liability exposure

or risk exposure for the city council to release that information

that its own consultant had prepared.

Thank you.

I think you've both spoken already is that correct okay so I'm just going to come down the line

so starting with Bolt councilmember Bolt 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 uh 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 clear, Mr. Motionmaker?

Yes, that is clear. But I would respectfully decline.

Council Member Vero Swalton.

I'd like to make a substitute motion.

Do I have to withdraw my second?

Or 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.

Correct.

No, because 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 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 that we release attorney

client 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. You said release

attorney client privilege. I'd like to use the word waive attorney client privilege. 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 we've got a motion as read into the record with a second.

Is there any further discussion at this time?

Okay.

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 going to 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 a 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.

Correct.

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 stated 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 going to 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 to continue or we said we just wanted to consider continuing it once we actually got the budget?

Which time? I'm confused.

Why we saw it again last month.

So why you saw it again?

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 at that point, I said, OK, I can come back later once we know how we close 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, we 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 eight of the last presentation shows that the estimated cost could be somewhere between 300 to $600,000 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 that council has to make today.

Right.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Seeing no further questions or comments, I will be voting yes on this measure.

With that, please vote.

We already talked about it.

Yeah.

So is there further discussion?

Councilmember Aguilar.

Thank you, Mayor.

I would support 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 Mayor, another piece, please.

Yes, I just wanted to, I am 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 and again I

just have it yeah I'm just I just wanted 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 2

thirds, but others would only require 50%.

So for instance, a utility user's tax

would only require 50% or there's

any of a variety of things.

And 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 mayor if I may yes before we vote for the record

if I could please ask the seconder of the motion of the substitute motion the

seconder is councilmore bold thank you thank you it's good to have a clear

record and I appreciate that. Council member Azevedo may we have your vote? No. Thank you.

All votes are in.

The motion carries with four yes votes and three no votes.

Councilmember Bolt voting yes.

Mayor Gonzalez voting yes.

Councilmember Viveros Walton voting yes.

Councilmember Aguilar voting no.

Councilmember Simon voting yes.

Vice Mayor Bowen voting no and Councilmember Azevedo voting no.

So at this point in time, 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 to motion to extend our time to 10 15.

okay 10 15 council member if we go to swalton second second so please vote

council member azevedo your vote please

aye

thank you

all votes are in the motion passes unanimously with council members bowen aguilar simon

rose walton bold azevedo voting yes and mayor gonzalez voting yes

at this point in time council members simon would you please proceed

Sorry about that.

Please proceed.

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 used 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 in internal investigations.

Okay, hold on just a second.

Okay, so do I have a second for that motion?

Council Member Aguilar.

Thank you, Mayor Gonzalez, I'll second.

Okay, so I have a motion and a second.

Are there any questions for the maker of the motion?

Council Member Votus 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 enhanced 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 um is there a uh 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, Councilman Baris-Walton.

And 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 54957.2.

it's the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

which is a multi-jurisdictional

not even a joint powers agency

it's actually a multi-jurisdictional body

of water agencies throughout Southern California

and they follow this procedure

I'm not aware of any other city

in Northern California

anecdotally

otherwise

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

in, I believe it's March.

I'm just wondering why this went straight to the agenda

as opposed to going through that process.

City manager, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Veras-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.

It's 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 it were

hacked or something like what are some security measures that would need to be put in place

So we will go to Director Siner for that.

Well, we currently have our Microsoft 365 environment, which allows for data storage.

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 want to do something where employees in the IT department do not have access and only the attorney has access.

We'd have to come up with some other process, which is why there was some some cost included.

We'd have to work that out. We and we haven't fully investigated that 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

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 risk exposure,

certainly any record that is produced in closed session

could become discoverable.

and that includes a recording.

I think that's just the main legal risk

that the council would want to understand,

should understand in a 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 inspection

under the Public Records Act

and shall be kept confidential.

So that's sort of the first layer

that it's not a public record.

So it wouldn't be subject to disclosure

to a public record direct 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 wave privilege of the recordings, though?

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 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 have a few other questions.

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

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.

Sorry, my fault over here, thank you.

Yeah, the purpose is 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 a 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.

recalled with this it was an audio video i know it's saying video on here but it's audio video

recording right um that it would be retained by the 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

so

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 or myself or an employee to create

a minute book of topics discussed and decisions made at closed sessions.

According to Council Member 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

is an option that the IT director just described because I am within the city system as the city

attorney as well and there'd 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

with 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 for my clarification that's 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 uh 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 anything we do not oh this is great so going from a new procedure

new practice got it and just uh 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 going to Council Member Bolt are you looking to extend yes so I hear a

request motion from Bolt to extend do I have a second so I've got a second from Council Member

Aguilar but what was to I've got an 11 o'clock is that what you are requesting Council Member

Bolt so I've got 11 o'clock motion of extending to 11 o'clock by Council Member Bolt with a second

by Councilmember Aguilar. Please vote. Councilmember Aguilar, I'm sorry, Councilmember

Azevedo, 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 Favreos-Walton voting no.

Council Member Simon voting yes.

Mayor Gonzalez voting yes.

Council Member Aguilar voting yes.

Council Member Bolt voting yes.

Vice Mayor Bowen voting yes.

And Council Member Azevedo voting yes.

So I'm going to go to Council Member Simon

just to 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 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 is 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 allowable 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 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 seem to be any restriction in this particular section

so that is possible.

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

Council Member 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 sahidi attorney could you kind of interpret or clarify vice mayor's so is there

a difference i'm not sure yeah so i'm gonna i'm gonna see if we agree in our understanding

it's my understanding um 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 use be limited to there is an existing

matter that's being investigated and the investigator go to a record to confirm

representations that were made by council members about what happened in closed session that's why

I interpret it.

Feel free to elaborate if that's,

is that a good start?

That is a good start.

And to triple confirm that the motion

is to record for the sole purpose

of investigative confirmation.

May I ask that?

Yeah.

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 going to come to

city attorney to discuss any legal implications limitations etc so first uh in 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 access 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

a closed session to a court of general jurisdiction wherein 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, ten minutes ago that we could direct that only the city attorney

would have access to this information.

well that's because it says uh you could 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 and enter in a minute book a record of topics discussed

and decisions made at the meeting so quite naturally there needs 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 your 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 have 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 to 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.

Investigator.

Okay, that's fine.

That's fine.

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 they'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 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 chapter is alleged to 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 they couldn't see the videos they couldn't see any of that

the videos are connected to the minute book if the council says keep the videos

the this section of 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 councilmember simon um i think there's 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's set correct city attorney the minute book who has access to the minute book is defined by

the brown act and the video if yes correct and there's no around that that's just the way it is

okay but you can keep a record of it that's correct okay uh 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.

At this point in time, I will come to Council Mariveros-Walton.

Thank you.

I'll be brief.

I just don't think that the intention 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 waive 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 and 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 and have them be out there i i 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 of 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 internal investigation,

I shouldn't say internal, 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

is that correct

and that's because the government

code forbids

the sharing of either written minutes

or recordings of those meetings.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay, I'm going to come back to Councilmember Simon

and then Vice Mayor.

Yeah, 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, per the Brown Act, we can each watch this video. The investigator can ask

those questions and we will have watched that video five minutes ahead of time because we have

be 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 in 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 aguilar

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 Azevedo, may we have your vote? Aye. Thank you.

All votes are in. The motion carries with three yes, sorry, four yes votes, three no

votes. Vice Mayor Bowen voting no. Councilmember Aguilar voting yes. Councilmember Bolt voting

yes. Councilmember Simon voting yes. Mayor Gonzalez voting no. Councilmember Viveros

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 council member simon

and seconded by council member aguilar

council member azevedo your vote aye thank you

all votes are in the motion carries with three yeses and three noes council member bolt

sorry four yeses council member bolt voting yes mayor gonzalez voting no council member aguilar

voting yes council member Simon voting yes vice mayor Bowen voting no council

member riveros Walton voting no and council member 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?

Yeah, no, I wanted to respond, but we don't want to respond.

At this point in time, we will move to item 12.

Do we have any announcements?

Okay, seeing no announcements,

I'd like to...

Is it the Council Member announcement?

Yes.

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?

Council Member Aylar and then Vice Mayor.

Oh, thank you, Mayor.

Sorry.

On December 10th, I attended the 1,142nd meeting of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement.

We have new officers, Kashif Kaadri from Dublin as the president.

John Bowders will be vice president and John Zachlich 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 invasive Aedes 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 in the city.

paid for 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 LGBT elected leaders that

are gathered together every year. We also had a special guest. President Joe Biden

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,

you know, 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,

you know, what is currently happening in the community, especially with the Republicans

and their anti-bills with 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 Vice Mayor Bowen,

and the candor reaction of the facial remark was not appreciated, Vice Mayor.

and I just wanted to call that out.

Thank you.

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 interpreted 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, 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 ANHPI 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 Cities 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 City's 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,

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 and as 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 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 there have been

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 Leandro,

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 i just want 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 the toy giveaway that that happened here in san leandro

and with the firefighters at Station 9 for their toy drives.

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 want to close this meeting in honor of Isabel Pulverosa.

Isabel was a longtime community activist,

served on the San Lorenzo Unified School District,

very active in the manor for many years

most recently I think was involved here at

the Altamira House

at a number of Altamira House events in the lake

so I'd like to take just a few seconds here in memory

of Isabel Bolvarosa before we close

and so with that

It is 10.50 and we are adjourned.