City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening, everyone. Today is Thursday, August 18th, 2026. This is a special city council meeting. It is 5.30 p.m. And I'd like to call this meeting to order. And if I can have Madam City Clerk, if you could please take a roll.

Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Andrews?

Present.

Council Member Bonilla, Jr. Present. Council Member Goldstein.

Present.

Council Member Roach, not in the room at the moment. Council Member Sire.

Present.

Council Member Sermonio. Present. Mayor Salinas.

Present, thank you. Next item is public comment. This is reserved for anybody in the public that would like to make a public comment to the council on an item that is not on the agenda. Is there anybody either in the room or online that would like to make a public comment? Seeing none, I'd like to close public comment and then move on to our work session and I believe our city clerk is gonna kick us off here. And then if I can just ask if everyone, when they talk, please speak into the mic so that people online can hear us.

Thank you very much, Mayor. Again, good evening. The item before you relates to city commissions. And before I start, I'd just like to acknowledge our staff liaisons that are in the room. I really appreciate their support and help in producing the documents that will be provided this evening. And also Geraldine for helping us advance the slides. Okay, if we go next, please. So again, the slide before you provides the recommendation. We have nine commissioners seeking reappointment. We have 11 vacancies across the commissions. You have received a commission's report which includes attendance and required training information. Finally, at the end, we are going to review and confirm the process for the August 25th interviews and also the selection of applicants. Next. On this slide, you have a summary again. We have nine reappointments. Pretty much every commission is seeking reappointment. We also have 11 vacancies. Every commission has a vacancy, at least one, except for the personnel commission. Next. I'll go over the nine commissioners who have requested reappointment. For each commissioner, we are providing the council with their appointment and term information, attendance percentage, and the status of required ethics and harassment prevention trainings. So we'll go with the first one being the Clean and Green Commission. On this commission, we have Commissioner McCray seeking a second term. He has completed a one-year term on this commission. Next, we have Community Services Commission. On this commission, we have two commissioners seeking reappointment. Both Commissioner Dow and Commissioner Gunn have completed partial terms of three years each. Next, we have on the Library Commission, we have Commissioner Purcell seeking reappointment. She has completed one four-year term. Next on the Personnel Commission, we have four commissioners seeking reappointment. All of them are completing partial terms, so we have Commissioner Tendencia, Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner Barlak. And finally, on the Planning Commission, we have Commissioner Low completing a four-year term and Commissioner Yorguev completing a one-year term. Next, I will go to the commission's report. You have received the report. The next slides identify the current membership and vacancy of each commission, and we're highlighting commissioners whose attendance or required training needs council's attention. So we're going to go ahead and start with the Clean and Green Commission. On the Clean and Green Commission, we have five vacancies. On slide, you see commissioners whose attendance is below the 75% requirement. In terms of trainings, we have Commissioner Frost, who is actually in the process of completing her training. I believe she's trying to get her certificate of completion. Next, we have the Community Services Commission. On this commission, we have two vacancies, and as you could see, we have two commissioners whose attendance, again, is below the 75% requirement. On this commission, everyone is current in terms of trainings. On the Library Commission, we have currently three vacancies, and we have two commissioners whose attendance, again, below the 75% requirement, and we have a commissioner, Commissioner Navarro, who has not completed her harassment prevention training. On the Planning Commission, we have one vacancy. As you know, one vacancy was created during the break. Someone resigned. In terms of attendance, all are current. In terms of trainings, Commissioner Goodbody is actually in the process of completing her training. She has a certificate that it doesn't meet our requirement. It seems that she completed the training for only one hour, and our requirement is two hours. So we're working on achieving compliance with this commissioner. Next, we have now, we'll go over, if we could go to the next slide actually, we have the recruitment timeline. As you know, the recruitment started on March 10th in, The period closed on July 31st, and all of you were provided with a binder of applications. There were 65 applications that were identified as being eligible to seek appointment to a commission. Tonight, August 18th, we're having a work session. We're gonna review the reappointment requests. We are going to also go over the process for the interviews next Tuesday. We have August 19th, as we have done in the past, as the deadline for you to pre-select applicants who will be invited to an interview on Tuesday again, August 25th. We have identified September 15th for Council to appoint new commissioners and to conduct the swing-in of those commissioners. So now, in terms of the recommendation for current members, this is what we are recommending for our current members. To confirm the reappointment of nine individuals seeking reappointment, of course at the September 15th council meeting, to provide commissioners who have not completed their required trainings until September 17th, so that they could achieve compliance. Commissioners may either submit certificates demonstrating completion of the required trainings or attend an in-person training which is currently scheduled for September 17th. Our city attorney and our HR director are planning to facilitate that training, the in-person training on September 17th. So we are recommending that those commissioners who have not completed the required trainings have until September 17. And last, related to our current members, we are recommending to continue monitoring commissioners who have not met the 75% attendance requirement and to monitor them through the end of December. If a commissioner's attendance continues to decline or doesn't improve, a meeting will be convened with the staff liaison commissioned chair and council liaison to review the circumstances and to determine next steps. That is one of the recommendations. Not on this slide, but if the council wanted to follow what we did last year, which was to set a threshold of 60%, whoever in terms of attendance, if someone is below the 60% requirement, would be dismissed. It's not on this slide, but I just wanted to offer that since I received a question about that. The other recommendation in terms of interviews is to review the applications and pre-select applicants to be invited to an interview. Each council member would complete the selection form. You have that in front of you. and you would submit that to me by 5 p.m. tomorrow, just similar to what we have done in prior years. And then we would invite applicants who receive three or more points to participate in interviews with the city council again on Tuesday next week, August 25th. So mayor and council members, that is the recommendation that I have before you and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. We also have a staff liaison here joining us in the event that you have any questions and they might be able to help me answer. Thank you. And your microphone, thank you.

One applicant for the Planning Commission lives in Castro Valley.

Actually, it's not Castro Valley. It's interesting how that, it's the boundary between Hayward and Castro Valley. So we contacted our GIS department, and it was confirmed that it's Hayward, but the application indicates Castro Valley, but it is in Hayward.

Okay, good, thanks.

You're welcome. To the first one? If you don't mind using your mic. Yes, thank you.

You probably have to remind me every time, but thank you. I'm usually pretty good at math, but I'm kind of thinking that it might be difficult for someone say at 57% to rise to the 75% threshold between now and the end of December. How's my math? Is it possible?

I think it's just giving the commissioner the opportunity to attend every meeting from now till December. Not that it will go up to 75%, but to improve the attendance. I think that is the reasoning for monitoring the individual through December 31st.

Have you done the math? Do you know what that percentage would actually be?

Would be? It depends on, and I think we have, maybe I have the staff liaison for the Community Services Commission, if you could help me. I know, are we planning to have a meeting every month from? Would you like to come to the mic so that you can be, thank you.

There's two more meetings for the rest of the year, but there might be an opportunity to have another two. So that would be four additional meetings. So if they were to attend, it just depends on the situation where meetings are tentative right now. So I think our desire was just to see a commitment and both of the commissioners, at least for the Community Services Commission, have expressed a commitment to attend. One of them had health issues, but the one that you're speaking about has shown a commitment to attend the remaining meetings, and if there are additional meetings, there might be an opportunity for them to raise their attendance.

but I seem to recall his attendance in the past was actually pretty exemplary.

The individual with 57%, yeah. They've typically done well, not outstanding, but meeting the threshold.

Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I think I struggle. I just want to make sure we're not having this conversation every year. And so I guess if the 75% threshold feels too high, maybe we should have a revamp of what that percentage is. I think I'm comfortable with the 60% and below, again, being dismissed. Yeah, I understand folks are committed to doing it, but if this is a year where things are difficult for them, they're always welcome to apply again. It's not personal. It's just if they're unable to fulfill the commitment we're looking for. We have a lot of residents that are interested in these roles, and it just doesn't feel fair to me to continue to make excuses for folks that are, I mean, for all intents and purposes, achieving a D in attendance. I personally would be okay with the 60% threshold and the monitoring for the rest. I would like to see them rise above the 75% if they're hovering around 71% by the end of the year. But I also would like to make this a lot less personal, where in the future, if they haven't met those requirements, they know that they're gonna have to apply again. I mean, I think that was what our intention was when we first drafted this, is if you don't meet that requirement, you don't get an automatic reappointment. You can apply again, and we can take that into consideration, maybe ask you as a council, hey, your attendance was low last time around, and that's why we want to know, are you committed to doing this? But just some form of accountability, just so it becomes, I just don't want it to feel like insider baseball, but people are being held accountable. As far as ethics go, I mean, September 17th is about a month away, so we're giving, I'm supportive of giving folks a month to complete their required trainings. Is the idea that they would be dismissed from the commission if they didn't complete the training within a month? Okay, so I just want that to be clear to the public. And then otherwise, yeah, I guess for the time being, I'm happy with like 60% and below being dismissed and going with the rest of the recommendations here. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to, so remember when we did this last time, did we give the 60 and below till the 26 to make up and then they got the letters if they didn't make it up or did we just decide at that point if you're below 60% you were dismissed?

They were dismissed after that meeting. After that meeting? the threshold to 60%.

Yeah, because I agree with customer that I do want, it just needs to be a rule so it's not personal because it was painful last time. We removed people that were friends and colleagues in other areas and it wasn't personal. We were just trying to come up with a line, a rule. So yeah, I agree. I think we've decided 60% was a rule. So I think just to make it an ongoing thing that we don't have to decide that, you know, yeah, like take into account, okay, this person was normally a committed person. Like, I love to hear that, but then what happened to the people from last time, right? It was, it felt personal, I think, to some people that got removed last time. And I don't want that to be the case going forward. I just want it to be a blanket. We've decided 60% and that's it. And like you said, you know, please come back later. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I also agree that we should dismiss the folks that are under 60% just because we have to commit to making these meetings, and the meetings are such an important part of the work. And then I guess what I would ask is, Why wouldn't we just be transparent and say 60% going forward you're going to be dismissed versus having it at 75% and then lowering the bar to 60 in the meeting? Because I think whatever we do set it at, we should all be comfortable holding ourselves and these commissioners accountable to that attendance requirement. So if it is set at 75%, My view is why aren't we holding the bar at 75% but I get in the past we've feels like we're comfortable with 60% attendance and I think if that's where the bar is then maybe we should just say that so that it's not personal and we get a list next time that says these are the people that are going to be dismissed because there's a council policy that says 60% is the bar. And then lastly, I just want to say thank you for pulling all this together in such an organized way when I was reviewing all of the applications and just kind of thinking through how tough it must have been just to organize everything in thoughtful way that you do. It's just really appreciate it. So thank you so much for that city clerk.

Thank you, thank you council member. It's team effort, right? It takes a group of my office. They did a great job in helping produce the binder. And if I may, about the attendance policy, we have a resolution about the 75%, so we probably need to bring this forward sooner than later to revise that policy so that it's transparent and we communicate that to every commissioner. So I think definitely we need to revise that resolution so that if you all think 60% is you know, the threshold, then we could come back with a revision to that resolution.

Okay, because what I would say is, let's, my recommendation, but I'd love to hear what my colleagues say is, let's continue to aim for 75% and monitor, you know, once it drops below 75%, but draw the line of dismissal at 60%. That would sort of be what I think, because I still want to aim for the 75 and not lower the bar to the 60, but say 60 is the line where we take action. Thank you.

Got it. Yeah, I just want to add, I agree. I think the aspiration is 75%. I think still having it out there as the goal is a positive. So yeah, and if that would avoid us having to do extra work and bring another resolution back, then I would be for that.

Thank you.

I just wanted to ask Miriam, I'm sorry, the city clerk, about other commissions and their subcommittees. Because I know Clean and Gain Commission, they have quite a few subcommittees and they've consolidated but I think it's contributing to lower attendance because they're going to subcommittees thinking that this is counting towards their attendance even though we communicate that it's not. So I just wanted to see if that's the same issue in other commissions that could be contributing to lower attendance as well because they have cleanups and they have meetings and they do subcommittees.

Yeah, as far as I know, maybe the Community Services Commission is another commission that has subcommittees, and I don't know if those are taken into account, but the clean and green might be unique in that. Okay. And maybe, for that commission that needs to be taken into account.

Can I add just in this context, personnel has subcommittees as well as a lot of special meetings to approve job descriptions. I think we did talk about incorporating the special meetings as part of our attendance because there's only like four regular meetings. So I don't think it's out of the ordinary for us to treat each commission's attendance structure a little bit differently.

Yeah, I think we should start considering it, because that's been part of the conversation over the past few years. Yeah, so if that's something that we can do, do we have to bring it to the council for approval to count the subcommittee meetings?

I think so because we have a resolution for every, it's actually a blanket resolution that we apply to each commission in terms of how we count attendance. So it's another resolution that was approved actually in 2025. Maybe that needs to be revised as well. And that one was created as our first goal, right? And we were going to see how things go and maybe it's time to revise it again.

Is that the response to what happened?

Well, I was going to suggest, because this is a work session, to me this doesn't seem like a controversial item for us. And maybe it's just a matter of updating a little bit of language and bringing it on consent to update our commission handbook.

But I was going to add to both of your comments. You know, just given the just given the kind of work the rigor the discipline and the level of work, I would I would like to see maybe the planning Commission set at 75% just because of the work and the and the projects that they are. involved in I don't know I mean I know you guys feel about that, but.

I'm actually okay with that because we've seen cancellations for a variety of reasons, but maybe attendance is, I know attendance has been an issue in the past, so it would be nice to give predictability to developers to know that they'll be present. Understood. But I just want to make sure it's fair.

I mean, just to add to that, the only reason I like the blanket rule for all the commissions at 60% is that I do know, like, there are years when people, you know, you might have a four-year term, but in one year you might get sick, and so you might have a few absences, and now you're off because of that one year. I mean, if you fall below 60%, then obviously your life isn't working out right to, like, be on that commission. But... Yeah, that would make me, I'd pause at that, right, to put it up to 75, even though I agree. I mean, you know, like I think it's been really difficult that we've had some people on there that have been absent. Just feels like a hard line for a volunteer to say, like, right, you really can't.

And the only reason why I'm saying 75% with the Planning Commission is just because of the projects. Right, no, I know. These are big, big, big deals. Are you done?

Well, I just want to finish up the Cleaning Green Commission. Do you... recommend that we go back and talk to the commission first before bringing it up as a consent item? Yes, I think that would be helpful.

Great, thanks. Thank you.

I also think that with the Planning Commission, the attendance requirement, 75%, if that's what we're saying, especially because of the importance of that committee and the cost of delays for that committee, I think we do need to be clear about attendance requirements there. But I would caution us on counting subcommittee attendance because not every member of a commission is part of a subcommittee. Just because I'm not a part of this subcommittee and it's meeting three times, I'm not really sure how that's gonna then impact people who aren't a part of the subcommittees overall attendance. So just wanted to kind of be mindful of that, but I do agree with stronger attendance requirements, or at least enforcing the requirement as written with the Planning Commission because of the cost of delays for that work in particular.

Okay, so yeah, council members are made. No, I think we just given your direction, right? Yeah, correct. Yeah, so so so let me see if Do we need a motion or no?

This is a work session. So direction is what?

So what I'm hearing is 60% As media dismissal 75% for Planning Commission and Okay.

Looking into, maybe it's not subcommittees, but I know the Personnel Commission does have a different attendance structure, so what would it look like to, I guess bring it back to clean and green to find out how to think about attendance, is that right? Okay.

Yes, I think almost every member is part of a subcommittee, so we could just confirm that, but I think they've, kind of divvied up the work, but we just have to just communicate that this is gonna be something that we are looking at and it's up to you all what you wanna recommend to council and then we agree or not agree.

And this is gonna come back to us. Sometime. In when? October.

Probably October, about the 75%.

Yeah, it's before the end of the year, I'm assuming, correct?

Okay, there's no timeline, though, right? There's a timeline, but there's no, like, right now, right now.

Yeah, I think it would be helpful to do it the sooner the better, right, so that everyone is informed about this.

Just before we move on, I just wanted to ask our Planning Commission staff, what do you guys think about this, about sort of holding it at 75%? Just given, I know attendance has been difficult, like how many meetings would that be? Would they only build and miss one?

There's typically two meetings per month, except for November and December when we go. Sorry, could you use the microphone?

Sorry, sorry.

There's typically two meetings a month except for November and December when we go to one. And we haven't had attendance issues in the past year. And I think 75% is very reasonable. Yeah.

That's helpful. That's what I needed to hear. Thank you.

All right, Mayor. Thank you. And just, again, a friendly reminder, right, that the forms are due tomorrow by 5 p.m. By 5 p.m. 24 hours.

All right.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the time.

Okay.

Back to you, Mayor.

Okay, thank you. All right. So that closes this item, and now I'd like to move to adjournment, and then we'll move to closed session.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

So if we could have the room cleared, please, that'd be great.

Public comment for session, Mayor?

Oh, there's, yes, if you can, don't clear the room just yet. Yes, you're right. Is there public, is public comment with public?

Yes.

Okay.

At the beginning of the meeting.

Okay. OK. Next item is closed session. But before I convene closed session, well, I could convene closed session, open up for public comment. And is there for anybody in the audience that would like to make a public comment on an item that is not on the agenda, is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to make a public comment?

We're getting the system up, Mayor. Yes, thank you.

Recording in progress.

Mayor, I know we're all here, but I don't know if you wanted to just do roll call. I know, just briefly.

Okay, so our convening closed session is 5.50, well, let's wait till six o'clock. It is six o'clock. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is closed session, City Council, Haywood City Council meeting Tuesday, August 18th, 2026. It is six p.m. Madam City Clerk, if you can please call roll.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Andrews. Present. Council Member Bonilla, Jr. Present. Council Member Goldstein. Present. Council Member Roach. Present. Council Member Sire. Present. Council Member Sermonio. Present. Mayor Salinas.

Mr. President, thank you. Next is a public comment that's reserved for anybody in the audience or online that would like to make a public comment on something that is not on the agenda. Is there anybody in the audience or anyone online that would like to make a public comment? Sure. I haven't seen your agenda.

What I'm gonna say is on the agenda.

Would you like an agenda?

Yeah, sure, go ahead.

You're gonna need a microphone.

A minute? Three minutes.

Three minutes, oh wow. Oh, I'm fine.

I just, I'm here as a person that has learned to love Hayward. My home is right here in downtown Hayward. It's over 90 years old. So I'm not going anywhere. This is our home. And I speak from a perspective as an indigenous woman of Apache ancestry, from Chicana and Filipina as well. And I come with the perspective that all decisions regarding artificial intelligence absolutely need the highest of our human intelligence. We must really be keen on scrutinizing the greed, the nature of the beast of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence, I believe, can be brilliant for some. I understand how it works for some, brilliantly. And I also understand that for most, we'll just get a taste of it. So why? So we can become less intelligent. We want things faster. And I, and you, everyone here is well aware of all the climactic disasters that are happening now. We are well aware that our oceans are heating up, and what's to expect this winter? Who knows, it could just be predictions. But yet, I was reading about climate change 40 years ago, and I didn't want to believe it. And here I am a witness. We all are. I am totally asking your committee, your planning commission, I've read that you have backstepped and you made some, some concessions or some decisions to make sure that you're gonna hold that planning commission in better accountability. However, the fact is, from what I see, is that one gentleman with all of his work and persuasion was able to help push through an eight-story data center built. Dan Goldstein responded to my email this afternoon. Hi, Dan. And he was very good at saying there's no damage, there's no harm. Excuse me. You can't convince me of that. He tells me that the water, our water from the Hetch Hetchy water will not be used. He tells me that the residents will not be bothered by the noise and the residual just, I mean, as East Bay Regional Parks, as our, none of the whole, I mean, I get it. I'm a public servant. You send out a survey, you get a small percentage of people that respond, true or false? you get very little bang for your buck for all the outreach to your community. Well, I'm just a little, a mother, a public educator, and I see how AI works and I see how it is insidious. And I think we need to be much more careful and really know the science. because the science is leading to, hmm, questionable. Cryptocurrency is, I'm done, is part of what we have to understand, because there's a lot of information out there that's not all on the table. That's all. Thank you. I wish you luck and I do commend you for all your public service. Thank you. All right.

Hello, I've been a resident of Hayward since 1983, and this is the first time I've been to a city meeting of any sort, so nice to be here, nice to meet you all. Coincidentally, I've never met the last speaker here before, but I'm coming on the same topic, and the topic, the reason I'm here to talk about it is in spite of being a 43 year resident of Hayward, I had no idea until literally this week that that data center was going up in Hayward. So first of all, I was a little bit shocked that something that big, a 76 megawatt data center could go up in the city of Hayward without me having any idea that that was happening. So that'd be my comment number one, is how are residents of Hayward supposed to keep track of things like that? I mean, 76 megawatts is enormous. And yet, I never heard of it. And in fact, I haven't been able to find a single person in my neighborhood that's heard of it either. So not just me. And then secondly, in doing very preliminary digging on what are the plans, what's the impacts, I find that the documentation that I found that is supposed to be descriptive of this gigantic project is pretty lacking. So I wanted to know, first of all, who is responsible for that? And I mean, I know enough to know it's the Planning Commission, but where does the Planning Commission come up? Who does the Planning Commission report to? Just so I understand how something like this could get approved, number one, without me knowing, and number two, in perusing the documentation of it, it looks highly incomplete. So, How and where does that come from? Who's responsible for the people on that commission?

We can't respond to you, but this is a public comment, but I am taking notes and we can get back to you. Okay, so I'll get back to me. Okay, thank you very much. Make sure we have your name and address on that card over there.

Okay, all right, thank you. Anyone online?

No, okay, seeing none, I'd like to close public comment and then we can move on to our closed session.