body,date,page,text,path
LibraryBoard,2018-01-10,1,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:12 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Kathleen Kearney, President
Amber Bales, Board Member
Cynthia Silva, Vice President
Travis Wilson, Board Member
Dorothy Wismar, Board Member
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of November and
December 2017.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of November 8, 2017.
*C.
Library Services Report for the Months of October and November 2017.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY17/18 Expenditures by Fund for November and December 2017.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of November and December 2017.
Director Chisaki informed the board that there were three full time retirements since the last meeting. The
replacement process is going quickly and smoothly and she expects to have a good team when the process
is completed. Mid-year budget requests are due at the end of the month for emergency items. The library
is asking for funding to completely air condition the West End libraryand get charcoal filters at the main
library to keep in reserve in case particulate filtering is ever needed.",LibraryBoard/2018-01-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2018-01-10,2,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
January 10, 2018 Meeting
There were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the November 8, 2017 Library Board meeting. Board
Member Bales moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Board Member Wismar seconded the motion,
which passed with a 5-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Library Strategic Plan Process. (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki explained to the board that it's time to start talking about the process of updating the
Strategic Plan for the library. She would like to hire a consultant for guidance through the process,
facilitate focus groups, to write parts of the plan, and to help the board to better understand what these
plans do. The Board should start thinking about what they want to achieve with this plan. Costs for
marketing, publishing, bringing people in, and staff time must also be considered. The Library Board
initiates the process and decides what type of representation from the community should be on the
planning team. President Kearney asked if there are copies of the old plans that the board can refer to.
Director Chisaki has copies, but said the drafts are almost 10 years old. Board member Wismar agreed
that seeing the prior reports to help give guidance with the process. Board member Wilson asked if there
were follow up measurements to test whether the objectives have been achieved. Director Chisaki
responded that there weren't. The Library Board will put together vision statement, mission statement,
and goals. The board will adopt the plan and presented it to the City Council. The process should take 6 -
8 months. Director Chisaki will contact consultants to inquire about their availability, and hopes to have
more information for the board at the next meeting.
B.
City-wide Infrastructure Priorities: Presentation. (L. Warmerdam)
Assistant City Manager Warmerdam introduced herself to the board. Senior staff are reaching out to
community members, stakeholders, boards and commissions to present this information and take a survey
after the presentation. When the community was asked what the city should be working on, the answer
was the rising cost of housing, traffic, and aging infrastructure. Alameda's rent stabilization ordnance
took effect in March, and prohibits rents to be raised more than 5%. There are housing projects for
seniors and families in the works to help with the need for more housing. With more housing sometimes
means more traffic. There is a Transportation Choices Plan that shows different options for the city to
look at. The city is looking at another tube, but will need the region to chip in. Another option is to apply
demand pricing to the tube. The city's infrastructure includes streets, sidewalks, parks, beaches, storm
drains, and lagoons. The city is looking at 200 million in infrastructure needs, not including Alameda
Point. President Kearney asked if the sinking land and rising tides are being considered. Assistant City
Manager Warmerdam responded that it is included in the Climate Action Plan and that Public Works is
taking the lead. A Master Infrastructure Plan was done for Alameda Point and the estimate was 500
million. Vice President Silva asked who takes care of the Lagoon because when the water is let out for a",LibraryBoard/2018-01-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2018-01-10,3,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
January 10, 2018 Meeting
long time, it begins to smell and the ducks and birds don't have anywhere to swim. Assistant City
Manager Warmerdam responded that Public Works handles the lagoon and that the City receives many
calls regarding the smell. Board member Wilson asked if there are objectives to be met and if there are
tests in place to see if the desired effect was achieved. Assistant City Manager Warmerdam responded
that the goal was for no new net trips through the tube. There are baselines to count the number of trips.
C.
Friends of the Library. (J. Chisaki)
There is a Friends meeting in two weeks. There was no formal fall campaign for fundraising, but with the
donation envelope included in all mailings they were able to raise approximately $10,000. The book sale
committee has a new chair and she rearranged the book sorting room and had a new bulletin board
installed. They are now tracking and reporting volunteer hours. With more accurate tracking, they are
able to apply for grants. Wi-fi may be available at the O'Club by the next sale. The Friends will be co-
hosting the Lunar Festival Day with the Bay Farm branch.
D.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Silva is on the communications committee for the Friends. She attends the evening book
sorting group. She also participated in all three concerts. Board Member Wilson will attend the Teen
Advisory Board meeting in February.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki reminded the board that the library is losing and gaining three employees. Staffing is
thin because so many are sick. The next board meeting is March 14, 2018.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",LibraryBoard/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,1,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Griffiths and Friedman
Absent:
Member Murray
Committee staff:
Grant Eshoo, Janice Heredia
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be
heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Eric Strimling commented that for rent increases above 5%, the burden of proof
should be on the landlord to show why it is reasonable.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff acknowledged that it had welcomed and oriented the attendees and
participants prior to the meeting being called to order.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the November 6, 2017 Regular Meeting
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of
the members present.
5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the December 4, 2017 Regular Meeting
Chair Cambra made a suggestion to edit the minutes.
Motion and second (Cambra and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of the
members present.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 972 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit A
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $279.58, a 26.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,325, effective February 1, 2018.
Page 1 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,2,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
7-B. CASE 963 - 1030 Lincoln Ave., Unit A
Tenants: Temo Martinez and Laura Martinez
Landlords: Craig Wallace and Laurie-Anne King
Spanish language translator: Rent Program staff member Janice Heredia
Proposed rent increase: $1,190 (90.8%) to a total rent of $2,500, effective
February 1, 2018
The landlords stated that rent was below market and the building needed maintenance.
They referred to a quote for foundation work in the amount of $30,000. They said they
have a good relationship with their tenants. They informed the Committee that they
purchased the home for $1.7 million, so their mortgage and property taxes were higher
than that of the previous owners. They acknowledged that the tenants had a personal
relationship with the previous landlord and that they worked at the previous landlord's
restaurant in addition to living at his property.
The tenants stated that they have lived in the unit since 1998 and that their son was born
in the home and it was the only home he had ever known. They said that they understood
that the landlord was making a business decision but they could not afford the increase
they were requesting. They stated that their household income was about $4,000 per
month, that there are times when they cannot make ends meet, and times when they
have up to a $500 monthly surplus. They said they could afford a 5% rent increase.
Chair Cambra asked for a numerical value for how much they could afford. The Mr.
Martinez responded they could afford a $300-$400 increase at most. Vice Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana added that the parties were not compelled to answer questions about finances.
Chair Cambra asked if the parties learned anything they did not know before. The
landlords said they thought that the tenants had only occupied the unit for two years, as
their management company, OMM, only began managing the unit in 2015 and only had
records going back that far. The tenants restated that they had been there since 1998
and added that they had a brother who lived in the unit from 1990 until 1998. The tenants
said they did not know the purchase price of the property before the meeting.
Chair Cambra asked if either party wanted to change their position in light of the new
information they learned. Mr. Wallace said he'd like to be generous but if they only
increased the rent 5% each year, they could never bring the unit up to market rate, which
would be detrimental to their finances.
Page 2 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,3,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Mr. Martinez stated that his income fluctuated from $2,400 to $2,800 and Ms. Martinez's
income was about $1,200 per month. He said they were worried about being priced out
of the area and concerned that their son would have to change schools mid-year.
Chair Cambra asked the landlords if the bank extended their mortgage loan knowing the
amount of rent the in-place tenants were paying. Mr. Wallace confirmed that the bank
had that information.
Member Griffiths asked the landlords what would happen to them if they only got a 5%
increase versus a $300 increase. Ms. King said they would appeal the decision. She said
that she and Mr. Wallace were both self-employed and their income could be
unpredictable, while rental income from the property provided them a stable source of
income.
Mr. Wallace stated that anything less than $2,000 per month total rent for the unit would
be inadequate. He said they wanted to expand the unit and wanted to see if they would
qualify for the ""capital evictions"" process.
Mr. Martinez said that to meet a $400 per month increase, he would have to work 14-16
hour days. Ms. Martinez said that they had to a new expense of $300 per month for their
son's healthcare and had forgotten about that when they said they could pay a $300-
$400 per month increase. She said they were still offering to pay a $65 increase.
Member Friedman commented that the tenants would have to move if they were required
to pay the increase the landlords were requesting. He restated that the landlords
purchased the property knowing about the costs involved, Ordinance 3148's
requirements, and the amount of rent the tenants were paying, and that the bank
assessed that the landlords could maintain payments on their mortgage loan given those
circumstances.
Mr. Wallace said that they wanted to improve the property. Ms. King added that unlike
the previous landlords they did not benefit from the tenants working at their business.
She said their mortgage was $5,700 per month.
Chair Cambra stated that the goal of the RRAC was to balance the landlord's interest in
obtaining reasonable rate of return with the tenants' interest in not being displaced. He
estimated the landlord's monthly cash flow was $7,500.
Ms. King stated that they chose to purchase rental property in the City of Alameda
because they thought the laws were more reasonable toward landlords than in other
rent-stabilized communities. She said she did not think the landlords should be restricted
by their tenants' income forever, as they would have to return to the RRAC each year to
get future increases.
Page 3 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,4,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Chair Cambra asked the parties to take a seat so the RRAC could begin deliberations to
reach a decision.
Public Comment from Mari Perez-Ruiz, President of the Alameda Renters Coalition, on
Item 7-B: claimed the tenants did not know about the RRAC hearing until the day before
and were not given the opportunity to prepare.
Public Comment from Laurie-Anne King, landlord at subject property, on Item 7-B: stated
that it was a breach of California law for employers to pay workers less than minimum
wage and compensate for that by subsidizing their living expenses by charging them
below-market rent.
Public Comment from Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda resident, on Item 7-B: said he came
before the RRAC one-and-a-half years ago. He said he wanted to acknowledge the
inequality in society that allowed the landlords to have access to $300,000 from their
insurance policy, while the tenants would have to work 30,000 hours to make an equal
sum. He opined that the rent increase imposes a great burden on the tenants and hoped
the RRAC decision was one that allowed the tenants to remain in place.
Member Friedman thanked the parties for attending the hearing. He acknowledged that
the tenants may have had an agreement for below-market rent with the prior owners.
He restated that the landlords financed the property with the current tenants' rental rate
known by themselves and the lending institution, and said that with a 5% increase, the
tenants would be paying 40% of their income for rent if their income was $3,400 per
month. He stated that the purpose of the Ordinance is to stabilize the rental market and
proposed a $65 increase.
Chair Cambra stated that if the tenants' income was $4,000 per month, a $300 increase
would have the tenants paying 40% of their income toward rent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana opined that a 5% increase would be reasonable as it was
what the tenants said they could afford.
Chair Cambra commented that a 10% increase, or $130, would provide the landlords
extra income they could use to improve the property.
Member Griffiths answered that there was a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process
landlords could use to finance improvements. He said he thought the tenants could only
pay a 5% increase and suggested the landlords look into the CIP process for future
increases.
Chair Cambra responded that many landlords find the CIP process unworkable.
Page 4 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,5,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Member Griffiths replied that if the CIP process did not work, the City Council should fix
it rather than making capital improvements part of the RRAC's responsibility.
Member Friedman made a motion for a $65 increase. Member Griffiths seconded. The
vote passed 3-1, Chair Cambra opposed.
7-C. CASE 964 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $140.00, a 9.9% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,555.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-D. CASE 965 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit C
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $67.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$760.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-E. CASE 966 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit E
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $100.00, a 7.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,400.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-F. CASE 967 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit F
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $95.00, a 9.5% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,095.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-G. CASE 968 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit M
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $150.00, a 5.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$2,775.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-H. CASE 969 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit A
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $115.50, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,310.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-I. CASE 970 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit B
Page 5 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,6,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $131.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,480.00, effective April 1, 2018.
7-J. CASE 971 - 2033 Eagle Ave.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $120.00, a 7.8% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,650.00, effective February 1, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. Eric Strimling commented that staff should look into expanding its translation and
multilingual communications services.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Sullivan-Sariñana asked staff if public commenters could comment on
other public comments and if it was appropriate or required for RRAC members or
City staff to reply to public comments. City Attorney staff John Le replied that there
was no rule on public commenters commenting on other public comments, and
stated that RRAC members could direct questions to City staff but that the RRAC
and City staff are not required to respond to public comment.
b. Member Friedman commented that perhaps the RRAC could use simultaneous
translation technology to facilitate multilingual communications.
c. Chair Cambra requested that staff make a presentation on its provisions for
multilingual access at the next RRAC meeting.
0.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 5, 2018
Page 6 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf