{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nOF\nof\nTERRA\nMINUTES OF THE\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:12 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nKathleen Kearney, President\nAmber Bales, Board Member\nCynthia Silva, Vice President\nTravis Wilson, Board Member\nDorothy Wismar, Board Member\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nLori Amaya, Recording Secretary\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS. AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar\n*A.\nReport from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of November and\nDecember 2017.\n*B.\nDraft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of November 8, 2017.\n*C.\nLibrary Services Report for the Months of October and November 2017.\n*D.\nFinancial Report Reflecting FY17/18 Expenditures by Fund for November and December 2017.\n*E.\nBills for Ratification for the Months of November and December 2017.\nDirector Chisaki informed the board that there were three full time retirements since the last meeting. The\nreplacement process is going quickly and smoothly and she expects to have a good team when the process\nis completed. Mid-year budget requests are due at the end of the month for emergency items. The library\nis asking for funding to completely air condition the West End libraryand get charcoal filters at the main\nlibrary to keep in reserve in case particulate filtering is ever needed.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 3\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nJanuary 10, 2018 Meeting\nThere were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the November 8, 2017 Library Board meeting. Board\nMember Bales moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Board Member Wismar seconded the motion,\nwhich passed with a 5-0 vote.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nNone.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nLibrary Strategic Plan Process. (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki explained to the board that it's time to start talking about the process of updating the\nStrategic Plan for the library. She would like to hire a consultant for guidance through the process,\nfacilitate focus groups, to write parts of the plan, and to help the board to better understand what these\nplans do. The Board should start thinking about what they want to achieve with this plan. Costs for\nmarketing, publishing, bringing people in, and staff time must also be considered. The Library Board\ninitiates the process and decides what type of representation from the community should be on the\nplanning team. President Kearney asked if there are copies of the old plans that the board can refer to.\nDirector Chisaki has copies, but said the drafts are almost 10 years old. Board member Wismar agreed\nthat seeing the prior reports to help give guidance with the process. Board member Wilson asked if there\nwere follow up measurements to test whether the objectives have been achieved. Director Chisaki\nresponded that there weren't. The Library Board will put together vision statement, mission statement,\nand goals. The board will adopt the plan and presented it to the City Council. The process should take 6 -\n8 months. Director Chisaki will contact consultants to inquire about their availability, and hopes to have\nmore information for the board at the next meeting.\nB.\nCity-wide Infrastructure Priorities: Presentation. (L. Warmerdam)\nAssistant City Manager Warmerdam introduced herself to the board. Senior staff are reaching out to\ncommunity members, stakeholders, boards and commissions to present this information and take a survey\nafter the presentation. When the community was asked what the city should be working on, the answer\nwas the rising cost of housing, traffic, and aging infrastructure. Alameda's rent stabilization ordnance\ntook effect in March, and prohibits rents to be raised more than 5%. There are housing projects for\nseniors and families in the works to help with the need for more housing. With more housing sometimes\nmeans more traffic. There is a Transportation Choices Plan that shows different options for the city to\nlook at. The city is looking at another tube, but will need the region to chip in. Another option is to apply\ndemand pricing to the tube. The city's infrastructure includes streets, sidewalks, parks, beaches, storm\ndrains, and lagoons. The city is looking at 200 million in infrastructure needs, not including Alameda\nPoint. President Kearney asked if the sinking land and rising tides are being considered. Assistant City\nManager Warmerdam responded that it is included in the Climate Action Plan and that Public Works is\ntaking the lead. A Master Infrastructure Plan was done for Alameda Point and the estimate was 500\nmillion. Vice President Silva asked who takes care of the Lagoon because when the water is let out for a", "path": "LibraryBoard/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 3\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nJanuary 10, 2018 Meeting\nlong time, it begins to smell and the ducks and birds don't have anywhere to swim. Assistant City\nManager Warmerdam responded that Public Works handles the lagoon and that the City receives many\ncalls regarding the smell. Board member Wilson asked if there are objectives to be met and if there are\ntests in place to see if the desired effect was achieved. Assistant City Manager Warmerdam responded\nthat the goal was for no new net trips through the tube. There are baselines to count the number of trips.\nC.\nFriends of the Library. (J. Chisaki)\nThere is a Friends meeting in two weeks. There was no formal fall campaign for fundraising, but with the\ndonation envelope included in all mailings they were able to raise approximately $10,000. The book sale\ncommittee has a new chair and she rearranged the book sorting room and had a new bulletin board\ninstalled. They are now tracking and reporting volunteer hours. With more accurate tracking, they are\nable to apply for grants. Wi-fi may be available at the O'Club by the next sale. The Friends will be co-\nhosting the Lunar Festival Day with the Bay Farm branch.\nD.\nPatron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response\nNone.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nVice President Silva is on the communications committee for the Friends. She attends the evening book\nsorting group. She also participated in all three concerts. Board Member Wilson will attend the Teen\nAdvisory Board meeting in February.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nDirector Chisaki reminded the board that the library is losing and gaining three employees. Staffing is\nthin because so many are sick. The next board meeting is March 14, 2018.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "path": "LibraryBoard/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 10, 2018\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, January 10, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members\nGriffiths and Friedman\nAbsent:\nMember Murray\nCommittee staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Janice Heredia\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be\nheard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.\n3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. Eric Strimling commented that for rent increases above 5%, the burden of proof\nshould be on the landlord to show why it is reasonable.\n4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff acknowledged that it had welcomed and oriented the attendees and\nparticipants prior to the meeting being called to order.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the November 6, 2017 Regular Meeting\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of\nthe members present.\n5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the December 4, 2017 Regular Meeting\nChair Cambra made a suggestion to edit the minutes.\nMotion and second (Cambra and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of the\nmembers present.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 972 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit A\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $279.58, a 26.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,325, effective February 1, 2018.\nPage 1 of 6", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 10, 2018\n7-B. CASE 963 - 1030 Lincoln Ave., Unit A\nTenants: Temo Martinez and Laura Martinez\nLandlords: Craig Wallace and Laurie-Anne King\nSpanish language translator: Rent Program staff member Janice Heredia\nProposed rent increase: $1,190 (90.8%) to a total rent of $2,500, effective\nFebruary 1, 2018\nThe landlords stated that rent was below market and the building needed maintenance.\nThey referred to a quote for foundation work in the amount of $30,000. They said they\nhave a good relationship with their tenants. They informed the Committee that they\npurchased the home for $1.7 million, so their mortgage and property taxes were higher\nthan that of the previous owners. They acknowledged that the tenants had a personal\nrelationship with the previous landlord and that they worked at the previous landlord's\nrestaurant in addition to living at his property.\nThe tenants stated that they have lived in the unit since 1998 and that their son was born\nin the home and it was the only home he had ever known. They said that they understood\nthat the landlord was making a business decision but they could not afford the increase\nthey were requesting. They stated that their household income was about $4,000 per\nmonth, that there are times when they cannot make ends meet, and times when they\nhave up to a $500 monthly surplus. They said they could afford a 5% rent increase.\nChair Cambra asked for a numerical value for how much they could afford. The Mr.\nMartinez responded they could afford a $300-$400 increase at most. Vice Chair Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana added that the parties were not compelled to answer questions about finances.\nChair Cambra asked if the parties learned anything they did not know before. The\nlandlords said they thought that the tenants had only occupied the unit for two years, as\ntheir management company, OMM, only began managing the unit in 2015 and only had\nrecords going back that far. The tenants restated that they had been there since 1998\nand added that they had a brother who lived in the unit from 1990 until 1998. The tenants\nsaid they did not know the purchase price of the property before the meeting.\nChair Cambra asked if either party wanted to change their position in light of the new\ninformation they learned. Mr. Wallace said he'd like to be generous but if they only\nincreased the rent 5% each year, they could never bring the unit up to market rate, which\nwould be detrimental to their finances.\nPage 2 of 6", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 10, 2018\nMr. Martinez stated that his income fluctuated from $2,400 to $2,800 and Ms. Martinez's\nincome was about $1,200 per month. He said they were worried about being priced out\nof the area and concerned that their son would have to change schools mid-year.\nChair Cambra asked the landlords if the bank extended their mortgage loan knowing the\namount of rent the in-place tenants were paying. Mr. Wallace confirmed that the bank\nhad that information.\nMember Griffiths asked the landlords what would happen to them if they only got a 5%\nincrease versus a $300 increase. Ms. King said they would appeal the decision. She said\nthat she and Mr. Wallace were both self-employed and their income could be\nunpredictable, while rental income from the property provided them a stable source of\nincome.\nMr. Wallace stated that anything less than $2,000 per month total rent for the unit would\nbe inadequate. He said they wanted to expand the unit and wanted to see if they would\nqualify for the \"capital evictions\" process.\nMr. Martinez said that to meet a $400 per month increase, he would have to work 14-16\nhour days. Ms. Martinez said that they had to a new expense of $300 per month for their\nson's healthcare and had forgotten about that when they said they could pay a $300-\n$400 per month increase. She said they were still offering to pay a $65 increase.\nMember Friedman commented that the tenants would have to move if they were required\nto pay the increase the landlords were requesting. He restated that the landlords\npurchased the property knowing about the costs involved, Ordinance 3148's\nrequirements, and the amount of rent the tenants were paying, and that the bank\nassessed that the landlords could maintain payments on their mortgage loan given those\ncircumstances.\nMr. Wallace said that they wanted to improve the property. Ms. King added that unlike\nthe previous landlords they did not benefit from the tenants working at their business.\nShe said their mortgage was $5,700 per month.\nChair Cambra stated that the goal of the RRAC was to balance the landlord's interest in\nobtaining reasonable rate of return with the tenants' interest in not being displaced. He\nestimated the landlord's monthly cash flow was $7,500.\nMs. King stated that they chose to purchase rental property in the City of Alameda\nbecause they thought the laws were more reasonable toward landlords than in other\nrent-stabilized communities. She said she did not think the landlords should be restricted\nby their tenants' income forever, as they would have to return to the RRAC each year to\nget future increases.\nPage 3 of 6", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 10, 2018\nChair Cambra asked the parties to take a seat so the RRAC could begin deliberations to\nreach a decision.\nPublic Comment from Mari Perez-Ruiz, President of the Alameda Renters Coalition, on\nItem 7-B: claimed the tenants did not know about the RRAC hearing until the day before\nand were not given the opportunity to prepare.\nPublic Comment from Laurie-Anne King, landlord at subject property, on Item 7-B: stated\nthat it was a breach of California law for employers to pay workers less than minimum\nwage and compensate for that by subsidizing their living expenses by charging them\nbelow-market rent.\nPublic Comment from Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda resident, on Item 7-B: said he came\nbefore the RRAC one-and-a-half years ago. He said he wanted to acknowledge the\ninequality in society that allowed the landlords to have access to $300,000 from their\ninsurance policy, while the tenants would have to work 30,000 hours to make an equal\nsum. He opined that the rent increase imposes a great burden on the tenants and hoped\nthe RRAC decision was one that allowed the tenants to remain in place.\nMember Friedman thanked the parties for attending the hearing. He acknowledged that\nthe tenants may have had an agreement for below-market rent with the prior owners.\nHe restated that the landlords financed the property with the current tenants' rental rate\nknown by themselves and the lending institution, and said that with a 5% increase, the\ntenants would be paying 40% of their income for rent if their income was $3,400 per\nmonth. He stated that the purpose of the Ordinance is to stabilize the rental market and\nproposed a $65 increase.\nChair Cambra stated that if the tenants' income was $4,000 per month, a $300 increase\nwould have the tenants paying 40% of their income toward rent.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana opined that a 5% increase would be reasonable as it was\nwhat the tenants said they could afford.\nChair Cambra commented that a 10% increase, or $130, would provide the landlords\nextra income they could use to improve the property.\nMember Griffiths answered that there was a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process\nlandlords could use to finance improvements. He said he thought the tenants could only\npay a 5% increase and suggested the landlords look into the CIP process for future\nincreases.\nChair Cambra responded that many landlords find the CIP process unworkable.\nPage 4 of 6", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 10, 2018\nMember Griffiths replied that if the CIP process did not work, the City Council should fix\nit rather than making capital improvements part of the RRAC's responsibility.\nMember Friedman made a motion for a $65 increase. Member Griffiths seconded. The\nvote passed 3-1, Chair Cambra opposed.\n7-C. CASE 964 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit B\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $140.00, a 9.9% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,555.00, effective February 1, 2018.\n7-D. CASE 965 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit C\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $67.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$760.00, effective February 1, 2018.\n7-E. CASE 966 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit E\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $100.00, a 7.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,400.00, effective February 1, 2018.\n7-F. CASE 967 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit F\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $95.00, a 9.5% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,095.00, effective February 1, 2018.\n7-G. CASE 968 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit M\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $150.00, a 5.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$2,775.00, effective February 1, 2018.\n7-H. CASE 969 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit A\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $115.50, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,310.00, effective February 1, 2018.\n7-I. CASE 970 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit B\nPage 5 of 6", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-01-10", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 10, 2018\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $131.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,480.00, effective April 1, 2018.\n7-J. CASE 971 - 2033 Eagle Ave.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $120.00, a 7.8% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,650.00, effective February 1, 2018.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. Eric Strimling commented that staff should look into expanding its translation and\nmultilingual communications services.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Member Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana asked staff if public commenters could comment on\nother public comments and if it was appropriate or required for RRAC members or\nCity staff to reply to public comments. City Attorney staff John Le replied that there\nwas no rule on public commenters commenting on other public comments, and\nstated that RRAC members could direct questions to City staff but that the RRAC\nand City staff are not required to respond to public comment.\nb. Member Friedman commented that perhaps the RRAC could use simultaneous\ntranslation technology to facilitate multilingual communications.\nc. Chair Cambra requested that staff make a presentation on its provisions for\nmultilingual access at the next RRAC meeting.\n0.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 5, 2018\nPage 6 of 6", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf"}