November 19, 2013 Council Meeting
Item # 8 Recommendations to Alameda County re: Lara’s Law
Councilmember Maio. This refers to very mentally ill delusional patients who cannot ask for help. AB1421 allows person to be sent into court which them pushes them into services mediated thought the court system. This has worked well in Nevada County. This is to ask for Berkeley to try this as a pilot program for only 5 patients. Hoping that Council will pass this and urge County to try a pilot program.
This is a civil rights issue. Total 4
Agree there are not enough mental health services. Total 2
With the right support groups mentally I’ll can recover and cope. Total 6
Can’t force people to take treatment. Total 1
This is the result of failure in care.
Support AB1421. Total 9
Anderson: Only in the past 2 years has mental illness been accepted as an illness by our federal government. Very bad conditions have occurred in treatment. I am swayed by what I have heard tonight and am swayed that it is limited to 5 people as a pilot and not forced treatment but wrap around care. I’m going to support the measure.
Maio: I am going to I’ve the motion. I want to make sure there is funding out there. I would also like a community oversight committee to be added to the letter. We all are in this together we want to do better.
Arreguin: clearly there are gaps in our system. The overall recommendations are positive and will help fill the gaps. The goal is for intensive case management. I question whether 5 people would be enough. Would like to implement other services first rather than support AB1421. I am in a tough position as the liaison to the mental health commission who is against the bill
Wengraf: I don’t believe many of these people can survive without this bill. This is a modest proposal.
Anderson: what kind of oversight will be in place? I want to be sure there are peers and professionals having input.
Capitelli I am going to support the motion. It seems that it is a very low pilot number and the results can be skewed. I want to increase the number.
Worthington: I was at first100% opposed but as I have learned more I am voting with Peter Sukor so I am voting yes.
Arreguin: I am going to vote yes because we need to do something
Bates: Ida am also going to support the motion
Item # 16 Solano Avenue BID annual renewal
No public comment
Item #17 new BID for a new Elmwood Business District
Support the BID and accessment method and request a loan to jump start the improvements. Total IIIII
Concern that the BIDs can run astray I
Wozniak: Baseline serrvices need to be established and the loan needs to be addressed
Moore: so we are not voting on the loan tonight?
Capitelli: is this the same makeup as the original BID.
Item # 15 ZAB Appeal 3001 Telegraph Ave
Use permit for Starbucks at corner of Telegraph and Ashby. Larger space by over 1000 square feet, earlier operating hours and 4 vs 9 parking spaces. ZAB voted 5-4 to uphold the appeal.
Issues are identical in council and ZAB appeal. No new evidence before Council. Berkeley is very generous with parking waivers.
Worthington: I have not found any information on whether Alta Bates parking violations with excess parking needs were factored into the parking consideration? Were any City decisions rejected previously reviewed when granting these parking variances?
Traffic study for permit approval assumed office space in ground floor. The Starbuscks change in use will significantly impact the vehicle trips. No new traffic study has been done. No data supports that only pedestrian and bike traffic will utilize the business. This use provides zero off street parking. There is relatively no available parking available for the use.
Lawyer representing client, Starbucks. ZAB determined that the use met the requirements for parking variance. Parking study showed adequate space. Current waiver less than those granted previously. Starbucks have rented 3 parking spaces from the Chevron station which goes above and beyond. This project is more consistent with public transit customers. More coffee shops can exist in this area when compared with College Ave density. Starbucks share Berkeley values. Will serve neighbors and hospital visitors, 25 jobs with full time benefits. This will be a transit oriented store.
Supporting the project. Total 9
Against the project. Total 35+ with cedes
Wengraf. There was an issue with the notice? What was that? Werepeople noticed within 300 feet of the project? He many public meetings have there been? Is there a parking requirements for medical offices? Do any of the current Peets have parking requirements?
Bates: if we decide to set this for a public hearing what is the timing? I would suggest we set it for a public hearing on a separate night.
Arreguin: I have a question for the applicant. Is there a signed agreement for the additional spaces with Chevron? Was there a conditional option to provide these spaces? Would the applicant be willing to be tied to this requirement? So would applicant be unwilling to provide this requirement. This has been done before.
Anderson. I second the need for a public hearing. I am not happy with the process of the zoning board. There were 2000 signatures against this project. Parking is a real issue in this area. This area is hugely impacted with medical parking and Ashby is a highway over which we have no control. It bothers me that we have situations where the appellant and the applicant get 7 minutes and then the staff gets additional time to support the applicant. It is biased. It looks strange to me.
Maio anyone who ever visits that neighborhood knows that there’s is no parking anywhere. We really need to dig into that parking study. This will have to be raised at the public hearing.
Wozniak I was intrigued by the other Berkeley stores where such a great percentage of the patrons walk. What could Starbucks do to move that 80% to 100%. The parking is bad now and it will continue to be bad until Alta Bates moves to Oakland.
Worthington. This issue has driven the funniest emails to the council I have ever heard in support of Starbucks. The most compelling testimony was the pinch point comment for cyclists. I have never seen every neighborhood association and merchants come out against a project
Vote set for public hearing
Item # 24 Recommendation for Soft Story Ordinance
Hazardous situations occur in earthquakes. Phase 1 was identifying all soft story buldings and an engineering study of all those buildings along with notification to tenants. 321 with 51 removed. 112 voluntarily upgraded seismic requirements. 158 need retrofitting 18 buildings are out of compliance. Phase 2 is mandatory compliance with completion by 2018. There are solutions for every building. Public meetings have been held. 4 commissions had presentations.
Added some provisions to ordinance along with mandatory compliance. Limited one year extensions to 2 for hardship. Beefed up tenant noticing. Cost is$8-10K per unit. Per rent board will look at rent increases to cover on a case by case basis. There are already 12 permits to do the work. Incorporated recommendations from Commissions. Recommend policy that safety trumps parking.
Seems like the property owners has limited ability to recover costs. Is something being considered like the unreinforced masonry ordinance.
Happy we have gotten up to this point. Glad this has moved forward.
This has been a long time coming! Great outreach and feedback.
Capitelli: If a building owner comes in for a seismic retrofit would they be subject to other compliance triggers? I assume that as we go forward to establish criteria that we will include suggestions for the HAC and rent board. Anderson: Good work has been done on this over the last 15 years. Glad ZAB has carried this on. Are there mechanisms to inform tenants of the work and the situation.
Arreguin: I want to specifically state that the retrofit trumps parking. Also that in the future we have a discussion about the financing.
Wosniak: On the 18 properties that have not completed engineering evaluations how have we reached out to them? How do we get something back from them. Is it an act of retribution or are they incommunicado? I think there are some issues around financing. There needs to be something specific about pass-through costs it will be difficult but it must be done.
Vote to Approve the ordinance