The saga goes on and on and on and on…
The March of the Mini-Dorms Continues
In the very first issue of BNC’s eNEWS, back in August 2013, we wrote about Mini-Dorms, i.e., what the building was called after increasing the number of bedrooms in a house either by new construction or conversion of existing rooms, then stuffing as many students as possible into each of those bedrooms, and collecting an exorbitant amount of rent from each individual. The practice was occurring in all Berkeley residential zones, from R-1 on Euclid Avenue in the North Berkeley Hills through R-3, but especially in the residential areas South of the Campus. At that time, Mini-Dorms were created by obtaining an over-the-counter building permit or, as in many cases, the property owner just did it, with no permit at all. A zoning permit with notice to the public was not required. Not all groups of students are rowdy, but when neighbors to these Mini-Dorms started experiencing excessive noise through all hours of the day and night, significantly increased traffic in and out of the house, inability to find a parking space near their home, mounds of trash and unacceptable behavior, they found they had to go through a laborious, long-drawn out process to bring about corrections to code violations or to have one declared a nuisance.
At the beginning of 2014, neighborhood groups and individuals in the LeConte, Willard, Blake Street, Claremont Elmwood, Dwight/Hillside and Piedmont Ave areas formed the Southside Neighborhood Consortium and began pushing for the City to recognize that such uses were a serious problem and propose possible solutions based on the experiences of other cities. The Consortium successfully opposed some specific projects and worked for the establishment of Mini-Dorm Operating Standards (Chapter 13.42, Municipal Code) which the Council unanimously approved on May 20, 2014.
Mini-Dorms are now defined as any building in Zoning Districts R-1 through R-3 that contains six or more bedrooms occupied by six or more unrelated persons over the age of 18. Sororities, fraternities and student Co-Ops that are permitted and legal are not considered to be Mini-Dorms as long as they have a resident manager.
Further, the City now defines “Bedroom as:
any Habitable Space in a Dwelling Unit or Habitable Accessory Structure other than a kitchen or living room that is intended for or capable of being used for sleeping with a door that closes the room off from other common space such as living and kitchen areas that is at least 70 square feet in area, exclusive of closets and other appurtenant space, and meets Building Code standards for egress, light and ventilation. A room identified as a den, library, study, loft, dining room, or other extra room that satisfies this definition will be considered a bedroom for the purposes of applying this requirement.
You can read all about what happened in back issues of the BNC eNEWS. Buildings in the R-1 — R-3 zones that will have a total of six or more bedrooms must obtain a Use Permit (with public hearing) from the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB), but that isn’t the end of this story.
What Berkeley still needs is a registration system with regular inspections and regulatory fees similar to ordinances that are in place in San Luis Obispo and other California communities. The Southside Neighborhood Consortium is still active and currently working on this effort. Concurrently, a BNC sub-committee is working on an ordinance that will establish consistent density standards between our General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This is one very good reason for everyone to come to BNC meetings and participate in these discussions. When you are a subscriber to the BNC eNEWS you will receive via e-mail notice of all meetings and of course, all issues of the eNEWS. You can also share your stories and views by e-mailing us at newsletter@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com.
In BNC Issue 11, late July to mid-August, we told you about the latest chapter of the story of two projects at the landmarked 2201-05 Blake Street houses and 2204 Dwight Way. It’s really one project that is being treated as two separate ones because the proposed project sits on two separate adjoining lots. Staff recommended approval, but the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) narrowly voted to deny the project. That decision has been appealed to the City Council by Marc Madrigal, who has described himself as a tenant living in 2201 Blake and a ”friend“ of the developer, Nathan George. Some of the reasons for the appeal are reported in BNC eNEWS, Issue 12. In his appeal, Mr. Madrigal stated more information would be forthcoming.
Since then, Council procedures have changed. The old two-step process of having the Council first decide if the matter will be scheduled for a public hearing has been discarded. Now, all appeals to the Council are automatically put on the Council’s agenda for a public hearing. Mr. Madrigal’s appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the Council on Tuesday, December 9, City Council Chambers, Old City Hall. All interested people should attend as your presence is a statement to the Council as to how important this is to ALL neighborhoods from R-1 through R-3.
We do not know all of the reasons for the appeal as they will not be posted on-line until the Council’s 12/9/2014 meeting material is posted — about two weeks before the meeting.
Interestingly enough, another of Mr. George’s projects at 2401 Warring (conversion of an single family home/illegal boarding house into a triplex), has also been appealed and is scheduled for a public hearing before the Council on that same date, December 9th, same place. This project was approved by the ZAB on July 24, 2014 by a unanimous vote, as described in BNC’s Issue 11, late July to mid-August 2014. The proposed conversion is supported by staff, the building’s immediate neighbor (a sorority), and it has not been opposed by the Southside Neighborhood Consortium. The reasons for an appeal have not been posted, but since it has been reported that Lisa Stephens, a Member of the Rent Stabilization Board, filed the appeal, BNC is speculating that it has to do with the removal of some rent controlled units.
Of additional interest is what has happened to the proposal to convert eight existing one-bedroom apartments into eight two-bedroom apartments at 2610 Hillegass. This project has been appealed to the Council and it is scheduled for public hearing on January 27, 2015. Staff had recommended that ZAB deny this project. On a vote of eight to one, ZAB agreed, basically because approving the project would result in density well beyond that designated for its R-2 residential zoning. The curious thing about this appeal is that the project was denied on March 13, 2014 and the appeal has come so late. No information regarding reasons for the appeal is currently available. The appeal for this project was filed by the applicant.
By the way for your information, BNC understand that the cost of an appeal by the applicant is $1,000. The cost for others is $500.
So, the March goes on…
The Threat to Berkeley’s Main Post Office Continues
We hate to think it, alone say it, but the roller coaster of what will be the ultimate fate of our Main Post Office is still in full swing. Check out our back story in Issue 8, April 2014, about the news that raised our hopes that the United States Postal Service (USPS) could not just up and sell the building to a private developer without considering the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Around October 23, 2014, we learned that City Attorney Zach Cowan advised the Council that he believes that the USPS may have already sold the Post Office or was in contract with a potential buyer even though they had assured the City that negotiations for a revised preservation covenant were continuing. USPS would not respond to Mr. Cowan’s questions about a sale and he concluded that:
at a minimum a buyer has been chosen, and that it is likely that there is at least a letter of understanding in place, if not a contract and perhaps an open escrow.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority granted by the Council in May 2013, I have directed our outside counsel, Tony Rossmann, to initiate litigation against the USPS to prevent the sale of the Berkeley Main Post Office. We are working closely with the National Trust and have asked them to participate in the litigation as well.
The City, contending that the USPS didn’t conduct an environmental review or comply with the National Historic Preservation Act that requires a public hearing on the sale of historic properties, filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to block sale of the building. The USPS contends they are not required to take either of these actions.
On October 23, 2014, Jacquelyn McCormick, BNC Member, President of The Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association (CENA) and Executive Director of the National Post Office Collaborate gave a major speech at the Municipal Art Society (MAS) Summit in New York City on Preserving the Cultural Legacy of our Post Offices, Is Everything for Sale? You can hear her words and see the slide show that accompanied them by clicking on the link below.
The Post Office was also an issue in the November 4th election in Measure R, the Green Downtown and Public Commons Initiative. In September, at the urging of Mayor Bates, the City Council enacted an ordinance that took the exact language from the Initiative regarding uses that could be approved for the parcels of land listed as being in the Public Commons that specifically included the Berkeley Main Post Office. He openly said at the time, that he did this to improve the chances that Measure R would fail.
Yes on R proponents argued that the only way the Post Office and other public commons buildings could be preserved for use by the public would be to approve the Initiative because potential uses couldn’t be changed without a vote of the people, while an ordinance can be amended any time by five votes of the Council. The voters rejected Measure R by a wide margin. However, the ordinance stands and the uses that are allowed are:
- Libraries
- Judicial Courts
- Museums
- Parks and Playgrounds
- Government Agencies and Institutions
- Non-Profit Cultural, Arts, Environmental, Community Services and Historical Organizations
- Live Performance Theater
- Public Market
In early November, Berkeleyside broke the news that a local developer, Hudson McDonald, was in contract with the USPS for the sale. Hudson McDonald (Chris Hudson and Evan McDonald) acknowledged that the story was correct, stating that the USPS had received many offers, but they were negotiating only with them. Hudson McDonald are the developers of the Trader Joe’s building on the corner of University and MLK Jr. Way, the Metropolitan Student Housing Building at 2303 Durant (a building of 1, 2, 3 or 4 bedrooms arranged around a kitchenette, living room and bathroom, that rents only to UCB students.) BNC has always been under the impression that it is illegal to restrict tenants in that way, so you find out new things every day. They also own a 5-story apartment building on the corner of San Pablo and Delaware, retail on the ground floor,1 and 2 bedroom units above and arranged around a central courtyard.
Both Chris Hudson and Mayor Bates have been quoted as saying that the proposal for the Post Office would retain the post office in the front of the building (but the USPS has not yet agreed to remain in the building). Additionally, retail would be located in the 80% of the building that is vacant in the rear. Mentioned as a tenant is Ace Hardware, 2148 University Avenue, that is being displaced by the new 205-unit Acheson Building on University Avenue. We don’t see how this fits into the ordinance, but if this is the case, it seems that a variance, or other change to the ordinance will have to be made. Such changes could affect the other buildings listed in the ordinance.
On November 6, 2014, Judge William Alsup, United States District Court of Appeals, granted the TRO, ruling that the USPS cannot sell the building before he conducts a full hearing which will be held in San Francisco on December 10, 2014.