BNC first started telling the story of the March of the Mini-Dorms in our very first issue of the BNC eNEWS in August 2013. Back then, people could obtain an over the counter building permit to convert spaces normally used for such uses as dining rooms into bedrooms and then packing those rooms with student renters. This raised the rental value sometimes as high as $15,000 per month, making large, older homes that had for many years served as a single family home into very attractive targets for speculators. These conversions were now dubbed “Mini-Dorms”, and they could happen anywhere in the City whether the neighborhood was zoned for single family or for small multi-family buildings. The most affected areas, however, were in those neighborhoods that are closest to the Campus. Neighbors began complaining when the rowdy behavior of the residents in a number of Mini-Dorms became intolerable — behavior that ran the gamut from public drunkenness, excessive late night parties and noise to trash accumulation, parking and traffic problems.
South of campus neighborhoods united into a Southside Neighborhood Coalition and said ENOUGH. They were so persistent and compelling in their efforts to find a solution to this problem, that they convinced the City Council to enact new rules regarding how Mini-Dorm proposals will be allowed in the R-1, R1A, R-2, R-2A and R-3 residential districts. The new rules regarding Mini-Dorms now require a permit that involves discretionary review by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) and notice to neighbors before they can open.
However, there are 3 remaining problems to address:
-
The lawsuit regarding 2133 Parker:
For 40 years this property had been in use as a single family home until Mr. Ali Eslami converted it into a 19-bedroom Mini-Dorm. After much back and forth, ZAB declared it to be a public nuisance on January 31, 2012 and on May 12, 2012 Mr. Eslami sued the City. On October 8, 2013, the City Council approved a settlement with Mr. Eslami in closed session the terms of which had to procedurally undergo a public hearing before it could be approved. The public hearing was held on January 28, 2014 and there was so much public opposition to the terms of the settlement agreement that the Council reversed its earlier decision and the case went back to the courts. The details are in our February eNEWS for those of you who want to check it out.
Since then, there has been no more news. A check on the Alameda County Superior Court website failed to bring up any information at all. BNC will continue to try and find out what has happened so we can let you know.
- Operating Rules for New Mini-Dorms:As we reported in our March eNEWS, Council action to amend Municipal Code, Chapter 13.42: Operating Standards for Mini-Dorms, came before the City Council on April 1, 2014. The staff report specifically stated that this proposed ordinance would apply to existing Mini-Dorms, and that since the Planning Commission did not have the time to address this issue, the matter was being presented to the Council by staff without Commission review.
At the May 20, 2014 Council meeting, the City Attorney presented supplemental material that made revisions to the earlier proposed ordinance based on discussions with neighborhood residents and the Southside Neighborhood Coalition. (See our March eNEWS for details in the originally proposed ordinance.) The Council placed this new ordinance on the Consent Calendar and it was unanimously approved. BNC has the following comments:
- The new definition of Mini-Dorm from the April 1 version is retained: It is recommended that the term should apply to buildings occupied by “six unrelated adults over the age of eighteen in a dwelling unit.” BNC has some concerns about this because we remember that the term “unrelated” is problematic because of a lawsuit many years ago in the City of Santa Barbara. However, we aren’t attorneys, so maybe there is no problem using it in this ordinance.
- The new ordinance adds to the potential remedies that the City could require that rooms used as bedrooms be converted back to their original non-bedroom uses.
- The new ordinance also adds that enforcement action with an appeal process for the owner could be taken by staff without having to first go to ZAB and City Council. While this may relieve some of the burden of enforcement from neighbors, it is not clear whether appeals would have to go to ZAB and then to the Council. In addition, other neighborhoods have in the past frequently complained, loud and long, about staff enforcement efforts. We’ll have to wait and see how this works out.
- Operating Rules for Existing Mini-Dorms:This issue has yet to be addressed, even though back on April 1, 2014, staff said that the proposed ordinance would address existing Mini-Dorms. The new ordinance that Council approved on May 20,2014 clearly applies to new Mini-Dorms, not existing Mini-Dorms. The Council will have to approve another ordinance, a regulatory ordinance, something like a license with an annual review and fee in order to address the issue of regulating existing Mini-Dorms. Perhaps the Planning Commission will have the time to take that on soon.
BNC will continue to keep an eye on this issue and let you know.