The neighbors of 2133 Parker St. have finally gotten what they wanted.
The three-story, 17-bedroom residence currently houses 19 UC Berkeley students, much to the chagrin of neighborhood families who have been waging a months-long effort to get the students out.
“Our second day of living here, we were just moving things outside, and an elderly couple came up to us and … were asking very probing questions,” said Nicholas Hu, a UC Berkeley senior who lives at the Parker St. residence. “We were very sincere, but the conversation turned quickly, and they told us they didn’t want us here and didn’t want this property built in the first place.”
Following months of neighborhood conflict, Berkeley City Council voted Tuesday night to declare 2133 Parker St. a public nuisance and require that the landlord reduce the number of bedrooms to seven.
“Form and planning follows function,” said Councilmember Max Anderson at the meeting. “(The landlord) created a living arrangement that maximized students living there without taking into consideration impact on the neighborhood.”
According to Tuesday’s City Council recommendation, on Aug. 11, 2011 the city’s Zoning Adjustment Board determined that the residence exceeded the density allocations allowed in Berkeley zoning laws.
Section 23.D.32.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code — which is referenced in the recommendation — says multiple-family residential districts like the one where the residence is located “permit only that intensity of use which will be compatible with existing low density residential structures and will not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood.”
“This developer is skilled at finding ways to take advantage of and use every capacity of the zoning ordinance,” said Councilmember Laurie Capitelli. “Limiting the amount of floor space ratio to bedrooms has never been done in Berkeley, so now we are trying to limit the construction to 5 or more bedrooms.”
Capitelli said that prior to the Tuesday meeting, the city’s residential density zoning laws only addressed lot coverage and square footage of the property, allowing any number of bedrooms to be built in the type of residential district where the property is located.
According to a Nov. 15 City Council resolution, “in February 2011, the City issued a building permit that permitted the completion of a 5-bedroom, 2-bath dwelling on the ground floor, a 5-bedroom, 2-bath dwelling on the second floor, and a 7-bedroom, 3-bath dwelling on the third floor.”
Karl Reeh, president of the LeConte Neighborhood Association, which published a blog post about the neighbors’ issues with the residence, said that though the current tenants have been issued noise violations that may have led to the public nuisance resolution, the crux of the issue is still that Eslami built 17 bedrooms without proper notification to surrounding neighbors.
“Since they moved in last fall, there was one major incident where police came, and there was partying … there may have been even 100 people,” Reeh said. “They got a second warning so they couldn’t have parties for three months — the neighbors were very upset.”
The issue, according to Eslami, begins and ends with “political bullying,” in which powerful members of the community have consistently been putting pressure on the city to change longstanding rules.
“There is a portrayal that I have done things illegally,” Eslami said. “We did everything by the book … we got the permit; we got occupancy cleared — if you go to the city attorney’s office, that speaks for itself.”
City Council proposed an amendment to the current residential density zoning laws Tuesday night that would make it so no more than 60 percent of floor space in Restricted Multiple-family Residential Districts can be designated to bedrooms.
Eslami said he plans to file a lawsuit against the city now that the property has been deemed a public nuisance, because the amendment involving the number of bedrooms did not apply to Eslami when he first began renovating the property.
Anjuli Sastry covers city government.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
This is really sad…this was my grandparents house for more than 50 years. I’m really disgusted with this. Hopefully none of them are afraid of ghosts because it is super haunted by the prior elderly occupants that passed away in the house.
This guy, Ali Eslami, was my landlord my junior year, and he is very shady. I would advise anyone against living in any of his properties. He refused to give us a lease but insisted on taking a security deposit, which he of course never returned.
The address is obviously within the bounds of residential areas WHERE STUDENTS GENERALLY TEND TO RESIDE. These uptight non-students living in the Berkeley area should realized that we go to school here, we live here, and we aren’t going to be nice quiet neighbors. We’re young, let us be. If you don’t like it – you’re not tied here you can move.
The comment that neighbors object to student housing on this block is totally untrue. What we object to is the total exploitation by Mr. Eslami and other greedy landlords of students by offering very high price lodging near the campus in mini-dorms with cramped conditions, very small living space, dangerous fire hazards and health dangers by cramming so many people together. Also the exploitation by Mr. Eslami and his attorneys by lying, building an illegal structures while hoping the city council would keep its eyes closed. There is also the exploitation of the neighborhood by transforming precious old houses into well disguised crowded mini dorms for students very needy of housing. Mr. Eslami has used students on Parker Street to lie about leases and make untrue statements.
If the actual renters think that Eslami’s housing is subpar in the manner your describe, they can choose not to live there and live somewhere else instead. Your concerns are simply crocodile tears to make it seem as if you’re concerned about somebody other than yourself.
Students are the ones completely ripped off with very high rents, crowded conditions, limited amenities and no space. For going to a top notch University, students aren’t able to do the math. landlords like Eslami are turning south of campus into a ghetto of just students. Students who complain about the dirty unappealing physical conditions of south of campus should look to themselves for not cleaning up and landlords who create over crowded conditions.
This represents the ongoing farce that is Berkeley city council and city governance politics.
The same council members refused to find numerous drug houses as public nuisances despite significant legal evidence.
The City has no chance of prevailing in a lawsuit. There was no amendment regarding the percentage of floor space that can be occupied by bedrooms in a triplex when he received a permit. Aside from that, there is nothing stated in this article that even begins to qualify this residence as a Public Nuisance.
California Penal Code Sec 370
Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere withthe comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, orunlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, orbasin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a public nuisance.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=369a-402c
The residence meets none of the stipulations of a Public Nuisance:
1) Injurious to health
2) Indecent
3) Offensive to the senses
4) Obstruction to the free use of propertyThe neighbors feel that the residence “interferes with their comfortable enjoyment of lie or property. Without any of the stipulations first being present, the residence cannot be a Public Nuisance
That should read…..
The residence meets none of the stipulations of a Public Nuisance:
1) Injurious to health
2) Indecent
3) Offensive to the senses
4)
Obstruction to the free use of property
The neighbors feel that the
residence “interferes with their comfortable enjoyment of life or
property.” Without any of the stipulations first being present, the
residence cannot be a Public Nuisance.
I guess the sense of hearing is not a sense? Thank God the council is now trying to make some physical limit to density in these old neighborhoods that do not have the infrastructure to support indefinite densification. Unsupervised dorms ruin neighborhoods.
The City has every chance of prevailing in a lawsuit. The Zoning Adjustments Board determined that the building was a Group Living Accommodation in January 2011. Mr. Eslami failed to appeal this decision so he missed his chance to sue. You have to exhaust the issue at the administrative level before you can sue.
The nuisance matter has to do with the City of Berkeley Zoning code that defines a violation of the Zoning Code as a nuisance. The project violates the Zoning Code because it (vastly) exceeds the standards for Group Living Accommodations in R2A zones.
The neighbors seem MEAN to drive away students and telling them, “We don’t want you here”. And they are trying to fake nice like Andreejulian was claiming they are doing this for the students’ good because it’s so cramped blah blah blah. If you are doing this for students’ good, offer your place for the displaced students to stay then because thanks to what you’ve done, they are suddenly homeless in the middle of a semester.
If the conditions were cramped, how could the students hold a PARTY there with at least 100 people and have the neighbors call in police to complain?
The students are innocent and it’s just horrible for the neighbors to say “We don’t want you here” straight to their face. They should’ve explained that the property had some permit issues and advise the students to look for other places because something like this would happen in the near future.
I am the elderly woman who spoke to one of the students after 2133 was built. Mr. Eslami did NOT GET PERMITS to build a 19 bedroom mini-dorm in what used to be a family house. He got a permit to build 3 apartments on the lot – not a 19 small bedroom mini dorm. He totally lied and fooled the city and the neighborhood and added an illegal 4th floor. The students in that house live in cramped conditions and have to pay high prices imposed by a speculator who will do this all over the city if he can get away with it.
You live in a college town. What the fuck do you expect? You want somewhere peaceful? Move to fucking Florida, lady.
Berkeley has always been a college town, yet until very recently, it also had many peaceful neighborhoods. A town can have both college students and peaceful neighborhoods. That is the whole point of zoning. And the project at 2133 violates the Zoning Code in a number of ways.
There is a new arrogance among some students that I do not understand at all. Your comment is a perfect example.
The town would be a fucking dump without the money students bring in. It would be an extension of the Oakland ghetto without that cash. And yet the annoying hippie-dippie residents feel like they have the right to complain? LOL
” The students in that house live in cramped conditions and have to pay
high prices imposed by a speculator who will do this all over the city
if he can get away with it.” This sentence makes no sense. In fact, he is only able to gouge the students (which we can’t tell is true since no prices were mentioned in this article) because people like you restrict the construction of more housing units.
How can they approve the 155-unit development at Shattuck and Parker, half a block away, and not allow this? Do we want more housing, or do we want to limit bedrooms?
It’s typical liberal NIMBYism. They claim to want more affordable education, and then do everything to make education more expensive (preventing the building of housing units in People’s Park, which would cut the cost of student housing, highly restrictive zoning laws as we see here, et cetera.) They don’t want to sacrifice anything for more affordable education. They’d rather steal from the rich. Well, fuck them.
As someone who followed this matter, it was very clear that the City of Berkeley Planning Department staff and the City Attorney were “bending” the rules to assist their pal. Eslami did NOT do everything by the book, but he did get the permit.
Funny that he mentions going “to the city attorney’s office”. Not sure what he means, but that office is clearly in on the corruption of the Planning Department
The video seems to be set to private…
Move them to People’s Park and nobody will even notice. Or, the current occupiers of 2133 Parker St. can claim they are Occupiers and put up a banner that says “Capitalism is Evil” and nobody has to move at all. They can even stop paying rent :-)