Article

The Up-coming November 4, 2014 Election

Three important matters have been discussed by BNC since our last eNEWS.  These are:

1. On August 2, 2014 at a General Meeting of BNC (to which all consulting neighborhoods were invited), several November ballot measures were discussed.  Those in attendance voted to make two endorsements in the November 4, 2014 election:
   1. Support Measure R, the Green Downtown and Public Commons Initiative
      and
   2. Oppose Measure S, the City Council’s redistricting measure.
2. On August 26, an e-mail message was received from a resident who does not agree with BNCs endorsements on Measures R and S.  The complaint was that “BNC Makes these endorsements on behalf of the neighborhood groups that appear on BNC’s website, yet I am a member of CENA and I was not asked for my opinion on these two measures.” The message’s author believes that people in neighborhood groups “don’t realize that BNC is speaking for them and for their neighborhood group.” “It isn’t fair and it isn’t democratic.”
3. On August 30, attendees at the next duly noticed General Meeting again discussed the endorsement issue and the opinion raised in #2 above.  There was no change in BNCs endorsement decision, but it was agreed that BNC should make it clear that this was the decision of those who attended the General Meetings — that BNC does not speak for our consulting neighborhood groups, that it would be impossible for everyone in any neighborhood to agree on everything and that BNC provides a forum in which people can participate in civil conversation about neighborhood issues with the goal that this conversation will lead to resolution of problems and a stronger neighborhood voice in City decisions.  It was unanimously agreed that the structure of how BNC arrives at action decisions will be discussed further at our next General Meeting.

In summary, the following reflects the results of our discussions:

• Berkeley Neighborhoods Council will NOT support or oppose candidates for election.
• Berkeley Neighborhoods Council will with a 2/3s (67%) of those present at a duly noticed General Meeting take a position on ballot measures that have a direct impact on neighborhoods within Berkeley.  Berkeley Neighborhoods Council will take such actions sparingly.
• In making a ballot measure to support/oppose, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council will
  1. Issue a written statement as to the reasons for taking such a position, and
  2. Include in the written statement that the action to support/oppose does NOT mean that this action reflects the opinions of our consulting neighborhood organizations, but it does reflect the opinions of at least 67% of those present at a General Meeting to which all consulting neighborhood organizations were invited.
  3. That any election activities by our consulting neighborhood organizations or eNEWS subscribers, whether in accordance with or opposed to BNC’s action, is entirely up to each neighborhood group or individual.
• Berkeley Neighborhoods Council will begin the process of surveying all our consulting neighborhoods regarding:
  1. the listing of their names on our website, eNEWS, correspondence, etc.
  2. our support/oppose policy and procedures, and
  3. their issues and concerns

The following are statements issued by BNC in support to their decision to support Measure R, the Green Downtown and Public Commons Initiative and to oppose Measure S, the City Council’s Redistricting Measure.  Each Statement contains the notation that BNC does not speak for our consulting neighborhood associations.  They are printed separately so that any neighborhood organization or individual may reproduce them and distribute them, if they so desire.  No permission to reproduce or distribute these statements is necessary.

A Whole Lot of Moving Going On

Students are moving…

The weekend of August 23 and 24 was Move-In for Cal students.  The Berkeley Property Owners Association informs us that “the City of Berkeley will have a devoted, full time waste compliance officer driving the neighborhoods that mostly serve campus students” looking for trash blocking the public right of way.  Students buy a lot of stuff, including new furniture when they move in and that means they get rid of lots of wrappings — boxes, cardboard, etc — plus they sometimes find stuff left in their new apartment that they want to move out.  If these materials block the sidewalk, the owner of the property on which it is located may be fined $500.

This is all part of the “Cal Move-In Program.” Cal gives the City a set amount of money to deal with the impact that students have on the neighborhoods during certain parts of the year — something we’ve certainly noticed at the end of the semester when the students Move-Out, but haven’t much noticed during Move-In.  During Move-Out so much stuff is discarded that an underground activity of individuals who pick up the discards and re-sell them on eBAY has emerged.  Move-Out seems to have a lot more furniture than Move-In.  During this time, Cal also makes an effort to recycle much of the trash.  However, both at the beginning and end of school there seems to be an abundance of mattresses!

We appreciate the effort made to clean up the streets and the effort to recycle, but we wonder whether the amount of money paid by Cal to the City increases as the number of students increase and whether the pick-up extends to other areas of the City.  We are still seeing mattresses on the sidewalk of properties outside the areas designated as those that “mostly serve campus students.” Besides knowing how much money the City receives from Cal, being terminally inquisitive, we’d also like to also know just how much stuff is picked up and whether there has been any enforcement.  We’ll ask questions and let you know.

Structures are moving…

The Blood House, 2526 Durant Avenue, moved in mid-August east on Durant to College, south on College to Dwight Way, and east on Dwight Way to Regent, and found a new home snuggled into a cluster of historic homes being formed on Regent Street.  It took about 15 years to get to that move but at last, the deed is done and it’s a very welcome one.  Built in 1891, and once the home of Ms.  Ellen Blood, it was owned by the well-known Berkeley firm, Ruegg and Ellsworth — the folks who among other real estate deals have been excavating part of the Spenger’s Parking lot to determine whether that site is a shell mound.  Ruegg wants to build a 44 unit apartment house at 2526 Durant, so they sold the Blood House to John Gordon — also well-known to Berkeleyans.  As one Council Member stated “more people in Berkeley know Gordon’s name from his signs on vacant commercial properties than they know the Mayor’s name.” Gordon paid the princely sum of $1 and plans to restore the house on its new site.  Ruegg paid the moving charges which weren’t insignificant.  All in all, everyone should be grateful to all involved for saving the Blood House, declared to be a “Structure of Merit” back in September 1999.  Thank you all.

The Woolley House, 2509 Haste Street, was supposed to be moved at about the same time, but it wasn’t.  The Woolley House was moved to its current location on Haste Street around 1910.  It was designated a Berkeley Landmark in October, 1989.  It’s the structure just east of the vacant lot on the northeast corner of Telegraph and Haste, and the place where the Telegraph Avenue Association used to meet.  After they left, people might not have paid much attention to the house because of the high visibility of the vacant lot on Telegraph Avenue, once the site of the Berkeley Inn, demolished back in the 90s as a result of a fire.  (It has been the focus of activity and attention as the City had repeatedly tried to get it cleaned up and redeveloped.) That lot and the Woolley House are currently owned by Ken Sarachan, well-known as the owner of Rasputin Records and other businesses on Telegraph.  Mr. Sarachan had the same deal that was offered to Ruegg/John Gordon — sell the house for $1 and move it to Regent Street into the same cluster where The Blood House is now located and Gordon would restore the house.  Something went wrong for unknown reasons and the house wasn’t moved, but supposedly the move is still on.  Mr. Sarachan wants the house moved so he can proceed with a project that will include both the vacant Telegraph lot and the Woolley House site.  There have been many delays connected with redeveloping the Berkeley Inn site, but as we have said before that’s another whole other story.  The vacant lot and the Woolley House site are to be developed by Mr. Sarachan into what he calls a “Moorish palace,” a 6-story mixed use building titled as “LaFortaleza” which means “fortress or stronghold.”

The developing cluster of historic buildings in this area is good news for the Telegraph area north of Dwight Way and its neighborhoods, particularly Regent Street.  The cluster includes:

• The King Building, 2502 Dwight Way (southeast corner of Telegraph and Dwight Way), constructed in 1901.*
• The Soda Works Building, 2509 Telegraph, constructed 1888, enlarged in 1904-05.*
• The Needham-Obata Building, 2525 Telegraph and 2512-16 Regent, constructed in 1907.*
• Colonial Revival houses at 2503, 2509, 2511 and 2517 Regent, all built between 1901-03.  2517 is designated a City Structure of Merit.
• The Stuart House, 2524 Dwight Way, built in 1891.*
• The Edwards House, 2530 Dwight Way, built in 1886.*

* Designated a City Landmark

And Then There is 2539 Telegraph Avenue

eNEWS readers will find the back story on this 6-story Kennedy project proposed for the former Center for Independent Living (CIL) site on Telegraph Avenue in previous issues.  Following the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping session held in July at the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB), it is expected that the Draft EIR will be released in late September and the Final EIR Certification will be done in December 2014.  The historic consultant, PlaceWorks, will be required to consider the impact of Kennedy’s proposal on nearby burgeoning historic district on Telegraph Avenue and Regent Street.  Also the impact on the CIL building itself will have to be considered since it is a site that is historically significant to the disabled community nationwide.  There is also a mural inside the CIL building that will need to be considered.  This does not mean that the building and the mural cannot be demolished.

In the meantime, it is rumored that Mr. Kennedy has decided to use off-site pre-built, manufactured units, stacked one on each other for the dwelling units at this location.  The reason for this decision being the large savings this type of construction offers over traditional methods of employing local contractors and workers.

And Last, But by No Means Least, Parker Place, 2598-2600 Shattuck Avenue — While these Building Aren’t Moving Around, the Permits for Them Certainly Are…

This is a project consisting of three buildings to be constructed at Shattuck and Parker in South Berkeley.  Two of the buildings are 5-story (2598 Shattuck — currently used as a Honda used car sales lot — and 2600 Shattuck — currently the Honda dealership) and one building that will be 3-stories at 2037 Parker (currently the western part of the Honda sales lot).  The three buildings will have a total of 155 dwelling units (2-bedroom, 1-bedroom and studio/jr bedrooms), 22,905 square feet of commercial on the ground floor, and 170-188 parking spaces.  Thirty-one of the dwelling units are to be set aside for low income households under one of two options.  The applicant was Mark Rhoades (formerly City Planning Manager) for CityCentric Investments, and the owner at that time was Parker Place Group, LLC, J.  Anthony Kershaw of Albany as Agent.

The project dates back to April 2010 when it was first approved by the ZAB, and appealed to the City Council who dismissed the appeal.  That approval was challenged in court by nearby residents, Gale Garcia and Planning Commissioner Patti Dacey (deceased), and on behalf of a number of Parker-Shattuck residents, on such issues that an EIR was necessary because of the size of the project and that the soil on which the project was to be constructed was contaminated and not adequately addressed.  The court ruled that the City handled the process incorrectly and rescinded the approval.  It dismissed the lack of a full Environmental Impact Report in spite of the fact that a portion of the project is built on land that is zoned R-2A, low-density multi-family density and that the project with its 155 residential units and almost 23,000 square feet of commercial space is larger than the Berkeley Central project recently built in the core of the Downtown.  Parker Place is in the South Shattuck Commercial District, abutting lower-density residential and well outside the Downtown area.

The project was resubmitted and again approved by ZAB on December 8, 2011 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, i.e.  a statement saying that impacts were to be mitigated to an acceptable level, and a denial for the serving of alcohol and live entertainment in the food service uses allowed in the ground floor commercial space.  On January 17, 2012 it was again appealed to the City Council, who held a public hearing and on a motion by Council Member Anderson, seconded by Council Member Moore, the project was approved again.

Voting Yes:	Council Members Anderson, Capitelli, Maio, Moore, Wengraf, Worthington, Wozniak, and Mayor Bates
Voting No:	None
Abstaining:	Council Member Arreguin

In June of this year, Parker Place LLC sold the site with all its permits to Lennar Corporation which the Council of Neighborhood Associations advised is “ranked No.  1 by the SF Business Times’ recent list of largest developers in the Bay Area.” Lennar decided it needed to modify the already approved permits and ZAB held a public hearing regarding those modifications on July 24, 2014.  Therein began a very confused discussion by Board members and neighbors that was further confused by the fact that the staff report which showed a table regarding the affordable units and modifications was incorrect.

Readers need to keep in mind that this is not like starting from scratch.  The project already has its permits.  It is seeking to modify those permits by

• Increasing the amount of commercial space by about 8,000 sq ft, for a total of around 30,000 sq ft.  — said to be twice the size of the Trader Joe’s grocery store at University and Martin Luther King Jr. Way, or about the size of ground floor commercial approved for the Acheson Building, Downtown at University and Shattuck.
• Increasing the amount of parking by 116 spaces — going from 170 spaces to 286 spaces.
• Allowing the project’s commercial use to include offices, gyms/health clubs and dance/martial arts studios.  This action would grant Use Permits to such uses so they could be located at the site without further City review.  Already allowed are a sidewalk café and a full service restaurant food service uses without alcohol permits.
• Increase the height of the 2600 Shattuck building by a small amount.  Note, the original permits allowed the buildings at 2598 and 2600 Shattuck Avenue to exceed the allowable height limit to accommodate “architectural elements, and mechanical and stairwell uses.” The requested additional height is regarded by staff as minimal — a few inches to a couple of feet.
• Replacement of aluminum windows called for in the original plan with lower cost vinyl windows.

Everything else was to remain the same, 155 dwelling units with 31 set aside for low income households.

A few neighbors came to the public hearing concerned in particular about the commercial spaces.  The original permits had specified they would all be “neighborhood serving uses.” No one knew what the future of these spaces would be.  Lennar representatives (Mark Rhodes again) denied having anything particular in mind, that all they wanted was “flexibility.” Board Members expressed concern that office space at the street level would not bring vitality to the street.

One speaker raised the issue that an appeal would be filed regarding the Design Review Committee’s (DRC) recommendation to hold over the matter of the vinyl windows and an architectural feature that involved whether a concrete strip would run across the entire front of the building for final determination after action by the ZAB.  It seems there is a 14-day appeal period after the DRC’s decision and the speaker raised the issue of whether the ZAB should act while the appeal period was still open.  No appeal had actually been filed but the 14-day period had not yet ended.  When the ZAB determined that no appeal had been filed, no further discussion was held regarding this point.

The ZAB discussion then settled into three areas:

• Affordable housing:  The end result was that the applicant agreed to providing 31 below market rate units, but would have three options to choose from:
  1. 28 rental units would be in 2598 Shattuck and 3 condo units in another building.  All would be accessible for the disabled.  This was in the original permit, but the agency that was pushing for them seems to no longer be interested.  It will remain an option for the developer, but probably will not happen.
  2. 31 condo units would be available with the option of including 7 and paying an in lieu fee that would go into the City’s Housing Trust Fund.
  3. 31 rental units would be evenly dispersed throughout all the buildings.  This seems to be the one the developer is most interested in doing.
• The amount of parking:  All ZAB members expressed concerned about the project being “over parked.” They wanted more bike parking and added to the permit 1 bike space per unit plus 30 more.  Car share and electric charging spaces are already required in the permit.  Then a rather unusual approval was given to leave it up to the developer to develop the extra floor of parking if they needed to do that in relation to the development of the extra commercial space.
• Retail spaces:  No one wanted the “dead space” of offices along the sidewalk, so ZAB added the requirement that offices on the ground floor would have to come back for a permit from ZAB and this issue could be addressed on a case by case basis.

In the end, the modifications were approved on a motion by Allen, seconded by Pinkston with all ZAB members voting yes.

The Council of Neighborhoods September issue reports the following:

Wall Street Journal Market Watch reported on July 31 that Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management (DeAWM) has acquired Parker Place, ‘155 luxury multifamily units,’ on behalf of one of its clients.  Todd Henderson of DeAWM is quoted, ‘Parker Place is a high-quality property in a very desirable location that boasts one of the tightest vacancy rates in the nation …We were fortunate to be able to form a joint venture partnership with Lennar…’

On August 14, neighbors filed an appeal to the City Council of the July 24^th ZAB decision so we haven’t heard the last of this project by a long shot.

In this Section, BNC publishes articles that are written either by a neighborhood representative without editing or is summarized from material which has been submitted to us.  We will tell you when an article has been written by a representative or when it has been summarized.

We invite readers to send us articles to newsletter@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com.  Please include your phone number so that we can contact you about your submittal.  Your phone number will not be published or shared in any way, but we do need to be able to talk with you before publication should there be any questions.

This month’s post is written by a member of a neighborhood in West Berkeley.  It has not been edited.  It’s about the long-standing issue of air pollution in that area caused not only by the I-80 freeway, but also by a Berkeley business, Pacific Steel Casting (PSC).  Air pollution is a major health issue that concerns not only the existing homes, schools and child care facilities located in West Berkeley but also future residents as the pressure to develop more and more new housing in that area increases.  This article also highlights the complex issue of how residential and industrial can exist side by side in compact communities such as Berkeley and the urgent need for regulatory agencies, local government, residents and business to work cooperatively to resolve these difficult concerns — not just leave them to fester, year after year.  Because of the serious health issues involved, these are not concerns that neighborhoods outside of West Berkeley can shrug their shoulders and declare them to be “Someone Else’s Problems” (SEPs).  We are, indeed, in this, all together.

And it’s not over yet…

The sprawling PSC plant at 2nd and Gilman first opened in Berkeley in 1934 and it has been operated by various descendants of its founders ever since.  It makes steel parts mostly for large trucks and custom molds.  Over the years it has grown to be the third or fifth (depending on different sources) largest foundry in the United States.  Most recently, PSC’s public face has been that of its spokesperson, Elizabeth Jewel, a member of the firm of Aroner, Jewel and Ellis (AJE Partners) — yes, that is Dion Aroner, Berkeley’s former Assembly Member.  Ms.  Aroner and Elizabeth Jewel were former high-level staff members in the office of then-Assembly Member Tom Bates, now Berkeley’s Mayor.  AJE Partners is a consulting firm on “government and community affairs for public and non profit organizations, associations and private sector clients.” Clients listed range from local non-profits like Lifelong Medical, to big business like Caruso Affiliates and Safeway, and also Tom Bates for Mayor political campaigns.

The history of neighbors fighting for improvements in cleaning up emissions from PSC is years long.  The Blame Game has been key to the continuation of the problem:

• Blame the I-80 freeway, even when it is clear that specific types of pollutants came from PSC and not from car/truck emissions.
• Blame State air quality standards that give a “pass” to existing polluters while at the same time holding the same type of businesses that are new to much higher air quality standards and never explaining or even attempting to get existing polluters to reduce health risks that are acknowledged to be unacceptable because they have been declared to have that status in new facilities.
• Blame the neighborhood as trying to take jobs away from working people, but ignore health risks to residents and PSC workers alike.

Well, finally when a national newspaper (USA Today), the City’s Community Environmental Advisory Board (CEAC) and Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) began to look at permits and ask questions, the problem seemed to come to a head.  Unfortunately, to little avail, as decision-makers turned their heads and PSC had its up and downs.  There was a downturn in the economy and a series of major mishaps such as changes that brought in management with no foundry experience, employee strikes, a $31 million lawsuit filed by a long-term PSC worker over violations of California labor law (the suit was settled for $5.4 million to be paid to employees — a debt that we understand has not yet been paid, and layoffs of some 200 employees found to be undocumented immigrants, many of whom had been working there for years with invalid or missing social security numbers.  Then, PSC filed for bankruptcy and the plant was put up for auction.  In late July 2014, according to Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy, it was sold for $11.3 million (BNC thinks that’s a surprisingly low amount) and a judge in Oakland approved the sale to Speyside Equity, there being no other offers.

Speyside Equity is based in New York and is said by local sources to also own an aluminum foundry, Stahl Specialty Company in Missouri.  However, a look at their website reveals that they sold Stahl on December 31, 2010.  Speyside was formed in 2004 and states it “usually invests in traditional businesses with a history of profitability.” The company’s focus is on “chemicals, food and industrials.” The most recent acquisition listed on their site was in January 2014 when it acquired Magic Valley Fresh Frozen (a company that sells okra, spinach, southern greens, black-eyed peas, carrots and diced turnip roots to food outlets and institutional buyers).  There is no mention of PSC.  Ms.  Jewel is quoted as saying that “As far as we know, they intend to stay in Berkeley and continue operation.”

---

Clean Air? A View From The West

by M.S. Siegal

For many years, living in North Berkeley, while enrolled in a doctorate program at CAL, was idyllic.  I walked or biked everywhere and didn’t think of air pollution.  Hey, I grew up in New York City and braved the likes of the BQE (Brooklyn-Queens Expressway) and the chemical soup known as the Holland Tunnel and New Jersey Turnpike.  When it came time to settle down, the fates had me here, the Bay Area, and I naturally thought Berkeley would be a nice place to live.  Remember? I lived in North Berkeley and biked and walked everywhere.  The trick was finding a house that was affordable.  As an ex-New Yorker, I loved public transportation and wanted to continue a sustainable life style.  I wound up in West Berkeley, broke up all the concrete in the backyard, planted fruit trees and an organic garden and then poof — all my feelings of joy dissipated in one nauseating smell.  Pacific Steel Casting.  It was summer 2003.

Over the past 10 years, I can’t tell you how many calls I made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District because there were so many.  I came to know the inspectors intimately.  Imagine, they could only stand outside the house and not go to the back garden area where the stench was particularly strong.  And so it went.  I also participated in protests with the West Berkeley Alliance, allied with Global Community Monitor, attended meetings and presented at Berkeley’s own Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC).

When USA Today wrote in 2009 that the air in three Berkeley schools in West Berkeley (all in close proximity to Pacific Steel Casting) was “in the top 1 percent of the country’s most at-risk sites for exposure to harmful chemicals” (as reported by Riya Bhattacharjee in the Berkeley Daily Planet) I really thought that the city would step up to the plate and work to reduce the harmful exposure to its Berkeley citizens.  I was wrong.  We continued to play the same cat and mouse game until recently.  As many of you know, Pacific Steel Casting went bankrupt, and part of the demise was linked to egregious business practices as reported in Berkeleyside (July 21, 2014):

First, the company [Pacific Steel Casting] lost a third of its workforce in 2011 after a U.S.  Immigration and Customs enforcement audit.  Workers’ compensation insurance costs then skyrocketed after a flood of claims came in from departing workers.  Then, in January, the company settled a lawsuit about the timing of worker lunch breaks for around $5.4 million, which is owed to about 1,300 current and former employees.  According to the bankruptcy filing, the company “was not in a financial position to immediately fund the settlement.” The lawsuit had not been supported by the union, GMP 136B, and was originally filed by a former employee, Jewel told Berkeleyside earlier this year.

For those of us who had been marching, writing and organizing in protest against the plant over the past 10 years, the news of abusive practices in the work force was a kind of vindication of our efforts.  Certainly if neighbors of PSC were breathing pollutants and particulates, so was the work force.  West Berkeley Alliance bravely and courageously put forth such views as well.  My sadness, however, comes from the Berkeley City politicians who bitterly, thoroughly, and effectively fought the community interests for so long and did not take care of the community or the work force.  Some of the politicians, like good Orwellian folk, are now involved in clean air actions.

I am not sure what to expect from the new owners.  We in West Berkeley are again (and it seems, in vain) fighting a battle for our lives, our children lives, and our city.  I know it seems strange for people up in the hills, but all the buses on San Pablo Avenue are diesel buses and AC transit has no plans to change.  The dirtiest, grittiest West Alameda areas are served by diesel, a well-known carcinogenic.  Look also at where all the development is.

I invite all people in Berkeley, where ever you may be so lucky to live, to review the Community Risk Reduction Plan www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CARE-Program/Community-Risk-Reduction-Plans.aspx and advocate for Berkeley to be involved in assessing the air in Berkeley because we know that combinant air pollutants are killers.  Berkeley can no longer afford to ignore the problems with air pollution in its neighborhoods.

If you smell an odor and are concerned, please call the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) complaint hotline (1 800 334-6367).  Possible enforcement action is taken by the BAAQMD when 5 confirmed calls are received within a 24 hour period.  West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs notes that the more odor nuisance complaints and Notice of Violation (NOV) attributed to PSC, provides more evidence that there is an ongoing serious pollution problem.

Please also check into the West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs (www.westberkeleyalliance.org) and Global Community Monitor (www.gcmonitor.org).  There is a lot of good information there.

---

BNC intends to follow-up on the Community Risk Reduction Plans, as well as what happens next at PSC.  We will keep you informed.

Mini-Dorms, and a Bar and High Rises?? — The connection between them and one developer.

Mini-Dorms

BNC readers will remember the epic of the beloved landmarked Bartlett Houses at 2201-05 Blake along with its “companion” project at 2204 Dwight Way.  These were the two projects that were to be connected across the rear of both lots in a proposal by Nathan George to build new dwelling units that would increase the number of bedrooms on the two parcels from the current 23 to 35 and build a subterranean parking structure for 6 cars.  Mr. George’s proposal was denied by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) at a public hearing that was held on July 10, 2014 that was heavily attended by neighbors.  The findings (reasons why) in support of the denial were approved by the ZAB on July 24, 2014.  Increased density over what is called for in the General Plan was an important reason (but not the only one) for the denial.

Readers should see previous issues of BNC eNEWS for details on these projects.

The appeal period for the project at 2204 Dwight Way and 2201-05 Blake was set to expire on August 13, 2014.  On August 12th at 12:34 pm, an appeal of the Board’s decision for these projects was filed by Marc Madrigal of 2201 Blake Street.  In his appeal, Mr. Madrigal makes the following points:  (emphasis has been added by BNC)

• My family and I currently rent a home on the property and we plan for our growing family to stay here for many months to come.
• We routinely receive comments from passing neighbors on the beauty of this property.
• We were made aware of the plans to complete this property before we moved in and we look forward to the completion of the rear gardens where the proposed project is located
• We would someday like to buy property here, we would not be able to in its current unfinished state without the proposed condo map conversion.
• This project has been publicly misrepresented by reports of rowdy parties late into the night.  This is thoroughly untrue.
• I have walked inside many of the properties managed by Nathan George and I can testify that he treats these historic Berkeley homes with great attention and care.
• I will provide more supporting material prior to the hearing.

Mr. Madrigal’s appeal mentions a “condo map conversion” and “rear gardens.” There is no condo map involved in this project (although that’s not to say that at some point Mr. George might submit one) and its entirely unclear where the “rear gardens” that Mr. Madrigal speaks of would be located.

Readers will recall that Mr. George’s proposal is to construct a new 2-story 3,000 square foot duplex on the northeast corner and behind the Bartlett Houses.  Both of the units in the new duplex will have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths.  The new duplex will sit on top of a subterranean garage that will provide parking for 6 cars from both the Blake Street and Dwight Way projects and a 432 square foot single story dwelling unit will be created within a relocated accessory building on the northwest side of the Blake Street lot.  The accessory building was once a stable.  There will be 1 surface parking space adjacent to the accessory building in a driveway off of Fulton.

Two new dwelling units at the rear of 2204 Dwight Way will be constructed.  A driveway on Dwight Way through this lot will provide access to the below grade parking garage under the new Blake Street duplex.

The appeal will be placed on the Council agenda sometime in September.

And a Bar

In the meantime, an article appeared in Berkeleyside regarding the re-opening of the long-closed bar known as Spats located at 1974 Shattuck Avenue near the intersection of Shattuck and University.  The article featured a smiling photo of Nathan George, identifying him as one of about a dozen people, including UC Berkeley Alumni who were going to re-open the bar which has been closed since 2009.  These investors have also been identified by Mr. George as “friends and family.” The target date for opening the bar was said to be set for this fall.

Mark Rhoades, a former high-level city of Berkeley planner, is apparently also involved with the Spats project as well as with other Nathan George projects (he was a presenter of Mr. George’s project at 2404 Warring which the ZAB unanimously approved on July 24, 2014 and at the ZAB hearing for the Blake/Dwight Way project).  The developer of the Spats project is 1974 Shattuck, LLC which has opened office space at 1900 block of University Avenue .  The person identified as the Agent for this LLC is Terence N.  Church of Walnut Creek.

Spats dates back to the 60s.  It was known as Oleg’s in the 70s before becoming Spats.  There are all sorts of stories about the Grateful Dead getting its start, Robin Williams playing cards and the cast of The Rocky Mountain Horror Story after playing at the old UC Theater hanging out there.  Some BNC members remember former Council Member Leo Bach, a conservative, drinking his favorite mixture of milk and scotch at Spats, greatly enjoying himself while debating politics with whoever happened to be present.

Spats had a reputation of being rather dirty, particularly the upholstered furniture (a 15′ long sofa is said to have come from a Berkeley brothel), forgettable food, high prices and weird ambiance.  It was generally considered to be sort of a dive with rumors that it’s owner — before it became Spats — was involved in some sort of auto theft ring.

It never was just a beer place, and many remember it was the place to order a Fog Cutter, a concoction said to be introduced by Trader Vic’s which started out on San Pablo Avenue before moving to its present location in Emeryville (but that’s another whole new story.) However, the Fog Cutter at Spats was different from the one from Trader Vic’s because the Spats drink came with dry ice so it produced a spooky, rather spectacular fog rising from the glass.  Supposedly the liquor license for Spats is still active (although we’ve also been told that the license expired in August of this year) and Mr. George is quoted in the Berkeleyside article as saying “It’s the only liquor license on the block.  It could be a really nice space.” Readers just might want to check out this issue’s On The Neighborhood Food Prowl section for more information about Fog Cutters.

Reportedly Spats was on the market in 2011 for $1.75 million for “2 lounge areas, a dining room, large banquet room with an operable atrium roof and direct access to parking, a commercial kitchen and 2 bars.” A person who made a comment regarding the Berkeleyside story reported that it actually sold for $2,080,000.  We guess the $33,000 price difference isn’t that important, but the “direct access to parking” might be, given that the City has set its sights on converting that location to housing.

In newspaper interviews regarding his involvement in this project, Mr. George has said that he and his partners are exploring the long term possibility of building housing above Spats which would be preserved.  Due to location and proximity to BART, Mr. George described the block as “one of the most critical corners in Berkeley as far as dense development.” It’s apparent that Mr. George is becoming more and more involved in properties across the City.  He describes his activities as “Berkeley building Berkeley.”

The High Rises

We thought you might be interested to know that the soon-to-be-reopened, renovated Spats is directly across the Street from two of Berkeley’s dense downtown core buildings:

1. The Acheson Building, 2133 University Avenue, owned by Equity Residential (Sam Zell), approved by ZAB, effective July 8, 2013
   • 75 feet high, with mechanical penthouses, elevator equipment rooms and other architectural elements that will exceed that height limit
   • 205 residential units with the developer to choose between
     1. 185 units, plus 20 affordable on this site or
     2. 205 units on this site, plus payment of $5.7 million into the City’s Housing Trust Fund which would presumably build the affordable units elsewhere
   • commercial ground floor
     1. 8,000 sq ft restaurant serving beer and wine that can be open between the hours of 6:00 am to 2:00 am
     2. 22,000 square feet of retail space
2. The Bay Properties Building, 1951-1975 Shattuck, owned by Bay Properties, Inc, San Francisco, not yet approved
   • 120 feet high, 12 stories
   • All residential units are 2 bedroom, 20% are affordable, developer is NOT asking for a density bonus
   • Commercial on ground floor with 20 ft of open space along Shattuck Avenue
   • Some 2-story office spaces included

An Update on Another of the Lawsuits Filed Against Plan Bay Area

Readers will recall that Plan Bay Area, a 9-county regional plan that addresses how to provide housing and jobs for a projected increase in population of approximately 2 million more people was adopted last year.  The Plan calls for local communities to designate Priority Development Areas (PDAs) that would be eligible for State funding to encourage housing and jobs in neighborhoods near transit lines.  To date, around one-hundred seventy of these PDAs, 100 acres or larger, which have been nominated by local governments have been approved by the Association of Bay Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).  The general goal of the Plan is to provide compact housing with amenities that would reduce vehicle use by encouraging walking, biking and public transit usage.  Shortly after the approval of the Plan, a series of lawsuits were filed by very different groups, for very different reasons:

1. those that thought that the Plan would force communities to allow high-density development (“stack and pack”) that would destroy their localities.
2. those (pro-development) that felt the Plan was heavy-handed and didn’t go far enough.
3. those that felt that too much emphasis had been placed on roads and not enough on public transit, that consequently this emphasis would increase greenhouse gas emissions and displace low-income neighborhoods.

The Plan also includes MTCs responsibility to provide updates every four years regarding the regional roads and transit framework.  Earthjustice, representing environmental groups, argued that these updates favored highway expansion over new public transit and that the Plan consequently would not reduce greenhouse gases on its own.  The regional agencies countered that the projected population growth made increases in greenhouse gas emissions virtually inevitable despite California’s standards for vehicle fuel efficiency and low-carbon fuels.

A settlement was reached between environmentalists and ABAG and MTC that requires the agencies to issue a more detailed analysis of the impact of their development and road-building plans on greenhouse gases when the Plan is updated in 2017.  The agencies are also required to explain why PDA status was granted to areas like Treasure Island and the Alameda Naval Air Station that have little access to public transit.  An additional provision requires more study be done of the projected increases in freight shipments by trucks and ships.

Look for a detailed list of Berkeley’s PDAs in a coming issue.