House Rises, Tempers Flare in South Berkeley
Ching “Christina” Sun doesn’t consider herself a developer: she would rather do without the label’s implied power, without the antipathy it often evokes.
“I’m just a property owner trying to make the best use of my property,” said Sun, a landlord who owns two properties in Berkeley. “I want to contribute something to the community. I want to be a good neighbor.”
For almost a year, the neighbors of her Shattuck Avenue property have waged a campaign to stop her plan to convert a 1,600-square-foot, single-family dwelling unit into a three-story, 4,340 square-foot, mixed-use development, arguing that Sun misrepresented the details of her project to get around city development laws and that the city erred in pushing through her project without a public hearing.
The project is located in the Commercial South Area district (C-SA), where mixed-use development is encouraged. But it is also adjacent to a two-family residential district (R-2A) that consists mostly of one- and two-story frame homes of the early 1900s.
Since last June, at least a dozen residents in that south Berkeley neighborhood have written letters and e-mails to city officials, attended meetings with city planning department staff, and spoken out at meetings of the City Council and Zoning Adjustment Board to demand the city issue a stop work order and schedule a public hearing on the project, which they say breaks zoning rules against group-living accommodations and fails to provide the required amount of rear-yard space.
“To see what was once a one-story ... craftsman home of about 1,600 square feet suddenly turn into a three-story monster without any kind of public hearing and simply a zoning certificate defies credulity,” Lynn Sherrell, an attorney who lives a block away from the project, said during the public comment period at last week’s City Council meeting.
Sherrell echoed many other neighbors’ belief that the city didn’t do enough to engage the public in its decision-making process. “This creates cynicism and disbelief in the democratic process and discourages public participation,” she said.
The city has stood by its claim that the project is legitimate and says because Sun’s project is a mixed-use development in the C-SA, staff was justified in issuing a zoning certificate for the project and not calling for a public hearing. And Sun has rejected claims that she misrepresented the facts or broke city laws. “I have worked closely with the city. It’s been a year-long process to get the requirements,” she said. “It really upsets me that the neighbors did not come to me with their concerns. They are welcome to come to me and offer constructive criticism. I do care about what the neighbors think and I do like everybody to win.”
At 36 feet, the building is taller than anything else on the stretch between Ashby Avenue and the Oakland border, raising the ire of residents who worry that dense residential and commercial development will ruin the quiet character of their neighborhood. The neighbors recently won a battle to get the city to remove a liquor store that some said was bringing crime and drug-dealing, and say they fear that Sun’s project will bring in more bustle and congestion to the neighborhood than they want.
The project is already well under way, and will probably be completed in August. Sun has already demolished the basement and is rebuilding it as commercial space totaling 1,400 square feet. The existing second story was jacked up to the third-story level, and a new second story is being built, bringing the total size of the residential portion of the project to 2,900 square feet. According to Sun’s applications, the two residential floors — which will consist of six bedrooms, four bathrooms and several auxiliary rooms — will remain a single-family dwelling residence.
The project’s opponents raise several questions. For one, they say, Sun is actually planning to convert a single-dwelling unit into a group-living accommodation, a change that requires a use permit and, therefore, a public hearing. Rob Lauristan, a neighbor of the project and one of its most vociferous critics, said Sun’s floor plan suggests that she is planning to do more with the unit than she’s letting on. “It’s clear from the plans that it is designed to be two five-room flats,” he said. “There are 10 rooms, but no master bedroom, and the living room, dining room, library and office are all designed to be usable as bedrooms: you don’t have to go through them to get to any other room.”
Lauristan also notes that residents would have to go outside and through the parking lot to get to the laundry room, which he says indicates a dorm-like living situation.
When asked to respond to questions about her planned use of the residential portion of her project, Sun said she intends to use it as a single-family dwelling unit.
For its part, the city says it can’t deny a permit on the assumption that someone is lying on their application, regardless of what the floor plan may indicate. In a letter to Sherrell dated April 24, principal planner Debra Sanderson responded to questions regarding Sun’s plans for the residential portion of her project. “We are sympathetic to the neighbor’s observation that the floor plan of the two residential floors lends itself to being used as a … rooming house. However, the city’s zoning standards provide staff no basis to require a change in the building’s floor plan to ensure its use only as single-family unit.” And at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting, City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque said the city can’t take action on a violation of the single-family dwelling unit restriction until after the property owner actually attempts to enter into multiple leases.
“I don’t particularly blame [Sun]. I see it as a horrible failure of the process,” he said. “Staff is supposed to rein in developers who are a little too creative in trying to develop. In this case, staff had the opportunity to call for a public hearing, and they failed.”
So far, neighbors have failed to get the city to issue a stop work order and schedule a hearing before the Zoning Adjustment Board, which would give the city the opportunity to force Sun to revise her plans. At last Tuesday’s City Council meeting, neighbors were allowed a public hearing, but not much came out of it. City Planning Director Carol Barrett and City Attorney Albuquerque reiterated the staff’s report on the issue, saying they could find no reason to stop the project and call for a public hearing. Lauristan says he may sue the city, and has recently come forward with what he sees as another flaw in Sun’s project. According to her floor plan, Sun’s project provides for only six inches of rear-yard space, about 14 and a half feet less than what’s required, Lauristan said.
No city staffer familiar with the project could be reached to comment on the rear-yard space issue.
In a recent interview, Sun’s exasperation with her neighbors’ continued opposition was audible. “I just want to focus on my project. That’s what’s important to me now,” she said. “I have put all my life savings to build this thing and I have done everything by the book.” For her opponents, she said, “It’s more a political issue, more of an emotional issue, I think. They just don’t want tall buildings in their neighborhood. But I can do it by law. I am a citizen, too, and I have a right to build what is legal. If they don’t like the law, they need to change the law, not use me as a scapegoat.”
That’s one thing her opponents might agree with. Lauristan is lobbying the city to amend the zoning ordinance to require use permits for all changes of use, addition of stories, expanded footprints, and changes in height in all projects falling within districts that are classified as neighborhood commercial under the city’s General Plan. He is also suggesting that the city balance the staff-level design review process by including a staff member to represent the public interest. “As it is now,” Lauristan said, “there is plenty of staff to help [developer] applicants avoid red tape, but there’s no one there who speaks for the public.”
