2525 Telegraph Ave.
Landmark status and history of the building (from pages 3–20)
Letter from from George Beier to the City Council
Letter from the tenants of the Obata Building to the City Council
Letter from Rena Rickles to the City Council
Letter of Appeal from Ali Eslami to the City Council
Letter from George Beier to the City Council
7/17/2009
To: Mayor Tom Bates
Berkeley City Council Members
City of Berkleey
2180 Milvia St
Berkeley, CA 94704
Date: July 14th, 2009
From: George Beier (as an individual for the purposes of responding to Rena Rickle’s letter. As President of the Willard Neighborhood Association for the purposes of relating events of prior WNA meetings and actions).
Re: 2525 Telegraph Avenue / Request for Immediate Council Action / “Call Up” this matter for determination at the 7/23/2009 meeting. By 1) Council Certification of Landmark Designation/and, or/ Amendment of the Notice of Decision (“NOD”); or 2) other appropriate relief to expedite resolution of this matter.
Dear Mayor Bates and Council members:
I am writing to you to encourage you to NOT MODIFY the decision of the LPC in regards to 2525 Telegraph. I also urge you to NOT EXPEDITE any appeal for this property for the following reasons:
1. Delays in Repairs/Lack of Good Faith. Ms. Rickles in her letter argues that the application cannot afford to wait between 5-7 months for the appeal process due to financial hardship and that the Council should take this into account. I would also encourage the council to consider the substandard living conditions that the tenants have been subjected to for the past year. The tenants have repeatedly asked for heaters to be repaired, cracks (due to the jacking up and then falling of the building) to be repaired, graffiti to be removed, etc. The applicant cannot have it both ways – expediting his appeal due to financial hardship yet delaying all repairs to be made to the building.
2. Inadequate time to prepare for the appeal. Ms. Rickles states that there was “almost no opposition” to the original proposal for the art gallery and two story renovated building. This is not true. At a monthly meeting of the Willard Neighborhood Association and at the Zoning Board meeting itself, WNA members voiced vigorous opposition to Mr. Eslami’s request to serve liquor and also opposed his desire to stay open until the wee hours of the morning. The ZAB ruled in our favor on both of these issues, as documented in the WNA Newsletter of September, 25th, 2007.
The WNA originally considered a two-story building with an art house / café. We have not considered the impact of a four –story building with 5 and 6 bedroom units with no additional parking. There may or may not be opposition to this new plan. The normal course of the appeals process would give us adequate time to consider the new plan. A rushed schedule obviates our ability to weigh in on the project.
3. Mr. Eslami indicated repeatedly his support for landmarking the original, 2-story, mixed-use building. Mr. Eslami stated several times his desire to work with Ms. Graves in her efforts to landmark the building. Originally, I assumed that Mr. Eslami was working to landmark the existing building. (Mixed-use, 2 stories, courtyards, etc.) In her proposed changed language, Ms. Rickles replaces “mixed-use” with “structure” and eliminates all references to the courtyards in the building. This gutted proposal is certainly NOT reflective of my original understanding nor that of the building’s tenants. Mr. Eslami did explain to me before the LPC meeting that he intended to present the 4-story building and I thought this made sense – that way he wouldn’t have to go before them twice. I also think the LPC did the right thing – gave Mr. Eslami the right to renovate the building as long as he maintained the original character and feel of the building.
4. The Tenants Are Not Responsible for the “Renovation Nightmare”.Ms. Rickles indicates that “securing the safety” of the building has exhausted the entire renovation budget. As Mr. Eslami himself has explained to me numerous times, the long south wall of the building is collapsing due to the shoddy construction of the building’s southern neighbor. Mr. Eslami indicated to me that he is planning or is engaged in a lawsuit with that building’s owner (Wells Fargo Bank). It seems to me that Mr. Eslami purchased the building “as is” and at a steep discount, and made a mistake in underestimating the problems with the building. I am very sympathetic to his plight. Nevertheless, the tenants should not be asked to pay for his mistake. They agreed to a two-story building with courtyards, keeping their respective units with no rent increases. Now they are being asked to agree to a four story building, with little or no courtyards, 5-6 bedroom units, smaller units, moving out for a year, and increased rents. It’s too much to ask.
Mr. Eslami’s real argument should be with the original owner. If Mr. Eslami purchased a lemon, he should take it back to the dealership.
5. The Tenants Have Not “Refused” an offer to meet with the Rent Board. Mr. Eslami previously agreed to pay for the relocation to and from the building and the difference in the rents for the year or so that they will be required to move out. However, when pressed on this point in a meeting of the WNA, he pulled back on this issue and said something to the effect of “we’ll agree to whatever the rent board asks us to do.” This is completely different from two prior conversations with both me and Vincent Casalaina (prior president of the WNA) in which he explicitly stated he would pay for the move-in, move-out, and the difference in rents. Both Vincent and I took notes of the meetings and then sent the notes to Mr. Eslami for his approval. I then sent these notes on to the Mr. Eslami, the City Council, the tenants, and the WNA.
Until that WNA meeting, I was “on-board” with Mr. Eslami. I accepted the fact that due to his underestimation of the renovation costs, the building would have to be larger than proposed (four-stories instead of two-stories). I was willing to not protest when he increased the unit sizes to 5 and 6 bedrooms and reduced the unit sizes for the existing tenants. But his backtracking on his commitment to make the tenants whole both humiliated and infuriated me. We all had a deal, and I felt that Mr. Eslami is/was backing out of the deal.
6.There is an implicit threat that the building cannot be ‘saved.’ Ms. Rickles language is deeply disturbing: “to ‘save’ the building, the owners will have to show a higher rate of return by expanding the currently vacant units by extending the building upwards two floors.” And if the ZAB does not agree to allow the two additional floors or the LPC’s decision is sustained? Are we to assume the building cannot be saved? Frankly, since most of the insides are currently torn out, one wonders if this isn’t the current plan.
7. There is NOT “substantial agreement among all parties” as indicated in Ms. Rickles letter. There certainly was at one time. As I’ve noted earlier, we protested the liquor license and late hours (and fortunately won) and we were all looking forward to a two-story, neighborhood supported art house / café. It is simply inaccurate to say that there is “substantial agreement” on the “new” building: 4 stories, no additional parking, some 5-bedroom units, a 6-bedroom unit, reduction / elimination of the courtyards, etc. As mentioned, agreement is made even more difficult to reach by Mr. Eslami’s wavering on his commitment to provide for the difference in the tenants’ rents in the year that they will be required to move out of the building for the renovations.
8. We shouldn’t quickly “re-vote” because we don’t like a decision. We have an appeals process, and it works. Let’s go through the normal process and give all of us time to prepare our arguments. Let’s not let some behind-the-scenes arm twisting eliminate our chance for meaningful neighborhood participation. It takes a lot of effort for us to organize the neighborhood, and we need time to do that
For one, I am still hopeful that an agreement that pleases al l parties is still possible. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Letter from the Tenants to the City Council
From: Marcia Poole, Louis Cuneo, Don L. Murphy, Michael Topliff & Rebecca Moore
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Subject: Landlords now using new strategy to get rid of rent controlled apartments
Greetings,
We live in an apartment building that may soon be demolished so that the landlord and his LLC can rebuild it as a four or five story apartment house. The address is 2525 Telegraph Avenue on the west side and 2512 & 2514 Regent St. on the east side.
The landlord, Ali Eslami, revealed one of his reasons for demolishing the building when he angrily spoke to a small group tenants, neighbors and his lawyer outside the Landmarks Commission meeting room, where the building had just been landmarked. He told us "the only way to end rent control was to demolish a building - only demolition ended rent control." At that moment we understood why he was so adamant about tearing down this historic building and building an apartment house that would have several five bedroom units in it.
Mr. Eslami initially bought the building in 2007 for around $1,500,000. He bought it "as is", with the owner carrying the loan, thereby bypassing inspection requirements that banks impose. He claimed that he and a fellow owner looked it over and felt that was enough inspection needed.
Mr. Eslami proceeded to completely renovate & restructure 5 unoccupied apartments on the top (second) floor. He also totally dismantled the downstairs commercial area. He tore out walls, posts, sidings, the mezzanine, & framework and left 8 massive holes and two long trenches. The City shut him down.
The next thing the tenants heard was that new plans had been drawn up by his architect and the building would, in essence, have to be demolished because of "structural problems" and rebuilt. Two additional floors would be added to make room for much larger apartments. He planned to not go over the original number (9) of apartments, thereby bypassing several ordinances, parking being one of them. The apartments would be substantially larger, thereby assuring a very large income from this building in order to pay for the foundation that he had torn up.
There are currently four occupied rent controlled one-bedroom apartments in this building. All of them are occupied by either seniors or disabled people who have lived here for at least 18 years and as long as 30 years. They would all be required to move out and, if they did return, would return to much smaller units in order to make room for the 5 & 4 bedroom townhouses. The courtyards that they currently enjoy would be considerably reduced in size.
The apartment house was left by Mr. Eslami's construction crew in an abandoned, destroyed and susceptible-to-the-elements state for over 9 months. The window in one of the newly renovated second floor unoccupied apartments was never put in and pigeons flew in and made it and the other apartments their home for the winter. The elements also damaged the apartment. George Beier, president of the Willard Neighborhood Association, took photos of the large aviary apartments. He also photographed the cracked walls and ceilings that occurred when the landlord's construction crew raised the apartment house twice within half an hour on a jack that was too small and which broke each time, causing the apartment house to slip, splitting walls & ceilings & jamming doors and windows. The tenants were trapped inside. Beier posted these photos to all the Berkeley Councilmembers and the landlord.
After so thoroughly taking apart the structure of the downstairs and tearing up the foundation, the landlord would invite various city and official groups to tour the place. He would remark on what a terrible condition the building was in. Before he started, it had housed the much praised Blue Nile Restaurant and various other stores, including Half Price Books. He literally tore up the foundation, pointed it out as being in terrible condition and had people shaking their heads and agreeing with him that it was a disaster.
The building was landmarked in June of this year because it housed the famous Japanese artist, Chiura Obata's studio from 1939 - 1941 and is an example of intact Mission Revival architecture. The building joined three other century-old landmarked buildings on this block of Telegraph Ave. forming, by proximity, an historic district.
We request that you consider what is happening to this apartment house (and others like it) and the maneuvers used to get rid of long-term tenants.
The landlord has requested a demolition permit. He has said he would keep the facades on the building on both Telegraph Avenue and Regent St., so essentially the landmarked status would be reduced to facadism. We prefer to keep this historic building whole. Is this not what the enviromental movement is all about?
Thank you,
Letter from Rena Rickles to the City Council
Letter of Appeal from Ali Eslami to the City Council
Letter Requesting a Demolition Permit for the Obata-Needham Building from Ali Eslami and his LLC to the City Council
LAW OFFICES OF DONAHUE GALLAGHER WOODS DAVID A. STEIN
July 21,2009
Re.: Needham/Obata Building, 2525 Telegraph Avenue/2512 Regent Street Appeal
Of Certain Language In The Landmark Preservation Commission's Notice Of Decision
Mayor Bates and Council Members:
This office represents Oakland, Berkeley Investment Group, LLC (the "LLC") and its managing member Ali Eslami while its regular land use counsel is on vacation. This letter is supplemental to Ms. Rickles letter of July 7,2009 (misdated July 9) and Mr. Eslami's appeal of July 9,2009 and is to clarify some of the issues that were raised at the Council meeting of the 14th.
A. The LLC respects the Obata history & supports landmarking
From the time that Ms. Graves approached the LLC's managing member regarding the property's connection with Chiura Obata and his family the LLC has been supportive of a landmark designation honoring that history. The Landmarks Commission chose to Landmark the property rather than designating it a Structure of Merit. That is acceptable to the LLC. As can be seen from the Proposed Amended NOD for the property that was attached to Ms. Rickles letter the proposed amendments support commemorating the importance of the Obata family to the Japanese American community and to Berkeley's cultural and historical heritage. The amendments add an interior tribute honoring the art of Chiura Obata and his family's contribution to the art and history of the City of Berkeley. A copy of the "red-lined" version of the requested amendments is attached to this letter.
What the LLC does object to are the provisions of the NOD that have nothing to do with Obata, his family and their contributions to the Japanese American community and to Berkeley. Those provisions of the NOD seek to prevent any alteration to building, including parts of the building not visible from the outside of the building. The LLC's objections are clearly set out in the appeal filed by the LLC's managing member, Ali Eslami and we will not repeat them here.
The ordnance establishing the Landmarks Preservation Commission at section 3.24.300(b)(1) gives you the authority to: "Refer the matter back to the commission for further consideration, in which case the commission shall conduct such further investigation as it shall deem advisable and report its conclusion to the City Council" The LLC would request that you take that option. It's regular land use attorney believes an agreement can be reached rapidly on the language of the NOD at the Landmarks Commission. Hopefully, that agreement can be formalized and an alteration permit requested at the same meeting. If you are more comfortable with remanding the matter to the Landmarks Commission with direction, the LLC requests that you give the direction requested in the LLC's managing member's appeal.
B. The LLC will provide for its tenantsAlthough the Landlord-Tenant issues are not before the Council, they are of understandable concern to the tenants and to a number of Council Members. To be clear: The LLC will move its tenants out prior to construction, will subsidize their replacement housing during construction, will move its tenants back in after construction and will provide them with equivalent apartments in the renovated building at rent-controlled prices.
The LLC understands that the Berkeley rent control law is complex and there is often tension between landlords and tenants. As a result, some time ago, the LLC' s managing member, Mr. Eslami, contacted Jay Kelekian, the Executive Director of Berkeley's Rent Stabilization Program and to submit all the details-what is reasonable replacement housing, what are equivalent apartments, if the new apartments are a different size than a tenant's current apartment, is the appropriate rent-controlled rent, etc.-to him as a mediator. 'If Mr. Kelekian is unable to mediate a solution, the LLC is willing to submit the issue(s) to the Rent Stabilization Board. The LLC stands by that commitment.
C. The LLC will not demolish the building as that term is used in plain englishThe LLC does not intend to demolish the building. For technical reasons, it may need to obtain a "demolition permit." More on that below. The LLC has retained Sady Hayashida, AlA, as Preservation Architect for the project. Mr. Hayashida has substantial experience with historic buildings in Berkeley, including the Brennans building (Railroad Station at the foot of University Ave ), a Mission Revival building. Its intent is to end up with a building that is as reflective as possible of the existing building.
For technical reasons, the repairs and renovations to the building may require a "demolition permit." As those of you who have gone through the building have seen, the south side of the building toward the Regent end of the building is substantially compromised, with many of the studs rotted through and the retaining wall deflecting. Also, there may be a need to replace a major portion of the roof. The work to correct those defects may technically require a "demolition permit." But, again, there is no intention to demolish the building as that term is generally used.
In any case, the LLC will not use the need for a demolition permit to argue for any change in their tenants' rent control rights.
In sum, the LLC is willing to provide its tenants with rights far beyond those required by the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board's rules.
There are a number of steps, some of which involve permits, that will need to be gone through before this project can be finished. Some of them may be appealed to this Council. At this point, all that the LLC is requesting is that this matter be returned to the Landmarks Commission so that the language in the Notice of Determination can be corrected.
Very truly yours,
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP 'David A. Stein, Attorneys for Oakland, Berkeley Investment Group, LLC, Ali Eslami, Managing Member Berkeley.,