BERKELEY — Aiming to clear roadblocks to building housing in Berkeley, the city may soon create stricter requirements for its landmark designations process.
In a city of about 120,000 residents, it takes only about 50 to trigger the process. If that designation is issued on the grounds that the site has some historic value, future attempts to alter the property become much more challenging.
It’s a tool councilmembers and housing advocates say has been weaponized to prevent or delay housing development in the city. Looking to combat that trend, the City Council unanimously asked city staff to review the landmark designation process with the stated hope of greatly raising the required signature threshold.
“The item before us tonight is intended as a stopgap measure because myself and colleagues are concerned about what we have called frivolous attempts to landmark structures in our city,” Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, who authored the item, said during a Nov. 10 meeting.
Leila Moncharsh, president of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, raised concerns the proposed changes could imperil a project her group is developing with UC Berkeley, which would honor the history of the San Pablo Park neighborhood in Southwest Berkeley, a part of town historically home to Black residents.
“That may all be going to the wayside because we have to be able to work with the council and we can’t do that if we’ve got a bad relationship, and right now we don’t have a good relationship with you folks. And that’s really too bad because it may cost that project,” Moncharsh said.
Steve Finacom, a member of Berkeley’s Landmark Preservation Commission, disputed claims that landmark designation requests are being made more often as a way to stop development. About 400 sites have received some sort of landmark designation in the last roughly 50 years, Finacom noted, most of which occurred decades ago.
“It’s simply not the case that this is popping up all the time,” Finacom said.
Another speaker at the Nov. 10 council meeting, who identified herself as Amelia, argued that examples used to justify the stricter policy requirements are actually proof the policy is working and any attempt to change the policy in a way that disempowers constituents “is both unnecessary and mean-spirited.”
“The argument that people only fight for protected status when they know the thing they love is getting bulldozed is absurd,” Amelia said. “You didn’t ask the firefighters why they only use hoses on buildings that are on fire.”
Among the examples included in a staff report was a failed attempt to save what was described in agenda documents as an “unremarkable house” at 1915 Berryman St. Originally built in 1889 for First Unitarian Church co-founder William Payson, the home is expected to be replaced by a 11-unit townhome project.
Neighbors sought to preserve the structure but the Landmark Preservation Commission and City Council agreed with staff findings that the site did not meet designation standards. The decision allowed the development proposal to move through the approval process after about 18 months of delay and staff time.
Councilmembers Mark Humbert and Ben Bartlett said they support landmark designations as a way to honor the city’s history and culture, but the process should be a broadly supported tool that benefits the community, not delays housing progress.
“When the negative impacts of our preservation efforts start to outweigh the positive impacts, it’s time to consider reform,” said Humbert, a co-sponsor of the referral along with Councilmembers Brent Blackaby and Cecilia Lunaparra.
Bartlett and Councilmember Terry Taplin also raised questions about which cultures are honored and what communities have historically benefitted from landmark designations. Bartlett argued that those who typically seek out historic landmark designations “tends toward a certain cultural affinity that ignores others.”
Landownership has been a key way for people to build wealth, Bartlett said. Taplin also argued that Black residents did not come to the city for its aesthetics but instead relocated in the area in search of jobs during the World War II era.
Neighborhood preservation ordinances did not help increase the number of Black people living in Berkeley, he said, and policies that would allow a group of people to impede a person, especially those who have already dealt with hardship, from subdividing their home or adding to it “is so far afoul of who we are as a city,” he added.
“We are fully capable of speaking for ourselves and articulating what we want to see, especially when it comes to our properties,” Taplin said.
Exactly what changes to the current landmark process will occur are still unclear. The council shared mixed opinions on whether the signature threshold to trigger a landmark designation review should be lower for properties where the owner is supportive of the process or a standard number for all requests.
Differing opinions on what the number of signatures the city should require was also debated, with suggestions ranging from 200 to 600 or more. The offices of the city manager and city attorney will review the referral and make recommendations based on staff capacity and established law, leaving some details for the council to decide.
The council also requested that staff consider a recommendation from Councilmember Igor Tregub that would prohibit landmark designation requests from being submitted within five years of a preliminary use permit being filed under Senate Bill 330, legislation that creates a streamlined process for the review and approval of housing projects.