Berkeley leaders consider changing landmarking process amid demand for more housing

The city of Berkeley is 160 years old, so there is a lot of history tied up in its buildings and architecture.  But there is also a need for more housing construction.  That is pitting the past against the future, in a battle to change the way the city's buildings can be protected from the wrecking ball.

Drive down a typical residential street in Berkeley and it's not hard to imagine that every building has historical value. But over the years, the city says landmarking buildings has simply become a way for neighbors to prevent new home development.

"We are concerned about what we have called some of the frivolous attempts to landmark structures in our city," said Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, at a meeting in November. "So, the idea here is to increase the threshold for initiating a landmark petition." 

Right now, it only takes 50 signatures for residents to initiate a landmark hearing, even if none of them are the actual property owner. The city says that it is preventing development plans from going forward.  

They point to a home at 1915 Berryman St. that was proposed to become an 11-unit townhouse complex. The city ended up denying its historical status.  

Another home at 2421 Durant Ave. was approved for landmarking by the city's preservation commission but reversed by the city council.  

On Tuesday, councilmembers tentatively approved a change in the law, increasing the number of signatures from 50 to 200. But at the meeting, there was an admission that that number was an arbitrary figure.

"I don't have a sense of what is reasonable," said Councilmember Shoshana O'Keefe. "Like, I just, I don't know. I'm hearing 200 and that sounds good to me. I'm definitely in favor of raising it. I think it's too low right now. I think we can see that from evidence.  But I'm hearing a suggestion that we raise it to only 100. I would personally like to raise it to something that was achievable, if there was broad support."

The argument is that neighbors are only pursuing landmark status when they know a building is planned for redevelopment.  But a woman in the audience named Amelia thought that begged the question.

"The argument that people only fight for protective status when they know the thing they love is getting bulldozed is absurd," she said. "You don't ask the firefighters why they only use hoses on buildings that are on fire."

One building that recently underwent a landmarking fight is the old United Artists theater, which has been proposed to become housing.  Rose Ellis led a successful signature campaign but got a fairly hollow victory.  She said the theater was granted historical status, but only if the developer ends up selling the building.  Otherwise, everything but its front facade and lobby can be demolished for the project.

"Honestly, I just think that they're following what the city attorney is telling them to do because they don't want any legal grief from the State or the developers suing them," she said. "So, rather than looking at things fairly, or following the state laws regarding preservation, they just want to avoid any kind of lawsuits or delay."

Isaac Warshauer sits on the board of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association. He admits there needs to be a balance between preservation and housing production, but said he fears raising the threshold will simply eliminate small neighborhood preservation efforts and focus them all on organized groups with political agendas.

"What I worry about is that raising it to 200 means that this kind of landmarking effort will basically be infeasible," he said.  "And that the kind of landmark petition that the city will still see are ones that touch more on the city's political divisions."

"I think this is whacking an ant with a mallet," Rose Ellis said.

At the meeting, city staff admitted that the proper number of signatures was just a guess. They said they were not aware of any other city that allows such a petition process.  

Tuesday's vote was a first reading of the issue. The final vote will be at their meeting on April 28, providing time to make any changes they deem necessary.