THE CITY OF BERKELEY is drafting changes to its requirements for declaring properties as historic landmarks, with city officials saying that the same few dozen residents often make up the majority of petition signatures required to meet the city’s 50-person threshold needed to have the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission consider landmarking the property.
Council members believe a higher threshold for landmark petitions will help prevent allegedly frivolous designation attempts, which are often on sites intended for new affordable housing, according to the proposal documents authored by City Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani.
Berkeley currently requires 50 residents to sign a petition to apply for a property to be designated as a landmark, at which point the Landmarks Preservation Commission considers a staff report detailing research on the property’s history before holding a public hearing and making a decision about the property.
Landmark designations can be appealed and overruled by the City Council, and properties designated as landmarks need special permits for demolitions and any work that might impact the character of the building.
The changes would raise the number of signatures required for a landmark petition from 50 to 200, and add a five-year-long freeze on landmark designations following the submission of a preliminary building permit for the parcel. The City Council last week voted to have city staff further study the proposals, which will return to the council at a later date.
“We’re not saying that people can’t landmark the structure,” Kesarwani said in an interview. “What we’re saying is we want to increase the signature threshold to be higher … to make sure that there is a critical mass of people who are in support of the landmarking.”
Kesarwani’s proposal referenced four landmarking attempts where petitions were submitted after building permits were filed.
The vast majority of the signatures present on one of the petitions, for 2425 Durant Ave., also appear on a petition for 2138 Kittredge St., records show. Only a handful of petition signatures overlap between these properties and the remaining two examples mentioned in Kesarwani’s proposal.
Adding years to construction time
Landmarking applications and appeals can sometimes extend project approvals for years following preliminary applications, according to Brandon Yung, who sits on the board that approves building permits in Berkeley.
Other projects can get through the city’s processes in under a year, documents show.
Developers for the 2425 Durant Ave. property submitted preliminary permit applications in November 2024, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission designated it as a landmark the following March, according to a staff report on the project.
The property’s landmark application argued the structure was of architectural merit, and of historical value due to being among among the earliest residential developments in Berkeley.
The developers appealed to the council, arguing that the landmark designation had no legal effect under Senate Bill 330, otherwise known as the Housing Crisis Act, which prevents cities from enacting new restrictions after preliminary permit applications are submitted.
The City Council ruled in favor of the developer, and councilmembers like Kesarwani began contemplating what changes could be made to avoid similar delays for developers in the future.
Developers said the landmark petition and designation process caused four months of delay, creating uncertainty for lenders and insurers, according to city documents.
Aesthetic concerns
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association members are often involved in landmark designation petitions, like the one that delayed the Durant Avenue project.
Stephen Alpert and Celeste Marx, BAHA members not among those consistently signing landmark petitions, are concerned with the effects of new construction on the overall aesthetics of Berkeley’s neighborhoods, in addition to their interest in preserving individual homes with architectural or historical relevance.
“I understand you have the right to build (housing), but suppose someone wants a brutalist concrete apartment building that’s incongruous with the neighborhood … can it have a little Craftsman styling or not mid-century?” Alpert said, expressing discontent with what he sees as a lack of input from community members on building approvals.
Berkeley allows public input on new construction, but developers are not required to take residents’ input into account.
Future conflicts between developers and landmarking interests could be mitigated by performing a survey of historic buildings throughout Berkeley, according to city officials.
No budget for needed funding
While funding was requested for the estimated $250,000 project in the city’s last two budget cycles, with the city now facing a multi-million-dollar structural deficit, Berkeley was unable to fund it.
“We have not had any excess funds in a while,” City Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra said in an interview. “Based on the funding projections for this year, I’m pretty sure we’re only going to focus on the urgently needed things, because we’re at a deficit to the point where we’re worried about having to lay people off.”
Crowdsourcing this historical research has not yet been considered as an option, according to Lunaparra. It could be a viable solution if the city attorney were to approve, according to Kesarwani.
Kesarwani’s initial proposal required that 51% of the 200 petition signatories live within 300 meters of the proposed landmark property.
The five-year-long freeze on landmark designations, which did not appear in the original proposal, was drafted by City Councilmember Igor Tregub.