Features

Berkeley Planning Commissioners Wednesday voted to give developer Avi Nevo their tentative approval of his plans to convert two apartment projects into condominiums. 

One project, a 74-dwelling/four-commercial-unit four-story at 2131 Durant St., is currently under construction, while construction has yet to begin at the second, a 29-dwelling/four-commercial-unit four-story at 1809 Shattuck Ave. 

But the largest part of Wednesday’s meeting was consumed by an often-intense discussion of the city’s handling of potential landmarks. 

By the time the meeting ended, no one had any doubt that Chair Harry Pollack wasn’t a fan of the city Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). 

The LPC spent four years formulating proposed changes to city ordinances to allow would-be developers and remodelers to determine whether their properties merited landmarking before, rather than after, they launched into the complex process of applying for city permits. 

Under the current system, anyone who spends the 20 to 40 hours it typically takes to research and write a landmarking application can file the document right up until the Zoning Adjustments Board issues the final construction permits. 

The proposal drafted by the commission is designed to front-load eligibility issues, eliminating delays in later stages of projects. 

But Pollack found fault with a proposed provision that he declared “a striking and extraordinary attempt to increase the purview of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.” 

The provision would place all demolitions of, and exterior alterations to, structures 50-year-old and more on the LPC agenda when the initial application was filed. 

“This creates additional conflicts between the Zoning Adjustments Board and the LPC,” Pollack declared. 

When LPC member Carrie Olson attempted to explain, Pollack refused to let her speak. Reached Thursday afternoon, Olson said that Pollack was simply wrong when he attributed the proposal to an LPC power-grab attempt. 

“Nothing could be further from the truth. What we’re trying to do is clear up the process so that when someone comes in for a permit they can get an early determination that will clear the way for the Permit Streamlining Act,” she said. “It was never the intention to cause a bottleneck at the front end.” 

Olson said her commission’s original intent was to create a list that applicants could check to see if their building had landmarking potential. 

She praised a motion by Planning Commission David Stoloff to have city staff draft alternative language that wouldn’t have all projects involving older structures sent to the LPC. 

Olson did get to speak when Planning Commissioner Susan Wengraf asked her why the commission didn’t create districts that would alert city staff to potential landmarks. 

“Each landmark application takes 20 to 40 hours to do, and we just don’t have the staff to do it,” she said. 

The recent Sisterna Historic District was created by neighbors, who did all the research and filed the application. The same is true of the just-proposed Panoramic National Historic District, Olson said. [See pages 12-13.] 

“All of Santa Barbara is a historic district,” she added. 

Pollack then stopped Wengraf from posing further questions. 

Pollack also said he wanted to make ZAB superior to the landmarks panel, so that the LPC would recommend but ZAB would hold the decision-making power. 

“Why say ZAB is superior to landmarks?” said commissioner Sarah Shumer. “To me, they should be co-equal. They have very different foci. ZAB’s focus is broader, but I’m not sure it’s inclusive the way the City Council is.” 

“The LPC has very special concerns, and I’m loathe to make it inferior to ZAB,” said Stoloff. 

Commissioner David Tabb backed Pollack, saying that concurrent jurisdiction “normally delays the process considerably from the point of view of the applicant.” 

“I don’t think we’re going to come up with anything better,” said Commissioner Helen Burke. 

By the time the hearing ended, the commission had covered only a few of Pollack’s suggestions, leaving plenty more to cover when they reconvene in two weeks. 

The panel did approve the LPC recommendation to place all proposed demolitions of older structure on the landmarks agenda, overriding Pollack, Stoloff and Tabb by a 5-3 vote. 

A scheduled hearing and workshop on plans for the proposed new Berkeley Bowl and Ninth Street and Heinz Avenue heard limited testimony and was ultimately rescheduled for Feb. 9 at the request of Bowl owner Glen Yasuda, who was unable to attend.