Page One

Battle Over City Landmarks Ordinance Dominates Planning Commission Meeting By RICHARD BRENNEMAN

Friday April 29, 2005

The struggle over Berkeley’s landmarks generated lots of heat for city planning commissioners Wednesday night during a spirited three-and-a-half-hour hearing in the North Berkeley Senior Center. 

At issue were proposed revisions to the city Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) and the role of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) in determining the fate of historic buildings in the city. 

First to speak was former Planning Commissioner Nancy Holland, who until earlier this year filled the seat now occupied by Gene Poschman. 

Holland praised the commission as “incredibly important,” hailing its role “as part of a very important effort which saved parts of our town from being totally demolished” while faulting her own former commission for “trying to change something overnight.” 

She declared, “It’s not the right way of doing things.” 

Next up was Daily Planet executive editor and former landmarks commissioner Becky O’Malley, who wasted little time in launching into her attack. 

“A lot of time and city money went into the revisions,” she said, “and to have a group of people who frankly don’t know what they’re talking about (proposing revisions) is frankly something of a joke. I do hope you do an environmental impact report (EIR), because there will be tremendous impacts” from the proposed changes. 

The need for an EIR was also raised in a letter by noted environmental and preservation attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, who has been retained by the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA). 

The lawyer raised six specific provisions of the Planning Commission subcommittee’s proposed changes that could reduce protections to historic and cultural resources. 

Under the LPC recommendations, the landmarks panel would have authority to approve or deny demolitions to buildings designated as landmarks or structures of merit, with the Zoning Adjustments Board having the power to approve or deny demolitions under the zoning ordinance. 

The planning subcommittee proposed that the LPC’s role in demolitions would be restricted to advising ZAB. 

In cases where ZAB and the LPC disagree, the LPC revisions call for a resolution by the City Council, while the planning subcommittee version offered three alternatives without recommending any. 

While the LPC version calls for retaining control over modifications to structures of merit, the planning subcommittee offered no recommendations.  

The issue of demolitions was particularly thorny, but equally controversial was a planning subcommittee recommendation that seeks to establish a new procedure to allow any property owner to ask the LPC for a binding “request for determination” of their structure’s eligibility for landmark status. 

Under the current LPC procedures, such decisions are only made on the basis of completed applications for landmark status. 

Structures of merit proved particularly troublesome. This category allows buildings to obtain landmark protection even in the face of alterations of the original structure. The LPC wants to retain the category, subject to future review, while the planning panel would keep the category but reduce the protections for the structure under state environmental law. 

Two days before the Planning Commission meet, the Berkeley City Council overturned the LPC’s designation of the Celia’s Restaurant building. 

That structure, located on a block earmarked for construction of a multistory apartment and retail complex, was given the designation Feb. 7 in the same meeting where LPC members voted against designating Brennan’s Irish Pub, another structure slated for the wrecking ball. 

The structure of merit designation was picked because of later additions which had altered the architectural integrity of the structure. 

And the remaining major sticking point between the two version of the ordinance is concept of integrity itself. The LPC draft calls for applying the term strictly only in cases where the architectural merit of a structure is the primary basis for designation. The commission would loosen the definition when historical and cultural reasons dominated the application submission. 

Wednesday’s meeting drew the lion’s share of the current LPC members—Chair Jill Korte, Vice Chair Carrie Olson and members Fran Packard, Patricia Dacey, James Samuels, Robert Johnson and Steven Winkel. 

With the exception of Packard—a Tom Bates appointee—they rose to defend the commission and its version of the new law. Packard, however, reversed the position she had taken the year before and declared, “I no longer support giving the LPC authority to deny demolitions or to determine the level of environmental review. 

Two speakers from Livable Berkeley—Alan Tobey and Mike Friedrich—sided with the planning subcommittee. Tobey called for “pre-application review” of structures on the site of proposed developments, an end to the structure of merit, and to “improve efficiency by rejecting inappropriate requests to increase the landmarks commission’s power.” 

Tobey called the Celia’s designation “distasteful,” and charged that the structure of merit designation “is almost always granted as a politically motivated consolation prize.” 

John Norheim and Don Yost, two well-connected West Berkeley commercial realtors, also sided with the planning subcommittee in calling for an end to the structure of merit. Norheim went so far as to call for transferring the power to designate landmarks to ZAB, with the LPC acting only in an advisory role. 

Rena Rickles, an Oakland attorney who is perhaps the leading land use attorney in cases before the city of Berkeley, also called for an end to the structure of merit. 

“I also know about the elephant in the living room, because if you want to delay a project in the city of Berkeley, you take it to the Landmarks Commission,” she said. 

Also siding against the LPC was Michael Goldin, a member of the newly former West Berkeley Business Alliance (WBBA), an organization composed of corporations, Bayer being the biggest, realtors, and professionals. One member is developer Dan Diebel, who plans to build on the Celia’s site. Another is Ali Kashani, whose plans to build at the Drayage site sparked an ongoing struggle between the city and residents who don’t want to move. 

WBBA members called for strict compliance with architectural conformity, an end to the structure of merit and the “request for determination.”  

But the majority of speakers Tuesday sided with the LPC, including current landmarks commissioners Leslie Emmington, Dacey, Robert Johnson, Vice Chair Carrie Olson, and Chair Jill Korte. 

Olson noted that neither the structure of merit category nor the issue of integrity were included among the eight points the City Council originally asked commissioners to consider revising. She said the issues in Berkeley were reflective of a broader current in American society, “where developers are pitted against historic structures.” 

Johnson, who also serves on the board of the Green Belt Alliance, a group that, like Livable Berkeley, supports infill development in cities, strongly supported the dominant role for the LPC in reviewing proposed demolitions of landmarks. 

Former members testifying in support of the LPC’s proposals included Susan Cerny, author of Berkeley Landmarks, Susan Chase, and former LPC chair Laurie Bright. 

Burton Edwards, a former chair, differed from the others in calling for an end to the structure of merit and strict adherence to the standards of integrity set by the National Register of Historic Places. He sided with current commissioners on the issue of demolitions, and said that commissioners needed more training before they could make decisions on application of environmental law. 

Commission Chair Jill Korte spoke against granting ZAB the power to designate landmarks, pointing out that city ordinance demands that LPC members have strong expertise in historic, cultural, architectural and archaeological issues, while no such demand is placed on ZAB. 

She also cited a letter from the state Office of Historic Preservation to city Planning Manager Mark Rhoades calling for designation power to vest in the LPC. “This is not ZAB’s mission” she said. 

Wednesday’s meeting marks the end of public testimony before the Planning Commission. The group will continue its discussion of the proposed revisions at their next meeting on May 12.›