Features

Suicide bombers? Anarchists? That’s not my impression. It’s hard to believe that Alan Tobey (Commentary, July 1) and I both attended the same Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) meeting on the evening of June 27. 

I understand that Mr. Tobey has committed much personal time and energy to the issue at hand and that his disappointment is deeply felt. I share the same frustration. 

The special LPC meeting of June 27 was held to examine our existing Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) and two proposed sets of revisions— independently crafted by the Landmarks Preservation and Planning Commissions—and to formulate recommendations to City Council. The original charge of the LPC was to revise the LPO to conform to the timing constraints of the Permit Streamlining Act. 

The LPC unanimously raised specific concerns regarding each proposal and chose not to endorse either proposal at this time, without first resolving these concerns, best done with the aid of an impartial third-party, preservation and regulatory expert. Sometimes it is appropriate for responsible individuals to “pull the brake” and “slow the train.” This is one of those times.  

Mr. Tobey likened the LPC to “suicide bombers, blowing up their own proposal in order to prevent the normal cooperative workings of a democratic government.” Throughout the Planning Commission proceedings of the past year, new information has raised serious concerns about the increased workload the LPC proposal—and analogous sections of the Planning Commission proposal—would create for the commission and city staff and the burden it would place on many homeowners attempting to alter their homes. It is one issue that certainly deserves in-depth discussion. 

Mr. Tobey also states that the Commission “asked the Council to throw out five years of effort and start over.” Although individual commissioners may advocate that the LPC “start from scratch,” the full LPC did NOT state that in its final motion and recommendation to the City Council. 

As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the city is required to consult with the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) on any proposed ordinance revisions. The OHP has not yet provided final written comments and recommendations arising from its review of the proposed revisions. It is improper for the Council to move to adopt LPO revisions without the OHP review. 

No commissioner threatened lawsuit as Mr. Tobey states. The commission chose to alert the City Council that the LPC and the Planning Commission have received correspondence that suggests that the city may be exposing itself to threat of lawsuit if the city proceeds with substantive revisions to the LPO—which appear to weaken existing provisions—without first conducting the appropriate level of environmental review. The council can turn to the city attorney’s office to assess the degree of risk.  

My hope is that we can resolve our concerns without anger, and without the inflammatory language present in Mr. Tobey’s editorial. 

The LPC’s motion can be found as a late item in the City Council’s package for the July 12 meeting. It is also posted on BAHA’s website. 

Jill Korte is chair of Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Commmission. 

›