Page One

State regulators Tuesday backed a recommendation by Berkeley preservationists in the raging battle over a city ordinance designed to preserve historic buildings. 

In a July 12 letter, the State Office of Historic Preservation recommended that Berkeley hire an impartial consultant to prepare a single draft of Landmarks Preservation Ordinance revisions for public review—a recommendation that mirrors that of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission. OHP Supervisor Lucinda Woodward added that the state would assist the city with the process.  

The letter was made public at Tuesday’s Berkeley City Council meeting that was dominated by a two-hour public hearing over proposed changes to the city’s landmarks ordinance. The council declined to vote or comment on the ordinance and will take it up again on Tuesday. 

Woodward, citing specific provisions of the state’s Environmental Quality Act, wrote that a competing proposal from the city’s Planning Commission, although acceptable under state and federal law, would “reduce the level of protection currently afforded historical resources in Berkeley” and would appear to require an environmental review. 

In 2000, the city asked the Landmarks Preservation Commission to revise the ordinance to conform with state law requiring speedy decisions for applicants. The LPC completed and approved a new ordinance draft in 2004, which was forwarded to the Planning Commission for comment and passage of implementing Zoning Ordinance language. But the Planning Commission entered the fray with its own draft LPO, which preservationists say would weaken protection for historic buildings. 

The existence of dueling recommendations, Woodward continued, “brings into question the healthiness of the city’s historic preservation program. I find it unusual for one city commission to prepare an ordinance that would be administered by another city agency if adopted.” 

Berkeley is not required to follow the OHP’s recommendation to hire a third-party consultant and Planning Director Dan Marks advised the council against it. 

“After five years ... of intense effort, no outside party will be able to unilaterally resolve all these issues,” he said. 

Marks added that Woodward “provided no basis for her assertion and had not contacted city officials to discuss the matter.” 

Proposed changes to the city’s 31-year-old Landmarks Preservation Ordinance have garnered attention because developers say the LPC uses the ordinance as a tool for delaying and derailing projects while preservationists insist the ordinance is necessary protection for structures they say are esthetically and historically significant.  

“The LPC is all that stands between historic resources and their destruction,” said Laurie Bright, a former LPC member and the president of the Council of Neighborhood Associations. 

Stephanie Manning, a resident of the Oceanview Historic District, said the commission’s regulations helped revive the neighborhood. “Many of the buildings were saved through the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance,” she said. 

Lise Blumenfeld, a West Berkeley resident, credited the LPC for establishing the Sisterna Tract Historic District in West Berkeley, which she said would preserve the integrity of her residential neighborhood. 

Preservationists take issue with the Planning Commission’s recommendation that would allow property owners and developers to get a binding decision their site’s historical significance before having to introduce any new development plans. Also they oppose a provision transferring authority for minor alterations of structures of merit from the LPC to a zoning officer.  

Proponents of the change contend that under the current ordinance there is little difference between landmarks and structures of merit, which are buildings considered historically or culturally significant because of their context but are not landmarks in their own right. 

Such critics called on the council to go beyond the Planning Commission’s recommendation and outlaw structures of merit altogether.  

“It’s not about preservation anymore. It has now been hijacked to be obstruction,” said Oakland land use attorney Rina Rickles, who frequently represents developers. 

“The problem with a structure of merit is that it reaches all the way down to a tin shack,” said Michael Brodsky, the co-owner of a West Berkeley tile store, who said the LPC delayed the expansion of his shop by declaring his building a structure of merit. However he said the council eventually overturned the LPC’s ruling.  

While the Downtown Berkeley Association came out in favor of the LPC recommendation, some West Berkeley businesses strongly endorsed the Planning Commission version. Builder Darrell de Tienne, representing Wareham Development, warned the council that further landmarking in West Berkeley would stall economic development. 

“I’m not talking about saving houses, I’m talking about jobs,” he said. 

Tim Rempel, a West Berkeley architect and developer, said, “The LPC has been used as an instrument to prevent development in industrialized areas.” 

West Berkeley property owner Scott Christensen said, “After five years it seems unnecessary for the city to hire someone to go over the same stuff.” 

J. Michael Edwards, who initiated the landmarking of a home in his neighborhood, called on the council to bring in a consultant to put an end to the dispute. 

“The first thing the arbitrator should say to these warring parties,” he said, “‘It’s not about you, it’s about Berkeley.’"