Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, April 14, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

Page 338 ends

Amendments to BMC Title 3.24 to Improve Procedures for ACTION CALENDAR Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit April 14, 2026

Page 5 ends

Initiation procedures. (Supplemental
Referral 1)
signature threshold from 50 to 400
without owner consent. Exemption for
SB 330 projects for 5 years, and
organization change for clarity.

3.24.120 Landmarks, historic districts
and structures of merit--Designation--
Initiation procedures. (Supplemental
Referral 2)
Increased signature threshold from 50
to 200. Exemption for SB 330 projects
for 5 years, and organization change
for clarity.
8 3.24.140 Designation proposal--
Public hearing notice requirements.

Public hearing notice posting updated
for consistency with 23.404.040(B)(3)
and ZAB procedures.
9 3.24.150 Designation proposal--Time
limit for determination.

Technical edit, numerical value added
for clarity.
10 3.24.160 Designation proposal--
Notice of decision required.

Language mirrored after 23.404.050
(L) Notice of ZAB Decision for
consistency and process
improvements.
11 3.24.180 Landmarks, historic districts
and structures of merit--Designation--
Recording required--Termination of
designation.

Typo corrections.
12 3.24.190 Council certification
required
Codification of existing practice.
13 3.24.210 Review of permit
applications.

Error correction, codification of
existing practice.
14 3.24.220-270 Alteration Permit
application--Data and public hearing
required--Exceptions.

Title update to clarify requirements for
Structural Alteration Permits (SAPs).
15 3.24.280 Landmarks, historic districts
or structures of merit--Unsafe or
dangerous conditions--Effect.

Error correction. Fees are to be set
and updated through the Council-
adopted Fee Schedule.

3.24.300(A) Appeals--Procedures
required--City Council authority.
(Supplemental 1)
Increased signature threshold from 50
to 200 with owner consent through a
Letter of Authorization. Increased
signature threshold from 50 to 400
without owner consent.
16 3.24.300(A) Appeals--Procedures
required--City Council authority
(Supplemental 2)
Increased signature threshold from 50
to 200.
17 3.24.300(B-E) Appeals--Procedures
required--City Council authority.

Alignment with ZAB procedures for
appeals found in 23.410.030.

Page 5 of 49 ends

Page 339 ends

Amendments to BMC Title 3.24 to Improve Procedures for ACTION CALENDAR Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit April 14, 2026

Page 6 ends

18 3.24.340 Landmarks, historic districts
or structures of merit--Filing fees
required when.

Fees are to be set and updated
through the Council-adopted Fee
Schedule.

Two alternatives for sections 3.24.120 and 3.24.300 are included in the proposed Ordinance for consideration. The primary differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are written owner consent for landmark initiation, and a total of 400 signatures if the owner does not provide written consent. In both proposed alternatives the five year stay of landmark initiation is included for projects vested under SB 330.

BACKGROUND
BMC Section 3.24 (Landmarks Preservation Commission), known as the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), was adopted in 1974. The purpose of the LPO is to recognize and protect sites and areas of special character or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interests. The LPO establishes the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) and outlines procedures for nomination, designation, alteration, and appeals. The LPO has seen few updates since its adoption in the mid-1970s and retains factual and procedural inconsistencies that make implementation challenging.

As discussed above, the Council referral states that the current procedures for initiating landmark designation have been used to obstruct neighborhood change and delay housing developments. In several case studies mentioned, the landmark attempts have imposed processes that conflict with state housing law and result in significant delays for housing development projects.

On February 5, 2026, staff brought the Council referrals to the LPC for its consideration.

At that meeting an Ad-Hoc Committee was formed. At its March 5 meeting, the Ad-Hoc Committee shared its recommendations, and the Commission took the following action:

Action: M/S/C (Crandall/Montilla) to adopt the supplemental communication to be forwarded to City staff (Ayes – Montilla, Crandall, Finacom, Schwartz, Orbuch, Hall Montgomery; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Greene).

The Ad-Hoc Committee’s approved recommendations are included in Attachment 3.

California Office of Historic Preservation and its Certified Local Government Program The California Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) offers guidance on the development of landmarks ordinances. Staff have not identified any conflicts in the proposed amendments with SHPO’s guidelines. The LPO does not require review or approval by SHPO.

Page 6 of 49 ends

Page 340 ends

Amendments to BMC Title 3.24 to Improve Procedures for ACTION CALENDAR Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit April 14, 2026

Page 7 ends

The City of Berkeley is a Certified Local Government (CLG) under SHPO’s Certified Local Government Program. Jurisdictions that are CLGs can receive special technical assistance and are eligible for preservation-related funding from the State. Among other requirements, CLG’s must enforce state and local regulations for the designation and protection of historic properties, establish an historic preservation commission, maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties, and provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program. The proposed amendments do not include the amendment or removal of any of these qualifying criteria.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendments to BMC Title 3.24 fulfill the City Council’s November 10, 2025 referral to revise procedures for designating landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit, and include necessary technical edits to align LPC procedures with existing practices. By increasing thresholds for landmark initiation and exempting SB 330 projects from landmark eligibility for five years, the proposed amendments could reduce the number of landmark designation initiations. The proposed amendments retain pathways for the identification, designation and protection of historic landmarks.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments do not change any development standards or provide for additional development capacity or any other new physical changes to the environment that are not already permitted and previously evaluated under CEQA. Because the proposed amendments relate only to the procedures governing the landmark designation and appeals process but not to any physical development characteristics, they do not constitute a “project” under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2)(“Continuing administrative or maintenance activities such as… general policy or procedure making….” do not constitute a project for the purposes of CEQA.) Further, because there is no possibility that adoption of the proposed amendments may have a significant effect on the environment, they are exempt from CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption).

The proposed amendments aim to remove barriers to housing development while maintaining pathways for the protection of Berkeley’s historic places. Such housing development is associated with fewer transportation-related emissions and greater overall energy efficiency, helping the City meet the goals of its Climate Action Plan. The proposed pathways for landmark designation retain protections for places of historic value which can lead to fewer demolitions and waste as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures.

Page 7 of 49 ends

Page 341 ends

Amendments to BMC Title 3.24 to Improve Procedures for ACTION CALENDAR Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit April 14, 2026

Page 8 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Faye Mingham, Assistant Planner, Planning and Development Department, (510) 981- 7484
Attachments:
1: Ordinance
2: Council Referrals
3: Landmarks Preservation Ad-Hoc Committee Recommendation

Page 8 of 49 ends

Page 342 ends

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO BMC TITLE 3.24 (LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION)

TO IMPROVE PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATING LANDMARKS, HISTORIC

DISTRICTS AND STRUCTURES OF MERIT AND INCORPORATE TECHNICAL EDITS.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That section 3.24.030 be amended to read as follows:

A. The commission shall consist of nine members. Appointments to the commission shall be made by councilmembers and vacancies on the commission shall be filled by councilmembers in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.04.030 through

2.04.120, enacted as Ordinance 4780-N.S. by the voters of the City.

B. The Assistant City Manager forDirector of Planning and Community Development, or their representative, shall serve as secretary of the commission, without vote. The Department of Planning and Community DevelopmentPlanning and Development Department shall provide staff assistance to the commission.

C. The commission shall elect annually in July a chairperson from among its members, and shall establish rules and regulations for its own organization and procedure. Three successive unexcused absences from regular meetings by a member shall constitute automatic termination of membership.

Section 2. That section 3.24.050(A) be amended to read as follows:

The commission shall:

A. After June 6, 1974, undertake to establish and maintain a list of structures, sites and areas having a special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. This list may include single structures or sites, portions of structures, groups of structures, human-made or natural landscape elements, works of art, or integrated combinations thereof. After public hearings, the commission may designate landmarks and historic districts from the list. In the establishment of the foregoing list, the commission shall notify and solicit the views of property owners and residents of structures, .sites and

Page 9 of 49 ends

Page 343 ends

areas proposed by the commission to be included in such a list.

Section 3. That section 3.24.060 be amended to read as follows:

From and after six months from the first meeting of the commission, or upon the completion of the foregoing initial list of structures, sites and areas, or in the event such list is completed by the commission prior to six months from the first meeting of the commission, tThe commission may:

A. Designate, after public hearings, structures, sites and areas including single structures or sites, portions of structures, groups of structures, human-made or natural landscape elements, works of art, or integrated combinations thereof, having a special character, or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value, as:

1. A landmark, and shall designate a landmark site for each landmarksite, area, structure, element, work of art, or;

2. An historic district constituting a specific designated section of the City; B. Identify For the purposes of this chapter,a structure of merit includinges structures, sites and areas, including single structures or sites, portions of structures, groups of structures, man-made or natural landscape elements, works of art, or integrated combinations thereof, having a special character, or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value;
C. Review and decide on permit applications for construction, alteration and demolition on landmark sites, in historic districts and on structure of merit sites and on initiated landmark sites, initiated historic districts and initiated structure of merit sites, as more fully set forth in Sections 3.24.220 through 3.24.250 and 3.24.350A below; D. Take steps to encourage or bring about preservation of structures, sites and areas where the commission has decided to suspend action on a permit application, as more fully set forth in Sections 3.24.220 through 3.24.250 below.

Section 4. That section 3.24.080 be amended to read as follows:

The Assistant City Manager forDirector of Planning and Community Development, prior to completion of the initial list of structures, sites and areas, shall have the authority to recommend to the City Council suspension of permit application for a maximum of one

Page 10 of 49 ends

Page 344 ends

hundred eighty days, if in the judgment of the Director of Assistant City Manager for Planning and Community Development, an emergency is deemed to exist and a structure, site or area appropriate for landmark status is threatened with imminent destruction or substantial alteration.

Section 5. That section 3.24.100 be amended to read as follows:

A. Each designation of a landmark, historic districts or structure of merit by the commission shall include:

1. Aa description of the characteristics which justify its designation;

2. and Aa description of the particular features that should be preserved,;

3. and shall include Tthe location and boundaries of the landmark site, historic district or structure of merit site.

Any such designation shall be in furtherance of and in conformance with the purposes of this chapter and the standards set forth herein.

B. The property included in any such designation shall upon designation be subject to the controls and standards set forth in this chapter. In addition, the said property shall be subject to and the following further controls and standards if imposed by the designation:

1. For a publicly owned landmark or structure of merit, review of proposed changes in major interior architectural features;

2. For an historic district, such further controls and standards as the commission deems necessary or desirable, including but not limited to facade, setback, height controls, signs and public improvements.

The commission may, upon receipt of any significant new information, reconsider after two years any structure of merit and designate it as a landmark, subject to all the procedures set forth in this section for an original landmark designation.

Section 6. BMC Section 3.24.110(A) be amended to read as follows:

A. Landmarks and historic districts. General criteria which the commission shall use when considering structures, sites and areas for landmark or historic district designation are as follows:

Page 11 of 49 ends

Page 345 ends

1. Architectural merit:
(a) Property that is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the region;
(b) Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder; or
(c) Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

2. Cultural value: Structures, sites and areas associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City;

3. Educational value: Structures worth preserving for their usefulness as an educational force;

4. Historic value: Preservation and enhancement of structures, sites and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States. History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious or military; History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious or military;

5. Any property which is listed on the National Register described in Section 470A of Title 16 of the United States Code.

Section 7. BMC Chapter 3.24.120 be amended to read as follows:

Alternative 1 (Kesarwani):

A. Initiation of designation shall be made by the following:

1. The Landmarks Preservation Commission; by the commission,

2. or by Aa resolution of intention of the City Council,;

3. or by Tthe Planning Commission;,

Page 12 of 49 ends

Page 346 ends

4. or by Tthe Civic Arts Commission;,

5. or by Tthe verified application of the owners of the property to be designated or their authorized agents;

6. , or by tThe verified application of at least 200fifty residents of the City and the consent of the property owner, expressed through a Letter of Authorization;. or

7. or, by Tthe verified d application of at least 400 residents if the property owner has not consented to the designation providedthrough a Letter of Authorization. consent of the designation process.

B. Any such application shall be filed with the commission upon forms prescribed by the commission City and shall be accompanied by all data required by the commission.

C. Further, a Exception. Any such designation shall not be processed for five (5) years following the receipt of a Preliminary Development application under SB330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) by the City of Berkeley, unless initiated by the property owner of record.

D. Historic Districts. Where such application is submitted for designation of an historic district, the application must be subscribed by or on behalf of a majority of the property owners or residents of the proposed district.

Alternative 2 (Tregub):

A. Initiation of designation shall be made by the following:

1. The Landmarks Preservation Commission;

2. by the commission, or by Aa resolution of intention of the City Council,;

3. or by Tthe Planning Commission;,

4. or by Tthe Civic Arts Commission;,

5. or by Tthe verified application of the owners of the property to be designated or their authorized agents;

6. Tthe verified application of at least 200 residents of the City.

B. Any such application shall be filed with the commission upon forms prescribed by the

Page 13 of 49 ends

Page 347 ends

commission City and shall be accompanied by all data required by the commission.

Section 8. That BMC Section 3.24.140(A) be amended to read as follows:

A. Notice of the public hearing shall be given by posting thereof on or adjacent to the property involved not less than 14 ten days prior to the date of the hearing.

Section 9. That BMC Section 3.24.150 be amended to read as follows:

The commission shall approve, disapprove or modify the proposal within one hundred eighty (180) days after the conclusion of the public hearing; failure to act within said time shall constitute disapproval.

Section 10. That BMC Section 3.24.160 be amended to read as follows:

A. A Notice of Decision shall be issued afterwhen the LPC:
(a) 1. Approves, modifies, or denies a Landmark Designation; or (b) 2. Takes action on an appealed decision.

B. The Notice of Decision shall be issued before the LPC’s next regular meeting and shall describe the LPC’s action.

C.. The Notice of Decision shall be posted in the lobby of the Permit Service Center and shall be mailed to:

1. The applicant;

2. The appellant, if applicable;

3. Any person who has filed a written request for notice; and

Page 14 of 49 ends

Page 348 ends

4. The City of Berkeley Central Library.

D. The Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and provided to the LPC.

The City Clerk shall make the notice available to interested members of the City Council and the public.

The commission shall promptly notify in writing the applicant, owner and residents of the property of action taken. The commission shall also mail a notice of its decision to persons requesting such notification. A copy of the notice of decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.

Section 11. That section 3.24.180 be amended to read as follows:

A. When a landmark, historic district or structure of merit has been designated by the commission as provided above, in addition to the notification required in Section

3.24.160 above, the commission shall cause a copy of the designation, or notice thereof, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder.

B. When a building or structure that has been designated a landmark or structure of merit has been legally demolished as permitted by this Code, its designation shall automatically be terminated if:

1. Tthe designation was based on the characteristics of that building or structure, and not on any findings related to the site or parcel where the building or structure was located; and

2. Aall features to be preserved as specified pursuant to Section 3.24.100 have been eliminated as a result of the demolition.

In such cases, the City shall promptly record a notice in the Office of the County Recorder that the designation has been terminated.

Section 12. That BMC Section 3.24.190 be amended to read as follows:

Page 15 of 49 ends

Page 349 ends

3.24.190 City Council certification authorized when--Effectrequired.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this chapter, the council City Council may certify to the council any action of the commission in granting or denying an application for designation as a landmark or an historic district , but such action of the council shall be taken within fifteen (15)ninety (90) days from the mailing of the notice Notice of the decision Decision of the commission. Such certification byto the City cCouncil shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of a notice of appeal.

Section 13. That BMC Section 3.24.210 be amended to read as follows:

3.24.210 Review of permit applications.

A. The commission shall maintain with the Department of Planning and Community Development and the department’s zoning and codes and inspection division a current record of designated landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit, as well as a record of those having been initiated and undergoing consideration. Upon receipt of any application for a permit to carry out any construction, alteration or demolition on a landmark site, in an historic district or on a structure of merit site, or on an initiated landmark site, in an initiated historic district or on an initiated structure of merit site, the Department of Planning and Community Development shall, unless the structure or feature concerned has been declared unsafe or dangerous pursuant to Section

3.24.280 of this chapter, promptly forward such permit application to the commission for review.

B. The City Council shall set by resolution the fees for Landmarks Preservation Commission review of any application for a permit to carry out any construction, alteration or demolition on an initiated or designated nonresidential landmark site, (or nonresidential portion thereof), in an initiated or designated historic nonresidential district (or nonresidential portion thereof), or on an initiated or designated nonresidential structure of merit, or historic district. (or nonresidential portion thereof.) Landmarks Preservation Commission review of applications for permits to carry out any construction, alteration, or demolition on residential initiated or designated landmarks, residential initiated or designated historic districts and residential initiated or designated residential structures of merit, located in any zoning district and nonresidential initiated or designated landmarks, nonresidential initiated or designated historic districts and

Page 16 of 49 ends

Page 350 ends

nonresidential initiated or designated structures of merit located in residential zoning districts, are not subject to the landmarks review fees.

Applicants who are qualified non-profits and other applicants with projects valued at less than three hundred fifty thousand dollars may apply to the City Manager for a fee waiver if it can be demonstrated that the payment of the fee would pose a hardship.

Section 14. That the titles of BMC Sections 3.24.220, 3.24.230, 3.24.240, 3.24.250,

3.24.260 and 3.24.270 be amended to read as follows:

3.24.220 Alteration Permit application--Data and public hearing required-- Exceptions.

3.24.230 Alteration Permit application--Public hearing notice requirements.

3.24.240 Alteration Permit application--Decision--Procedure and time limitations--Notification required.

3.24.250 Alteration Permit application--Effect of suspended action.

3.24.260 Alteration Permit application--Review standards and criteria.

3.24.270 Alteration Permit application--Finding of hardship authorized when-- Effect.

Section 15. That BMC Section 3.24.280 be amended to read as follows:

None of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to prevent any measures of construction, alteration or demolition necessary to correct or abate the unsafe or dangerous condition of any structure, other feature, or part thereof, which such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous by the Planning and Community Development Department or the Fire Department, and where the proposed measures have been declared necessary, by such department or departments, to correct the said condition; provided, however, that only such work as is reasonably necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed pursuant to this section. In the event any structure or other feature is damaged by fire or other calamity or by act of God, or by the public enemy to such an extent that in the opinion of the aforesaid

Page 17 of 49 ends

Page 351 ends

department or departments it cannot reasonably be repaired or restored, it may be removed in conformity with normal permit procedures and applicable laws.

Section 16. That BMC Section 3.24.300 (A) be amended to read as follows:

Alternative 1 (Kesarwani):

A. 1. An appeal may be taken to the City Council by the following:

1. the City Council on A motion of the City Councilits own motion;,

2. A by motion of the Planning Commission;

3. A , by motion of the Civic Art Commission;

4. , Tby the verified application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents;

5. , or byT the verified application of at least 200fifty residents of the City and the consent of the property owner, expressed through a Letter of Authorization;

6. T; or, if the property owner has not provided consent, by the verified application of at least 400 residents of the City aggrieved, if the property owner has not provided consent through a Letter of Authorization; or

7. or affected by Aany determination of the commission made under the provisions of this chapter.

Alternative 2 (Tregub):

A. 1. An appeal may be taken to the City Council by the following:

1. the City Council on A motion of the City Councilits own motion;,

2. A by motion of the Planning Commission;

3. A , by motion of the Civic Art Commission;

4. , Tby the verified application of the owners of the property or their authorized

Page 18 of 49 ends

Page 352 ends

agents;

5. , or by Tthe verified application of at least 200fifty residents of the City aggrieved; or

6. affected by aAny determination of the commission made under the provisions of this chapter.

2. Such appeal shall be taken by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fifteen days after the mailing of the notice of the decision of the commission.

The notice of appeal shall clearly and concisely set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. If the appeal is taken by an owner of the property affected, or an authorized agent, the notice of appeal shall be filed in duplicate and the City Clerk shall immediately forward one copy to the secretary of the commission. If the appeal is taken by someone other than an owner of affected property or an authorized agent, the notice of appeal shall be filed in triplicate and the City Clerk shall immediately forward one copy to the owner or authorized agent of the affected property and one copy to the secretary of the commission. Within ten days after the filing of a notice of appeal, the secretary of the commission shall transmit to the City Council a copy of the application, a copy of the notice of appeal and a written statement setting forth the reasons for the commission’s decision, and shall make available to the council, at the time the matter is considered by the council, all other papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.

3. The City Clerk shall provide the Council with the written appeal or appeals, set the matter for a public hearing before the Council in consultation with the Secretary of the Commission, and give notice of the time and place of said hearing in the same manner and to the same recipients as for the Commission hearing.

Section 17. That BMC Section 3.24.300 (B)-(H) be amended to read as follows:

B. General. Appeals shall be filed and processed consistent with Chapter 23.404 (Common Permit Requirements) except as otherwise specified in this chapter.

1. Timing of Appeal: An appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) days of mailing

Page 19 of 49 ends

Page 353 ends

the Notice of Decision.

C. Appeal Fees.

1. Appeal fees shall be paid by the person filing the appeal (the appellant) except as provided in Paragraph (2) below.

2. The City shall not charge a fee for appeals of projects denied due to conflicting decisions of the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) and Landmarks Preservation Commission as described in Sections 3.24.200 through 3.24.240.

DB. The filing of a notice of appeal within the time and in the manner specified in subdivision A above shall stay all proceedings by all parties in connection with the matter upon which the appeal is taken until the determination of the appeal, as provided herein.

EC. Before the hearing, the Secretary of the Commission shall forward the documents constituting the record on the matter to the Council. These shall include: copies of the Notice of Decision, indicating the Commission’s vote, and the findings and conditions approved by the Commission; the Public Hearing notice; any and all reports made by the Secretary to the Commission; correspondence and letters received both by the Commission or the Council submitted during the appeal process; and the application to the Commission and attachments. department staff shall prepare a staff report describing the appeal with relevant supporting materials.

The Secretary shall also make a report to the Council on the Commission’s action, including the issues raised at the Commission’s public hearing.

FD. Each hearing shall be open to the public, which shall be given the opportunity to present their views and to be heard in accordance with established procedures.

GE. After opening the public hearing on the appeal, the Council may take one of the following actions:

1. Continue the public hearing;

2. Based on the record of the Council’s consideration and hearing, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify any decision, determination, condition or requirement of the Commission’s original action; or

Page 20 of 49 ends

Page 354 ends

3. Remand the matter to the Commission to reconsider the application, or any revisions thereto submitted after the Commission’s action, in which case the Council shall specify which issues the Commission is directed to reconsider.

HF. Except in the case of a remand to the Commission, when reviewing any decision of the Commission on appeal, the Council shall use the same standards for decision making and is required to make the same findings as the Commission with respect to the matter on appeal. The Council may adopt the Commission’s decision and findings as its own. In either case, the City Clerk shall prepare a resolution stating the Council’s decision.

If the disposition of the appeal has not been determined within 30 days from the date the public hearing was closed by the Council, then the decision of the Commission shall be deemed affirmed and the appeal deemed denied.

IG. The City Clerk shall promptly notify in writing the appellant, owners or authorized agents of affected property, and residents of such property of the action taken.

JH. Payment of fees for an appeal from the decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission shall be set by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 7461-NS § 1, 2016:

Ord. 6243-NS § 1, 1994: Ord. 5620-NS § 1, 1984: Ord. 4694-NS § 9, 1974) Section 18. That BMC Section 3.24.340 be amended to read as follows:

Before accepting for filing any application hereinafter mentioned, the commission shall charge and collect the fees herein specified:

A. An application shall be accompanied by all required fees listed in the current Fee Schedule approved by the City Council. For each application for designation of a landmark or a structure of merit, the fee shall be fifty dollars; B. For each application for designation of an historic district, the fee shall be one hundred dollars;
BC. There shall be no fee for each application for designation of a landmark, an historic district or a structure of merit, if such application is initiated by the commission, or by resolution of intention of the City Council, or by the Planning Commission, or by the Civic Arts Commission. (Ord. 5686-NS § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 4694-NS § 13, 1974)

Page 21 of 49 ends

Page 355 ends

Section 19. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 22 of 49 ends

Page 356 ends

1 Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
November 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author) and Councilmember Mark Humbert (Co-Sponsor)
SUBJECT: Referral to Amend Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 and

3.24.300 to Improve Procedure for Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager and City Attorney to amend two related Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) sections: 3.24.120, “Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit-Designation-Initiation Procedures,” and its related BMC section 3.24.300, “Appeals-Procedures Required-City Council Authority.”
This referral recommends refinements to the procedure for designating landmarks, historic districts, and structures of merit to discourage frivolous designations, often of sites that are planned to be redeveloped to address our City’s housing shortage.

Proposed amendments include the following two changes to the BMC:
1) Raising the threshold for the number of residents needed to sign the verified application of initiation of designation from 50 to 200; and 2) For properties located in residential zoning districts, 1 require 51 percent of the residents within a 300-foot radius of the subject building/structure to be among the applicants signing on to initiate the landmark / structure of merit designation, similar to the threshold used for other City procedures by the Planning and Public Works departments.2 We note that this second requirement may necessitate the collection of more than 200 signatures. 1 As defined in Berkeley Municipal Code section 23.202 - https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.202
2 These numbers were chosen to be congruent with other criteria used within the city regarding community outreach and involvement. Our Planning Department, for instance, requires that Projects of Community or Neighborhood Interest meet with owners, residents and community groups within

Page 1 of 8 ends

ATTACHMENT 2Page 23 of 49

Page 357 ends

2 Specifically, the proposed amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC)

3.24.120, “Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit-Designation-Initiation Procedures” would read as follows:

Initiation of designation shall be by the commission, or by a resolution of intention of the City Council, or by the Planning Commission, or by the Civic Arts Commission, or by the verified application of the owners of the property to be designated or their authorized agents, or by the verified application of at least fifty 200 residents of the City and, for properties located in residential zoning districts, requiring 51 percent of the residents residing within a 300 foot radius of the subject property. Any such application shall be filed with the commission upon forms prescribed by the commission and shall be accompanied by all data required by the commission. Where such application is submitted for designation of an historic district, the application must be subscribed by or on behalf of a majority of the property owners or residents of the proposed district. (Ord. 5686-NS § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 4694-NS § 4, 1974)3
Similarly, BMC 3.24.300(A)(1) is proposed to read as follows:

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
A Low Threshold for Residents to Seek a Landmark / Structure of Merit Designation Leads to Frivolous Applications That Create Delay and Uncertainty. . . Currently, individuals at liberty to initiate and appeal the process of designating a home, building, structure or district as an historic landmark or structure of merit are City Council members; appointed commissioners of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, or Civic Arts Commission; property owner(s) of the subject property; and any random group of at least 50 residents living 300 feet of the project (https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Instructions-Regarding- Community-Outreach.pdf) and our Transportation Division requires that 51 percent of residents on a given block sign the petition to adopt the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program (see RPP opt-in guide, page 3): https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RPP%20Opt-In%20How- To%20Guide.pdf
3 Berkeley Municipal Code section 3.24.120: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/3.24.120 4 Berkeley Municipal Code section 3.24.300(A)(1): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/3.24.300

Page 2 of 8 ends

Page 358 ends

3 anywhere in the City. The relatively low bar for residents to initiate designation of a landmark / structure of merit for property that they do not own—by simply collecting the signatures of 50 people—has led to disputes between neighbors and homeowners, and—for larger proposed developments—uncertainty and delay as well as a significant amount of work for City staff.5 In the background section below, we describe two notable cases in which at least 50 residents submitted a petition to initiate a landmark / structure of merit designation after the subject property was proposed for development or demolition. In both cases, the landmark designation was found to be inappropriate.
. . . And Can Be In Tension with the Spirit of State Housing Law. In two other cases presented as background below, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved landmark designations after proposed development projects had already vested—meaning a developer had submitted a preliminary housing application deemed complete, which locks in the zoning, design, and preservation standards that were in place at the time of the application’s submission—under state law Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner).6 Known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, SB 330 is intended to safeguard housing projects from shifting local rules. Local governments are limited from imposing new regulations retroactively if those rules would reduce housing capacity or introduce additional discretionary barriers.7 In essence, state law SB 330 renders the landmark designation unenforceable, but the process still causes months of delay and creates uncertainty related to financing.

BACKGROUND
In the following four case studies, we show how the current procedure for initiating a landmark or structure of merit has been weaponized by opponents of neighborhood change.

Page 3 of 8 ends

Page 359 ends

4 structure a city landmark or structure of merit in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.24.120. The neighbor was joined by 65 other residents, and the group was represented by the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association. In August 2020, the Landmarks Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on the designation request; the staff report concluded that there was not enough evidence showing the property to have historical value nor was it representative of exemplary design or the notable accomplishments of persons important to history.8 Nearby neighbors who supported the landmark designation wanted to preserve the “aesthetic of their street,” and felt that the Payson House was historically significant to the neighborhood while those in support of staff’s finding saw the landmark designation process as an attempt to preempt a larger development proposed to replace the current house. In the end, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 7-2 in support of the staff report opposing the designation of landmark status.9 Two months later, the commission’s decision was appealed to the City Council, and the City Council upheld the Landmark Preservation Commission’s decision.10 In October 2021, the Zoning Adjustments Board approved the redesigned 11-unit project under the state’s density bonus law, which included three low-income units to meet affordability requirements. The failed effort to halt redevelopment of the Payson House took approximately 18 months, and significant staff time was devoted to this attempt at maintaining the “aesthetic of the street” and the low density neighborhood.

Case Study #2: Neighbors Attempt to Landmark Property to Maintain Neighborhood Feel at 910 Indian Rock Avenue. The single-family home at 910 Indian Rock Avenue, known as the Marrenner House, was built in 1916. It became the subject of a landmark designation effort after its owners, the Emersons, submitted plans to demolish it to build a larger home to accommodate Mrs.

Emerson's aging and disabled mother. Concerned neighbors submitted a landmark structure of merit application,11 which included a petition and a group letter signed by 57 residents. The group suggested preserving the existing character of the house by constructing a suitable addition at the rear of the property, rather than the demolition that the property owner sought, as a way to maintain the neighborhood character. 8 Public Hearing during January 21, 2021 Special City Council Meeting: “Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Decision – Denial of City Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation for 1915 Berryman Street”
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/Af5kp6E4KrPvxdHVNpBjf2CjOz0IX%C 3%81ewE6%C3%81X1jBcBbjMKWpiv7zlLl1A6iB0BFLH6J4fTxFwPsUIhnIsQplixfY%3D/ 9 Minutes from the August 6, 2020 Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-minutes/2020-08- 06_LPC_Minutes_FINAL.pdf
10 Public Hearing during January 21, 2021 Special City Council Meeting: “Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Decision – Denial of City Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation for 1915 Berryman Street”
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/Af5kp6E4KrPvxdHVNpBjf2CjOz0IX%C 3%81ewE6%C3%81X1jBcBbjMKWpiv7zlLl1A6iB0BFLH6J4fTxFwPsUIhnIsQplixfY%3D/ 11 910 Indian Rock Avenue Landmark Support Letters sent to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, May 4, 2023 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05- 04_Item%207_910%20Indian%20Rock%20.pdf

Page 4 of 8 ends

Page 360 ends

5 The Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed the matter over several meetings in May, July, and November 2023.12 During the November 2023 meeting, the commission voted not to approve the designation application. The Emersons had argued all along that their house did not satisfy the requirements to designate it as a landmark or structure of merit, contrary to the neighbors’ assertions. However, well into the petition process, and following an offer from Kit Ratcliff, grandson of the home’s original architect, the Emersons agreed to renovate the property, maintain the street facing facade and partner with Kit Ratcliff who would oversee a remodel and rear addition to the home. The Emersons themselves wrote a letter to the Landmarks Preservation Commission requesting they take no action on designating their house as a landmark or structure of merit, emphasizing that the original petitioners also now no longer supported the designation as demolition was no longer an issue and the front facade of the house would remain intact.13 In the end, all stakeholders were satisfied as the Emersons could renovate their home to accommodate the growing needs of their family, Kit Ratcliff could honor the architectural work of his grandfather, and the surrounding neighbors would not have to see the newly constructed addition. This reveals yet again how the subject property’s merit as a historical landmark was secondary to preserving a neighborhood context as perceived through the eyes of some of the neighbors.

Case Study #3: Landmarking Attempt in Tension With Spirit of State Law SB 330 at 2425 Durant Avenue. The landmark dispute over 2425 Durant Avenue emerged not from long-standing recognition of historic value but from a petition filed only after a housing project was already in motion. The property, part of Berkeley’s early College Homestead and Beaver Tracts, had no prior designation on state or national registers and had not been the subject of preservation campaigns before. In November 2024, the developer filed a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019), which the City deemed complete on November 21, vesting the project under the rules then in effect. Weeks later, in December 2024, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association filed to landmark 2421 Durant Avenue, initiating a process that culminated in the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s March 6, 2025 vote to designate the property as a landmark.14 This sequence created an immediate legal and procedural conflict. Under SB 330, once a housing project vests, local governments cannot impose new standards, including 12 Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting Agenda, Thursday May 4, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2023-05- 04_LPC_Agenda_linked.pdf; July 6 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, item #7:https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-07- 06_LPC_Item%207_910%20Indian%20Rock_Packet.pdf; Agenda packet for November 2, 2023 Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-11- 02_LPC_Item%207_910%20Indian%20Rock_Staff%20Report%20and%20Attachments.pdf 13 November 2, 2023 LPC agenda packet (see above), page 41 of 43. 14 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-07- 23%20Special%20Item%2001%20Landmarks%20Preservation%20Commission%20Appeal%202425 %20Durant.pdf

Page 5 of 8 ends

Page 361 ends

6 landmark protections, on the housing project. The developer argued that the late-filed petition and subsequent Landmarks Preservation Commission designation had no legal effect, but nonetheless imposed significant practical burdens. In their appeal, filed in April 2025, the developer emphasized that the designation had already caused four months of delay, introduced uncertainty for lenders and insurers, and jeopardized the project’s financing15—exactly the types of obstacles state law sought to eliminate.

In the public hearing of the appeal on July 23, 2025,16 Planning staff recommended reversing the Landmarks Preservation Commission decision, noting that while the designation technically existed, it could not be applied to the vested housing project.

Staff also noted that this would be purely a symbolic landmark. Preservation advocates, including BAHA, urged the City Council to uphold the designation, citing the property’s role in illustrating the layered history of the Southside neighborhood.

They argued that even symbolic landmarking could have educational value and underscored the City’s failure to complete a comprehensive historic survey. But Councilmembers highlighted broader concerns, including the applicability of SB 330.

Keeping the designation in place risked exposing the City to legal liability and would further chill housing development at a time when Berkeley already faces a housing shortage. Ultimately, staff concluded that state housing law precluded applying the designation to the housing project, and the matter presented a broader conflict between housing production mandates and preservation priorities. The Council ultimately voted unanimously to uphold the appeal and reverse the Landmarks Preservation Commission designation.17
Case Study #4: Landmarking Attempt in Tension With Spirit of State Law SB 330 at 2138 Kittredge Street. The dispute over 2138 Kittredge Street followed a familiar pattern in Berkeley’s ongoing tension between housing production and historic preservation. The property, associated with the Fitzpatrick House and later the Pepper Tree Tea Room, had long been noted in neighborhood surveys but was never designated at the state, federal, or local level as a landmark. In April 2024, the developer submitted a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330, which was deemed complete that same month, vesting the project under existing planning and zoning standards. Several months later, in February 2025, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association filed an application to landmark the property.18 Similar to the 15 As per comments by the appellant as part of the City Council meeting, held on July 23, 2025 https://berkeley.granicus.com/player/clip/5488?publish_id=6b79d3c7-68a7-11f0-b7f5- 005056a89546&redirect=true
16 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-07- 23%20Special%20Item%2001%20Landmarks%20Preservation%20Commission%20Appeal%202425 %20Durant.pdf
17 Agenda packet for July 23, 2025 City Council meeting https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city- council-meetings/2025-07-23%20Annotated%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pdf 18 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02- 06_LPC_Item%207_2138%20Kittredge_Staff%20Report%20and%20Attachments.pdf

Page 6 of 8 ends

Page 362 ends

7 case of Durant Avenue, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to approve the designation, citing architectural features and the property being present in the downtown area surrounded by other historic structures.

City planning staff recommended overturning the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s designation due to the same application of state housing law—under SB 330, once a housing application is deemed complete, new regulations, including landmark designations cannot be imposed retroactively on the housing project. The City Council grappled with the same tension that had defined the Durant Avenue case. They acknowledged the symbolic intent of the petition but underscored that the designation carried no enforceable weight and introduced costly delays and economic uncertainty. The Council voted unanimously to uphold the appeal and overturn the Landmarks Preservation Commission designation,19 and reinforced the same conclusion reached in the Durant case.

FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff time on a one-time basis to amend and incorporate the re-worded code sections into the BMC, and ongoing savings to staff time due to anticipated fewer landmark attempts that turn out to be frivolous.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The city could reconsider funding a historic context statement. A historic context statement is a document that includes a comprehensive understanding and structure for grouping information about the City’s history, historic properties and the built environment. An historic context statement would provide transparency by providing a planning document with guidance on identifying and evaluating historic buildings and resources. It would include an evaluative framework and guidance for staff and Landmarks Preservation Commission decisions regarding historic resources thus decreasing staff time involved in researching each property initiated for landmark designation and ad hoc decisions about properties based on commissioners’ and residents’ comfort with growth. The requested funding for an historic context statement was projected to be between $250,000 to $275,000 and was not approved in FY 2024-25 or in FY 2025-26. Given this relatively high one-time cost, it is unclear whether Council would have the funding available to pursue a historic context statement in the near future.

Despite the relatively high one-time cost, there is broad recognition that the benefits of an historic context statement could outweigh the expense. It would not only generate a vetted list of potential landmarks and structures of merit but would also 19 Agenda packet for July 23, 2025 City Council meeting https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city- council-meetings/2025-07-23%20Annotated%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pdf

Page 7 of 8 ends

Page 363 ends

8 provide greater predictability for developers, staff, and residents alike. Other cities, such as San Francisco20 and Los Angeles21 have already commissioned historic context statements that serve as standard references for preservation planning and environmental review. While a citywide context study in Berkeley may take considerable time to complete, the recommendations in this ordinance can provide a practical framework in the interim - tiding the City over until a formal survey is adopted.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This referral is submitted in the spirit of eliminating one particular way people have used our municipal code to delay the construction of much-needed homes. It would also help address conflicts among neighbors that pit “maintaining the feel of a neighborhood” against property owners’ interests in renovating their own homes.

Berkeley has successfully adopted a Housing Element and has received the state’s Prohousing Designation; the referred BMC amendment would be an additional step furthering our commitment to this designation and our efforts to provide more housing.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, District 1 (510) 981-7110 20 https://sfplanning.org/project/citywide-historic-context-statement 21 https://planning.lacity.gov/preservation-design/historic-resources/historic-themes

Page 8 of 8 ends

Page 364 ends

Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember District 1
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7110 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7111 E-Mail: [email protected]

REVISED

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 1

Meeting Date: November 10, 2025

Item Number: 12

Item Description: Referral to Amend Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 and

3.24.300 to Improve Procedure for Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit

Submitted by: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani

The revised material amends the second recommendation and adds Councilmembers Blackaby and Lunaparra as co-sponsors.

The second recommendation now suggests raising the threshold for the number of residents needed to sign the verified application of initiation of designation from 50 to 200 if the resource property owner has consented to the Landmark/Structure of Merit designation; or raising the threshold for the number of residents needed to sign the verified application of initiation to 400 if the resource property owner has not consented to the process. The second recommendation was amended out of concern for the increased administrative burden to staff in determining 51 percent of residential units within a 300 foot radius of the subject property and concern over unintended consequences that would treat distinct areas of the city differently.

Page 31 of 49 ends

Page 365 ends

1 Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
November 10, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author) and Councilmember Brent Blackaby (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Mark Humbert (Co-Sponsor), and Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra (Co-
Sponsor)

SUBJECT: Referral to Amend Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 and

3.24.300 to Improve Procedure for Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit

T
his referral recommends refinements to the procedure for designating landmarks, historic districts, and structures of merit to discourage frivolous designations, often of sites that are planned to be redeveloped to address our City’s housing shortage.

Proposed amendments include the following two changes to the BMC:
1) R
aising the threshold for the number of residents needed to sign the verified application of initiation of designation from 50 to 200 ; and requiring the property owner’s approval of the designation; or
2) For properties located in residential zoning districts,1 require 51 percent of the residents within a 300-foot radius of the subject building/structure to be among the applicants signing on to initiate the landmark / structure of merit designation, similar to the threshold used for other City procedures by the

1 As defined in Berkeley Municipal Code section 23.202 - https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.202

Page 32 of 49 ends

Page 366 ends

Specifically, the proposed amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC)

3.24.120, “Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit-Designation-Initiation Procedures” would read as follows:

Initiation of designation shall be by the commission, or by a resolution of intention of the City Council, or by the Planning Commission, or by the Civic Arts Commission, or by the verified application of the owners of the property to be designated or their authorized agents, or by the verified application of at least fifty 200 residents of the City and the consent of the property owner;and, for properties located in residential zoning districts, requiring 51 percent of the residents residing within a 300 foot radius of the subject property.; or, by the verified application of at least 400 residents if the property owner has not provided consent of the designation process.3 Any such application shall be filed with the commission upon forms prescribed by the commission and shall be accompanied by all data required by the commission. Where such application is submitted for designation of an historic district, the application must be subscribed by or on behalf of a majority of the property owners or residents of the proposed district. (Ord. 5686-NS § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 4694- NS § 4, 1974)4

Similarly, BMC 3.24.300(A)(1) is proposed to read as follows:

2 These numbers were chosen to be congruent with other criteria used within the city regarding community outreach and involvement. Our Planning Department, for instance, requires that Projects of Community or Neighborhood Interest meet with owners, residents and community groups within 300 feet of the project (https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Instructions-Regarding- Community-Outreach.pdf) and our Transportation Division requires that 51 percent of residents on a given block sign the petition to adopt the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program (see RPP opt-in guide, page 3): https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RPP%20Opt -In%20How- To%20Guide.pdf
3 This provision is congruent with the California Register of Historical Resources requiring the resource owner’s consent prior to being listed on the California Register:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238
4 Berkeley Municipal Code section 3.24.120: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/3.24.120

Page 33 of 49 ends

Page 367 ends

3 residents residing within a 300-foot radius of the subject property of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of this chapter.5

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
A Low Threshold for Residents to Seek a Landmark / Structure of Merit Designation Leads to Frivolous Applications That Create Delay and Uncertainty. . . Currently, individuals at liberty to initiate and appeal the process of designating a home, building, structure or district as an historic landmark or structure of merit are City Council members; appointed commissioners of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, or Civic Arts Commission; property owner(s) of the subject property; and any random group of at least 50 residents living anywhere in the City. The relatively low bar for residents to initiate designation of a landmark / structure of merit for property that they do not own—by simply collecting the signatures of 50 people—has led to disputes between neighbors and homeowners, and—for larger proposed developments — uncertainty and delay as well as a significant amount of work for City staff.6 In the background section below, we describe two notable cases in which at least 50 residents submitted a petition to initiate a landmark / structure of merit designation after the subject property was proposed for development or demolition. In both cases, the landmark designation was found to be inappropriate.

. . . And Can Be In Tension with the Spirit of State Housing Law. In two other cases presented as background below, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved landmark designations after proposed development projects had already vested— meaning a developer had submitted a preliminary housing application deemed complete, which locks in the zoning, design, and preservation standards that were in place at the time of the application’s submission—under state law Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner).
7 Known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019,
SB 330 is intended to safeguard housing projects from shifting local rules. Local governments are limited from imposing new regulations retroactively if those rules would reduce housing capacity or introduce additional discretionary barriers. 8 In
essence, state law SB 330 renders the landmark designation unenforceable, but the process still causes months of delay and creates uncertainty related to financing.

5 Berkeley Municipal Code section 3.24.300(A)(1): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/3.24.300 6 We note that a property owner who believes their property is worthy of landmark / structure of merit status will continue to have the option of contacting the Landmarks Preservation Commission to request that the body initiate the landmark / structure of merit designation proceedings. 7 SB 330, Skinner. Housing Crisis Act of 2019 -
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330 8 California Government Code § 65589.5(o)(1) “...a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted.”

Page 34 of 49 ends

Page 368 ends

4 BACKGROUND
In the following four case studies, we show how the current procedure for initiating a landmark or structure of merit has been weaponized by opponents of neighborhood change.

C
ase Study #1: Neighbors’ Attempt to Landmark Unremarkable House to Block High-Density Development at 1915 Berryman Street. I
n May 2020, a development
application to construct a ten-unit residential project at 1915 Berryman Street in North Berkeley was submitted to Berkeley’s Planning Department. The property, known as the Payson House, was originally built in 1889 for First Unitarian Church co-founder William Payson. The proposed project would expand the property by constructing six townhouses containing ten units. Close to two weeks after the construction application was submitted, a neighbor submitted an application to designate the structure a city landmark or structure of merit in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.24.120. The neighbor was joined by 65 other residents, and the group was represented by the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association. In August 2020, the Landmarks Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on the designation request; the staff report concluded that there was not enough evidence showing the property to have historical value nor was it representative of exemplary design or the notable accomplishments of persons important to history. 9 Nearby
neighbors who supported the landmark designation wanted to preserve the “aesthetic of their street,” and felt that the Payson House was historically significant to the neighborhood while those in support of staff’s finding saw the landmark designation process as an attempt to preempt a larger development proposed to replace the current house. In the end, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 7-2 in support of the staff report opposing the designation of landmark status. 10 Two
months later, the commission’s decision was appealed to the City Council, and the City Council upheld the Landmark Preservation Commission’s decision.11 In October 2021, the Zoning Adjustments Board approved the redesigned 11-unit project under the state’s density bonus law, which included three low-income units to meet affordability requirements. The failed effort to halt redevelopment of the Payson

9 Public Hearing during January 21, 2021 Special City Council Meeting: “Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Decision – Denial of City Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation for 1915 Berryman Street”
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/Af5kp6E4KrPvxdHVNpBjf2CjOz0IX%C 3%81ewE6%C3%81X1jBcBbjMKWpiv7zlLl1A6iB0BFLH6J4fTxFwPsUIhnIsQplixfY%3D/ 10 Minutes from the August 6, 2020 Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-minutes/2020-08- 06_LPC_Minutes_FINAL.pdf
11 Public Hearing during January 21, 2021 Special City Council Meeting: “Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Decision – Denial of City Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation for 1915 Berryman Street”
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/Af5kp6E4KrPvxdHVNpBjf2CjOz0IX%C 3%81ewE6%C3%81X1jBcBbjMKWpiv7zlLl1A6iB0BFLH6J4fTxFwPsUIhnIsQplixfY%3D/

Page 35 of 49 ends

Page 369 ends

5 House took approximately 18 months, and significant staff time was devoted to this attempt at maintaining the “aesthetic of the street” and the low density neighborhood.

Emerson's aging and disabled mother. Concerned neighbors submitted a landmark structure of merit application,
12 which included a petition and a group letter signed by 57 residents. The group suggested preserving the existing character of the house by constructing a suitable addition at the rear of the property, rather than the demolition that the property owner sought, as a way to maintain the neighborhood character.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed the matter over several meetings in May, July, and November 2023.
13 During the November 2023 meeting, the
commission voted not to approve the designation application. The Emersons had argued all along that their house did not satisfy the requirements to designate it as a landmark or structure of merit, contrary to the neighbors’ assertions. However, well into the petition process, and following an offer from Kit Ratcliff, grandson of the home’s original architect, the Emersons agreed to renovate the property, maintain the street facing facade and partner with Kit Ratcliff who would oversee a remodel and rear addition to the home. The Emersons themselves wrote a letter to the Landmarks Preservation Commission requesting they take no action on designating their house as a landmark or structure of merit, emphasizing that the original petitioners also now no longer supported the designation as demolition was no longer an issue and the front facade of the house would remain intact. 14 In the end, all
stakeholders were satisfied as the Emersons could renovate their home to accommodate the growing needs of their family, Kit Ratcliff could honor the architectural work of his grandfather, and the surrounding neighbors would not have to see the newly constructed addition. This reveals yet again how the subject property’s merit as a historical landmark was secondary to preserving a neighborhood context as perceived through the eyes of some of the neighbors.

12 910 Indian Rock Avenue Landmark Support Letters sent to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, May 4, 2023 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05- 04_Item%207_910%20Indian%20Rock%20.pdf
13 Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting Agenda, Thursday May 4, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2023-05- 04_LPC_Agenda_linked.pdf; July 6 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, item #7:https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-07- 06_LPC_Item%207_910%20Indian%20Rock_Packet.pdf; Agenda packet for November 2, 2023 Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-11- 02_LPC_Item%207_910%20Indian%20Rock_Staff%20Report%20and%20Attachments.pdf 14 November 2, 2023 LPC agenda packet (see above), page 41 of 43.

Page 36 of 49 ends

Page 370 ends

6 Case Study #3: Landmarking Attempt in Tension With Spirit of State Law SB 330 at 2425 Durant Avenue. The landmark dispute over 2425 Durant Avenue emerged not from long-standing recognition of historic value but from a petition filed only after a housing project was already in motion. The property, part of Berkeley’s early College Homestead and Beaver Tracts, had no prior designation on state or national registers and had not been the subject of preservation campaigns before. In November 2024, the developer filed a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019), which the City deemed complete on November 21, vesting the project under the rules then in effect. Weeks later, in December 2024, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association filed to landmark 2421 Durant Avenue, initiating a process that culminated in the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s March 6, 2025 vote to designate the property as a landmark. 15 This
sequence created an immediate legal and procedural conflict. Under SB 330, once a housing project vests, local governments cannot impose new standards, including landmark protections, on the housing project. The developer argued that the late-filed petition and subsequent Landmarks Preservation Commission designation had no legal effect, but nonetheless imposed significant practical burdens. In their appeal, filed in April 2025, the developer emphasized that the designation had already caused four months of delay, introduced uncertainty for lenders and insurers, and jeopardized the project’s financing
16—exactly the types of obstacles state law sought
to eliminate.

In the public hearing of the appeal on July 23, 2025,17 Planning staff recommended reversing the Landmarks Preservation Commission decision, noting that while the designation technically existed, it could not be applied to the vested housing project.

15 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-07- 23%20Special%20Item%2001%20Landmarks%20Preservation%20Commission%20Appeal%202425 %20Durant.pdf
16 As per comments by the appellant as part of the City Council meeting, held on July 23, 2025 https://berkeley.granicus.com/player/clip/5488?publish_id=6b79d3c7-68a7-11f0-b7f5- 005056a89546&redirect=true
17 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-07- 23%20Special%20Item%2001%20Landmarks%20Preservation%20Commission%20Appeal%202425 %20Durant.pdf

Page 37 of 49 ends

Page 371 ends

7 ultimately voted unanimously to uphold the appeal and reverse the Landmarks Preservation Commission designation.18

Case Study #4: Landmarking Attempt in Tension With Spirit of State Law SB 330 at 2138 Kittredge Street. The dispute over 2138 Kittredge Street followed a familiar pattern in Berkeley’s ongoing tension between housing production and historic preservation. The property, associated with the Fitzpatrick House and later the Pepper Tree Tea Room, had long been noted in neighborhood surveys but was never designated at the state, federal, or local level as a landmark. In April 2024, the developer submitted a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330, which was deemed complete that same month, vesting the project under existing planning and zoning standards. Several months later, in February 2025, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association filed an application to landmark the property. 19 Similar to the
case of Durant Avenue, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to approve the designation, citing architectural features and the property being present in the downtown area surrounded by other historic structures.

City planning staff recommended overturning the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s designation due to the same application of state housing law—under SB 330, once a housing application is deemed complete, new regulations, including landmark designations cannot be imposed retroactively on the housing project. The City Council grappled with the same tension that had defined the Durant Avenue case. They acknowledged the symbolic intent of the petition but underscored that the designation carried no enforceable weight and introduced costly delays and economic uncertainty. The Council voted unanimously to uphold the appeal and overturn the Landmarks Preservation Commission designation, 20 and reinforced the
same conclusion reached in the Durant case.

TERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The city could reconsider funding a historic context statement. A historic context statement is a document that includes a comprehensive understanding and structure

18 Agenda packet for July 23, 2025 City Council meeting https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city- council-meetings/2025-07-23%20Annotated%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pdf 19 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02- 06_LPC_Item%207_2138%20Kittredge_Staff%20Report%20and%20Attachments.pdf 20 Agenda packet for July 23, 2025 City Council meeting https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city- council-meetings/2025-07-23%20Annotated%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pdf

Page 38 of 49 ends

Page 372 ends

8 for grouping information about the City’s history, historic properties and the built environment. An historic context statement would provide transparency by providing a planning document with guidance on identifying and evaluating historic buildings and resources. It would include an evaluative framework and guidance for staff and Landmarks Preservation Commission decisions regarding historic resources thus decreasing staff time involved in researching each property initiated for landmark designation and ad hoc decisions about properties based on commissioners’ and residents’ comfort with growth. The requested funding for an historic context statement was projected to be between $250,000 to $275,000 and was not approved in FY 2024-25 or in FY 2025-26. Given this relatively high one-time cost, it is unclear whether Council would have the funding available to pursue a historic context statement in the near future.

Despite the relatively high one-time cost, there is broad recognition that the benefits of an historic context statement could outweigh the expense. It would not only generate a vetted list of potential landmarks and structures of merit but would also provide greater predictability for developers, staff, and residents alike. Other cities, such as San Francisco
21 and Los Angeles22 have already commissioned historic context statements that serve as standard references for preservation planning and environmental review. While a citywide context study in Berkeley may take considerable time to complete, the recommendations in this ordinance can provide a practical framework in the interim - tiding the City over until a formal survey is adopted.

NTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, District 1 (510) 981-7110

21 https://sfplanning.org/project/citywide-historic-context-statement 22 https://planning.lacity.gov/preservation-design/historic-resources/historic-themes

Page 39 of 49 ends

Page 373 ends

Igor Tregub
Councilmember District 4

REVISED

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2

Meeting Date: November 10, 2025
Item Number: 12

Item Description: Referral to Amend Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 and

3.24.300 to Improve Procedure for Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit

Submitted by: Councilmember Igor Tregub

The revised material amends the item as revised in Supplemental 1 to improve consistency, reduce the staff time associated with administering revisions to BMC Section 3.24.300, and provide a stronger nexus to the stated issue the item seeks to address.

Specifically, it raises the threshold for the number or residents needed to sign the verified application to initiate a landmarking designation to 200 in all cases and restricts an initiation of landmarking designation for five (5) years following the receipt of a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) by the City of Berkeley, unless initiated by the property owner of record.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 40 of 49 ends

Page 374 ends

1 Igor Tregub
Councilmember District 4

CONSENT CALENDAR
November 10, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Councilmember Igor Tregub

SUBJECT: Referral to Amend Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 and

3.24.300 to Improve Procedure for Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit

RECOMMENDATION
This supplemental provides refinements to Item 10 to improve consistency, reduce the staff time associated with administering revisions to BMC Section 3.24.300, and provide a stronger nexus to the stated issue the item seeks to address. Track changes associated with the supplemental are below.

Refer to the City Manager and City Attorney to amend two related Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) sections: 3.24.120, “Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit-Designation-Initiation Procedures,” and its related BMC section 3.24.300, “Appeals-Procedures Required-City Council Authority.”

This referral recommends refinements to the procedure for designating landmarks, historic districts, and structures of merit to discourage frivolous designations, often of sites that are planned to be redeveloped to address our City’s housing shortage.

Proposed amendments include the following two changes to the BMC:
1) Raising the threshold for the number of residents needed to sign the verified application of initiation of designation from 50 to 200 ; and requiring the property owner’s approval of the designation; or
2) For properties located in residential zoning districts,1 require 51 percent of the residents within a 300-foot radius of the subject building/structure to be among the applicants signing on to initiate the landmark / structure of merit designation, similar to the threshold used for other City procedures by the

1 As defined in Berkeley Municipal Code section 23.202 - https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.202

Page 41 of 49 ends

Page 375 ends

2 Planning and Public Works departments.2 We note that this second requirement may necessitate the collection of more than 200 signatures. 2) For those properties that do not have the owner’s approval to designate as a landmark, historic district, or structure of merit, raising the threshold for the number of residents needed to sign the verified application of initiation of designation to 400. Restricting an initiation of designation for five (5) years following the receipt of a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) by the City of Berkeley, unless initiated by the property owner of record.

Specifically, the proposed amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC)

3.24.120, “Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit-Designation-Initiation Procedures” would read as follows:

Initiation of designation shall be by the commission, or by a resolution of intention of the City Council, or by the Planning Commission, or by the Civic Arts Commission, or by the verified application of the owners of the property to be designated or their authorized agents, or by the verified application of at least fifty 200 residents of the City and the consent of the property owner;and, for properties located in residential zoning districts, requiring 51 percent of the residents residing within a 300 foot radius of the subject property.; or, by the verified application of at least 400 residents if the property owner has not provided consent of the designation process.3 Any such application shall be filed with the commission upon forms prescribed by the commission and shall be accompanied by all data required by the commission. Further, any such designation shall not be processed for five (5) years following the receipt of a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) by the City of Berkeley, unless initiated by the property owner of record.

Where such application is submitted for designation of an historic district, the application must be subscribed by or on behalf of a majority of the property owners or residents of the proposed district. (Ord. 5686-NS § 1 (part), 1985:

Ord. 4694-NS § 4, 1974).1 4

Similarly, BMC 3.24.300(A)(1) is proposed to read as follows:

An appeal may be taken to the City Council by the City Council on its own motion, by motion of the Planning Commission, by motion of the Civic Art Commission, by the verified application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the verified application of at least fifty 200 residents. Further, any such designation shall not be processed for five (5) years following the receipt of a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) by the City of Berkeley, unless initiated by the property owner of record. and the consent of the property owner; or, if the property owner has not provided consent, by the verified application of at least 400 residents, for properties located in residential zoning districts, requiring 51 percent of the residents residing within a 300-foot radius of the subject property of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of this chapter.5

1 4 Berkeley Municipal Code section 3.24.120: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/3.24.120

Page 42 of 49 ends

Page 376 ends

3 FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff time on a one-time basis to amend and incorporate the re-worded code sections into the BMC, and minor ongoing savings to staff time over the proposal in Supplemental 1.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This supplemental provides refinements to Item 10 to improve consistency, reduce the staff time associated with administering revisions to BMC Section 3.24.300, and provide a stronger nexus to the stated issue the item seeks to address. Specifically, by simplifying the number of signatures needed to initiate a landmark application to a single number (200), it addresses the stated intent of the original proposal to prevent applications deemed to be frivolous while avoiding the need for city staff to process applications with two different signature requirements and determining a process for how support of a property owner to a landmarking designation would be determined.

The second part of the supplemental, which restricts landmarking applications for five years following the receipt of an initial SB 330 designation by the city, other than by the property owner, proximately addresses the specific concerns described in the original item.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, District 4 (510) 981-7140

Page 43 of 49 ends

Page 377 ends

TO: City of Berkeley City Manager, Paul Buddenhagen
City of Berkeley Planning Director, Jordan Klein
FROM: Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)
SUBJECT: Response to Referral to Amend Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 and 3.24.300 to Improve Procedure for Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structure of Merit
DATE: March LPC meeting, March 5, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the Berkeley City Commission referral at the November 10, 2025, regular meeting regarding amendments to
Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 “Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit-Designation-Initiation Procedures,” and its related BMC section 3.24.300 “Appeals-Procedures Required-City Council Authority,” (see Supplemental 1 and Supplemental 2 ) the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) submits the following comments:

General comments:
● The LPC recommends that any changes or amendments to the ordinance include a public comment process. This ensures the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) remains compliant with the California Oﬃce of Historic Preservation (OHP) standards when reviewed by a State Historic Preservation Oﬃcer (SHPO) to retain its Certiﬁed Local Government (CLG) status to preserve eligibility for state and federal grant funding and other beneﬁ
ts.

Speciﬁc comments regarding the Supplemental Packets 1 and 2:
● Landmark Initiations and Appeals: For initiations by the public, we endorse increasing the required number of signatures from 50 to 100 .

● Owner-Initiated Path: This process should remain unchanged and does not require public signatures.
● State Housing Law Compliance: To address new and future state laws, we recommend stating the relevant policies on the application and the City website rather than altering the ordinance itself.

LEGISL

ATIVE CONTEXT
The Berkeley City Council is proposing to make changes to the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO). We draw the Council's attention to the fact that Berkeley is currently a Certiﬁed Local Government (CLG) for the purposes of identiﬁcation, evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within Berkeley. CLG status is the "gold standard" to municipal historic preservation programs in California. Currently, only about 70 of California's ATTACHMENT 3

Page 44 of 49 ends

Page 378 ends

LPC Response to Referral
March 5, 2026
nearly 500 incorporated cities and towns (including Berkeley) have earned CLG status and programs are monitored annually by the State for conformance.

Being a CLG opens the door to state and federal funding for preservation efforts. Most recently, Berkeley was able to obtain a CLG grant that made it possible to conduct the last historic survey in the city, the Downtown Survey for the 2012 Downtown Plan.

Under the CLG program, local preservation ordinances must conform to certain standards, and changes to an ordinance should be reviewed by the State Oﬃce of Historic Preservation (OHP) by a State Historic Preservation Oﬃcer (SHPO) to ensure they are in conformity with CLG policies and goals. If an ordinance or city practices do not conform, the city risks loss of its CLG status and loss of access to federal and state grant funding and other CLG beneﬁts.

A SHPO review of Berkeley's proposed changes, and the opportunity for public comment to the SHPO during that review, is an important procedure to build into any process for amending Berkeley's LPO before ﬁ
nal adoption. The Commission raised this issue with the Director of Planning and LPC staff at the February LPC meeting. We have not yet received information on whether the opportunity for public comment has been initiated.

Information on the CLG program can be found here: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21239

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below are based on the Supplemental Packets 1 and 2 received at the November 10, 2025, City of Berkeley Council meeting.

1. Signature requirements for Landmark initiation and appeals:

Supplemental Packet 1 proposes increasing the required signatures for public nominations from 50 to 400 (without owner consent) and 200 (with owner consent). Supplemental Packet 2 proposes increasing the required signatures from 50 to 200 for both public designations and appeals.

The LPC provides the following comments and recommendations:

The LPC acknowledges the Council’s concerns regarding staff workload and the potential for the current low threshold to cause project delays and uncertainty. Accordingly, the LPC supports doubling the signature requirement from 50 to 100. However, we believe that raising the requirement to 200 or 400 is onerous and would effectively eliminate the public's ability to participate in the landmarking process. Such a signiﬁcant increase is contrary to Berkeley’s long tradition of active, participatory democracy.
2

Page 45 of 49 ends

Page 379 ends

LPC Response to Referral
March 5, 2026
To address the issue of staff time and expenses, Council might consider an additional hourly fee for complex applications to supplement the standard ﬂat fee. This would incentivize parties to resolve disagreements outside of the formal city process, thereby minimizing delays.

2. Property Owner Approval of Designation:

Supplemental Packet #1 currently requires 200 signatures with property owner approval or 400 signatures without it. Supplemental Packet #2 removes the requirement for owner approval if the 200 signatures have been collected (except for SB330 projects as addressed in item 3 below.)
The LPC agrees with the Packet #2 proposal - but with the 100 signatures as stated in item 1 above. The simpliﬁed alternative presented in Packet #2 is more logical and will be easier to administer.

If a landmark initiation proposal is submitted and the owner either supports the initiation or remains silent, the process should proceed.

3. SB 330 related amendments:

Supplemental Packet #2 proposes to restrict an initiation of landmarking designation for ﬁve (5) years following the receipt of a Preliminary Use Permit application under SB 330 (the Housing C
risis Act of 2019) by the City of Berkeley, unless initiated by the property owner of record.

The LPC is concerned that this proposal to simply restrict landmarking designations for ﬁve years following a Preliminary Use Permit application lacks the necessary accountability measures as applied to SB 330 projects generally.

Speciﬁcally, the current proposal:
- Does not require the submission of a complete use permit or building permit application.
- Does not mandate that construction begin within a speciﬁc timeframe. - Risks inviting bad-faith applications intended solely to block landmark initiations. - Allows any new preliminary application to restart the ﬁve-year clock indeﬁnitely.

Furthermore, we believe that incorporating SB 330 requirements directly into the ordinance unnecessarily complicates the text and could jeopardize the City’s eligibility for future grants by affecting its CLG status as described above.

As state housing laws evolve, amending the ordinance for each individual law is time-intensive, costly in staff time to the City, and may lead to inconsistencies or legal challenges. 3

Page 46 of 49 ends

Page 380 ends

LPC Response to Referral
March 5, 2026
The LPC recommends that the City of Berkeley follow the City of San Francisco’s model. Instead of amending the ordinance, we suggest incorporating policy language into the Landmark Application and onto the City’s website stating that applications may not be submitted for local landmark or structure of merit designation while there is an active project application for development pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330).

CONTEXT
In response to the

1. Case Study #1 (1915 Berryman Street) & #2 (910 Indian Rock Avenue):
a. LPC did not vote to designate landmark or structure of merit either of these properties.
b. By increasing the number of signatures to 100 AND changing the fee structure to pay for additional staff time beyond that covered by the fee, should serve as adequate deterrence.

2. Case Study #3 (2425 Durant Avenue) & #4 (2138 Kittredge Street) a. LPC followed City Planning staff advice at the time based on City Attorney analysis (see attachment) with the understanding that landmarking structures on these two sites would be stayed as long as the SB 330 applications were active.

When both applications were appealed to the City Council, City Planning staff changed their position. LPC now follows the current policy as articulated by the City Council.
4

Page 47 of 49 ends

Page 381 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.6998 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.6960 Email: [email protected]

Office of the City Attorney

MEMORANDUM

July 8, 2020

To: Jordan Klein, Interim Planning Director

From: Farimah Brow n, City Attorney
Chris Jensen, Assistant City Attorney
Re: Impact of SB 330 on Landmarks Preservation Commission Review of Housing Development Projects

The Land Use Planning Division has requested an opinion as to whether SB 330 (2019) limits the authority of Landmarks Preservation Commission (“LPC”) to conduct historic resource evaluations of applications for housing projects.

SB 330 applies to any “housing development project,” which is defined as any residential development, mixed-use development with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or transitional housing or supportive housing development. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).)
Where the requirements of SB 330 apply, determinations as to whether the site of the proposed project is historic site must be made “at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete.” (Gov. Code § 65913.10(a).) That determination “shall remain valid during the pendency of the housing development project for which the application was made unless any archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources are encountered during any grading, site disturbance, or building alteration activities.” (Ibid.)
“Deemed complete” is defined in two different ways in SB 330. Government Code section 65905.5(b)(1) provides that “deemed complete” means “the application has met all of the requirements specified in the relevant list compiled pursuant to Section 65940 1 that was available at the time when the application was submitted.” (Gov. Code § 65905.5(b)(1).) However, Government Code 65589.5(h)(5) states: “Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2025, ‘deemed complete’ means that the applicant has

1 Government Code section 65940 provides that “[e]ach public agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project.” (Gov. Code § 65940(a).)

Page 48 of 49 ends

Page 382 ends

Impact of SB 330 on Landmarks Preservation Commission Review of Housing Development Projects
July 8, 2020

Page 2 ends

submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).) Until January 1, 2025, section 65589.5(h)(5) controls, “[n]othwithstanding any other law.”
Government Code section 65941.1 defines the requirements for a “preliminary application,” which include information about “[a]ny historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property.” (Gov. Code § 65941.1(a)(9).) Upon providing this information about known historic or cultural resources, along with the other information listed in section 65941.1, the application must be “deemed complete,” as set forth in Government Code section 65589.5(h)(5). Government Code section 65913.10(a) prohibits the City from imposing additional historic or cultural resources protections after this time.

Taken together, these provisions of SB 330 have the effect of divesting the LPC of jurisdiction to require applicants to comply with any cultural or historic resource preservation requirements after the time that a “preliminary application” for a housing development project is deemed complete. LPC and the City are prohibited by state law from denying or imposing conditions on a housing development project based on any cultural or historic resources protections imposed after the date on which the application was “deemed complete,” and any historic resources information required as part of the preliminary application must be limited to the identification of resources that are “known to exist” at the time of the application. Demolition referrals for commercial buildings that are over 40 years old are still required under the Zoning Ordinance, but cannot lead to the imposition of conditions of approval on the project if the LPC acts after the application is deemed complete.

SB 330 does not impact the LPC’s jurisdiction over purely commercial projects or any other project that does not meet the definition of a housing development project under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(2). In addition, SB 330 does not limit the City’s obligation to assess the impact of a proposed project on cultural resources under CEQA and to impose measures to mitigate any adverse impact on cultural resources. (See Gov. Code § 65913.10(c).)

Page 49 of 49 ends

Page 383 ends

Page 384 ends

Environment and Climate Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Environment and Climate Commission (ECC)
Submitted by: Alison LaBonte, Chairperson, ECC
Subject: Environment and Climate Commission 2026 Work Plan

INTRODUCTION
The Environment and Climate Commission (ECC) is responsible for advising the City Council on matters related to environmental sustainability and climate change. ECC’s scope includes work to advance the goals of: advancing green buildings and resource efficiency; decarbonizing buildings and transportation; engaging and educating the community; addressing the impacts and welfare of all species, including animals, insects, and plants; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; reducing toxics and preventing pollution; and supporting environmental justice. The ECC works closely with the City of Berkeley’s Office of Energy & Sustainable Development (OESD).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The ECC has a broad scope, which supports the City’s Strategic Plan goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment, and a responsibility to support and work closely with OESD staff. The ECC created subcommittees to work on the following projects:

Project Status Description
Building
Decarbonization
In Committee Support OESD staff with feedback on building electrification programs, including Building Emissions
Saving Ordinance (BESO), Berkeley Existing Buildings
Electrification Strategy, Climate Equity Fund, Just
Transition Fund, Reach Codes, and Building Performance
Standards. Collaboration with Housing Advisory
Committee as needed.

Community
Outreach
In Committee In collaboration with OESD, plan community outreach campaigns, create materials, and support events that raise awareness of City activities, public programs, and local climate action opportunities. Make suggestions about
possible website improvements. Raise awareness of
climate activities/resources to Councilmembers.

Climate Emergency
Preparedness
In Committee In coordination with the Office of Emergency Services and Public Health Community Preparedness and
Prevention Team, support the City with engagement on

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 385 ends

Environment and Climate Commission 2026 Work Plan INFORMATION CALENDAR April 14, 2026

Page 2 ends

climate emergency education and resources, including
at Community Resilience Centers.

Data In Committee Analyze data sets of relevance to environment and climate activities in Berkeley and city-wide goals.

OESD Input &
Support
Ongoing Support OESD staff with feedback on programs,
standards, and other initiatives, including the Climate Equity Fund, Climate Action planning, etc. Forward
viable grant opportunities when appropriate.

At the February 25, 2026, meeting, the commission took the following action:

Action: M/S/C (Kesselman, Ranney) to approve the 2026 Environment and Climate Commission Workplan.

Vote: Ayes - Ranney, LaBonte, Tahara, Mahmoudian, Kesselman, Binns, Brown, Athanasiou; Noes - None; Abstain - None; Absent - McGuire, Syed.

BACKGROUND
First established in 2022, the ECC was formed by merging the Community Environmental Advisory Commission and the Energy Commission. ECC commissioners bring a wide range of expertise, with backgrounds in government, academia, nonprofit, and private sector environmental work, and include youth perspectives. These backgrounds inform the ECC’s work and help it to consider diverse and equitable approaches to addressing the City’s environmental challenges.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The ECC’s initiatives will improve environmental sustainability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support a just transition.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
This work plan is intended to provide a guide to the work the ECC plans to take on in 2026. As additional items or issues arise, or are referred to the Commission from Council, the ECC will adjust this plan accordingly.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Future action items that the ECC may send to City Council could require staff time to develop, finalize, and/or implement. The ECC strives to ensure proposals provide significant net triple bottom line benefits to the City when evaluating total costs and benefits across environmental, social, and economic impacts.

CONTACT PERSON
Sarah Moore, Secretary, Environment and Climate Commission, [email protected]

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 386 ends

Parks and Waterfront
Commission INFORMATION CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Submitted by: Carrie Rybczynski, Vice-Chair, Park, Recreation and Waterfront Commission
Subject: Bond Measure Subcommittee — Final Report

INTRODUCTION
The Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront (PRW) Commission is responsible for reviewing and advising the City Council on the policies, projects, planning efforts, activities, funding, and the physical condition of parks, pools, camps, recreation centers, the Marina, and public greenery.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Over the past two months, the PRW subcommittee on the 2026 bond measure has participated in the community process for the 2026 bond measure and has produced a report that evaluates the proposed bond program. In addition, the PRW subcommittee on potential dog park locations has produced a report with preliminary recommendations.

At its regular meeting on March 11, 2026, the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission took action to send the two reports to Council as an Information Item: M/S/C:

Stewart/Nash/U) Ayes: Muszynski; Nash; Philips; Rybcynski; Stewart. Noes: None;

Absent: None.

Attachments:
1: Bond Measure Subcommittee — Final Report
2: PRWC Dog Park Subcommittee Recommendations
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

Page 1 of 20 ends

Page 387 ends

Page 1 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Bond Measure Subcommittee — Final Report
Prepared by: Leigh Stewart, Mary Muszynski, Ben Nash
Date: March 11, 2026
To: Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission, for transmittal to City Council

1. Summary
Berkeley has approximately $1.65 billion in unfunded capital liabilities, including roughly $340 million for Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront alone.[^1] Construction costs continue to rise. A $300 million infrastructure bond is the right response — and the city has done serious work to get it right.

The City contracted with a professional survey company to conduct a 500-resident poll, held community meetings, consulted six commissions, and convened four focus groups with targeted constituencies. The $300 million figure polled at 72% support — stronger, notably, than $200 million.[^2] The defined-project-list approach directly addresses what went wrong with Measure L, which failed at 59% in 2022 after being criticized as too large, too vague, and too bundled.[^3] There is appetite for this.

This report focuses on the 20 PRW projects ($107.6 million) and offers five recommendations:
clarify the pool strategy, improve selection transparency, strengthen climate framing, reconsider the Civic Center allocation, and address the Southeast Berkeley gap.

The commission enthusiastically supports this bond — the need, the process, and the great majority of the project list. We want it to pass. The recommendations below are offered in that spirit — we believe addressing them will strengthen the bond and improve its chances with voters.

2. PRW Project Review
The subcommittee has reviewed all 20 PRW projects through meetings with the PRW Director, community outreach sessions, subcommittee discussion, and review of the December 2 staff report and supporting materials. Below is our assessment of each project.

Community Facilities
Frances Albrier Community Center — $30M. This is a major community facility serving West Berkeley. Based on resident feedback and commissioner input, this is one of the strongest items on the list.

King Pool & Locker Room Replacement — $25M. The pool itself is needed — King is an

Page 2 of 20 ends

Page 388 ends

Page 2 ends

outdated 1960s facility. However, the subcommittee has concerns about the pool strategy that go beyond this single line item. The city does not own the land at King; it sits on BUSD property. The question is not just whether to upgrade King, but whether the city's overall pool plan is resilient — particularly given the risk of leaving the flats with no pool at all. See Section 3A.

Shoreline & Sea Level Rise
South Cove Seawall — $5M. Critical infrastructure. As the PRW Director noted in discussions with the subcommittee, if this seawall fails — which he described as a real risk given its condition — the entire landmass where the sailing clubs operate becomes unusable, and the city would have to fund repairs later at higher cost.[^4] The shoreline projects are well-positioned for state and federal matching grants. Measure T1 demonstrated this model: $100 million in bond funds leveraged an additional $80 million in grants, producing over $183 million in total infrastructure investment.[^1]
University Ave / Seawall Dr / Bay Trail / Plaza — $5M. Supports climate resilience and sea level rise adaptation. Highly competitive for existing state grants.

Marina Docks Timber Pile Replacement — $6M. Critical for maintaining the marina as a revenue source for the Waterfront. This is a deferred maintenance that is not eligible for known grants or Parks Tax — it can only be funded through general fund or bond or the Marina Fund.[^5] Marina Blvd Sea Level Rise & Bay Trail — $1.9M. Climate resilience infrastructure that protects access to the north side of the Waterfront, Cesar Chavez Park, and prevents SLR damage to important commercial tenants (Doubletree, Marine Center, and berth slips). Highly competitive for existing state grants.

University Ave Sea Level Rise – Bike Park — $2.75M. Supports climate goals and adds a new Bike Park (on newly-vacant land) and has gone through an extensive community planning process . Highly competitive for existing state grants.

Park Amenities & Open Space
Adeline Corridor Open Space — $6M. One of the strongest items on the list. South Berkeley is projected for significant residential growth and needs more green space as a matter of equity. In a landlocked city, opportunities to create new open space are rare — this is one of them. Per the PRW Director, a $825,000 federal earmark has already been secured for design.[^4] Glendale-La Loma Park Improvements — $3.5M. Safety and ADA improvements to playgrounds, parking lot, and pathways.[^5] Playstructure is close to 50 years old, needs replacement. Play structures are consistently among the highest-demand categories in community feedback, particularly popular with families.

Cesar Chavez Park Restroom & Pathway — $3M. This is a high-use waterfront park and it urgently needs a proper bathroom. The pathway has deteriorated significantly and does not meet current ADA accessible codes, and needs replacement. Only 60% of the project cost comes from the bond; the project is highly competitive for State Coastal Conservancy grants.[^5] Cedar Rose Play Structure — $2.5M. The play structure has not been replaced in almost three decades. Play structures are extremely popular with families — high-use, high-visibility

Page 3 of 20 ends

Page 389 ends

Page 3 ends

improvements that generate broad support.

Aquatic Park Dreamland Area — $2.1M. One of the best returns on bond investment. The full Dreamland project totals $8.4 million — including a bioswale, parking, restroom, and an expanded play area roughly 175% the size of the current one.[^4] The bond's $2.1 million serves as the 25% local match with over $6 million likely from a local developer.[^5] Very popular with families.

Dog Parks (4–6 sites citywide) — $2.5M. Dogs using regular parks creates significant conflict among residents. Dedicated dog parks are a relatively inexpensive way to address a real and widespread problem, and distributing sites citywide means broad benefit.

Restrooms: Cedar Rose ($500K), Codornices ($500K), Harrison ($750K) — $1.75M total.

Overdue bathroom replacements at well-used parks.[^5] Public restrooms are a critical basic service.

Sports Facilities
Harrison Field Turf Conversion — $6M. Strong community support. Harrison is a heavily used field; conversion to artificial turf would roughly double usable field capacity and significantly reduce maintenance and irrigation costs — and may increase revenue as well. Berkeley used to have a reputation for having the best sports fields in the region. It's important to keep investing here.

Live Oak Soccer/Basketball/Lighting — $3M. Needed modernization at a well-used facility — re- levels uneven basketball courts, converts soccer field to turf, and adds lighting.[^5] Popular with families and youth sports. 66% of the project cost comes from the bond; the remainder may be funded with Parks Tax.[^5]
San Pablo Sports Field Irrigation & Drainage — $1.6M. Critical system upgrade. Will significantly reduce maintenance and irrigation costs and allow this very popular, heavily used park to serve even more residents.

3. Recommendations
A. The pool strategy needs more work
The bond proposes upgrading King Pool for $25 million. Upgrading our existing pools is reasonable — but the current plan doesn't account for the fact that the city doesn't control any of its pool sites, and that creates real risk.

Both remaining city-operated pool sites — King and West Campus — sit on BUSD land.[^6] The city does not own any pool site. Willard has already been lost; BUSD reclaimed the site in 2010.

West Campus has only four years remaining on its lease, and BUSD could choose not to renew — as it did with Willard. King has 24 years on its lease, but the City Attorney requires a minimum 25- year lease for bond-funded construction, meaning the lease would need to be renegotiated before bond funds could be spent.[^4]
The Frances Albrier Community Center Replacement Project included an option for a 25-meter community pool with play elements.[^4] It is the only potential pool site where the city owns the land outright.

Page 4 of 20 ends

Page 390 ends

Page 4 ends

If West Campus is lost, the city could end up with only one pool — at King, in Northeast Berkeley, the area that already has the highest park density in the city. The flats would have no pool at all.

If the city is confident that both leases will be secure for the long term, then upgrading King is reasonable. But even in that case, the city should seriously consider building a pool at San Pablo Park. It would put aquatic infrastructure on city-owned land, and its location near Southeast Berkeley adds particular value — SE has the fewest city park facilities of any quadrant and zero PRW projects on the current bond list.

If there is any doubt about whether West Campus will be available for the next decade, then a pool at San Pablo Park is essential. Staff estimates suggest the cost difference between replacing King and building new at San Pablo would not justify the risk of depending entirely on BUSD's continued cooperation.

The PRW Director has had preliminary conversations with the BUSD superintendent, who indicated that the district has no current plans for the King or West Campus sites and is willing to discuss sale, trade, or longer leases.[^4] This is encouraging, but informal — it is not a binding commitment, and the history with Willard shows how quickly circumstances can change.

The city should have more confidence in its pool site agreements before going to voters. In particular, the commission urges Council to assess the long-term viability of the West Campus lease, given that losing it would leave King as the city's only pool.

B. The selection process needs more transparency
The December 2 staff report lists five selection criteria: health, life, and safety needs; critical infrastructure condition and accessibility; community use and equity; geographic distribution; and potential to leverage external or matching funds.[^1] These are good criteria. The problem is that the staff report does not document how the criteria were applied — no scoring, no weighting, no documented analysis of how individual projects were evaluated against each criterion. The PRW Director confirmed in discussions with the subcommittee that there was no formal scoring system.[^4]
This matters because when multiple reasonable criteria point in different directions — as they inevitably do — the lack of a transparent process makes it impossible to understand why certain trade-offs were made. Southeast Berkeley is one example — see Section 3E.

The commission recommends that Council document how the selection criteria were balanced or applied.

C. Climate framing is an opportunity
Many projects on the list have significant climate benefits — electrification, sea level rise protection, resilient infrastructure — but these are not being communicated to voters.

Polling shows that environmental and climate infrastructure is among the most popular categories with residents, while waterfront projects poll poorly.[^2] But waterfront projects are climate projects — the seawall, the Bay Trail, the sea level rise adaptation work. This is a communication gap that may be leaving support on the table.

Page 5 of 20 ends

Page 391 ends

Page 5 ends

The seawall is the clearest example: if it fails, the city loses an entire recreation area, disproportionately affecting users of low-cost activities like sailing and windsurfing — and then has to pay to fix it anyway, at higher cost. That's climate resilience, equity, and fiscal responsibility in one project.

Several shoreline projects in the bond list are also consistent with the regional shoreline adaptation planning now required by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, reinforcing their importance as long term climate resilience infrastructure.

Finally, many facility projects also involve electrification and gas removal. These climate benefits are real but invisible in the current framing.

The commission recommends that the city make the climate benefits of these projects visible to voters. This does not change the project list — it changes how the list is presented, and it aligns with what polls best.

D. Civic Center improvements are difficult to justify
Old City Hall and Veterans Memorial Building are included in the bond for seismic work. The commission has significant concerns about this allocation.

Community reaction to these projects has been consistently tepid to negative — met with skepticism at the Willard community meeting and across focus groups and commission consultations. These are closed buildings that are not currently serving the public.

The bond covers seismic work only. But seismic investment in closed buildings creates an implicit commitment to full rehabilitation, which would cost hundreds of millions more.[^4] This is not just a one-time expense — it is the first installment on a much larger obligation.

Berkeley has $1.65 billion in unfunded capital liabilities. PRW alone has a $340 million backlog.[^1] With that much deferred maintenance on active-use facilities — pools, playgrounds, parks that residents use every day — it is hard to see why seismic work on closed buildings should take priority.

These are Public Works projects, not PRW. But they share a ballot, and they affect whether the bond reaches the two-thirds threshold it needs. Voters who see money going to buildings they don't use may be harder to persuade on the rest of the bond.

The commission recommends that Council either provide a substantially stronger public justification for these projects — one that explains why they should take priority given the scale of unfunded needs elsewhere — or consider reallocating those funds to higher-impact items.

E. Southeast Berkeley deserves a closer look
Southeast Berkeley had the fewest city park facilities of any quadrant.[^7] BMC 6.42.020.C establishes a standard of two acres of parks and open space per 1,000 residents, with areas below that standard designated as high priority for investment. The Equitable Future report (2016), produced by this commission, documents the SE deficit in detail.[^7] It is not referenced in the staff report.

Page 6 of 20 ends

Page 392 ends

Page 6 ends

The word "southeast" does not appear anywhere in the 50-page staff report.[^1] Neither does "quadrant." No census tract analysis was performed. "Geographic distribution" appears exactly once — as a criterion name — with no supporting analysis.

The result is zero PRW projects in the quadrant with the fewest city park facilities. This is also consistent with a pattern: Measure T1 was similarly light on Southeast Berkeley improvements.

This may reflect legitimate trade-offs against other criteria — but without a transparent process, there is no way to know.

The commission recommends that Council specifically address the SE quadrant omission and explain how geographic distribution was weighed against other criteria in the selection process.

4. Conclusion
This bond is necessary and well-structured. The commission is enthusiastic about the vast majority of the PRW project list and believes this bond can and should pass. The recommendations above are intended to make it stronger — to close gaps in the pool strategy, improve transparency, sharpen the climate case, address geographic equity, and ensure every dollar on the ballot can be defended to voters. We urge Council to address these items before the bond goes to voters.

Sources
[^1]: City of Berkeley, "Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election," Staff Report, December 2, 2025. [^2]: Polling results presented by PRW Director to subcommittee, March 3, 2026. Results not yet public at time of writing; expected to be presented to Council March 17. [^3]: Ballotpedia, "Berkeley, California, Measure L, Housing and Infrastructure Bond Measure (November 2022)." 26,545 yes (59.42%) / 18,130 no (40.58%). [^4]: PRW Director Scott Ferris, in discussions with the subcommittee (January–March 2026). [^5]: City of Berkeley, "Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures — Supplemental," December 2, 2025. (Attachment 5, corrected project details.) [^6]: City of Berkeley, Citywide Pools Master Plan, 2009, p. 7: "These are all pool venues currently operated by City of Berkeley and located on BUSD property." [^7]: Parks & Waterfront Commission Subcommittee on Planning, Berkeley Parks Planning for an Equitable Future, July 2016.
[^8]: City of Berkeley, Frances Albrier Community Center Replacement Project — Executive Summary with Attachments, Siegel and Strain Architects, 2019. Design goals include "net-zero and all-electric strategies"; existing gas equipment flagged as conflicting with the city's all-electric goal.

Page 7 of 20 ends

Page 393 ends

Page 7 ends

Addendum A: Selection Criteria Analysis — PRW Bond Projects The December 2 staff report lists five core criteria used to evaluate projects for the bond, plus additional criteria from the Vision 2050 framework.[^1] No definitions are provided in the report.

The following definitions are inferred from project descriptions, the bond's category structure, and city context. Each PRW project is then assessed against these criteria.

Criteria Definitions

1. Health, Life, and Safety (HLS) Does this project protect the public from physical harm? Seismic hazards, structural failure, ADA non-compliance, lack of basic sanitation. Across the full bond, the paradigm case is fire stations — not just because the buildings are aging, but because without functional fire infrastructure, the city's ability to protect residents is compromised. For parks:
seawall failure risk, safety hazards at aging facilities, missing restrooms.

2. Critical Infrastructure Condition and Accessibility (CICA) How deteriorated is the asset, and can the public actually use it? This covers the deferred maintenance backlog — assets that are failing or approaching failure — and the rising cost of maintaining them in their current state. The "accessibility" piece includes ADA compliance and the $48M backlog identified in the city's Self- Evaluation and Transition Plan. Distinct from HLS: this is about asset condition and cost trajectory, not immediate danger to people.

3. Community Use and Equity (CUE) How many people does this serve, and does it reach underserved populations? This criterion blends two things: raw usage volume and distributional fairness. These can pull in opposite directions — a heavily used Northeast Berkeley facility scores high on use but low on equity if NE already has the highest park density. Bundling them as a single criterion means the trade-off between the two is never made explicit.

4. Potential to Leverage External or Matching Funds (LEV) Can this bond dollar unlock additional dollars? Grant eligibility and matching fund ratios — where bond funds serve as local match to access state or federal grants. The inverse also matters: some projects (marina docks, King Pool) have no alternative funding path, meaning the bond is the only option.

5. Climate Resiliency and Sustainability (CRS) Does this project protect against climate impacts or advance decarbonization? Sea level rise adaptation, electrification, gas removal, stormwater management. For parks, this is strongest in the shoreline projects. Many facility rehabs likely include electrification as part of modernization, but this is not documented in current project descriptions.

Geographic Distribution is omitted from the per-project analysis below. It is a portfolio-level criterion — applied to the overall project list rather than scored per project. The staff report lists it as a criterion but provides no supporting analysis. See Sections 3B and 3E of this report for a full discussion.

Page 8 of 20 ends

Page 394 ends

Page 1 ends

Per-Project Assessment
Shoreline & Sea Level Rise
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
South Cove
Seawall $5M
Yes —
"imminent
failure,"
immediate
safety
Yes — full
replacement
Moderate — low-
cost recreation,
equity angle
Yes — 20%
match
unlocks
state/federal
grants
Yes
Univ Ave /
Seawall Dr /
Bay Trail
$5M
Low —
proactive
adaptation
Moderate Yes — major
public trail, high
traffic
Yes — 20%
match,
grant-eligible
Yes
Marina
Timber Piles
$6M
Moderate
— structural
Yes —
timber piles,
50+ yr fix
Moderate —
marina users, but
revenue source
No — not
eligible for
grants[^5]
Moderate
Marina Blvd
Sea Level
Rise $1.9M
Low —
proactive
adaptation
Moderate Yes — Bay Trail
connection, high
traffic
Yes — 50%
match,
grant-eligible
Yes
Univ Ave
Bike Park
$2.75M
Low —
proactive
adaptation
Moderate Yes — Bump
track elements for
youth
Yes — 50%
match,
grant-eligible
Yes
Community Facilities
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
Albrier $30M Moderate
— seismic;
only major
community
center not
rebuilt or
upgraded;
emergency
shelter
Yes —
dramatically
undersized,
aging
Yes — high-use
facility, West
Berkeley (equity)
Low —
limited
eligibility for
FEMA/sustai
nable energy
grants[^5]
Yes —
conceptual
design
targets net-
zero and
all-electric;
includes
heat
pumps, 216
kW solar
array[^8]

Page 9 of 20 ends

Page 395 ends

Page 2 ends

King Pool
$25M
Low Yes —
1960s
facility, full
replacement
Yes on use
(doubles
programmatic
capacity), weak
on equity (NE
has highest park
density)
No —
difficult to
secure
grants for
pool
facilities[^5]
Likely —
modernizati
on, but not
documente
d
Park Amenities & Open Space
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
Adeline
Corridor $6M
Low — new
construction
No — new
construction
Yes — equity-
priority area,
South Berkeley
growth, rare
new open space
Moderate —
federal
earmark for
design
secured[^4]
High - new
green space
in urban
area
reduces
Urban Heat
Island, new
trees absorb
CO2
Glendale-La
Loma Play
$3.5M
Moderate —
safety/ADA
Yes —
aging, ADA
access
Yes — play
structures,
families
Low Low
Cesar Chavez
Pathway and
Restroom
$3M
Moderate —
basic
sanitation
(portable
toilets)
Yes —
pathways
deteriorating
, do not
meet ADA
codes
Yes — high-use
waterfront park
Yes — 60%
bond, highly
competitive
for State
Coastal
Conservanc
y grants[^5]
Low
Cedar Rose
Play $2.5M
Low Moderate —
heavily used
play area
needs
safety/acces
sibility
upgrade
Yes — families,
high-visibility
Low Low

Page 10 of 20 ends

Page 396 ends

Page 3 ends

Dreamland
$2.1M
Low Moderate Yes —
expanded play
area
Yes — 25%
local match,
with $6M+
likely from
additional
sources[^5]
Moderate —
bioswale
Dog Parks
$2.5M
Low No — new
construction
Yes — citywide,
addresses
significant
community
demand
Low Low
Restrooms
$1.75M
Moderate —
public
health, basic
sanitation
Yes —
aging/overdu
e
Yes — well-
used parks
Low Low
Sports Facilities
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
Harrison Turf
$6M
Low Yes — failing
natural fields
Yes — heavily
used, doubles
capacity
Low Moderate –
water
savings
Live Oak $3M Low Moderate —
modernizatio
n
Yes — families,
youth sports
Low Low – water
savings from
turf
San Pablo
Irrigation and
Drainage
$1.6M
Low Yes — failing
irrigation/drai
nage, most
used sports
fields in the
city
Yes — most
used sports
fields
No — not
eligible for
grants[^5]
Low

Page 11 of 20 ends

Page 397 ends

Page 0 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
PRWC Dog Park Subcommittee Recommendations
Executive Summary
Between October and November 2025, Dog Park Subcommittee members visited several locations identified by the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Department (PRWD) as potential dog park locations.

Our reviews and recommendations are below. All locations have existing parks; based on PRWD guidance, Subcommittee members recommend converting a portion of the following parks to dog parks.

Subcommittee Mission
Berkeley is a city that values equity, public health, and community engagement. As dog ownership rises and urban density increases, the demand for off-leash recreation areas has outpaced available space. Berkeley currently only has 2 dog parks; the first one, Ohlone Dog Park, was established in 1979 and was one of the first in the nation. Then, in 1998, the 17-acre Off Leash Area in Cesar Chavez Park started a trial period, and in 2000, it was formally authorized as a designated Off-Leash Area. This proposal urges the City of Berkeley to prioritize the creation and expansion of dedicated dog parks/dog play areas to support public health, safety, and neighborhood vitality.

The Need for More Dog Parks
Currently, Berkeley has limited off-leash dog areas, which are often overcrowded or located far from many residential neighborhoods, such as Cesar Chavez Park. This shortage can create tension in shared-use parks, encourage off-leash activity in inappropriate areas, and diminish the quality of life for both dog owners and non-dog owners alike.

Dog Park Site Recommendations

1. King School Park

2. Glendale La Loma Park

3. Berkeley Way Mini Park

4. San Pablo Park

5. Aquatic Park

Page 12 of 20 ends

Page 398 ends

Page 1 ends

King School Park
Staff-provided description of proposed dog area: West side of King Park (small) Address: 1700 Hopkins Street
Neighborhood: Hopkins
District: 5
Councilmember: Shoshana O’Keefe
Approx. Park Acreage: 1.72 acres | 74,920 sq. ft.

Topography: Flat
Ground Surface: Grass
Site Conditions
Fencing Feasibility: Good ease of enclosure with low fencing (too low for dogs) existing along two edges, so within existing paths. A new dog fence system is needed. Though there is room for this, and possibly a planted setback strip along the main path and sidewalk edges.

Water Source: Existing fountain or irrigation tap likely Drainage: No signs of ponding or erosion; slight slope toward Hopkins; relatively flat and elevated above sidewalk and path.

Shade / Trees: Existing street and park trees around perimeter, sunny.

Ground Cover Condition: Natural turf is not well-maintained. A minimal scope could support DG or gravel.

Potential Conflicts: Proximity to picnic and play areas.

Neighborhood Receptivity: Observed dog activity on leash.

Other notes
● Community input is needed. This is a well-used park throughout the day. It’s not clear how much this lawn area is used. It was empty while the rest of the park was active. The area size would support split small and large dog areas or one big area.

Photos
King West looking from the sidewalk at Hopkins King West toward the play area

Page 13 of 20 ends

Page 399 ends

Page 2 ends

Glendale La Loma Park
Staff-provided description of proposed dog area: Second level of Glendale, La Loma Park (medium-sized park)
Address: 1300 Glendale Ave
District: 6 Councilmember: Brent Blackaby
Approx. Park Acreage: 5.61 acres | 244,400 sq. ft.

Topography: Sloped - Terraced
Ground Surface: Grass
Site Context
Surrounding Land Uses: Residential
Access: Street frontage, street parking, ADA access, neighborhood Visibility & Safety: Slope interrupts sightlines from the lower terrace, but “eyes on the park” from neighbors overlooking spaces.

Fencing Feasibility: Good.

Water Source: unknown
Drainage: No signs of ponding or erosion; minimal to steep slopes.

Shade / Trees: Mostly sunny. Some shade from surrounding trees.

Ground Cover Condition: Natural grass turf not well-maintained. Possibly not irrigated.

Potential Conflicts: Proximity to homes for noise.

Neighborhood Receptivity: Unknown.

Photos – Glendale La Loma Park

Page 14 of 20 ends

Page 400 ends

Page 3 ends

Berkeley Way Mini Park
Photos

Page 15 of 20 ends

Page 401 ends

Page 4 ends

Page 16 of 20 ends

Page 402 ends

Page 5 ends

San Pablo North of Ballpark
Site Conditions
Existing park: Yes
Surrounding neighborhood: Yes
Flat land: partly
Ground material: Grass
Other notes
● Two halves of this grassy strip are separated by a walking path that leads from the sidewalk to the park
● One half has a slope (closer to the baseball dugout)
● Lots of dogs play at this park
Photos

Page 17 of 20 ends

Page 403 ends

Page 6 ends

Page 18 of 20 ends

Page 404 ends

Page 7 ends

Aquatic Park
Site conditions
Existing park: Yes
Surrounding neighborhood: No
Flat land: Partly
Ground material: Dirt and grass
Other notes
● Existing water fountain (not flowing) with ground level dog bowl. ● The open space next to the parking lot and train tracks is pretty flat with a slight grade and a few trees as you walk further along the path.
● Mostly small hills, but the pictured section is flat.

Photos

Page 19 of 20 ends

Page 405 ends

Page 8 ends

Page 20 of 20 ends

Page 406 ends

Tuesday, March 24, 2026 AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, March 24, 2026
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
COUNCILMEMBERS:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SHOSHANA O’KEEFE DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – BRENT BLACKABY
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – CECILIA LUNAPARRA DISTRICT 4 – IGOR TREGUB DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person and virtual attendance. Attend this meeting remotely using Zoom. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669- 254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 845 7872. To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream.

All Council meetings are recorded.

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953 . Any member of the public may attend this meeting, however, if you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding officer shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding officer may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $5 00 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial interest are prohibited from making more than $500 in contributions to a decisionmaker for the 12 months after the final decision is rendered on the proceeding.

The above contribution disclosures and restrictions do not apply when the proceeding is competitively bid, or involves a personnel or labor contract. For more information, see Government Code Section 84308.

Page 1 ends

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF

Berkeley City CouncilApril 14, 2026

Berkeley City Council
April 14, 2026