![\"Two](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/House-on-2421-Durant-1.jpg\")
The Berkeley City Council overturned a Landmarks Preservation Commission decision to declare 2421 Durant Ave., left, a landmark earlier this year. That failed effort led to new legislation to change the landmark process. Credit: Daniel Ekonde\/Berkeleyside<\/p>\n
Update, April 14: Two proposals introduced last fall to raise the number of citizen petition signatures required to launch a landmarking process will go before the Berkeley City Council Tuesday night. The council is expected to act on several changes to Berkeley\u2019s process for designating city landmarks<\/a>, and choose between proposals from Councilmembers Rashi Kesarwani and Igor Tregub that would increase the petition threshold by different amounts. The council meets at 6 p.m.<\/p>\n Update, Nov. 10: The City Council voted Monday night to ask city staff to explore two options for increasing the number of petition signatures required to launch a landmarking process. The unanimous vote advanced the proposals from councilmembers Rashi Kesarwani and Igor Tregub for further study; the council will vote on final changes to the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance sometime in the future.<\/p>\n Original story, Nov. 10: The Berkeley City Council could raise the threshold for citizen petitions that seek to declare properties landmarks, in an attempt to crack down on what some members regard as dubious attempts to block the demolition of properties where developers want to build new housing.<\/p>\n The proposal to change Berkeley\u2019s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, which will go before the council Monday night, takes aim at what housing advocates say is a tactic development opponents have long used to try to block construction in Berkeley. Preservationists, meanwhile, say the item is an overreaction that will make it harder to preserve properties that embody local history.<\/p>\n Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani\u2019s proposal<\/a> calls for increasing the number of petition signatures from Berkeley residents required to start the landmarking process for a property from 50 to 200, if the property owner is one of the signers, or 400 if the owner isn\u2019t on board.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we can raise the signature threshold, we might be able to avoid what we call the frivolous attempts to landmark that end up not being warranted,\u201d Kesarwani said. Three other councilmembers \u2014 Brent Blackaby, Cecilia Lunaparra and Mark Humbert \u2014 have signed on as co-sponsors.<\/p>\n The item asks city staff to study and develop ordinance changes that would come back to the council for final approval in the future.<\/p>\n Councilmember Igor Tregub on Monday submitted proposed revisions<\/a> to Kesawani\u2019s item that call for using the 200-signature threshold on all petitions, regardless of whether the property owner agrees. Tregub\u2019s item would also bar landmark attempts on structures where a housing project has been submitted within the past five years.<\/p>\n Does landmark process obstruct housing?<\/p>\n Kesarwani\u2019s legislation argues the current landmark petition process has been \u201cweaponized by opponents of neighborhood change.\u201d She told Berkeleyside she has long taken issue with the process, but decided to write her proposal after the City Council earlier this year voted down two attempts to landmark buildings<\/a> on sites where developers had proposed new housing.<\/p>\n The city\u2019s Landmarks Preservation Commission had approved landmark applications brought by the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association<\/a> for a home on Durant Avenue in the Southside neighborhood, where a developer has submitted plans to build a 169-unit apartment building, and a building on Kittredge Street, where another firm plans to build a 66-unit complex. After the developers appealed the landmark designations, the City Council voted unanimously to overturn the commission\u2019s decisions in both instances, with members saying the structures weren\u2019t worthy of that status.\u00a0<\/p>\n Even if the council had approved the landmark application, the distinction wouldn\u2019t have protected the buildings from demolition because of a powerful 2019 law, SB 330<\/a>, that bars cities from applying new restrictions to a property once someone has submitted a proposal to build housing on it. Landmark status makes it much more difficult, though not impossible, to demolish a structure.<\/p>\n Housing advocates have also criticized unsuccessful attempts over the years to declare a home on Berryman Street a landmark<\/a> after a developer sought to build townhouses on the site, and do the same with the view from UC Berkeley\u2019s Campanile<\/a> during the debate over a proposed housing project that would have partially blocked the vista.<\/p>\n BAHA board member Isaac Warshauer acknowledged there have been attempts to landmark properties that weren\u2019t worthy of the distinction, but argued the landmark process already weeds out those dubious claims. Just gathering petition signatures isn\u2019t enough to make the building a landmark \u2014 proponents of the designation must extensively research the property\u2019s history and convince the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and perhaps the City Council, of its worthiness.<\/p>\n Warshauer contends Kesarwani\u2019s proposal makes it far too difficult to launch a landmarking drive. Owners can already request to have their property considered a landmark without going through the petition process, so he contends the 200-signature threshold would \u201crarely, if ever\u201d come into play. Preservationists would in most cases have to meet the 400-signature bar, Warshauer said, which can be challenging for a \u201cniche\u201d topic like landmark status.<\/p>\n \u201cYes, there has been abuse,\u201d he said. \u201cWhere we disagree with the City Council is that we think changing the landmarks ordinance in this way is throwing the baby out with the bath water.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s pursuing de-facto repeal of an important part of the landmarks ordinance, to solve what is in truth \u2026 a really small problem,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Kesarwani noted that any landmark effort, successful or not, requires city staff to spend time reviewing applications and preparing reports for the Landmarks Preservation Commission and potentially the council.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not intended to block all landmarking,\u201d she said. \u201cWe just want to make sure that there\u2019s a critical mass of people that think that it\u2019s appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n Like Warshauer, Landmarks Preservation Commission Chair Denise Hall Montgomery contends the current process \u201cis doing what it\u2019s supposed to do\u201d by turning down unworthy applications. Montgomery took issue with a section of Kesarwani\u2019s council item that describes the landmarks commission\u2019s decisions as being \u201cbased on commissioners\u2019 and residents\u2019 comfort with growth,\u201d saying the body relies on federal historic preservation standards.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThat suggests that we\u2019re weighing the historic merit of a property with growth \u2014 we\u2019re not, we can\u2019t do that,\u201d Montgomery said in an interview.<\/p>\n But developers and housing advocates contend there is a problem with the process, because landmark applications can tie up attempts to redevelop a property for months at a time. And even if SB 330 means landmark status wouldn\u2019t prevent the project from going forward, developers say just the symbolic restriction on the property can make it difficult to get funding from investors.\u00a0<\/p>\n At the hearing last July where the council overturned the two landmark designations, developer Bill Schrader charged that the landmarks commission \u201cseems to operate like an extension of BAHA,\u201d another criticism Montgomery rejected.<\/p>\n \u201cI know that there\u2019s this stereotype that the Landmarks Preservation Commission is out to stop development, and that\u2019s just not been my experience,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\tRelated stories<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\tCity Council shoots down attempts to landmark 2 buildings eyed for housing<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\t\tJuly 24, 2025July 24, 2025, 4:51 p.m.\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\tAfter failed landmarking, Berryman triplex to become 4-story townhouses<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\t\tNovember 3, 2021Aug. 4, 2022, 10:45 a.m.\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t![\"Side](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DSC_0950-720x480.jpg\")
Neighbors sought to declare this 1899 home on Berryman Street a landmark after a developer proposed a project replacing it with townhomes. The effort failed and the project was approved, but has not been built. Credit: Supriya Yelimeli\/Berkeleyside
\nSparring over work of landmarks commission<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t![\"City](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/House-on-2421-Durant.jpg\")
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t![\"After](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Screen-Shot-2021-11-02-at-2.20.13-PM.png\")
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t![\"View](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/16808658297_dd6649a51a_b.jpg\")
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n