Berkeley City Council Special Meeting – July 23, 2025

The Berkeley City Council held a special meeting on July 23, 2025, primarily to hear appeals on landmark preservation commission decisions and a zoning adjustments board approval. The council received presentations from city staff, appellants, and public testimony, with deliberations focusing on compliance with state housing laws (SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act), historic preservation values, and community impacts such as safety and shade.

Public Comments & Testimony

• AC Transit Announcement: Ryan Lau, external affairs representative at AC Transit, announced the upcoming Realign service change launching August 10, 2025, highlighting updates based on post-pandemic ridership shifts and budget constraints.
• Item 1 (2425 Durant Appeal):
  • Bonnie Zhu, a resident at 2421 Durant, expressed support for preserving the building's cultural and civic value, citing its historical significance near UC Berkeley.
  • A community member (name not specified) argued that the building is "irreplaceable" and criticized development driven by money over community soul.
  • Steve Finacome, a Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) member, clarified that the LPC operated under prior city attorney guidance, believing the landmark designation was symbolic and did not apply to vested projects.
  • Kelly Hammergren and other online commenters urged preservation, emphasizing the building's aesthetic value and cautioning against losing historic fabric for potentially stalled projects.
  • Isaac Warshower, on behalf of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA), argued for the landmark's educational value and criticized the city's lack of comprehensive historic surveying.
• Item 2 (2138 Kittridge Appeal):
  • Steven Schulyer, a nearby resident, emphasized the human impact of development, including traffic and disability access concerns.
  • Leela Moncharge questioned the efficacy of state housing promises, noting vacant developments and unaffordable rents.
  • Tony Mester advocated for systematic historic preservation planning to avoid "death by a thousand cuts."
  • Isaac Warshower (for BAHA) defended BAHA's motives, stating it seeks to preserve history collaboratively, not obstruct development.
• Item 3 (2655 Shattock Appeal):
  • Multiple neighbors, including Betsy Dittmars and Michael Baracco, raised safety concerns about the proposed driveway on Derby Street, citing past city decisions to locate it on Shattock for pedestrian and bicycle safety. They also highlighted shade impacts on adjacent homes and requested redesigns to mitigate detriments.
  • Charlotte Shimora and others referenced a 1997 city council decision mandating the driveway on Shattock, arguing that state law should not override public safety.
  • Online commentators like Tony Mester and Cheryl Davila supported neighborhood concerns, suggesting the council has health and safety authority to modify the driveway.
  • Kelly Hammergren reminded the council of climate goals related to solar access.

Discussion Items

• Item 1: Appeal of LPC Designation for 2425 Durant: Staff, represented by Robert Rivera, recommended reversing the landmark designation because it cannot be applied to the housing project under SB 330, as vesting occurred before the designation. The appellant (represented by Isaac) argued that the designation was unnecessary and violated state law. Council members debated the merits of historic value versus housing needs, with some expressing frustration over landmark applications submitted after development proposals. The city attorney clarified that the designation was symbolic but posed policy risks.
• Item 2: Appeal of LPC Designation for 2138 Kittridge: Staff similarly recommended reversal due to SB 330 vesting. The appellant, Bill Schrader, highlighted financial burdens and delays, alleging that the LPC acts as an extension of BAHA. Council discussion echoed Item 1, focusing on legal constraints and the need for proactive historic planning.
• Item 3: Appeal of ZAB Decision for 2655 Shattock: Staff recommended affirming the ZAB approval, stating the project complies with parking maximums, the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, and other codes. Appellants contested the driveway location on Derby, parking provision, shade impacts, and density bonus calculations. Council members questioned staff on discretion under state law, with some expressing sympathy for safety concerns but acknowledging limited authority to impose conditions due to vested rights.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1: The council voted to uphold the appeal and reverse the LPC's landmark designation for 2425 Durant Avenue. Vote tally: Councilmembers Kessarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Trakeup, Blackaby, Luna Para, Humbert, and Mayor Ishi in favor; O'Keefe absent. Motion carried.
• Item 2: The council voted to uphold the appeal and reverse the LPC's landmark designation for 2138 Kittridge Street. Vote tally: Same as Item 1. Motion passed.
• Item 3: The council voted to deny the appeal and affirm the ZAB's decision to approve the use permit for 2655 Shattock Avenue. Vote tally: Councilmembers Kessarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Trakeup, Blackaby, Luna Para, Humbert, and Mayor Ishi in favor; O'Keefe absent. Motion passed.
• Additional Directives: Council members emphasized the need for a citywide historic context statement and survey to proactively identify historic resources, citing it as a pending planning department priority.