Final EIR Page 1186 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1186 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1187 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1188 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1189 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1190 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1191 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1192 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1193 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1194 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1195 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1196 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1197 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1198 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1199 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1200 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1201 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1202 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1203 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1204 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1205 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1206 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1207 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1208 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1209 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1210 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1211 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1212 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1213 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1214 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1215 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPage 1216 of COMMISSION 2369 Meeting Action Minutes

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Avenue Main Room

1. ROLL CALL Time: 7:06 pm Present: Hall, Johnson, Linvill, Ng, Olson, Wagley, Parsons, Pietras, Winkel Absent: 0 Public Present: 35 (approx)

2. PUBLIC COMMENT (Limit: 3 minutes per person; 5 minutes per organization)

3. AGENDA CHANGES A. CONSENT CALENDAR (LPC consideration of routine or non-controversial projects)

4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1512 La Loma: Due to an oversight, this item could not be included on the agenda as part of the public noticing. The subcommittee for 1512 La Loma will report later tonight on their recent on-site meeting.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2 Greenwood Common, Structural Alteration Permit (LM #09-40000021)** • Status: Structural Alteration Permit application to allow voluntary seismic upgrade and, within existing building footprint to excavate present basement area to create additional floor area and to provide identified features, including a new door and skylights. In December of 2008, a Mills Act contract was approved for the property. • LPO Applicability: LPO Section 3.24.060.C requires the LPC to evaluate the project against the review standards and criteria contained in Section 3.24.260. • Staff Recommendation: Approve the application and comment on Mills Act contract compliance. • Presentations, Speakers, Board Comments: Nancy Russell, applicant, provided information on all appropriate changes Action: Winkel, Olson: Close Hearing Commissioner’s Comments: Winkel stated that the plans are well done and the application a good example as to how to do this type of work. Olson agreed. Motion: Olson initiated approval. Hall asked if the new family room is part of the improvements included in the Mills Act contract, which is about maintenance and preservation. Parsons advised that it should not be, but that the seismic work and

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION AttachmentMeeting 3 - Final Minutes EIR November 5, 2009 Page 1217 of 2369 Page 2

all maintenance related items are. Staff was asked to clarify. Revised Motion: Olson revised the motion to approve with the understanding that the Mills Act will not cover any finish materials in the family room or expansion not related to seismic upgrade improvements. Hall seconded. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Motion approved unanimously

B. 2600 Bancroft Way, the University YWCA, Consideration of Landmark or Structure of Merit Status (LM #09-40000023)** • Status: Nomination of the property as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit. On October 1, 2009, the LPC initiated the property at 2600 Bancroft and scheduled a public hearing for the LPC meeting on November 5, 2009. On October 8, 2009, the City received the landmark designation application for the property. • LPO Applicability: The LPO requires the LPC to evaluate the nomination against the criteria contained in Section 3.24.110. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony and, based on the written and oral Evidence, direct staff to return a Notice of Decision consistent with the Commission’s determination. • Presentations, Speakers, Board Comments: Sharon Bettinelli, Executive director of the University YWCA: expressed concern that the designation was initiated without any involvement from the Y as the property owner and that there has not been sufficient time to consider the implications of Landmark status for the building. She learned of the nomination only 1 week prior to the hearing and objects to the process as one that did not consider the concerns of the organization. The Board needs time to understand the implications of landmarking. Other speakers (8): John English, Marilyn Cleveland, Michele LeProhn, Dorothy Clemens, Mary Alyce Pearson, Ineda Adesanya, Steve Finacom and Kate Funk: Comments: Very worthy building and important for recognizing mid-century modern architecture; objected to the process; owners must be notified, requests that the process be stopped; the board needs to know how the Y would be affected; the 120th anniversary of the organization is approaching; board needs to know the difference between Landmark and Structure of Merit designations; requests the hearing be put on hold for an extended period of time (2-3 month minimum); a citizen supports landmarking, and suggests street tree planting as part of future improvements. Action: Olson, Johnson; Close Hearing Commissioner’s Comments: Olson stated that nominations usually are done as a “labor of love” by individuals without first going to property owners. Landmark designation usually applies only to exterior and not to interior features with some exceptions such as for courtyards. Under a Mills Act contract, staff directs and the Commission approves improvements as they proceed. Nominations are initiated by the public (50 signatures); or by the Commission or City Council (signatures not required); this nomination came out of the Southside Plan inventory prepared by a subcommittee, which included John English. At the time the nomination was submitted for review, the City should have contacted the property owner.

Johnson expressed concern that the nomination was prepared by someone with access to the organization’s files who did not advise of the purpose of the research. Parsons stated that the process is meant to be participatory and offered an apology to the University YWCA. Winkel made a disclosure of 3 ex-parte conversations with individual YWCA members, including the Executive Director ((Bettinelli). Action: Olson moved to continue the nomination for 4 months; Johnson seconded. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Item approved unanimously to be put on March 2010 Agenda

C. 2525 Telegraph, Remand by City Council of LPC NOD (LM #09-40000004)** • Status: On September 22, 2009, the City Council considered the appeal by Ali Eslami, the applicant to overturn or remand the LPC designation of the subject property as a City Landmark. The City Council affirmed the LPC decision to designate 2525 as a City Landmark and remands the decision to LPC for further consideration of the lightwells as historic amenities to be preserved. • LPO Applicability: LPO Section 3.24.060.C requires the LPC to evaluate the project against the review standards and criteria contained in Section 3.24.260. • Staff Recommendation: Respond to City Council request for further consideration of the lightwells and interior courtyards as features of significance in the NOD. • Presentations, Speakers, Board Comments Ex-parte conversations with individual parties disclosed: Pietras with Attorney Rena Rickles; Ng with the property owner and Attorney Rickles; Winkel with Rena Rickles and Sady Hayashida; Linvill received 2 voice messages from Rena Rickles and one from Sady Hayashida inviting him to tour the site (which he was not able to do); Parsons with the property owner (Ali Eslami) and a phone conversation with architect Sady Hayashida who also is involved in the project. Ali Eslami, property owner: the bottom line is to fix up the building and keep the tenants happy; the building is “in terrible condition.” Other Speakers (11):Michael Topliff, John English, John Melia, Maurice (Marty) Levitch, Sady Hayashida, Don Murphy, Marcis Poole, Louis Cuneo, Marc Janowiz, Steve Finacom, and Rena Rickles Comments: Courtyards defended with the presentation of a painting, books, and a model as a positive element to be kept that is an integral part of the Mission Revival style; the photos submitted by the owner and his architect (Eslami and Hayshida) show the lightwells/courtyards during construction, not as they appeared when the units were occupied; they are “courtyards with doors, outdoor patios, recreation spaces.” Concerned that the NOD omitted critical wording; the “courtyards” are large lightwells and the description in the nomination suggests something that doesn’t exist—a “village like setting;” the lightwells/courtyards are not a critical part of the building’s character; the productive outcome of the discussion should not be an eternal debate on wording, but rather on moving the project forward to a review of plans for renovation; disputed language in Staff Report calling historical integrity of the building “compromised”; the building as a whole retains strong historic integrity; the building at 2525 Telegraph Ave is simple in its detail, which is characteristic of the Franciscan missions; urged

support of the focus on honoring Chiura Obata, cultural heritage and the Japanese American experience during WWII; Action: Olson, Hall move to close hearing; unanimous approval Commissioner Comments: Wagley: As original maker of the motion to designate spoke to seeing the building before it was nominated and the sense that the courtyards/lightwells were always part of the building. Concerned over the change in wording and questions insertion of the word “lightwell.” Don’t remand a fiction; use the original language. Winkel: Voted against the original designation because of sense that the courtyards did not contribute to the Mission Revival style. Hall: Found the courtyards to be very important; now feels that they are even more important. The building should be designated both for Obata and for its Mission Revival style. Linvill: Asked for clarification on upper floor apartments and if courtyards were there when Obata was in the building. Steve Finacom and John English supplied answers: The exact details of changes to the building over time are not clear; the courtyards were definitely a feature when Obata occupied the ground floor space and each apartment shared a courtyard; they were divided sometime during the WWII period. Ng: For pragmatic reasons, suggests removing the lightwells/courtyards as a feature of significance; don’t save something that prevents a vibrant renovation. Pietras: Questions how to move forward. Sady Hayashida (permitted to comment): Participation from the Japanese American community as part of an arts café and ground floor commercial space will be critical. Olson: The courtyards are interesting and valuable as 100 year old features, but they do not need to be called out as part of the designation. Rather, they are exterior features that should be addressed through the Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) review process. Johnson: The CC remand poses a practical question for the LPC; need to move forward. The LPC will still have purview over the treatment of the lightwell/courtyard feature. Winkel: Echoes Johnson’s sentiment about the “ground hog day” nature of the process and that the issue can still be addressed through the SAP process. Hall: Encouraged the architect to include the courtyards in the new design. Parsons: Viewed the feature today (11/5/09) and found them to be quite wonderful spaces. From across the street they are not visible. Inside, they are “mysterious and surprising.” But the bottom line, the courtyard/lightwell should not be in the designation. Motion: Winkel proposes NOD revision to delete item (c) courtyards; Olson seconds Vote: 8-1-0-0 No: Wagley Action: NOD revision approved; Olson commented and Staff noted that in the future, members of the Commission must be invited for tours individually by the City.

6. Section 106 Consultation

None

7. PROJECT REFERRAL None

8. ACTION ITEMS A. Approve minutes from October 1, 2009 meeting. Corrections received by Staff and made part of the record. Unanimous approval (9-0-0-0).

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Chair Report. Welcome extended to new LPC intern, Amanda Bensel. Commission informed that an appeal of the NOD for 1007 University Avenue is on the agenda for the CC Hearing on December 8, 2009. B. Staff Report. • Letter to BRP Properties re: restoration and installation of exterior balconies: draft for review prior to distribution. Commission Chair recommends distribution with in agreement with the other LPC members. C. Subcommittee, Laison Reports: Opportunity for Commissioner comment on status of projects for which the LPC has established a subcommittee or liaison • 2300 Shattuck Avenue: CVS/Pharmacy Signage: No report • Branch Library Projects: a) West Branch: Subcommittee chair Linvill provided report. Full minutes on file. Focus is on 0 Energy goals and on exterior features; Page Turnbull report states that the building lacks integrity; Olson disagrees; Library to continue design process and meet with board of trustees. Olson stated that this is a landmark building (Structure of Merit) that needs EIR process. b) North Branch: Subcommittee chair Hall provided report. Full minutes on file. Preservation is a priority the ARG firm is providing recommendations. The issues focus on freeing up more internal space for the public and staff. The next meeting is anticipated to take place in a couple of weeks (mid-November). Olson commented on the discrepancy between the treatment of the branch libraries in the lower income parts of town and those in the more affluent areas. c) Claremont Branch: First meeting being scheduled for December 3, 2009. d) South Branch: Subcommittee chair Linvill provided update on the seismic testing. At issue is whether or not the building can be moved to a new site and the legality of building a new structure under the conditions of the approved bond funds. The Field Paoli firm did a good job providing guidelines for the preservation scheme. Under the second scheme, tentatively approved by the Board, a new building would be constructed following demolition of the existing structure. A December meeting is being planned.

• 1512 La Loma: Subcommittee chair Olson reported on the 11/1/09 field visit and recommends visiting the site to understand that the ancillary structure did not have a strong relationship with the designated house and cottage. It is very close to adjacent residences. Notes have been prepared on the current conditions and the property owner has provided updated photo documentation on the now demolished structure as well as sketch information and verbal description from the son of Mr. ** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION AttachmentMeeting 3 - Final Minutes EIR November 5, 2009 Page 1221 of 2369 Page 6

Ballentine’s (engineer/architect and original owner). In response to the Staff Memorandum questioning use of the SAP process for a non-designated structure, Commissioner Olson stated that based on precedent, the Commission has the authority to review any rebuilding on a Landmark site as an SAP. The subject is to be discussed further at the December 3 meeting.

10. OTHER MATTERS Commissioners may comment on other matters and ask for additional discussion to be scheduled on a future agenda (per the Brown Act, no deliberation or final LPC action may be taken). A. 2598-2600 Shattuck Avenue (Parker Place) Request to LPC for future input on project, including potential designation for existing building (Aaron Sage, Senior Planner) Ex-parte disclosure: Commissioner Winkel had exchanged phone messages with developer partner Ali Kashani. Steve Finacom disclosed a discussion with Rhodes’ partner Ali Kashani about the project. Comments: Commissioner Johnson: The most important concern for the LPC is the Shattuck façade. Rhodes responded to emphasize the defining character of the new building. Commissioner Olson emphasized the importance of understanding that once the project is approved, there is no going back. This is not a demolition. She continued to admonish “facadism” as a design approach and that further input is required through Design Review from Commission members. Mark Rhodes, applicant: Provided on-going answers to questions of concern, and stated that the most important aspect of the proposed project for the neighbors is that the height of the back wall of the building is being reduced considerably. Other Commentators (3): Steve Finacom, Mark Hulbert, and James Plachek. Discussion: importance of the building as it was constructed and its importance as part of the proposed new development; there probably were few if any decorative details that have been removed; the focus for the LPC is the building as it exists, not the new design; referenced the project on Fulton at Bancroft by Sady Hayashida as a model for maintaining an existing building shell; Finacom discussed Plachek’s design sensitivity to proportions and detail; Finacom calls early auto showrooms, “like pieces of jewelry;” concern with the current design is the strong horizontality which “doesn’t work with the site.”

Conclusions: Commissioner Olson, who also is a member of the City’s Design Review Commission, stated that the LPC has no inclination for landmarking the building at 2600 Shattuck. She also stated that LPC concerns should be voiced through the Design Review process and urged other LPC Commissioners to provide continued input as the project moves through review.

11. COMMISSION INFORMATION A. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 2054 University Avenue** B. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 1500 Shattuck Avenue** C. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 2236 Shattuck Avenue: Structural Alteration Permit** D. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 2031 Sixth Street: Structural Alteration Permit** E. Appeal of Decision for 1007 University Avenue to City Council** F. Letter on Balconies for Shattuck Hotel (2086 Allston Way)**

12. STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES OR LAISONS (Note: Site will come off the list upon approval of a Certificate of Occupancy) Partial List, In Progress A. 1512 La Loma: CO (chair) AH, MN, AP B. West Berkeley Branch Library: CL (chair), MN, CO, GP C. North Berkeley Branch Library: AH (chair), RJ, CO D. Claremont Branch Library: AW (chair), CO, SW E. South Berkeley Branch Library: CO (chair), CL, GP F. Spring Mansion: RJ, CO, GP G. University of California Southeast Quadrant Integrated Projects (SCIP): H. 2086 Allston Way (Shattuck Hotel): CO (chair), RJ, GP I. 2210 Harold Way: CO (chair), GP J. 1326 Allston Way (Corporation Yard Building—Ratcliff): Laison with Public Works, CO, GP, AW K. 2611 Ashby (Amy and Frederick Corkill House): CO, SW L. 2750 Adeline Street: CO, GP, SW M. 2947-53 College Avenue: AH, AW, SW N. 2001 Allston Way (Downtown YMCA): AH, CO, GP, AP O. Southside Plan Historic Map: AH, CO, SW P. 3332 Adeline Street (Lorin Theater): AH, MN, CO, GP

13. POTENTIAL INITIATIONS (Commissioner Initials and Date Added) Staff recomends that any potential initiation over one year old be removed from this list because of an apparent lack of interest or urgency. Any address so removed could be added to this list at a later date if necessary. A. Berkeley Pier and Waterfront (7/13/98) B. 2237 Shattuck Avenue (11/2/98) C. 2522 Warring Street (11/2/98) D. 2523 Piedmont Avenue (11/2/98) E. 2725 Dwight Way (1/4/99) F. 2016 Seventh Street (1/4/99) G. 2539 Fulton Street (1/4/99) H. 2362 Bancroft Way-Trinity United Methodist Church (3/1/99) I. 2505 Dwight Way (LE 6/7/99) J. 2510 Durant Avenue - Store, Walter H. Ratcliff, Jr., Architect (LE 6/7/99) K. 2601 Durant Avenue - Christian Science Society of UC, Gutterson, Architect (LE 6/7/99) L. 2647 Durant Avenue (LE 6/7/99) M. 1201 6th Street- Arcieri Dairy (LE 7/12/99) N. Berkeley High School, Building C, 1920; W. C. Hayes (LE 9/13/99) O. Upland Path (RK 1/3/00) P. John Galen Howard Power Station, UC Campus (CO 4/3/00) Q. McCauley Foundry at Carleton and 7th Streets (4/3/00) R. UC Storage Station, James Plachek, Architect (4/3/00) S. “Kittredge Street Historic District" - 2124 Kittredge Street (Elder House and storefront), 2138 Kittredge (Fitzpatrick House and storefront), and 2117 Kittredge Street (A.H. Broad House and storefront) (JK 11/5/2001) T. 2800 Block of Staten Street (LE 3/4/02) U. 935 Grayson Street (7/1/02) V. 2132 Haste Street (LE 9/4/02) ** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION AttachmentMeeting 3 - Final Minutes EIR November 5, 2009 Page 1223 of 2369 Page 8

W. 962, 964, 966, 968 & 970 Euclid Avenue (JK 10/1/04) X. 2500 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley Bank of Savings and Trust Co., 1923, Louis M. Upton (JK 11/23/05) Y. 3200 Adeline Street (LE 8-3-06) Z. 1915 Addison Street (JK 8-3-06) AA. 2611 Parker Street, Evelyn Ratcliff House BB. 2212 Fifth Street, Charles Spear House CC. 1842-1878 Euclid Avenue (CO 9-14-07) DD. Berkeley High School Campus Historic District (SW 1/3/08) EE. 2746 Garber Street (SW 3/5/09) FF. 2124 Vine Street/1500 Walnut Street, Original location of Peet’s Coffee (CO 3/5/09) GG. U.C. Berkeley Campus, Earl C. Anthony Hall (Pelican Building) HH. 2727 Marin Avenue (CO 7/20/09) II. 2600 Bancroft, YWCA (CO 9/3/09)

12. LIST OF PERMIT SITES WHICH MAY BE INITIATED BY THE LPC, PROVIDED AS PART OF THE LPC AGENDA IN COMPLIANCE WITH BMC SECTION 23B.24.030.B

SEE ATTACHED TABLE OF LAND USE PLANNING CURRENT PROJECTS, COPIED FROM CITY’S WEB SITE BELOW

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/LU%20Projects(1).pdf

14. ADJOURN—Parsons, Olson: 10:35 p.m. Room reservation expires at midnight. The Senior Center employee who monitors the center must be able to close the building by midnight at the latest. In order to comply with this standard, the meeting must adjourn by 11:45 p.m. to provide time to return the furniture to its original location, pack up meeting materials, and vacate the Senior Center. Please assist by exiting promptly once the meeting has adjourned.

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1224 of 2369 L ANDMARKS P RESERVATION C OMMISSION Notice of Decision FOR MEETING OF: May 5, 2003

Property Address: 1125 University Avenue APN: 057 2085 011 Also Known As: West Berkeley Branch Library Property Owner: City of Berkeley Action: Structure of Merit Designation Designation Author: Carrie Olson

WHEREAS, on March 3, 2003, pursuant to Section 3.24.120 of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to initiate the property at 1125 University Avenue for landmark consideration and set the Public Hearing for April 7,2003; and

WHEREAS, on April 4, 2003, the City received the designation proposal from Carrie Olson; and

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2003, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing to hear public testimony and to consider the designation proposal for 1125 University Avenue; and

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2003, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to close the public hearing and continue 1125 University to the May 5, 2003 meeting to designate as a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit; and

WHEREAS, the Landmarks Preservation Commission finds that the West Berkeley Branch Library building has cultural and historical significance because it was the first branch library built in Berkeley spurring the evolution of the City of Berkeley branch library system; and

WHEREAS, the Landmarks Preservation Commission finds that the West Berkeley Branch Library building has cultural and historical significance because the West Berkeley Branch Library building was the first public library building to be paid for by the citizens of Berkeley; and

WHEREAS, the Landmarks Preservation Commission finds that the West Berkeley Branch Library building has educational, cultural and historical significance because the West Berkeley Branch Library building was an important social, education and cultural center of West Berkeley life, situated intentionally adjacent to the busy intersection of Berkeley’s main entrance into the city (University Ave.) and the state highway (San Pablo Ave.) and contributed to the fabric of that neighborhood, serving as a library for three nearby public schools and serving many tens of thousands of West Berkeley residents for eighty (80) years; and

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7410 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7420 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/commissions/landmarks/default.htm Attachment 3 - Final EIR 1125 University Avenue - West Berkeley Branch Library Page 1225 of 2369May 5, 2003 Page 2 of 3

WHEREAS, the Landmarks Preservation Commission finds that the West Berkeley Branch Library building has architectural significance because the West Berkeley Branch Library building, designed in the Classical Revival style, is the only Carnegie influenced library remaining in the City of Berkeley; and

WHEREAS, the Landmarks Preservation Commission finds that the West Berkeley Branch Library building’s significant exterior features to be preserved are the Roman triumphal arched entry with semi- circular window and surrounding engaged columns; the round ornamental medallion right of the arch; window proportions of three banks of windows on either side of the arched entry on south façade, wood framed windows on west and east facades, the cornice on the west, south and east facades, and the remaining incised lettering from the original “WEST BERKELEY BRANCH LIBRARY”; and

WHEREAS, the Landmarks Preservation Commission finds that the West Berkeley Branch Library building has cultural significance because the West Berkeley Branch Library building will celebrate its 80th birthday this year and serves as lasting proof that “Citizens of West Berkeley …love good literature.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Landmarks Preservation Commission that on May 5, 2003, 1125 University Avenue is hereby designated a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit.

VOTE: 8-0-0-0 Aye: Emmington, Johnson, Kaufer, Korte, Kavanaugh-Lynch, O’Malley, Weiss and Chair Olson Nay: None Abstain: None Absent: None

ATTEST: ______Greg Powell Secretary, Landmarks Preservation Commission Attachment 3 - Final EIR 1125 University Avenue - West Berkeley Branch Library Page 1226 of 2369May 5, 2003 Page 3 of 3

DATE NOTICE MAILED: June 9, 2003 THE APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRES (15 DAYS) AT 5 PM: June 24, 2003 Appeal must be filed with City Clerk by this date.

TO APPEAL THIS MATTER: Pursuant to Section 3.24.300 of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance: “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 residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of this chapter”. Any appeal submitted by the public must be in writing, specifying the reasons for the appeal. The appeal fee is $64.00. The City Clerk's Department is located on the first floor at 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704; Phone (510) 981-6900.

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve or deny a Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1. You must appeal to the City Council within 15 days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to inquire with the Current Planning Division (981- 7410) to determine when a Notice of Decision is mailed. 2. No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation (Code Civ. Proc. Section 1094.6(b) may be filed more than 90 days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 3. In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project. 4. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, the following requirements apply: a. That this belief is a basis of your appeal. b. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” of property as set forth above. c. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above. If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

cc: City Clerk’s Office Elena Engel 2180 Milvia Street 2090 Kittredge Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Berkeley, CA 94704

G:\Boards & Commissions\LPC\NODs\Designations 2003\07. 1125 University Ave - SOM - 5-5-03.DOC

Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPage 1227 of COMMISSION 2369 Meeting Action Minutes

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Avenue Main Room

1. ROLL CALL Time: 7:06 pm Present: Hall, Johnson, Linvill, Ng, Olson, Wagley, Parsons, Pietras, Winkel Absent: 0 Public Present: 35 (approx)

2. PUBLIC COMMENT (Limit: 3 minutes per person; 5 minutes per organization)

3. AGENDA CHANGES A. CONSENT CALENDAR (LPC consideration of routine or non-controversial projects)

6. Section 106 Consultation

None

7. PROJECT REFERRAL None

8. ACTION ITEMS A. Approve minutes from October 1, 2009 meeting. Corrections received by Staff and made part of the record. Unanimous approval (9-0-0-0).

12. LIST OF PERMIT SITES WHICH MAY BE INITIATED BY THE LPC, PROVIDED AS PART OF THE LPC AGENDA IN COMPLIANCE WITH BMC SECTION 23B.24.030.B

SEE ATTACHED TABLE OF LAND USE PLANNING CURRENT PROJECTS, COPIED FROM CITY’S WEB SITE BELOW

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/LU%20Projects(1).pdf

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1236 of 2369

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY

Agenda

PROJECT: Berkeley Public Library – Branch Library Improvement Program

MEETING: West Branch - Landmarks Preservation Commission Subcommittee Meeting #2

DATE: Monday, November 19, 2009

TIME: 3:00 PM

PLACE: West Branch, 1125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA

ATTENDEES: Donna Corbeil, Library Director – Berkeley Public Library Gary Parsons AIA, Chair – Landmarks Preservation Commission Carrie Olson, Vice-Chair – Landmarks Preservation Commission Chris Linville, Commissioner – Landmarks Preservation Commission Miriam Ng, Commissioner – Landmark Preservation Commission Rene Cardinaux, AIA – Consultant Steve Dewan, Project Manager – Kitchell CEM Edward Dean AIA, Harley Ellis Devereaux, Green Works Studio Carolyn Kiernat, Page & Turnbull

COPIED: Jay Claiborne, Secretary - Landmark Preservation Commission

MINUTES: Eve Franklin, Administrative Secretary – Berkeley Public Library

1. Conceptual Design Progress 2. Results of Further Investigations 3. Next Steps: Planning Department Further LPC Subcommittee Meetings LPC Presentation

Central Library y 2090 Kittredge y Berkeley, CA 94704 y 510/981‐6195 y FAX 510/981‐6111 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1237 of 2369

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Special Meeting Announcement and Agenda – Berkeley Public Library—Branch Library Improvement Program Landmarks Preservation Commission Subcommittee Meeting #2

Date: Monday, November 19, 2009 Time: 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. Place: Office of Donna Corbell, Library Director, Administrative Wing at the Central Branch, 2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA

Please refrain from wearing scented products to public meetings.

Pursuant to section 54954.3 of the California Government Code, public comment during this special meeting is intended to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Landmarks Preservation Commission concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item. This limits public comment to only the items listed on this agenda.

Contact person: Jay Claiborne, Staff to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, (510) 981-7429.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission subcommittee for this project consists of four of the nine members appointed by the City Council: Gary E. Parsons, AIA (Chair), Carrie Olson (Vice-Chair), Chris, Linville, and Miriam Ng.

I. ROLL CALL

II. PUBLIC COMMENT (Agenda Items Only, 3 minutes per person; 5 minutes per organization).

III. AGENDA: A. Conceptual Design Process B. Results of Further Investigations C. Next Steps 1. Planning Department 2. Further LPC Subcommittee Meetings 3. LPC Presentation

IV. ADJOURN

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1238 of 2369

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY

Minutes

PROJECT: Berkeley Public Library – Branch Library Improvement Program MEETING: West Branch - Landmarks Preservation Commission Subcommittee Meeting #3 DATE: Thursday, January 28, 2010 TIME: 3:00 PM PLACE: West Branch, 1125 University Avenue

ATTENDEES: Donna Corbeil, Library Director – Berkeley Public Library Gary Parsons AIA, Chair – Landmarks Preservation Commission Chris Linville, Commissioner – Landmarks Preservation Commission Miriam Ng, Commissioner – Landmark Preservation Commission Rene Cardinaux, AIA – Consultant Steve Dewan, Project Manager – Kitchell CEM Edward Dean AIA, Harley Ellis Devereaux, Green Works Studio

ABSENT: Carrie Olson, Vice-Chair – Landmarks Preservation Commission

COPIED: Jay Claiborne, Secretary - Landmark Preservation Commission

MINUTES: Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services – Berkeley Public Library

1. Ed Dean began by updating the group on the 3 schemes developed for the West Branch that he will be presenting to the board on Feb. 6th. He asked for the commissioners input into the designs and feedback so he can inform the BOLT at the meeting. Scheme A is the 1923 portion of the building that remains with a new addition (attachment 1); Scheme B is a one story all new building (attachment 2); and Scheme C is a two-story all new building (attachment 3). All three schemes meet the program though some more successfully than others in the layout. Scheme A was the result of an effort to find a plan that was most respectful to the 1923 portion of the building, three options were explored, including keeping the building in its current location on the site (attachment 4). Scheme A worked best for the program and kept intact and visible all three sides, though it is moved forward on the site, lowered to the sidewalk and the main entry becomes a window. The other options had greater problems functionally. Saving the original building would require a two- story addition to really work programmatically. 2. Mr. Parson's asked if extra space was needed for the 2-story option. Mr Dean responded that yes, the 2-story versions were larger, they had the same amount of programmable space but would require additional space for lobby, elevator and stairs. 3. Discussion of Scheme A: a. The main entrance for the public is moved to the side and the old entry which no longer has the original door would be glazed. A planter could be placed in front of it. the building would be moved closer to the sidewalk and lowered. Mr. Parsons had mixed feelings about it if it is moved, the original door no longer functioning as the main entry would concern members of the commission. Mr. Cardinaux noted that a premium is being paid for Scheme A. The site slopes and is lower in the rear which will require retaining wall to create a level first floor and ADA ramp at front. Mr. Dean discussed the additional research his firm has done on renovating /recreating the 1923 portion of the building, such as the seismic work. An option that would be less intrusive is to strip the plaster off the interior and add plywood and re- L:\988‐West Branch Berk Library\02_Background Data\LPC\2010_01_28 West LPC Meeting #3 Minutes v1.doc

Central Library y 2090 Kittredge y Berkeley, CA 94704 y 510/981‐6195 y FAX 510/981‐6111 Berkeley Public Library – Branch Library ImprovementAttachment Program 3 - Final EIR West Branch - Landmarks Preservation Committee Meeting #3 Page 1239 of 2369January 28, 2010

plaster and to tie the old portion of the building to the new addition to brace it seismically. The sills could be retained though they would be larger. Mr. Parsons appreciated that he took seriously the retention of the building and did the work to explore how it would be done, though unfortunately the ghost of the old building seems to be all that remains, it seems more "disneyland" than he is normally comfortable with. b. Budget / plans discussion for all options Mr. Dean reviewed the cost options of the 3 schemes at conceptual design (Attachment 5: cost model summary). Ms Ng asked if the budget for the project was in stone or if additional funds could be allocated? She also asked if the budgets were comprehensive, i.e. included elevators etc. Ms Corbeil responded the budgets are set based on the BLMFP, the scope of the project could be reduced as one possibility so as to not adversely affect the other projects. c. Mr. Dean discussed the moving costs, A is still higher when other costs are normalized because of the moving of the building and it still has the negatives and compromises to the program. Scheme A, the one-story meets the program and gives spatial opportunity. The 2- story has more space for landscaping and trees in rear would be safer. Mr. Parsons expressed that it seemed the program really can't be accommodated if the original building is left where it is, there is then a cascade of consequences when it then moved. While it was a nice building in its day it is not looking so great lately, with the 70's remodel and the condition that it is hard to justify financially. He expressed that Scheme B could be emblematic of the future for the city, but recognized that there would be differences of opinion on the Commission. 4. NZE was discussed - all the plans have challenges and limitations but possible. 5. Next Steps a. Mr. Parsons commented that the PowerPoint from the last meeting felt more like a justification to not keep the building, while today it was more about what would have to be done to make it work with construction details - the exhibits show a good faith effort to make it work. This was the better approach as it is not just about the elements but the whole building / site which is the landmark and what it would take to bring it back. When making the informational presentation to the full commission the team should bring information that demonstrates the process and is informative for those not attending these meetings. b. Mr. Parsons suggested the team look into the Secretary of the Interior Standards - the actual moving of the building off its foundation and place at a different location on the site - for guidance to the compromises and integrity of the resource. This and the change in use of the entry feels significant, begins to feel just like a box moving around. c. Mr. Linville noted that there seemed to be an inverse relationship between the a high quality renovation and high quality library, for example in Scheme A it is an “A” renovation and a “C” library, though to have the arched entryway at the door and not go through it left him wondering why bother. The question could be asked why the earlier Prop 14 project was able to make it work and this project scheme cannot. Ms Corbeil noted that it was a different project, over 14,000 SF, with a large 2-story addition and a separate ADA ramp entrance. It is also possible that the layout would have been revised if the project had been funded. d. The Library would like to bring a plan forward that the LPC can agree on. Mr. Parsons felt that it would not be unanimous and Mr. Linville asked would the commission really want to see a compromised historic preservation scheme. The library / design team should try and demonstrate the effort made. The presentation is an opportunity to hear the commission’s comments so that they can do any further exploration and then return with that information and it furthers the public discussion. Three community meetings have occurred and a workshop is being held by the board on Feb the 6th to get more community feedback, but retention of the original building is not being supported at the meetings to date. The public has asked for more space, more seating and computers at the meetings and want the library

Page 2 of 3 Berkeley Public Library – Branch Library ImprovementAttachment Program 3 - Final EIR West Branch - Landmarks Preservation Committee Meeting #3 Page 1240 of 2369January 28, 2010

to maximize the space. Depending on the BOLT decision an EIR would be most likely be a next step.

Attachments: 1 Design Scheme A 2 Design Scheme B 3 Design Scheme C 4 Alternate Schemes 5 Project Goals

Page 3 of 3 LPCAg030410 - City of Berkeley, CA Page 1 of 5 Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSIONPage 1241 of 2369 Meeting Announcement and Agenda

Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Avenue Main Room

The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) packet is available for review at the Berkeley Main Public Library at 2090 Kittredge Street and at the Permit Service Center at 2120 Milvia Street.

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services Specialist at (510) 981-6346 (V) or (510) 981-7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Contact: Landmarks Preservation Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7410; [email protected]

Initiation of Landmark or Structure of Merit designation lies within the range of action to be considered on each structure or property appearing at any place on the agenda.

Due to the length of the LPC agenda, a Consent Calendar may be used to approve certain applications and actions at one time. The Consent Calendar may include: - Routine business such as approval of minutes and items proposed for continuance. - Public hearings on structural alteration permits that are apparently non-controversial, on which no adverse comment has been received, and for which no speaker cards have been turned in and no persons wishing to speak are present.

The Commission may place items on the Consent Calendar during Agenda Changes. Anyone present who wishes to speak on an item should raise his or her hand at that time and advise the Chairperson and the item will be pulled. Any applicant, member of the audience, or Landmarks Preservation Commissioner may require that an item not be placed on the Consent Calendar to allow for discussion and testimony (if currently posted for public hearing).

Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission consists of nine members appointed by the City Council: Gary Parsons, chair (Capitelli), Carrie Olson, co-chair (Maio), Austene Hall (Arreguin), Robert Johnson (Wengraf), Christopher Linvill (Anderson), Miriam Ng (Moore), Antoinette Pietras (Mayor Bates), Ann Wagley (Worthington), and Steve Winkel (Wozniak)

Please submit written comments in advance of the meeting to the greatest extent possible so that comments can be distributed to the Commissioners in the agenda packet. Commissioners do not have an opportunity to read materials handed out at the meeting. Please submit any material for distribution to the LPC Secretary by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting.

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentPrint.aspx?id=50380 3/3/2010 LPCAg030410 - City of Berkeley, CA Page 2 of 5 Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commissionAttachment or committee. 3 -If Final you do EIR not want your Page 1242 of 2369 contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

1. ROLL CALL

2. EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: Provide full disclosure on all communications between Commissioners and individuals on issues related to agenda items.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT (Limit: 3 minutes per person; 5 minutes per organization)

4. AGENDA CHANGES

5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None

B. 2237 Shattuck Avenue (2231-2237; Brooks Apartments), Structural Alteration Permit (LM #10-0000003)** • Status: Structural Alteration Permit application to replace existing exterior retail signage with signage for new retail use and repaint exterior ground floor retail frontage with standard corporate colors. • LPO Applicability: LPO Section 3.24.060.C requires that the LPC evaluate the project according to the review standards and criteria contained in Section 3.24.260. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the LPC approve the project subject to identified findings and conditions.

7. Section 106 Consultation None

8. ACTION ITEMS A. Approve amended action minutes for February 4, 2010 meeting**

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Chair Report 1. University YWCA 2. 2707 Rose Street http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentPrint.aspx?id=50380 3/3/2010 LPCAg030410 - City of Berkeley, CA Page 3 of 5 3. Street & Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP) Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1243 of 2369 B. Staff Report 1. Marin Circle improvements update

C. Subcommittee, Liaison Comments: Opportunity for Commissioner comment on status of projects for which the LPC has established a subcommittee or liaison 1. Libraries.

D. Other Matters Commissioners may comment on other matters and ask for additional discussion to be scheduled on a future agenda (per the Brown Act, no deliberation or final LPC action may be taken). 1. Interpretative Plaques for Designated Properties: Representatives David Snippen and Robert Kehlmann of the Plaque Project, an all-volunteer, not for profit, 501(c)(3) organization, welcome discussion of an approach to get more public attention for landmark properties and sites. 2. North Branch Library Design Preview: Library Committee presentation and discussion led by Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services. 3. West Branch Library Informational Presentation: Library Committee presentation and discussion led by Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services. 4. 2130 Center Street (Ennor’s Restaurant): Kahn Design Associates to provide information on the evolution of the rennovations approved for the Structural Alterations Permit (LM#07-40000024) by LPC on 8/7/07. 5. 2640 Telegraph Avenue:** Update on ZAB Review of Use Permit #09-1000103 to demolish an existing two-story building over 40 years old to facilitate a rennovation project in progress. The appeal period has not closed. An informational Staff Report is attached. 6. 2004-06 Delaware Street: Use Permit application (#09-10000052) to add third story and alter existing gable roof on a non-designated building (Wharff residence, 1901). Letter of concern submitted by Daniella Thompson, BAHA, 9/10/09.

9. COMMISSION INFORMATION A. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 2525 Telegraph Avenue, Structural Alteration Permit, amended as per LPC comment** B. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 1512 La Loma Avenue, Structural Alteration Permit** C. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 1730 La Loma Avenue, Structural Alteration Permit** D. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 2232 Haste Street, Structural Alteration Permit** E. Notice of Decision (NOD) for 2222 Harold Way, Structural Alteration Permit**

10. STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES OR LIASION (Note: Site will come off the subcommittee list upon approval of a Certificate of Occupancy) Partial List, In Progress A. 2130 Center Street: RJ (chair), CO, GP B. 1512 La Loma: CO (chair), AH, MN, AP C. West Berkeley Branch Library: CL (chair), MN, CO, GP D. North Berkeley Branch Library: AH (chair), RJ, CO E. Claremont Branch Library: AW (chair), CO, SW F. South Berkeley Branch Library: CO (chair), CL, GP G. Spring Mansion: RJ, CO, GP H. University of California Southeast Quadrant Integrated Projects (SCIP): I. 2086 Allston Way-Shattuck Hotel (Olson, Parsons, Johnson) J. 2210 Harold Way: CO (chair), GP K. 1326 Allston Way (Corporation Yard Building—Ratcliff): Liasion with Public Works, CO, GP, AW L. 2611 Ashby (Amy and Frederick Corkill House): CO, SW M. 2086 Allston Way (Shattuck Hotel): CO (chair), RJ, GP N. 2750 Adeline Street: CO, GP, SW O. 2947-53 College Avenue: AH, AW, SW http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentPrint.aspx?id=50380 3/3/2010 LPCAg030410 - City of Berkeley, CA Page 4 of 5 P. 2001 Allston Way (Downtown YMCA): AH, CO, GP, AP Attachment 3 - Final EIR Q. Southside Plan Historic Map: AH, CO, SW Page 1244 of 2369 R. 3332 Adeline Street (Lorin Theater): AH, MN, CO, GP

11. POTENTIAL INITIATIONS (Commissioner Initials and Date Added) Staff recomends that any potential initiation over one year old be removed from this list because of an apparent lack of interest or urgency. Any address so removed could be added to this list at a later date if necessary. A. Berkeley Pier and Waterfront (7/13/98) B. 2237 Shattuck Avenue (11/2/98) C. 2522 Warring Street (11/2/98) D. 2523 Piedmont Avenue (11/2/98) E. 2725 Dwight Way (1/4/99) F. 2016 Seventh Street (1/4/99) G. 2539 Fulton Street (1/4/99) H. 2362 Bancroft Way-Trinity United Methodist Church (3/1/99) I. 2505 Dwight Way (LE 6/7/99) J. 2510 Durant Avenue - Store, Walter H. Ratcliff, Jr., Architect (LE 6/7/99) K. 2601 Durant Avenue - Christian Science Society of UC, Gutterson, Architect (LE 6/7/99) L. 2647 Durant Avenue (LE 6/7/99) M. 1201 6th Street- Arcieri Dairy (LE 7/12/99) N. Berkeley High School, Building C, 1920; W. C. Hayes (LE 9/13/99) O. Upland Path (RK 1/3/00) P. John Galen Howard Power Station, UC Campus (CO 4/3/00) Q. McCauley Foundry at Carleton and 7th Streets (4/3/00) R. UC Storage Station, James Plachek, Architect (4/3/00) S. “Kittredge Street Historic District" - 2124 Kittredge Street (Elder House and storefront), 2138 Kittredge (Fitzpatrick House and storefront), and 2117 Kittredge Street (A.H. Broad House and storefront) (JK 11/5/2001) T. 2800 Block of Staten Street (LE 3/4/02) U. 935 Grayson Street (7/1/02) V. 2132 Haste Street (LE 9/4/02) W. 962, 964, 966, 968 & 970 Euclid Avenue (JK 10/1/04) X. 2500 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley Bank of Savings and Trust Co., 1923, Louis M. Upton (JK 11/23/05) Y. 3200 Adeline Street (LE 8-3-06) Z. 1915 Addison Street (JK 8-3-06) AA. 2611 Parker Street, Evelyn Ratcliff House BB. 2212 Fifth Street, Charles Spear House CC. 1842-1878 Euclid Avenue (CO 9-14-07) DD. Berkeley High School Campus Historic District (SW 1/3/08) EE. 2746 Garber Street (SW 3/5/09) FF. 2124 Vine Street/1500 Walnut Street, Original location of Peet’s Coffee (CO 3/5/09) GG. U.C. Berkeley Campus, Earle C. Anthony Hall (Pelican Building) HH. 2727 Marin Avenue (CO 7/20/09) II. 2600 Bancroft, YWCA (CO 9/3/09)

12. LIST OF PERMIT SITES WHICH MAY BE INITIATED BY THE LPC, PROVIDED AS PART OF THE LPC AGENDA IN COMPLIANCE WITH BMC SECTION 23B.24.030.B SEE ATTACHED TABLE OF LAND USE PLANNING CURRENT PROJECTS, COPIED FROM CITY’S WEB SITE BELOW http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_ZAB/LU% 20Projects(1).pdf

13. Notice Concerning Legal Rights If you object to a decision by the Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve or deny a designation or http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentPrint.aspx?id=50380 3/3/2010 LPCAg030410 - City of Berkeley, CA Page 5 of 5 permit for a project, the following requirements and restrictions apply: Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1245 of 2369 1. You must appeal to the City Council within fourteen (14) days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to notify the Current Planning Division in writing to receive a Notice of Decision when it is completed. 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6(b), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision to deny a permit or variance may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6(b), which has been adopted by the City. Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred. 3. Pursuant to Government Code, Section 65009(c)(5), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision to approve (with or without conditions) a permit or variance may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6(b), which has been adopted by the City. Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred. 4. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, the following requirements apply: A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal. B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above. C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above. If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

14. ADJOURN Room reservation expires at midnight. The Senior Center employee who monitors the center must be able to close the building by midnight at the latest. In order to comply with this standard, the meeting must adjourn by 11:45 p.m. to provide time to return the furniture to its original location, pack up meeting materials, and vacate the Senior Center. Please assist by exiting promptly once the meeting has adjourned.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentPrint.aspx?id=50380 3/3/2010 Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPage 1246 of COMMISSION 2369 Meeting Action Minutes

Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Avenue

Planning and Development Department Main Room Land Use Planning Division

1. ROLL CALL: Present: Hall, Johnson, Linville, Ng, Olson, Parsons, Pietras, Wagley, Winkel. Absent: None Public Present: 25

2. EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: The chair reminds his fellow Commissioners to provide full disclosure on all communications between Commissioners and individuals on issues related to agenda items.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT (Limit: 3 minutes per person; 5 minutes per organization) John English (the draft housing element staff report from February 24th, authored by Jordan Harrison): The LPC does not seem informed about this and should be included in the discussion. Staff comment – LPC staff has been communicating with said planner, and has been providing examples of the LPC recognizing several mixed use properties as historic, as examples of the commission not taking actions with direct intention to preventing housing development in the city. Steve Finicom (9D5 – 2640 Telegraph avenue): This property was an illegally demolished small office building. It should have been referred to the LPC, as it was over 40yrs old. Requests that the city formally correct misstatements in the ZAB staff report, confirming: 1) that the LPC did not see a demolition referral; and 2) That the LPC declines to determine whether or not the property was of historical significance until it is properly brought before a LPC public hearing.

4. AGENDA CHANGES A. Berkeley Plaque Project (Item 9DL1) - Moved before all other items.

Motion: Johnson moved to hear Item 9D1, the Plaque Project, before all other items; Olson Seconds. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Item 9D1, the Plaque Project, moved before Items 4A-9C.

1. Interpretative Plaques for Designated Properties: David Snippen (representative of the Plaque Project): Founded 1996 as a project of BAHA with support of LPC and Berkeley historical Society, now an independent non-profit organization. Asking LPC to create a subcommittee to work with them in order to coordinate mutual efforts. Robert Kehlmann (representative of the Plaque Project): Would like to maintain an open dialogue with the LPC and sustain the relationship. Requests more connection with the LPC city staff.

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Action Minutes March 4, 2010 Page 1247 of 2369 Page 2

Commissioner questions and comments: The LPC recommends pamphlets are brought to the meetings, and all structures with plaques be noted on city maps for general public awareness. Create a welcome package to be distributed to property owners upon designation of their properties, including information on structural alteration proceedings, the Secretary’s Standards, Mills Act information, as well as the pamphlet on how to acquire a plaque. An Adopt-a-plaque project may be implemented to provide financial incentive to home owners.

Motion: Olson moved to set up a subcommittee to meet with the Berkeley Plaque Project; Wagley Seconds. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Subcommittee formed, made up of Olson, Parsons and Wagley.

5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2208-10 Shattuck Avenue (Shattuck Hotel Building), Structural Alteration Permit (LM #10-40000004)** • Status: Structural Alteration Permit application to provide exterior signage for the Berkeley Bike Station tenant space located in two of the ground floor retail bays of the Shattuck Hotel Building. • Presentations, Speakers, and Public Comments Charles Kahn, (applicant): Feels his signage proposal is consistent with the intent of the Shattuck hotel signage program; interferes minimally with Architectural fabric. Argues that it should be allowed to vary from the master signage program because the function is not retail, it provides community bike services, and should be distinguished. It will provide a community service. Proposed signage program fits within the clerestory window framing and has minimum impact (bolt connections), comparable to the existing master signage program. Opening targeted for May 2010.

Motion: Johnson moved to close the public hearing; Olson Seconds. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Public hearing closed.

• Commissioner Comments Because the proposed project is not consistent with the existing master sign program for the Shattuck Hotel building, it requires further on-site review by a subcommittee. The LPC established the approved master sign program, and may choose whether or not to approve a special case project, while also respecting the rules established in Berkeley City Ordinance Title 20. In particular, the LPC would like to review the appropriateness of the proposed shade of green and how it fits into the context of the building.

Motion: Johnson moved to set up a subcommittee with Kahn Architects and refer to the following points for discussion and resolution in compliance with ** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Action Minutes March 4, 2010 Page 1248 of 2369 Page 3

Berkeley City Ordinance Title 20; Olson Seconds. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Subcommittee formed: Johnson, Linville, Olson, and Pietras.

Points for Subcommittee discussion: 1) Compliance with building sign program 2) Banner signs: review color, amount, how they relate to the rest of the façade, placement height, and bracket color 3) “Bike Station” metal lettered sign: review placement and color, and “L” bracket angle; 4) Strip sign across the bottom: review color, confirm size; and 5) Review green color overall

B. 2237 Shattuck Avenue (2231-2237; Brooks Apartments), Structural Alteration Permit (LM #10-0000003)** • Status: Structural Alteration Permit application to replace existing exterior retail signage with signage for new retail use and repaint exterior ground floor retail frontage with standard corporate colors. • Presentations, Speakers and Public Comments Craig Michel, (applicant): Presented project description. Electrical junction boxes and metal brackets used for former tenant signage will be removed or hidden. The signage does not to exceed the size of the band, it will stay within the yellow band area.

Motion: Olson moved to close the public hearing; Johnson Seconds. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Public hearing closed.

• Commissioner Comments In general, LPC approves proposed paint scheme and placement of signage. The LPC finds some inconsistency of colors in the material presented, and requests a brush-out on the building for review by a subcommittee before approving the proposal. The LPC noticed that there is no signage proposed for the doors and windows, and requests that they be included for approval subject to review by subcommittee should they be added in the future.

Motion: Olson moved to appoint a subcommittee to resolve the details on the following list; Winkel Seconds. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Subcommittee formed: Linville, Ng, Parsons and Wagley.

Points for Subcommittee discussion: 1) Review the precise shade of yellow and how it fits with the existing yellow brick (brushed out on building); 2) Recommend dark green or dark red for the base of the columns (brushed out on building); 3) Approve signage and its placement, but reconsider the method of attachment (specifically requesting the brackets not be visible from the front, as drawn).

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Action Minutes March 4, 2010 Page 1249 of 2369 Page 4

C. 1007 University Avenue Landmark Designation (LM #9-40000012) Remand** • Status: Remand by City Council on 12/8/09 of the LPC Landmark Designation of the building at 1007 University Avenue to review new information submitted by the applicant regarding the association of the building with Bernard Maybeck and to modify the designation as appropriate. ° EXPARTE – Parsons, Olson had email with Susan Cerny. ° Presentations: David Trachtenberg (architect, opposed): (Brought boards displaying the new design for 1001 and 1011 university, but was not allowed to show for legal reasons). Feels one cannot compare the tectonic spatial and material strategies of the masters (Maybeck’s) intent with the building at 1007, asking: “When Disney does Romeo and Juliet, is it still Shakespeare?” Questions whether another vacant and vandalized landmark will be an effective means of honoring the Mobilized women of Berkeley. Believes a window-box museum can tell the story of the building in a meaningful way. Notes that there are 19 glass block grid form buildings in Berkeley, and that “cherry picking” this building for designation because it is at risk of being changed is arbitrary. Karen McNeill (support): Historian and historic preservation consultant with expertise in “women in the built environment” in the bay area. Emphasized the importance of the Mobilized Woman of Berkeley. The subject property is part of a “charitable landscape.” While there are 300 landmarks in Berkeley, few relate to women. March is Women’s history month! Steve Finacom (support ): Comments that the window-box museum suggestion is similar to replacing the building with a sign, emphasizing that there is no substitute for a building. This is the only glass block grid form building on a major public avenue. Urges the designation be retained. Susan Cerny (applicant): Powerpoint presentation. After the WWI the Mobilized Women of Berkeley did not disband as felt a continued need for their services, and remaining active through the depression. Structure originally was to be the first unit of a community center, with services free to everyone, regardless of race or creed. The first known use of glass block grid form was done by Maybeck in 1937, which may have influenced the design of the subject property, built in 1949.

Motion: Olson moved to close the public hearing; Wagley Seconds. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Public hearing closed.

° Commissioner Comments: The LPC feels that the designation remand from City Council was short and succinct, asking them specifically to review the phrase “direct association” with architect Bernard Maybeck, and nothing more. The LPC recognizes the need for clarity regarding Maybeck’s role in the design, but feels that additional evidence warrants that his name remain in the language of the designation. While the LPC is standing by the inclusion of Maybeck, they emphasized that his influence was not the predominant reason for landmarking the building. The cultural history of the Mobilized women and the example of indigenous architecture of West Berkeley glass block grid form construction are both significant and warrant recognition in their own right.

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Action Minutes March 4, 2010 Page 1250 of 2369 Page 5

The LPC feels that the history contained in this building cannot be replicated in a window-box. Landmark designation should be seen as an opportunity for creative design, not as a prevention of future development. The LPC recommends that the owner consider use of the Mills Act and incorporate the property at 1007 with the development on the adjacent lots. The recent restoration of the Oakland Fox Theater may be looked at as a model.

Motion: Johnson, seconded by Wagley, moved to update the city records for the designation with the revised application, and replace the 4th Whereas in the July 20, 2009 NOD to: “Whereas 1007 University Avenue, the Mobilized Women of Berkeley building , is significant for its Architectural Merit because of it’s unique design and construction technique using 4,8 glass block panels and for it’s association with Berkeley’s internationally known architect, Bernard Maybeck. While P. L. Coats is the architect of record for 1007 University, this building was built to be a sympathetic companion to Mr. Maybeck’s Adjacent building, built 12 years earlier.” Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: The revised application will be the application of record on file with the city for 1007 University, and the July 20, 2009 NOD amended as suggested.

7. Section 106 Consultation None

8. ACTION ITEMS A. Approve amended action minutes for February 4, 2010 meeting**

Motion: Hall moved to approve the February 4 2010 meeting minutes; Winkel Seconds. Vote: 8-0-1-0 Abstain: Olson Action: Public hearing closed.

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS D4, D2, D3

A. Chair Report 1. First Church of Christ lectures series on Preservation: Sunday, March 7th at 3pm, and Sunday, April 11th at 7pm 2. Matrix of current Land Use Permits at end of LPC Agendas: Requests that staff provide a short description of each project, and highlight properties that are landmarked or newly added to the list. 3. Demo subcommittee – The chair proposes the creation of a subcommittee in charge of looking at the demolition permits on the current Land Use Permits list to review and report to the full LPC. 4. 2707 Rose Street – The appeal for the subject property permits will be held at an April City Council meeting. Statement in staff report claiming there are “no historic resources in the vicinity” is inaccurate. There cannot be official reports going to ZAB with such obvious inaccuracies. Parsons will be speaking as an architect at that meeting, and invites others to attend as well.

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Action Minutes March 4, 2010 Page 1251 of 2369 Page 6

B. Staff Report 1. 2004-06 Delaware Street: Use Permit application (#09-10000052) to add third story and alter existing gable roof on a non-designated building, the Wharff residence, 1901. Letter of concern submitted by Daniella Thompson, BAHA, 9/10/09. The project is comparable to the Brower House at 2322 Haste Street: a second story condo expanding vertically into the attic, must alter the roof gables. Breaks the street pattern. Raises the issue of how alterations of properties with historic character that define a street pattern are managed. 2. Street & Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP) – LPC to be part of a periodic review panel. 3. University YWCA – needs changes to application before comes to LPC. Mostly name corrections. Someone has to do that – OLSON VOLUNTEERS. 4. Civic Center Park: Dying camphor tree, staff agreed to allow removal. Proposed to replace it with a gingko, must come to LPC. City arborist may want to phase out the camphor trees. 5. Chinese church – if property owner disagrees, the designation cannot be initiated by law. 6. 1545 Dwight Way – The petition to initiate designation has been verified. The petition submitters are developing a report.

C. Subcommittee, Liaison Comments: Opportunity for Commissioner comment on status of projects for which the LPC has established a subcommittee or liaison

D. Other Matters Commissioners may comment on other matters and ask for additional discussion to be scheduled on a future agenda (per the Brown Act, no deliberation or final LPC action may be taken). 2. 2130 Center Street (Ennor’s Restaurant): Kahn Design Associates to provide information on the evolution of the rennovations approved for the Structural Alterations Permit (LM#07-40000024) by LPC on 8/7/07. Darshan Amrit (architect): Plans had to be altered because of the economic downturn. The design went from one tenant to three. Met with the fire and building permit people and learned they needed to slope the floor slightly for accessibility. The solution was to remove a small curb from the frontal storefront. Keeping design within the grammer of the original proposal, with slight modifications Commission comments: LPC subcommittee went to the site prior to this meeting and felt that the changes were acceptable. However, this is an issue of process. Any changes from the approved plan should have been brought before the LPC for approval. It is also an issue of oversight during the construction process. The LPC feels the building inspectors should be better informed of the purview of the LPC, and should direct applicants to the LPC accordingly.

Staff Comment: Wendy Cosin, head supervisor of the City Planning Department: Landmarked buildings are literally “flagged” in the Permit Center’s computer system. When permits are submitted for such projects, the plans are directed accordingly. Suggests the use of a rubber stamp on all plans for alterations to Landmarked

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Action Minutes March 4, 2010 Page 1252 of 2369 Page 7

buildings, to serve as a reminder to the building inspectors.

3. North Branch Library Design Preview: Library Committee presentation and discussion led by Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services. Presentations: Cathleen Malmstrom (architect): The proposed design will maintain all significant features as called out in the NOD.

Commissioner Comments: The LPC found the massing design and floor plan for the new addition were appropriately proportioned and positioned in respect to the existing building. The LPC was also pleased to see that the elements of significance on the existing building would be preserved. However, the LPC did not have a consensual opinion regarding the exterior material, paint color, use of glass, (lower level) window placement, or façade design. Overall, the LPC repeated the need for the new addition to simultaneously complement, distinguish itself from, and recede from the existing structure so that the new addition does not stand out.

The LPC felt that the overall composition of the façade needs more consistency, particularly with regard to window placement and form. Perhaps this could be achieved by being designed to better reflect the symmetry of the existing building. The LPC would like to see the new addition be finished in such a fashion that the color and material will harmonize with the existing building, without mimicking it. While the glass connector between the old and new structures successfully separates their construction, some members of the LPC worry that the contrast is too high, and that it will make the adjacent neighbors uncomfortable by infringing on their privacy.

Given the lack of consensus over many details of the design, staff recommends the applicant do another round of design before bringing the project before the commission in public hearing.

a. West Branch Library Informational Presentation: Library Committee presentation and discussion led by Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services. In the pre-design phase determining the best overall approach to move forward. Have reviewed multiple scenarios that either include or demolish the original 1923 Carnagie-like building. After examining the poor state of the historic structure, consulting engineers revaluated work necessary to renovate the historic structure, and reviewing costs and functionality, the design team believes it will move forward with a plan for demolition and new construction.

b. 2640 Telegraph Avenue:** Update on ZAB Review of Use Permit #09-1000103 to demolish an existing two-story building over 40 years old to facilitate a rennovation project in progress. The appeal period has not closed. An informational Staff Report is attached. Commission Comments: The LPC is frustrated at having been bypassed in the demolition review process, and finds inaccurate language in the ZAB staff report regarding their involvement. They request such situations be handled differently at the staff level within the

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Action Minutes March 4, 2010 Page 1253 of 2369 Page 8

Planning Department.

14. ADJOURN – Johnson, Parsons; 11:49pm. Room reservation expires at midnight. The Senior Center employee who monitors the center must be able to close the building by midnight at the latest. In order to comply with this standard, the meeting must adjourn by 11:45 p.m. to provide time to return the furniture to its original location, pack up meeting materials, and vacate the Senior Center. Please assist by exiting promptly once the meeting has adjourned.

** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. Attachment 3 - Final EIR PROJECT GOALS Page 1254 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

* Enhance library services with a comfortable, convenient, spacious, welcoming, and accessible facility, with flexibility for the future

* Create a civic and engaging presence on the street that responds to the Oceanview context

* Create a green oasis, a quiet refuge for learning and reading

* Provide LEED silver facility (minimum) that meets the net zero energy goals of the city

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR EXISTING CONDITIONSPage 1255 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

Dry-rot and termites in cripple wall; cripple wall not salvageable; Exterior walls require seismic strengthening / Traits of the Carnegie libraries: Door is not original design or construction; simple and formal architecture Single-glazed window. prominent doorway welcoming patrons to enter accessed via an entry staircase that symbolized a person's elevation by learning A lamppost or lantern outside One remaining of two original medallions symbolized enlightenment

West portion of text ‘WEST BERKEL’ has been damaged by construction of addition; East portion of text ‘EY BRANCH LIBRARY’ in good condition.

Head, jamb and sill extensions required; Fungal infection in some areas; Single-glazing HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR ALTERNATIVE SCHEMESPage 1256 of 2369 REHABILITATION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

SCHEME 1 Single story Entry through 1923 building Very tight fit on site 1923 building close to street Compromised adjacencies Inefficient floor plan Limited photovoltaic area

SCHEME 2 Two stories Entry through 1923 building 1923 building close to street Compromised adjacencies Inefficient floor plan

SCHEME 3 Two stories 1923 building in original location Reduced height required to maintain R-3 solar access Compromised adjacencies Inefficient floor plan Limited photovoltaic area

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR MASTER PLAN Page 1257 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

west branch summary

Recommendations Recommended work includes removal of the additions and rebuilding the missing windows could restore the building’s integrity. In Option A, the 1923 structure is moved forward on the site and a new single story 6,560 addition placed behind. Option B proposes to build the 2002 Prop. 14 design as planned. The rendering shows the well developed concept with the restored 1923 in the foreground and a more contemporary two story addition behind and to the east side.

GARDEN 6,560 SF EXISTING SITE PLAN

GARDEN 2,100 SF

OPTION A OPTION B Renovation 2,100 SF + 6,560 SF Addition = 8,660 SF Prop. 14 Proposal = 14,600 SF

Berkeley Public Library Facilities Master Plan Page 29 Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEME Page 1258 of 2369 A REHABILITATION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY

Remove 3 existing mature Replace missing skylight with Repair/replace cornice and redwood trees new compatible design incised lettering Replace existing medallion Reattach existing medallion- to repaired wall Close off main entrance; Re- place doors with solid wood doors to match original Replace missing south windows with new 9-square windows of proportion to match original Repair/replace existing walls as reqd. Add plywood sheathing, adjust window depth, provide insulation. Finish with exterior plaster New main entrance Replace existing east, west, and interior gyp. board. and arched windows with Relocate building 13' closer Replace deteriorated cripple double-glazed, deeper wood to street and 2' lower. wall; Repair/replace deterio- windows to match rated engaged columncolumnss

UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATIONELEVATION HARLEY ELLISELLIS DEVEREAUXDEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEME Page 1259 of 2369 A REHABILITATION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY PROS: Rebuilds 1923 Building Large Entry Courtyard CONS: Relocates and Lowers 1923 Building Major Reconstruction Required 1923 Main Entry Closed Off Inefficient Floor Plan Book Drop Detached from Returns Less Effective Daylighting Less Roof Area for Photovoltaics Three Redwood Trees Removed BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Total Area: 9,869 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEME Page 1260 of 2369 B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

Existing mature redwood trees Photovoltaics on sawtooth preserved and visible from street monitors allude to context of Ocenview warehouses/

Building signage of incised lettering to match original

Simple and formal architecture with civic presence

Relocated original medallion

Prominent doorway welcoming patrons

New 9-square window with proportions to match origi- Roof monitors bring enhanced nal natural daylight inside, symbolizing enlightenment

UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY AVENUEAVENUE ELEVATIONELEVATION HARLEYHARLEY ELLISELLIS DEVEREAUXDEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEMES Page 1261 of 2369 B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

BUILDING SECTION

PROS: Civic Presence Engagement with Street Connection w/ Oceanview Context Spacious Atmosphere Good Circulation Flow Ease of Use of Single-Story Efficient Plan w/ Good Adjacencies Plentiful Daylight View of Redwood Trees Adequate Area for Photovoltaics Good Natural Ventilation

CONS: Removes 1923 Building Minimal Outdoor Space

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

Total Area: 8,660 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEME Page 1262 of 2369 C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY

Existing mature redwood trees Photovoltaics on sawtooth preserved and visible from street supports allude to context of Ocenview warehouses/

Building signage lettering to match original

Simple and formal architecture with civic presence

Relocated original medallion

Prominent doorway welcoming patrons

New 9-square window with proportions to match origi- Central atrium brings enhanced nal natural daylight inside, symbolizing enlightenment

UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION HARLEYHARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEME Page 1263 of 2369 C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY PROS: Civic Presence, Engagement with Street Connection w/ Oceanview Context Spacious Atmosphere, Good Circulation Flow View of Redwood Trees Adequate Area for Photovoltaics Generous Outdoor Spaces CONS: Sightlines & Adjacencies Compro- mised by Vertical Circulation Less Effective Daylighting BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Total Area: 9,272 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEMES Page 1264 of 2369 A RECONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEMES Page 1265 of 2369 B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR DESIGN SCHEMES Page 1266 of 2369 C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 1267 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 1268 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

FACADE IMAGES HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 1269 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

LANDSCAPE/EXTERIOR IMAGES HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 1270 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

INTERIOR IMAGES HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 1271 of 2369 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

MASSING STUDY

SECTION STUDY HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1272 of 2369 Special Location BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY & Time BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

SPECIAL Meeting AGENDA WEST BRANCH February 6, 2010 12:00 p.m. 1125 University Avenue

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

A. Call to Order B. Approval of Agenda

II. WORKSHOP

A. Measure FF West Branch Library Update 1. Presentation by Harley Ellis Devereaux/GreenWorks Studio on the Conceptual Design Phase; and Staff Report on the Process, Community Input and Next Steps. 2. Public Comment (on this item only) 3. Board discussion III. AGENDA BUILDING Next regular meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at the South Branch Library, 1901 Russell Street, Berkeley.

4. ADJOURNMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please refrain from wearing scented products at public meetings.

Written materials may be viewed in advance of the meeting at the Central Library Reference Desk (2090 Kittredge Street), or any of the branches, during regular library hours.

To request a meeting agenda in large print, Braille, or on cassette, or to request a sign language interpreter, assistive-listening device or other accommodation for the meeting, please call (510) 981-6195 (voice) or (510) 548-1240 (TDD). Providing at least five (5) working days’ notice prior to the meeting will help to ensure availability.

I hereby certify that the agenda for this special meeting of the Board of Library Trustees of the City of Berkeley was posted in the display cases located at 2134 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and in front of the Central Public Library at 2090 Kittredge Street, as well as on the Berkeley Public Library’s website on February 2, 2010.

//s// ______Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services Serving as Secretary to the Board of Library Trustees

For further information, please call (510) 981-6195.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 [ (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1273 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR PagePresentation 1274 of 2369 I, Item A

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY

PRESENTATION CALENDAR February 6, 2010

TO: Board of Library Trustees

FROM: Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services

SUBJECT: MEASURE FF WEST BRANCH LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE: REPORT ON CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE PROCESS

INTRODUCTION

In November 2008 voters approved Measure FF, a Library bond to renovate, expand and make seismic and access improvements at the four neighborhood branch libraries. Since that time the board has overseen the selection of four design firms, one for each project. Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio is the selected design firm under contract to address the needs of the West Branch Library located at 1125 University Avenue, at the corner of San Pablo Boulevard. Assisting in this effort is library consultant Kathy Page of Page + Moris, project consultant Rene Cardinaux, AIA, Steve Dewan, KCEM and Library staff.

BACKGROUND

The physical and program needs of the four neighborhood branch libraries were addressed most recently in the two-volume Branch Libraries Facilities Master Plan (July 2008). The report recommends two options for the West Branch Library site. Option A retains the 1923 structure, moves it forward on the site, rebuilds the missing sections and adds a single story addition; and Option B is reflective of the 2002 Proposition 14 California State Library bond grant proposal. The Library submitted a proposal to the state for consideration in January 2004,- and the proposed structure was two-storied and 14,600 square feet in size. The West Branch Library was designated a Structure of Merit #257 by the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) in May 2003.

The results of the Branch Libraries Facilities Master Plan provided the basis for the needs and cost analysis resulting in Measure FF, the Library bond program.

CURRENT SITUATION

Following approval to execute the contract with the design consultant, the project manager, Steve Dewan, KCEM, arranged a project team kick-off meeting to set the schedule for the West Branch project, identified any special testing or third party reports needed, reviewed existing conditions and established reporting relationships. Subsequently, in September 2009 Edward Dean AIA, architect for the project attended the BOLT meeting to discuss Net Zero Energy and how it might be applied to the project.

The West Branch project is in the conceptual design phase. Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1275 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT February 2010 West Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 2

SUMMARY OF MEETINGS

The design team has met several times with staff and the library program consultant and they will continue to meet throughout the process to discuss options and possible layouts as they relate to the branch program and functions and the continued and improved operation of the Berkeley Reads adult literacy program. Suzanne Olawski is the library lead on the branch program discussions, coordinating and facilitating staff and design team meetings.

Staff, (KCEM) project manager, the project consultant and the design team have met with Planning Department staff to identify zoning and use issues. The consultants and staff attended an informational session with the City’s Sustainability Office and representatives from Alameda County’s Stopwaste.org to cover environmental issues and green initiatives that might benefit the program.

Two community meetings at the branch have occurred, December 3, 2009 and January 7, 2010. The agenda and notes from these meetings are included (Attachment A and B). There was a small turn out at the first meeting but this was much improved at the second meeting, excluding library staff, project consultants, design team and others working directly on the project, 4 members of the public attended the first meeting and 21 members of the public attended the second meeting. Staff increased outreach to the community for the January 7th meeting, including merchant postings, paid advertisements and house-to-house flyer distribution.

The consultant, staff and others associated with the project have met with the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) appointed subcommittee on three occasions, October 8, 2009, November 19, 2009 and January 28, 2010. Topics discussed included the structure’s landmark designation, recommendations of the BPL Branch Libraries Master Facilities Plan, review and discussion of proposed concepts (restoration / reconstruction with expansion or all new) , LPC designation and features, existing condition of facility, design challenges of the various options, library building program development, and net zero energy. The subcommittee expressed that any scheme that retains the historic building should respect its historical integrity as it relates to the overall scheme. At the most recent meeting, project cost models for the 3 schemes developed were reviewed along with the programmatic needs of the library.

NEXT STEPS

Following board discussion and consensus on a conceptual scheme preference, the board will need to give direction to staff in order to move the project to the schematic design phase. The consultant’s presentation and scale drawings have captured the relationship of project components, reflecting the functional and service needs of the program and desired adjacencies. Each scheme has a set of considerations, including preliminary cost estimates. Early during the next design phase staff will set up an informational meeting with the Landmarks Preservations Commission to discuss the preferred scheme. In the next phase of design staff will schedule a community meeting to continue discussion of drawings and documents illustrating project scale, layout, site issues, massing / elevations and functionality. Staff will bring more developed plans to the board during this phase for additional review and direction.

Following the board meeting staff will seek advice from the Planning Department on the next steps in the approval process, including direction on any environmental review studies required.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1276 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT February 2010 West Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 3

A. December 3, 2009 Community Meeting: Agenda, Meeting Notes & Summary of Comment / Survey forms • Library Services + Function • Design Considerations • Project Experience B. January 7, 2010 Community Meeting: Agenda, Meeting Notes & Summary of Comment / Survey forms • Project Goals • Alternate Schemes • Design Schemes A, B, & C

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1277 of 2369

AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1278 of 2369 #A

WEST BRANCH LIBRARY RENOVATION Community Meeting December 3, 2009 6:30 – 8:00 PM

AGENDA

Welcome! Marge Sussman, Branch Supervisor

Review the Agenda Donna Corbeil, Library Director

Overview of Project Suzanne Olawski, Neighborhood Services Manager

Discussion of Services and Functions Kathy Page, Library Consultant - Page + Moris Inc.

Discussion of Design Considerations by the Architect Team Ed Dean, AIA – David Richards, AIA – Sylvia Wallis, AIA Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio

Questions & Comments

Next Steps

Berkeley Public Library Foundation Representative

Thank you for coming and please complete a comment sheet and survey before you leave.

All members of the team and library staff have name tags AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1279 of 2369 #A

December 3, 2009 6:30-8:00PM / West Branch

Attendance: 4 Council members: Presenting design team members: Ed Dean, AIA; Sylvia Wallis, AIA; David Richards, AIA – Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio Presenting library staff: Marge Sussman, Donna Corbeil, Suzanne Olawski Berkeley Public Library Foundation: Chris Adams

Audience Participation Programming Discussion Want more services for seniors and the handicapped I didn’t know there would be talk about a physical remake because of the recent new carpets and paint The kids section is delightful; my favorite of all the branches My concern is about street presence; currently nothing from the street says “come in” but once inside it’s cute Want a welcoming, interesting, and inviting look There should be a separate teen section, acoustically sound and allowed food and music Moms are big fans of this branch and are being served very well Want comfortable chairs to sit with kids Play area for kids to play with blocks and books and not be a bother to anyone Separate kids area Current space could be bigger Current teen space is too small West Berkeley Senior Center is so close; how about some kind of collaboration Physical layout at front always felt confusing, want better layout and consistency – surprises like stairs by magazine shelving Better layout of space for better flow More spaces to plug in laptops Not enough seating currently Access improvements for the impaired Holds and self check out works well except current media equipment is faulty and causes difficulties when using the self check More electrical outlets *Need enough space around self check and service desk for patrons to place stacks of books *Children’s nonfiction shelving currently is too tall for children *Current bookwell is a problem because it is not handicap accessible and older kids swing on and slide down the railing *Need for face-out shelving Design Discussion

Page 1 of 2 AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1280 of 2369 #A Berkeley Public Library – Branch Renovation Program West Branch Community Meeting – Conceptual Design (Meeting 1) December 3, 2009 6:30-8:00PM / West Branch

Q: How extensive will the remodel be? Will it change the footprint completely? A: There is some structural deficiencies and termite damage. We are looking into how feasible it is to restore the footprint. I am an immediate neighbor to the rear and I’d like to know what this project is going to do for and to me. I would like professional tree trimmers to trim the trees and hopefully get some light into by backyard. Some trees have nests in them. The hotel almost destroyed all the trees; don’t know if these are diseased. R: The trees do need to be thinned out and given as much room as possible to grow. The fence is falling down between in two places and I have a small dog and children. Q: How will I be affected by the noise? There currently is some noise from University Ave but it’s not too bad. A: We will write construction specs to mitigate concerns. Q: I am concerned about noise after renovation if outdoor access is allowed. Will there be access to outdoor space? A: A one-story scheme will take up more space limiting out door access while a two-story scheme will save some outside space. We’ll show more detail at our next meeting. Q: Are there side yard set backs? A: No, but there is a 15-foot set back in the rear. I like this area because of its convenience to many services *There are 52 child care / home day care centers in the immediate area; place space is attractive to care givers *Desire for accessible, comfortable space in children’s Design team question: What do you think of when you think of a library? o Doe and Bancroft libraries –work at Cal o Central Library but I don’t like having to go downstairs; it’s pretty inside; glad they kept the art deco style; it’s not really welcoming but it’s functional; something more colorful would be nice o A place to socialize and be allowed to eat snacks –don’t want to have to leave when I get hungry or thirsty; rather meet at the library than Starbucks o This is a walking community and the library is a bit of a refuge, a piece of peace, in a busy intense neighborhood o Make it a destination o Want a group study room

Page 2 of 2 AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1281 of 2369 #A

Comments None submitted

Survey Responses

1. What were three things that you heard today about the project that were most memorable? o Presenters listened o Presenters are into community

2. What three issues do you consider most important to the West Branch Library? o Services o Adaptation o Use of space

3. What did you like most about the community meeting?

4. What did you like least about the community meeting? o I pictured more movement rather than seating

5. Is there anything you would like the project team to know that was not said at the meeting? o How about a mural? AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1282 of 2369 #A

WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

LIBRARY SERVICES + FUNCTIONS

• Seating areas

• Space for teens

• Space for children and families

• Computers

• Laptop computer use

• Collections and shelving

• Service desk

• Self checkout, holds shelving, returns

• Space for programs and events

• Literacy program space

• Staff workspace

• Restrooms

• Other issues AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1283 of 2369 #A 1. THE PROJECT SITE

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

DISCUSSION POINTS:

Potential Neighborhood Development / Commercial Node Redwood Trees Shadow Restrictions Trafﬁc / Access / Noise

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1284 of 2369 #A 2. PAST AND PRESENT

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

west branch summary

GARDEN 6,560 SF

GARDEN 2,100 SF

OPTION A OPTION B Renovation 2,100 SF + 6,560 SF Addition = 8,660 SF Prop. 14 Proposal = 14,600 SF

Berkeley Public Library Facilities Master Plan Page 29

DISCUSSION POINTS:

1923 - Original Civic Image 1974 - The Results of Modernization 2003/2008 - Master Plan Options 2010 - Program Impacts

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1285 of 2369 #A 3. THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

DISCUSSION POINTS:

Historic Background Evolving Diversity Community Aspirations

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1286 of 2369 #A 4. THE FUTURE

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

DISCUSSION POINTS:

What is Civic Presence? Oceanview Neighborhood Context Community Representation

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1287 of 2369 #A 5. NET ZERO ENERGY

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

10’ CEILINGS

` TU

DISCUSSION POINTS:

Carbon Footprint / Daylighting Concepts Underlying Net Zero Real Mandates First NZE Library in the United States

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1288 of 2369 #A COMMUNITY LIBRARIES

PROJECT EXPERIENCE HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX

DISCUSSION POINTS:

Community Based Solutions Energy Efﬁciency Daylighting / Indoor Air Quality

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1289 of 2369

AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1290 of 2369 #B WEST BRANCH LIBRARY RENOVATION COMMUNITY MEETING JANUARY 7, 2010 6:30 – 8:00 PM

AGENDA

Welcome! Marge Sussman, Branch Supervisor

Agenda and Project Review Donna Corbeil, Library Director

Program Goals Kathy Page, Library Consultant - Page + Moris Inc.

Previous Meeting Recap Ed Dean, AIA – David Richards, AIA – Sylvia Wallis, AIA Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio

Design Considerations Discussion Ed Dean, AIA – David Richards, AIA – Sylvia Wallis, AIA Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio

Questions & Comments

Next Steps

Thank you for coming and please complete a comment sheet and survey before you leave. AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1291 of 2369 #B

January 7, 2010 6:30-8:00PM / West Branch

Attendance: 21 Council members: Kris Worthington Presenting design team members: Ed Dean, AIA; Sylvia Wallis, AIA; David Richards, AIA – Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio Presenting library staff: Marge Sussman, Donna Corbeil, Suzanne Olawski

Audience Participation Scheme A – Restoration 2-story / Scheme B – New 1-story / Scheme C – New 2-story Color code areas of the library Q: Is there an increase in the square footage? A: Yes, approximately 2600 SF more Q: Is the current entrance to the right of the original building? A: Yes. The original left corner of the building is gone and the current new addition is attached to it. Q: (Regarding the University Avenue height requirement) Is it not more than or less then 32’? A: It’s not less than. Q: (Scheme B) When you look through the building from University Avenue can you see the redwood tree? A: Yes. Q: (Scheme B) where do you enter? A: Enter from the side (parallel to University Ave); there will be a double door system to mitigate noise. Q: Is the teen area enclosed acoustically so we can’t hear them? A: Yes, it’s enclosed to keep out noise and to allow them to talk Q: (Scheme B) Is it on a slab? A: Yes, it most likely will be a slab. Q: How will staff keep track of what is going on in the teen area? A: Three walls are enclosed but the front is glass –to see them but not hear them. Q: How large is the teen area? A: At least 2-3 times larger. Q: Is there a place for reading books in the library in each plan? A: Yes. Space development will be detailed in the next phase. Q: Will seating be near stacks of books? A: Yes. Details are still being determined. Would like a place for reading that is comfortable and away from computers and noise Want a place to kick back and read a book Want quiet and to see the trees Q: Are there any thoughts to the shape/design of the building? A: That will be developed in the next phase. Want something big (are there budget constraints?); it will be along time before we can do something again with this building; include a basement space for storage and go up three of four stories (main library on first two floors, literacy and multipurpose rooms on upper level floors); build it big enough so we’re not on top of one another –room to move and grow; building higher gives more footprint space A: Rear neighbors had privacy concerns about height and outdoor use; current costs may allow us to build bigger More indoor/outdoor space Don’t see the benefits of keeping the old building –costs too much; retain a portion but build modern/glass structure around it that lets a lot of light in

Page 1 of 1 AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A Attachment #B Berkeley Public Library – Branch Renovation Program Page 1292 of 2369 West Branch Community Meeting – Conceptual Design (Meeting 2) January 7, 2010 6:30-8:00PM / West Branch

Roof garden in the back with outside seating around the redwood tree Impressed with Net Zero energy goal I live right behind the library and I and the rear neighbors are concerned about privacy Really like scheme B –seems to open up things Like the idea of preserving some of the elements but not the whole building Don’t see a problem with melding old and new Love to see a place primarily designed for books and the reading of books –accommodate as many books as possible Second the idea (accommodating as many books as possible) More people carry laptops, computers are more compact and there is wifi; space should be fluid and used for seating –not computers Would like an electronic (flat screen) screen on the exterior of the building to announce programs and hours and to welcome people Think about LED curtains that are transparent but show images I think that’s a horrible idea Leaning towards scheme C but am concerned about children running into the street Better to have noise up front; move teens and children to front and quiet spaces to the rear Allow for a small quiet study room Q: What level of noise do libraries allow? A: Libraries have been zoned for different levels of noise –from quiet areas to quiet talking to noisy active zones Q: In the future can these areas be moved? A: Yes, flexibility is part of the overall design. Walls will be able to be moved in the future. Branch needs green space –an oasis in the middle of a gritty urban area

Page 2 of 2 AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1293 of 2369 #B

Comments y Would a circular or pod design be useful? y How about an electronic billboard. y New building: possibly 2-3 stories; aesthetic building (+ elevator); as tall as economically affordable (40 years of money input); 2 bathrooms per floor, but 4 bathrooms on first floor; roof covered in solar panels y Build even larger than current plans so there is space to grow for the next ½ century; 3 stories in front, stepping down to quiet backyard; save the redwood trees; retain design elements of old building; lots of glass on new parts of the building, especially roof and upper floors to let in maximum light with open space inside so light passes through to the ground floor are of the building; outdoor balcony/patio/mezzanine on roof at rear looking down on redwood garden; expand multipurpose/community room y I like option 3 (C-New, 2-story building); really like being able to see the redwood tree from the front of the building y Very important: a quiet reading area for adults conducive to thinking, i.e., not looking out on street traffic but rather out on the trees as at Mills College Library y Feeling of friendly flow within the building y An upper airy floor for reading would be good also a study/discussion space y Retain Oceanview design features but overall I’d like a building that is more contemporary than historic y Library for books and reading y Design A: keep old building; Design B: the front is boring!, solar is nice, stylistically boring, please continue to bring original elements to front façade; Design C: front still kind of boring y Really like the half circle window from historical design y Green area is good; maybe seats outside around redwood y A: vestibule – very good, need more separation between children’s and teens; B: street presence - very good, lower on street – good, daylight – very good (8660SF); C: elevator and stair – drawback y Don’t keep old building, just medallion y 1 story is better y Love net zero energy y No noisy areas up front; no enclosed study room; can there be an oasis? y Salvaging or recreating the 1923 building is too expensive for the dubious historical amenity available; invest those funds in significant new architecture y Increase street presence with substantial façade, windows and entry; don’t let concern for functional adjacency drive you to put non-descript staff area in prime public location AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A Attachment #B West Branch Conceptual Design Community MeetingPage #2 1294 of 2369 Audience Comments / Survey Responses 01.07.10 y Consider providing for phased expansion y Create a glorious civic edifice that the community will flock to and prize

Survey Responses

1. What were three things that you heard today about the project that were most memorable? o Net zero energy

2. What three issues do you consider most important to the West Branch Library? o Quiet reading area for adults conducive to thought, i.e., not looking out on street but rather the trees as at Mills College Library o Oceanview design features, more contemporary than historic o Feeling of friendly flow within the building o An upper airy floor for reading would be good

3. What did you like most about the community meeting?

4. What did you like least about the community meeting?

5. Is there anything you would like the project team to know that was not said at the meeting?

Page 2 of 2 AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1295 of 2369 #B PROJECT GOALS THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

* Enhance library services * Provide comfortable, convenient, spacious, welcoming, and accessible facility * Revive civic presence of the library * Engage the street with visible library activity * Respond to the Oceanview context * Recreate a landmark for the 21st century * Provide sustainable design * Meet net zero energy goals of the city * Preserve the redwood trees * * * * * *

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1296 of 2369 #B ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES RESTORATION SCHEMES THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

SCHEME 1 Single story Awkward entry through 1923 building Very tight fit on site 1923 building close to street Compromised adjacencies Inefficient floor plan Limited photovoltaic area

SCHEME 2 Two stories Awkward entry through 1923 building 1923 building close to street Compromised adjacencies Inefficient floor plan

SCHEME 3 Two stories 1923 building in original location Reduced height required to maintain R-3 solar access Compromised adjacencies Inefficient floor plan Limited photovoltaic area

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1297 of 2369 #B DESIGN SCHEMES A RESTORATION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY

Total Area: 9,869 GSF COST FACTORS: = Program Area - Quality of Systems and Finishes + Vertical Circulation and Increased Area + Relocation & Restoration of Original Building

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

PROS: Rebuilds Original Building Large Entry Courtyard CONS: Diminished Civic Presence Two Floors to Manage and Maintain Full Reconstruction Required New Brace Frames Required Inefficient Floor Plan Compromised Adjacencies Less Daylighting Insufficient Area for Photovoltaics FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Largest Redwood Tree Removed

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1298 of 2369 #B DESIGN SCHEMES B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

Total Area: 8,660 GSF COST FACTORS: = Program Area - Quality of Systems and Finishes + Retaining Walls

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A PageAttachment 1299 of 2369 #B DESIGN SCHEMES C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY

Total Area: 9,272 GSF COST FACTORS: = Program Area - Quality of Systems and Finishes + Vertical Circulation and Increased Area

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

PROS: Civic Presence Engagement with Street Connection w/ Oceanview Context Spacious Atmosphere Good Circulation Flow View of Redwood Trees Adequate Area for Photovoltaics Autonomous Multi-purpose Room Generous Outdoor Spaces Good Natural Ventilation CONS: Two Floors to Manage & Maintain FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Sightlines & Adjacencies Compro- mised by Vertical Circulation Less Daylighting HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1300 of 2369 PLEASE BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY NOTE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES LOCATION

REGULAR Meeting AGENDA WEST Branch March 10, 2010 6:30 p.m. 1125 University Avenue

The Board of Library Trustees may act on any item on this agenda. I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

A. Call to Order B. Public Comments (6:30 – 7:00 p.m.) (Proposed 30-minute time limit, with speakers allowed 3 minutes each) C. Report from library employees and unions, discussion of staff issues Comments / responses to reports and issues addressed in packet. D. Report from Board of Library Trustees E. Approval of Agenda

II. PRESENTATIONS

A. West Branch Library Conceptual Design Update 1. Update by Harley Ellis Devereaux/GreenWorks Studio on the Conceptual Design Phase; Staff Report; and Discussion of Possible Next Steps. 2. Public Comment (on this item only) 3. Board discussion

III. CONSENT CALENDAR

The Board will consider removal and addition of items to the Consent Calendar prior to voting on the Consent Calendar. All items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. A. Approve minutes of February 6, 2010 Special Meeting Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the February 6, 2010 special meeting of the Board of Library Trustees. B. Approve minutes of February 10, 2010 Regular Meeting Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the February 10, 2010 regular meeting of the Board of Library Trustees.

IV. INFORMATION REPORTS

A. Update on the Branch Bond Program Discussion of staff report on status of implementation of the Measure FF branch improvement program, to include update on Request for Proposals, schedule, and budget. B. February 2010 Monthly Report from Library Director i. Library Development ii. Professional Activities iii. Programs, Services and Collections iv. Personnel C. Library events: Calendar of events and press releases for various Library programs are posted at http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org D. Celebrating National Library Week

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 [ (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY PageBOARD 1301 OF TRUSTEES of 2369 AGENDA MArch 10, 2010 Page 2

E. Measure FF: Branch Improvement Program Bookmobile Option For Continuity Of Services During Branch Closures

V. AGENDA BUILDING Next regular meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at the Central Branch Library, 2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley.

VI. CLOSED SESSION

A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) Title of position being evaluated: Director of Library Services. The Board of Library Trustees will recess into closed session to conduct a public employee performance evaluation. VII. ADJOURNMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please refrain from wearing scented products at public meetings.

Written materials may be viewed in advance of the meeting at the Central Library Reference Desk (2090 Kittredge Street), or any of the branches, during regular library hours.

//s// ______Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services Serving as Secretary to the Board of Library Trustees

For further information, please call (510) 981-6195.

COMMUNICATIONS Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

1. Phil Allen 2. Tom Dufour

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 [ (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR PagePresentation 1302 of 2369 I, Item A

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY

6 PRESENTATION CALENDAR March 10, 2010

TO: Board of Library Trustees

FROM: Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services

SUBJECT: MEASURE FF WEST BRANCH LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE: DIRECTION ON CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE SCHEME

INTRODUCTION

At the Saturday, February 6, 2010 BOLT Special meeting, design team members Ed Dean and Sylvia Wallis from Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio made a presentation on three possible conceptual schemes. At the regular BOLT meeting of Wednesday, February 10, 2010 the board took up a discussion of the three schemes, reviewed the discussion held on Saturday and discussed possible next steps.

CURRENT SITUATION

February BOLT Discussion & Action

The West Branch project is in the conceptual design phase.

At the February 10, 2010 meeting, after thoughtful consideration, the board voted unanimously (Trustee Golphin was absent) to pursue an option that would result in an all new building on the site.

Voting on a one-story or two-story design concept was reserved pending additional information. Among the topics raised for follow-up discussion / consideration were: Design options ability to meet the project’s budget; Design’s ability to provide a civic presence; Incorporates green space, preferably at the front of the building for public access, while allowing for bike racks; and Cost of the Photo Voltaic system, preferable that it is included in the base bid estimates rather than as an alternate to ensure a ZNE building.

In these deliberations the board stressed the importance of the selected scheme to meet the program set by the library, while allowing for a level of flexibility to respond to future needs and opportunities and to maximize the capacity of the site without feeling constrained.

Further, the scheme selected for development in the next phase of design will ideally meet these general criteria: Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1303 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT March 2010 West Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 2

Reflect the desire of the board and community to position the West Branch Library as the gateway to the community via the major artery of University Avenue; That it be designed with materials and finishes of a high caliber for durability and to enhance the aesthetic quality desired by the community and board; Create a home for the adult literacy program Berkeley READS, which has been operating in undersized quarters; The new library will strive to meet the sustainability requirements of the city, including utilizing day-lighting techniques such as skylights and an alternative energy source; Look for opportunities to incorporate features reflective of the historical aspects of the neighborhood / old building and / or references to the library’s place in the history in the community; and Meet the bond program requirements, to create a modern, accessible and safe library that can deliver 21st century library services.

One – Story New Option: Scheme B

The two major concerns regarding the one-story new scheme have been addressed.

First, in the previously presented Scheme B the building was set back from the rear yard to accommodate two groupings of trees, in the NW and NE corners respectively, as a result creating a tight front entry with minimal space for landscaping. Since the February meetings, the Landscape consultant has further evaluated the landscape, as concerns the Northeast corner of the lot he has stated, “These trees appear generally unhealthy, especially in contrast to the trees on the westerly side. They have been severely and asymmetrically pruned on the easterly face in response to the adjacent hotel construction and are growing in a very confined area inappropriate to either their existing or future size. The upper branches are relatively sparse and appear stressed, likely the result of their root systems being confined by buildings and with 1/3 - 1/2 under impermeable paving on the neighbor's side. These already messy trees will have increased debris fall as the stresses to the trees increase, which will be an ongoing problem for maintenance and danger to the building.” Their removal is recommended.

Related to this issue is the degree to which the new building schemes lowered the building and the depth of the excavation and the resulting height of the retaining walls required to protect the rear landscaping. The 2-story scheme employed a ramp to the east of the lot, while the one- story scheme brought the building lower (by deeper excavation) to meet the sidewalk at the center of the lot. The proposed scheme (Attachment A) has been revised to utilize the ramp option in which the building is lowered less than previously proposed. The advantage of this change is that the trees that are healthy in the Northwest corner of the lot will be protected with a retaining wall and less excavation will be required to level the lot. The landscape consultant has concluded that each of the schemes (previously proposed Scheme B and C) will work with the goal of preserving these trees. Both give the trees good breathing room horizontally, though Scheme C, as originally proposed “is significantly less invasive into the tree's root zone”. In order to minimize the impacts on the large northwesterly trees the layout, including the entrance sequence is revised in the presented revised Scheme B (one-story option).

The second item was the ability of the program to fit comfortably on the site while providing green space or an entry court and bike rack parking. The opening up of the NE rear corner of the lot would allow the building to reach farther into the rear yard creating the desired green court at the entry. The staff will continue discussions with Planning Department staff regarding any approval that this option may require.

Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1304 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT March 2010 West Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 3

Two – Story New Option: Scheme C

The two-story scheme as presented on 2/10 was over the set project construction budget of $4.9 million. In order to bring it within the construction budget set for the project the design team developed a list of possible reductions, these included: reduce the overall gross area by 150 SF; reduce the site development budget by approximately 15%; reduce the mechanical and engineering budget by approximately 5%; make the entry canopy an add alternate; reduce the contingency budget and use stucco finish on the North and South elevations in lieu of metal panel /rain screen solution. The photovoltaic system was added into the base project cost. These reductions / additions to the program scope would significantly impede the schemes ability to meet the desired library program and project requirements and is therefore not recommended.

LPC An informational presentation was made by the design team at the March 4, 2010 Landmarks Preservations Commission meeting to update them on the West branch project.

NEXT STEPS

Following board discussion and consensus on a conceptual scheme preference, the board will need to give direction to staff in order to move the project to the schematic design phase. In the next phase of design staff will schedule a community meeting to continue discussion of drawings and documents illustrating project scale, layout, site issues, massing / elevations and functionality. Staff will bring more developed plans to the board during this phase for additional review and direction.

Following the board meeting staff will seek advice from the Planning Department on the next steps in the approval process.

ATTACHMENTS A: Design Scheme B (revised); Scheme C; Design Considerations

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1305 of 2369

AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A DESIGN SCHEME Page Attachment 1306 of 2369 #A B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

Existing mature redwood trees Photovoltaics on sawtooth preserved and visible from street monitors allude to context of Ocenview warehouses/

Building signage of incised lettering to match original

Simple and formal architecture with civic presence

Relocated original medallion

Prominent doorway welcoming patrons

New 9-square window with proportions to match origi- Roof monitors bring enhanced nal natural daylight inside, symbolizing enlightenment

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION HARLEYHARLEY ELLISELLIS DEVEREAUXDEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A DESIGN SCHEME Page Attachment 1307 of 2369 #A B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

BUILDING SECTION PROS: Civic Presence Engagement with Street Connection w/ Oceanview Context Spacious Atmosphere Good Circulation Flow Ease of Use of Single-Story Efficient Plan w/ Good Adjacencies Plentiful Daylight View of Redwood Trees Adequate Area for Photovoltaics Good Natural Ventilation CONS: Removes 1923 Building Less Outdoor Space

Updates 3-3-2010:

Scheme B meets budget: - Includes net zero strategies - Minimal value engineering required

Northeast trees to be removed in all schemes FIRST FLOOR PLAN revised 3-3-2010 per recommendation of landscape architect. Total Area: 8,660 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A DESIGN SCHEME Page Attachment 1308 of 2369 #A C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY

Existing mature redwood trees Photovoltaics on sawtooth preserved and visible from street supports allude to context of Ocenview warehouses/

Building signage lettering to match original

Simple and formal architecture with civic presence

Relocated original medallion

Prominent doorway welcoming patrons

New 9-square window with proportions to match origi- Central atrium brings enhanced nal natural daylight inside, symbolizing enlightenment

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION HARLEYHARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A DESIGN SCHEME Page Attachment 1309 of 2369 #A C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY PROS: Civic Presence, Engagement with Street Connection w/ Oceanview Context Spacious Atmosphere, Good Circulation Flow View of Redwood Trees Adequate Area for Photovoltaics Generous Outdoor Spaces CONS: Sightlines & Adjacencies Compro- mised by Vertical Circulation BUILDING SECTION Less Effective Daylighting Updates 3-3-2010:

Scheme C meets budget: - Includes net zero strategies - Significant value engineering required

Northeast trees to be removed in all schemes per recommendation of landscape architect.

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Total Area: 9,272 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX AttachmentPresentation 3 - Final I, EIR Item A DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS PageAttachment 1310 of 2369 #A THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

Context

Oceanview Neighborhood

Civic Presence

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1311 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1312 of 2369 Consent III, Item A Berkeley Public Library Board of Library Trustees

Special Meeting MINUTES West Branch February 6, 2010 12:00 p.m. 1125 University Avenue

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS A. Call to Order The special meeting of February 6, 2010 was called to order by Chair Kupfer at 12:08 PM. Present: Trustees Winston Burton, Abigail Franklin, Carolyn Henry-Golphin and Susan Kupfer. Absent: Darryl Moore Also present: Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services; Suzanne Olawski, Neighborhood Services Manager; Dennis Dang, Library Admin Manager; Alan Bern, Library Special Services Coordinator Harley Ellis Devereaux/ GreenWorks Studio (HED/GWS) – Sylvia Wallis, RA, Edward Dean, AIA Steve Dewan, Project Manager, Kitchell CEM R10-010 Moved by Trustee Henry-Golphin, seconded by Trustee Burton to approve the agenda as presented Motion passed unanimously.

II. WORKSHOP SESSION ON MEASURE FF WEST BRANCH LIBRARY UPDATE A. Presentation by Harley Ellis Devereaux/GreenWorks Studio on the Conceptual Design Phase; and Staff Report on the Process, Community Input and Next Steps. Edward Dean (HED/GWS) and Sylvia Wallis (HED/GWS) presented conceptual design plans for the West Branch Library Mr. Dean recapped efforts over last few months, getting familiar with needs of the library as articulated in library building program. Assignment was to develop 3 different approaches to use the site including how to handle the remnants of the 1923 building. Attachment A has the project goals which includes achieve Zero Net Energy (ZNE) performance – West Branch is a good candidate. All three designs can do this. Cost modeling has been done as well comparing the 3 options. Two community meetings were held, at the second one the public comments were mostly around space requirements and more reading areas, no overwhelming response was expressed to save the building. The Existing Conditions board (Attachment B) includes images and issues discussed at the community meeting and / or with the Landmarks Preservation Commission West branch subcommittee. The project is at an important milestone requiring a decision / direction from the library. Ms. Wallis reviewed three schemes. There are commonalities to all three schemes; they all have the same program or assignable area. Total area may differ. All three schemes get rid of the 1974 addition. All have an autonomous multi-purpose space. 1. Design Scheme A: Rehabilitation Two-Story (with New Addition) Based on Facilities Master Plan Option A with similar estimated SF total (Attachment C and D); This option was further developed after exploring several others to get to the best alternative represented as scheme A. 2. Features: Retain 1923 building and restores / rebuilds, keep 3-sides of building Move building 13 feet closer to street and 18” lower, reducing civic presence

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1313 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 6, 2010 Page 2

Create side entrance - reduces traffic noise that would flow into the building; works better for after hour community meeting room access. Original door becomes a window, creating quieter reading room, but disturbing can no longer use original entry after remodel (not currently in use as entry). Scheme layout meets the building program provided. Shortfalls include: book drop detached from staff work room /return sorting area and could not accommodate automated material handling system in future. Fair job of respecting the building and fair to good job of meeting library needs. Would require removal of one redwood tree in the back left where corner of building would go. Traffic noise study found original entry would create unacceptable noise levels (70 dbA average) in the library reading space if it were operable, front wall protects the interior reading area now, not accounted for in master plan or earlier study. Trustee Burton – can the multipurpose room be used after library hours? Yes, all three schemes would allow this. 3. Design Scheme B: New Construction, One Story (Attachment E and F) Features: Float roof up to meet solar access requirements Raise building at street to create civic presence and loft like space Saw tooth monitors on roof with windows on north side and photovoltaic panels on south side to provide daylight to the interior needed during daytime. Conflicting goals of displaying activities inside and distraction of street/traffic activity– large window introduced. Flexible spaces with new construction - could change purposes later if library needs to change. Maximizes site space, less landscaping. Lower at rear due to slope, retaining walls in rear. Allows for direct access to the sidewalk level.

4. Design Scheme C: New Construction, Two-Story (Attachments G and H) Features: More exterior space – more generous garden Less potential for shading on photovoltaic systems than Scheme B. Existing redwood trees maintained and visible from the street. Entrance door faces east, slightly above street level, slope up so slightly raised. Central atrium brings in light to interior Literacy on 2nd floor own space – could add roof terrace,

Ms Wallis summarized: All three schemes meet library programming needs in a satisfactory manner.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1314 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 6, 2010 Page 3

New one-story (Scheme B) is most efficient, all on one floor, don’t need elevator or stairs. It fills the site resulting in less outdoor space. Most efficient, least extra gross SF because no need for elevator or stairs and meets the program. No space to expand footprint. Rehabilitation (Scheme A) will meet the program with addition. This option requires additional square footage for elevator and stairs and to fit program to existing spaces. Rehabilitation of original is not perfect. Original building was set back and up from street level, would be pushed to street without front door operable. Renovation will look much different squeezed into space closer to street and without original entrance. Would cost more than Scheme B as would new 2-story. Mr. Dean summarized: The team has met three times with Landmarks Preservation Committee sub-committee for the West Branch. Expressed would like to get their buy-in to whatever scheme we move forward with. Goal was to demonstrate to this group due diligence in options explored, including structural strengthening in a way that wouldn’t detract from original building. Found option that would use girders to support old and new building, add ½ “ plywood sheathing, rebuild windows and sills to adjust window depth for new sheathing, remove and replace existing interior plaster walls. Much of the original building will need to go away and be rebuilt, will look like old but not be original. Compromises to both historical and library program as result. While the program developed is acceptable there are drawbacks as noted, including additional costs associated with moving the building. Community meeting comments were to increase space, more seating, less distraction from University Avenue, build taller for expansion and not as much on restoration. B. Public Comments 1) Kurt Gray – Attended previous community meeting. Appreciate work being done. Not clear on the financial restraints. He was one of the people in favor of making the library as big as possible including basement. There is a humongous building across the street. This is the direction that buildings are taking on University Avenue. We should be making this building as big as possible. More height in front and lower in back. Use lots of glass. Maximum amount of light. Retain trees. Entrance off university with a courtyard to park bikes. Retain design elements of the original building, there’s only a handful left anyway. Don’t rebuild the original building. 2) Sheila Stern – Has used this branch for 40+ years. Concerned about the library needing space in another 5 years. Which of the plans has most space for actual library needs? Which is most amenable for easily increasing of space. Don’t want to build a new building that become obsolete in a few years. Want library functions to improve. 3) Celia Jackson – Stressed importance of making internal spaces flexible, able to be rearranged in the future. 4) Is the entrance on Scheme A on the parking lot? It’s in a courtyard that will be separated from parking lot by landscaping 5) Phil Allen – What extent will older part of the library be returned to prominence. Thought it would be shown in all three schemes. How can you move the building? What about future development on property to the west. 6) Celia Jackson – Is there enough accommodation for bike and stroller parking? 7) Christina Staples – Historic look of neighborhood is important, like idea of including original so not like current addition. We don’t want to look back in 20 years and say ugh, we made a mistake. 8) Kurt Gray – Reiterated thought building should have as many stories as possible. Board Discussion Trustee Kupfer asked for information on cost estimates at this stage: Director Corbeil reiterated that these are conceptual drawings and there will be changes as we move forward. Mr. Dean reported Scheme B is within budget. Scheme C is over budget, can equate cost with SF. Two story building has cost implications due to stairs and elevator, volume greater to meet program. It’s not unusual to have a plan

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1315 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 6, 2010 Page 4 slightly over budget and then work on ways to reduce costs, would need to reduce costs. Scheme A, is the higher cost option over budgeted amount due to original building moves and reconstruction. Mr. Dean described the steps involved in the renovation scheme: prepare building for initial move by building bracing and support to stabilize structure remaining is self contained, tear down 1970 building, move 1923 building to back of lot, excavate front half of site, build new foundation in location will go, move 1923 building to new location, build missing pieces and then new addition. Moving building twice and rebuilding etc would add to cost $300K - $600K. Total cost to completely move and restore original 1923 building would be $600L to $800K. C. Board Discussion 1) Trustee Henry-Golphin – Heard that keeping original is important to some in the community. In the next 5 to 6 years what will give us the better option to continue to grow and redesign when community needs and internal needs change? Need to make this a project that lasts longer, see this as priority, what’s going to give us the best value long term. Outside is really important to the community but leaning toward what gives us the best value and functionality in the long term. 2) Trustee Burton – See historical aspects in A only. Would like more information on LPC’s role. The money and machinations involved with moving the building versus the future of having the nicest biggest library that we can. Let’s not be constrained by original building if we do not have to be. Functionality is also important factor. Want people to be satisfied in 10 years. Would like to know what LPC is committed to. Director Corbeil responded that the library and design team have met several times with a subcommittee of the LPC, not the full commission to solicit input. As a City of Berkeley landmarked building (Structure of Merit), LPC has jurisdiction over the project, so we would go to them based on the recommendation of the Board. As a reminder, voters gave a mandate to improve library services. Board gets to weigh in very heavily on what that means for library services. We are working very closely with the Planning Department whom would advise us on process. Planning would have an EIR conducted in any case. We have asked to make an informational presentation to the full LPC in March 2010. At that point we will tell them which direction the Board is heading. Sylvia Wallis reported on early meetings with LPC sub-committee even before beginning to develop schemes. Asked LPC sub-committee, if we don’t save the whole building is it worth saving a door or a window? Not necessarily, but perhaps there are some other ways to recall the building. One approach HED/GWS took was to recall the neighborhood or history of Ocean View. That led to the loft-like warehouse design with high windows. All schemes have civic presence which was a feature of the original structure on the site. Become an important institution on the street. Small gestures retained, reuse of original medallion, windows in same proportion as original 9 square grid in glazing that would be reminiscent of original windows that no longer exist, and use of incised lettering which are only partially remaining but to make it a positive vs current negative. Tie in to create continuity with past. 3) Mr. Dean – LPC subcommittee members expressed not interested in specific pieces being kept and applied in a new structure, this isn’t seen as respectful. To them there’s the whole issue of a civic presence and way you use an old building. They’re still looking for an “AA” scheme. We think scheme A makes the best use of the existing building. LPC subcommittee hasn’t said it’s okay to use bits and pieces of items identified in the landmark resolution. They identify 6 pieces of the building in the landmark application. There could be some very creative ideas to reuse some of these features in the interior. There are still a lot of ideas to explore. 4) Trustee Franklin – All three designs have very attractive features. Typically like historic preservation, but even though Scheme B has the smallest square footage it maximizes what you can do in the space. Maximizing the footprint is a good idea. Love the light that the saw tooth type roof would provide. Like the way that ties into the historic neighborhood. Cost is important, staying within the budget is important. More concerned with functionality of space than the exterior. Asked architects to discuss further how would grade the functionality of each scheme. Ms Wallis responded that functionality of scheme A is a “B or B+” Functionality of Schemes B and C is an “A.” Mr. Dean pointed out that a major drawback of Scheme A is that book returns go into 2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1316 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 6, 2010 Page 5

closet and librarians have to constantly empty it. Schemes B & C the books returns go directly into the workroom which will have automated book handling. Less easy to move things around in Scheme A. MS Wallis pointed out that Scheme A has less flexibility, whereas B has flexibility for moving programs around, although having Literacy on the ground floor may limit the flexibility. Mr. Dean added that Literacy program restricts the moving of spaces in A and B whereas Scheme C puts Literacy upstairs and allows the first floor to be more easily changed. The programmable space is larger in all 3 schemes, the current building is 6,200 square feet and the building program calls for a total of 8,600 square feet, 7,310 square feet for the library and approximately 1,200 for the Literacy program. Programs get roughly the same additional space in all 3 schemes, scheme A is bit different because we were trying to fit within the historic part of the building. Scheme B is approximately 2600 square feet (40%) larger than existing building. Scheme C, 2-story new building has more space dedicated to stairs, elevators, lobby and additional bathrooms required due to the second floor. Mr. Dean clarified that there is assigned and unassigned spaces. 5) Trustee Franklin asked if the staff had a preference or opinion on the functional difference between the options. Director Corbeil said the staff was involved in development of the building program and layouts. Staff will continue to be involved as the layouts are developed. 6) Trustee Kupfer asked Steve Dewan (Kitchell) if he wanted to make any comments on the cost estimates. Mr. Dewan responded that it is still very preliminary but that he could talk about rough percentages, as very conceptual and very early on. Mr. Dean responded that the photo-voltaic (PV) are not included in any of the schemes cost at this stage, these would add approximately $250K to each schemes costs. Conceptual design phase estimates indicate scheme A would cost $800,000+ over budget (16%), scheme B is on budget and scheme C would cost $250,000 (5%) over budget. In an approximately $5 million budget. 7) Trustee Kupfer inquired if other funding sources were available for photovoltaic systems. The design team is looking into alternate funding sources; one option is to use a third party model to make the purchase. There is a commitment by the architect to make this a sustainable green project. The third party option is not desirable to the library. 8) Trustee Kupfer asked for more on the compromised sightlines and adjacencies in scheme C. Sightline from service desk to adult room is minimally compromised by elevator shaft. 9) Ms Kupfer asked what the added costs of operation of the 2-story scheme were if any, in particular with the literacy program on a separate floor. Director Corbeil let the board know staffing for the literacy program is separate from branch library staff. Other maintenance costs could be increased, such as elevator maintenance contracts, etc. There are pluses and minuses with having Literacy on a separate floor. 10) Ms Kupfer asked the architects to discuss the less effective day lighting in scheme C. Ms Wallis explained the problem was constraint on sides, code does not allow windows on the lot line due to fire rating restrictions, so very little lighting coming in from the side. Second floor removes possibility for skylights in the area below the second floor (only). Architects believe they can mitigate this for the most part, some zones more challenging than others. Atrium walls will have glazing up high to bring in daylight. Staff workroom would be impacted the most, could use “light tubes” to bring in daylight to this area. 11) Ms Kupfer asked if the exterior materials are the same for all schemes. Ms Wallis acknowledged decisions not made yet. On Scheme A would have cement plaster (stucco) on the historic building. The architects have not pursued materials for the other schemes. Mr. Dean added that he expects the sides will not be as visible to public. (west side visible until development occurs on the property on that side.)so we could use less expensive materials on sides and more expensive materials on street side. It is a budget item only at this point.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1317 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 6, 2010 Page 6

12) Mr. Burton asked if a roof top terrace could be created outside in Scheme C with tables and chairs and could we plan now for an addition to the second floor later. Ms Wallis said that it would be possible, not advisable in rear due to neighbors. It is possible to engineer for future expansion but we would want to plan for expansion now as it could affect day lighting inside and PV placement. Full ADA access would be needed. Mr. Roberts (landscape designer for the project) added that the comment earlier about bicycle access / parking should be addressed early especially on the schemes with constrained sites. I. AGENDA BUILDING A. The next regular meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at the South Branch Library, 1901 Russell Street, Berkeley.

II. ADJOURNMENT R10-011 Moved by Trustee Burton, seconded by Trustee Henry-Golphin, to adjourn the special meeting of the board at 1:30 PM. Motion passed unanimously. Attachments: 1) Harley Ellis Devereaux/GreenWorks Studio Presentation on West Branch

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1318Consent of 2369 III, Item A PROJECT GOALS Attachment #1 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

* Enhance library services with a convenient, welcoming, safe, secure, and accessible facility, with flexibility for the future

* Provide adequate space to accommodate all library and literacy programs, including a quiet and comfortable oasis for learning and reading

* Provide a LEED silver facility (minimum) that meets the net zero energy goals of the city

* Create a civic and engaging presence on the street that responds to the Oceanview context

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1319Consent of 2369 III, Item A EXISTING CONDITIONS Attachment #1 THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

One of two original medallions Head, jamb and sill extensions required; Fungal infection in some areas; Single-glazing

Door is not original design or Key West Branch Library Built: 1923 Berkeley Public Library Addition: 1974 construction; single-glazed Existing Building Evaluation Summary Size: 6,230 SF Good working condition Provide new concrete footing under walls of original 1923 building Replace wood framing underneath the building where it is missing or damaged by rot window Structural Working condition, but should be Replace perimeter cripple walls with new concrete stem walls Add new plywood shear walls in the crawlspace below the building repaired or replaced Install new plywood sheathing on the roof and tie diaphragm into the walls The existing system uses three rooftop units that provide both heating and cooling Need immediate repair or replacement The HVAC units were installed in 1994 and are still functional, although nearing the end of HVAC their planned useful life; they should be replaced if the scale of work to the rest of the building merits it Mechanical Ductwork needs to be reconfigured in problem areas of the building, and to restore the original reading room ceiling Replace all existing plumbing fixtures and water piping Plumbing Add overflow drains or scuppers to the roof drainage system; replace downspouts Add a wet-pipe fire sprinkler system to the entire building Panels are overloaded and outdated and should be replaced Power Panels are surrounded by exposed wiring and crammed behind staff desks without legally required clearance; the space should be reconfigured to allow construction of a closet Service to building must be replaced and possibly upgraded

Dry-rot and termites in cripple Replace existing lighting fixtures with historically appropriate fixtures, augmented to Electrical Lighting provide adequate lighting for all tasks wall; cripple wall not salvage- Install new emergency lighting and illuminated exit signs, required by code Telephone and data service is in working order Telecom Replace with state-of the art telecom systems and wiring in concealed raceways and proper able; exterior walls require telecommunications room Add Cable TV service Roofing The roof itself is in acceptable condition, but the current roof drainage needs to be seismic strengthening reworked so that it does not direct water under the building

All original wood-framed windows need to be repaired where possible, otherwise replaced Windows in kind, so they are easily operable by the staff Architectural & Doors Replace all door hardware for accessibility Restore original entry door West portion of text 'WEST BERKEL' has been Remove ceiling in reading room and restore original ceiling and trim Existing Finishes Repair and re-paint entire exterior, including repairs to all remaining original wooden trim Provide new, historically appropriate and accessible circulation desk damaged by construction of addition; East portion Recent accessibility upgrades have made much of the public areas accessible, with several ADA deficiencies Bring all public areas into compliance (shelf spacing, etc.) of text 'EY BRANCH LIBRARY' in good condition Staff areas are much too crowded for legal accessibility; staff restroom is not accessible

There is asbestos in the existing vinyl floor tile, drywall and taping mud, roofing mastics Hazardous Materials and pipe insulation Existing exterior paint contains lead, particularly at the trim There is termite damage and fungus infection in the wood framing under the original part Pest Damage of the building There may be fungus infection in some of the original wooden wall framing There is fungus damage in the wooden trim at doors and windows The original building was built in 1923; the additions date from1974. Very little remains of the original building, and what does remain is invisible from the street and only slightly apparent in the building interior Restoration of the building’s historic character would require removal of the additions and Historic Character re-creating, from drawings and photographs, the removed windows and other historic features. The reading room could be restored by removing the ceiling and rebuilding the original skylight, copying the original light fixtures, and reinstalling built-in wooden bookcases at the perimeter of the room Adequate space for the adult literacy program allowing for private tutoring sessions, group study, and program expansion Major Program Needs Adequate multi-purpose meeting room space to best meet the programming needs of a diverse multi-cultural community

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1320Consent of 2369 III, Item A DESIGN SCHEME Attachment #1 A REHABILITATION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY PROS: Rebuilds 1923 Building Large Entry Courtyard CONS: Relocates and Lowers 1923 Building Major Reconstruction Required 1923 Main Entry Closed Off Inefficient Floor Plan Book Drop Detached from Returns Less Effective Daylighting Less Roof Area for Photovoltaics Three Redwood Trees Removed BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Total Area: 9,869 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1321Consent of 2369 III, Item A DESIGN SCHEMES Attachment #1 B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

BUILDING SECTION

CONS: Removes 1923 Building Minimal Outdoor Space

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

Total Area: 8,660 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1322Consent of 2369 III, Item A DESIGN SCHEME Attachment #1 C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY TWO-STORY PROS: Civic Presence, Engagement with Street Connection w/ Oceanview Context Spacious Atmosphere, Good Circulation Flow View of Redwood Trees Adequate Area for Photovoltaics Generous Outdoor Spaces CONS: Sightlines & Adjacencies Compro- mised by Vertical Circulation Less Effective Daylighting BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Total Area: 9,272 GSF HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1323 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1324 of 2369 Consent III, Item B Berkeley Public Library Board of Library Trustees

Regular Meeting MINUTES South Branch * February 10, 2010 6:30 p.m. 1901 Russell Street

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS A. Call to Order The regular meeting of February 10, 2010 was called to order by Chair Kupfer at 7:08 PM. Present: Trustees Winston Burton, Abigail Franklin, Susan Kupfer and Darryl Moore. Absent: Carolyn Henry-Golphin. Also present: Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services; Doug Smith, Deputy Director; Suzanne Olawski, Neighborhood Services Manager; Dennis Dang, Library Admin Manager; Alan Bern, Library Special Services Coordinator; Field Paoli – Avery Moore, AIA; Mark Schatz, AIA Gould Evans Baum Thornley – Douglas Thornley, AIA Harley Ellis Deveraux / Greenworks Studio – Edward Dean, AIA Rene Cardinaux, Consultant; Steve Dewan, Project Manager, Kitchell CEM B. Public Comments – 1. Reed Schmidt, Berkeley Public Library Foundation – Thanked the Trustees and City of Berkeley for allowing use of the library for the Eighth Annual Author’s Dinner. Several Board Members have left, have selected some new ones and they are recruiting additional Board Members. Will have a session on fund raising. 2. Jerry Long – Berkeley Public Library Foundation – Article and photos from the Author’s Dinner can be found at www.SFgate.com under Ms. Bigelow’s Social City Column. 3. Trustee Burton - 4x2 committee - Who will attend for the Foundation? To be decided at next Foundation Board meeting. 4. Trustee Burton asked for clarification that the Foundation would recruit a BOLT member for each Branch fundraising committee. 5. Trustee Moore – Author’s Dinner was great, food was excellent and authors were wonderful. Thanked Foundation for all the work to make it happen. C. Report from library employees and unions, discussion of staff issues – none. D. Report from Board of Library Trustees – none. E. Approval of Agenda R10-012 Moved by Trustee Moore, seconded by Trustee Burton to approve the agenda as presented Motion passed unanimously. II. WORKSHOP SESSION ON MEASURE FF BRANCH LIBRARY UPDATE A. Presentation by Field Paoli Architects on the Schematic Design Phase; and Staff Report on the Process, Community Input and Next Steps. Ms. Moore reviewed Primary Facility Improvement Goals-Bond Funding, What We’ve Heard So Far & New Design Highlights (Attachment #A.) Facility improvement goals. New or expanded library at the existing site. Meet all current code. Consolidated, enclosed Tool Lending Library (TLL) with workspace for staff. Full accessibility. Improved lighting, ventilation, thermal comfort. Reduced energy and water consumption. A warm and welcoming design. Build green, LEED silver or better.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1325 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 2

Process to date: Programming needs addressed by staff and library consultant Kathy Page. Concept design phase looked at options to renovate all or part of the existing building and to replace it with new. Two community meetings held with lots of great feedback that was incorporated into the project. Meetings with LPC sub-committee to discuss the options. BOLT meeting with public comments where the trustees directed the architects to focus on an all-new building. Schematic phase included an additional community meeting that was well attended and great comments that have been taken into consideration. Meetings with staff and full LPC. New design highlights which address community comments. Importance of creating a civic presence to make the library a beacon for the neighborhood. Provide more seating. Provide more computers. Designated Teen space. Better organized an enlarged Tool Lending Library. Retain landscaped areas around building and preserve tree on Russell Street. Proposed Site Floor Plan – Mr. Schatz presented the proposed Site/Floor Plan (Attachment #B). The proposed building will have a strong presence on the site with an entry at the corner of Russell Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way. There will be views into the multi-purpose room and children’s room from the street. A curved wall at the corner of Russell Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way will provide a dramatic welcoming to the site. One main block will house library functions (adult, teens, children’s, tool lending library and staff work area); a second block will house the multi-purpose room, storage and restrooms. The two blocks are separated by an lobby and entry zone and topped by a high roof with glass on all four sides to bring light into the inside of the building. Tall day lit central area will house the browsing collection, staff desks and self checks, popular materials and laptop computer bar Mr. Schatz reviewed the Program Summary Chart (Attachment #C) More seating (at tables, soft lounge chairs throughout, stools in kids room, study carrels in adults, tables and chairs in the multipurpose room and small group study room.) More public computers including laptops to be checked out. More variety of shelving. Tool Lending Library (TLL) Will be a much larger, single enclosed space. The front area will house large tools, smaller tools will be located behind the service counter. The work room will include a large work bench for repairs, a machine room for the air pump, staff desk and storage units. A separate storage unit off the driveway will store ladders. Architects have worked with staff and Rene Cardinaux to document what is in the TLL and decide how to house all of it. Small Group Study Room - A small group study room will be located off the teen room. Primary Elevations – Ms. Moore reviewed primary elevations (Attachment #D.) Along Russell Street there will be a large window along children’s room, smaller windows in the corner and staff areas, a wide entry way (10-12 feet wide) with an eyebrow canopy above. There will be large sized window in the Adult reading area directly across from the one in the children’s area.) Along Martin Luther King there will be windows into multi-purpose room, driveway and parking spaces in front of TLL. Exterior Material – Ms Moore reviewed Exterior Material Studies (Attachment #E.) Material to be used is predominantly wood. High roof area glazing will be clear on north side, possibly screened on south side. Other options include different species of wood and stone. Still looking at options but aiming for warmth, solidity and durability with a natural feel. There will be a great amount of daylight in the central area and a possibility for using stained glass on the high roof window that faces the Thai Temple. Mr. Schatz reviewed computer simulations (Attachment #F) of the exterior and reported that they have started to work on interior simulations as well. He also provided examples of Inspirations (Attachment #G) showing examples of other projects that use similar design elements. Landscaping – Chuck McCullough reviewed the Landscape Concept Plan (Attachment #H) includes low planting near entry area to allow for easy to maintain views into the building. Accent tree at other end of entrance access near TLL. Zen Garden outside of computer bar area. Secured Patio in Northeast corner off the adult area. Minimal space for plantings along MLK. 2 trees will stay on MLK. One tree on Russell Street stays. The oak tree on temple property will need to be evaluated. Eucalyptus trees to be removed.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1326 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 3

Mr. Schatz provided some samples of wood siding, stone. Schematic cost estimate of $4.2 million is within the budget but does not include rooftop solar panels. Estimate $220,000 for solar panels. Looking for ways to reduce costs. Also looking for funding options. Multi-purpose room could be accessible after hours. Will place some sort of door to close off the multi-purpose room and restroom block from the library block. Public Comment: Bob Patterson – Requested access to electrical outlets for laptop computers. Wireless data access. Electrical outlets throughout the library. Will also have loaner laptops available. Chia Hamilton – Will the driveway or walkways be permeable? Driveway will be permeable if the ground underneath is not too compacted. Walkways probably will drain into the planters on either side. Alan Tong – Are there enough windows in the Adult Reading Room to let in daylight. Since the wall is so close to the property line, there is a limit to the number of windows per fire code. Plan to use as many as will be allowed. Hale Zukas – What is life cycle of wood siding? Haven’t explored it yet. There are many examples of stained wood exteriors in Berkeley. Will need to consider maintenance costs for re-staining. Alejandra Nunez – Will seating area close to windows in children’s area have little nooks for kids to sit in and read. The intention is to have big comfy chairs where kids can sit in parent’s laps. Stools for small kids near smaller windows, easy for kids to pick up and move around. Charles Austin – Appreciates the exhaustive process that has occurred. Encourage trustees to approve and get on with building it. Wish we could start construction immediately but there is a process to go through first. EIR process will likely take 6 months to a year. Chia Hamilton – What is the plan for the facility while it is closed for construction? Staff is considering options. There will probably be two branches closed at a time. There is a cost issue, as Bond funds can not be used for temporary space. Library is hoping most patrons will be willing to use other branches while their branch is closed.

Board discussion: Trustee Franklin – Any safety concerns about the big window in the children’s area? Architects believe the more visible the space is the safer it will be. Staff was more concerned about hidden spaces. Trustee Burton – The plan is very thoughtful, inclusive of people’s concerns. Community has been great about providing thoughtful input. Trustee Moore – It’s been a great process. Like what I see. It will be a great asset to South Berkeley neighborhood. Chair Kupfer – We have an enormous opportunity to give the community a great building.

B. Presentation by Gould Evans Baum Thornley Architects on the Schematic Design Phase; and Staff Report on the Process, Community Input and Next Steps. Director Corbeil provided copies of Meeting Notes (Attachment #I), Audience Comments and Survey Responses (Attachment #J) from the February 3, 2010 Community Meeting. Doug Thornley introduced team members: Gould Evans Baum Thornley: Lauren MacColl Maass, AIA, Project Manager; Bob Gould, FAIA; Karen Gould, Interior Designer. Gates & Associates: Samantha Haimovitch, Landscape Architect. Presentation Boards attached (Attachment #K) 2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1327 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 4

Conceptual design scheme 3. Dedicated teen space, separate. New handicap ramp to meet code. New entry/lobby area with one-point service desk moved farther back from entry to reduce crowding. Children’s space and staff work space in 1970’s wing. No dedicated multi-purpose room. Flexible space in children’s wing can be used for a variety of programs. 1924 Wing - Treating 1924 wing as if it is a landmarked structure. Old wing will have public computer space and soft seating lounge area in one of the fireplace alcoves. Current staff office to be replaced with a dedicated teen space with lots of glass so it’s visually connected but contains noise. Adult Reading Room in the other fireplace alcove. The original plans showed sliding panel doors. Proposing to add glass sliding doors to provide a quiet reading space or a small meeting space (12- 16 people.) Samantha Haimovitch reviewed the landscape plans. Brick from old handicapped access ramp will be reused to create a seating wall. Sycamore trees at street edge to be retained while the inner sycamore trees will be replaced with smaller stature trees. Concrete paving at entrance to be replaced with special pavers. More seating nooks and information kiosk along Benvenue. Brick planter at original entrance. New signage on Ashby Avenue side. Native planting to enhance and reveal architectural features. Need to determine the health of the existing redwood trees on back side. Aggregate concrete to be replaced with permeable pavers to allow storm water to remain on site. Mr. Thornley reported meetings with Landmark Preservation Committee (LPC) sub-committee. An informational meeting with the full LPC will be held on March 4, 2010. Three community meetings have been held. Community supportive of design and provided valuable feedback on landscaping. Will also be meeting with the immediate neighbors. LEED Silver Goals - LEED Charette to be held later this month. LEED Silver is going to be a challenge for this building. LPC made it little more challenging as they would like to keep original single-pane windows in the 1924 wing. Architects are trying to model this in the energy model to see if is possible. Budget – Cost estimating is underway. There are some elements that weren’t part of the original Bond measure directions. Some of these elements might become optional as we move forward. Goal is to satisfy Bond measure requirements. Hoping to have funding to do minor interventions to enhance the entry experience. Architects are working on refining the estimates. Budget is 2.9 million. Trustee Burton – Solar Panels? Will need to generate power to get LEED points. Will look at including solar panels in the project. It’s not currently part of the energy model. Trustee Moore – What are the plans for the fireplaces? No finalized plans yet? Possibility to include some flame or light feature. Public Comment: Director Corbeil reported a community meeting had been held recently and many comments were received. Board discussion: Trustee Moore – What was the public reaction to the outside seating? People spoke to the landscape architect after Saturday community meeting and were excited about seat walls and the recycling of existing materials. Trustee Burton – Is the lounge area for staff or public? It’s a public reading area. Trustee Franklin – What is the difference in function for lounge area and adult reading room. They are similar in function. Lounge area will be available to all patrons. Adult reading room will be dedicated to adults. Trustee Franklin – Heavy user of Claremont branch. Excited to hear about plans to open up entry area and possible addition of the children’s reading nook. Chair Kupfer – Shelving reduction, what are options on future expansion of shelving?

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1328 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 5

Mr. Thornley – It’s been a very ambitious program to meet. Would need to revisit the program needs and choices. A lot of the adult books aren’t being used. When the branch is closed for renovation, staff will go through and pull books that don’t get used. Children’s collection fits in the new area. Director Corbeil reported that when library did community surveys people asked for more seating. It’s a very busy library and people are frequently looking for a place to sit. Staff is committed to making space work really well. New book displays will make collections more visible. Hale Zukas- Dormer/Butterfly roof has very little benefit and is not worth the cost. Mr. Thornley – We believe it will make the area more inviting and bring in more natural light. Trustee Franklin – Likes the reading nook off the children’s space. This branch is a different scenario than the other branches. It looks great. Landscaping looks terrific. Seismic upgrade - Will be doing a full seismic upgrade. Currently exploring options of removing interior walls to add sheathing. Time line - Mr. Dewan reported we expect to go to bid end of 2010 or first of 2011. Why so far in future? Still have to go through Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) for Use Permit and variance for additional space. Next steps - Director Corbeil recommending further work on cost issues. What can we realistically accomplish within budget prior to completing design development phase.

C. Review presentation made by Harley Ellis Devereaux/GreenWorks Studio on the Conceptual Design Phase; and Staff Report on the Process, Community Input and Next Steps at February 6, 2010 Special BOLT meeting. Draft meeting minutes and community responses from the February 6, 2010 Special Bolt Meeting on the West Branch were provided. Chair Kupfer summarized the three schemes that were presented. Scheme A retained remnants of the original building and added new structure around it. Estimated costs are $800,000 over budget. Schemes B & C are all new construction. Scheme B is single story and fills almost all of the site. It fits program needs and budget. Scheme C has 2 stories. Literacy program would be located on second floor away from rest of library programs. Estimated costs are $200,000 over budget. Public Comment: none. Board discussion: General Discussion of Current Building: Chair Kupfer - It’s important to note that there is very little of the original building that remains. This should not be construed as a situation where we are abandoning a well-loved, ancient but gorgeous building. It has been so touched upon, destroyed and renovated that there is very little left. The Board would like to hear more about possible re-use of historic features or a reflection of them in new design (i.e. medallion) Discussion Regarding the West Branch as a “Gateway to the City” – University Avenue is a major thoroughfare. Board members support a new library of stature/grandeur/significance in this location. It makes sense to have a new facility that’s sustainable and meets Berkeley’s goals (Net Zero Energy as an option.) Important that the Library is not dwarfed by buildings around it – can stand out in a block with a lot of tall buildings. Budget Concerns – Board members expressed concerns about not exceeding the budget. Trustees wish to replace current building with an all new building and give the architects time to come up with a new design that fits within our budget. Trustees want to see a building that is within the budget and answers program needs.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1329 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 6

Director Corbeil reported we have asked to make an informational presentation to the full LPC on March 4. This will be an opportunity for library and architects to talk to them about the process so far, what direction the Board is heading and possible design schemes. R10-012 Moved by Trustee Moore, seconded by Trustee Franklin to build an all-new building at the West Branch Library site. Motion passed unanimously. Trustee Henry-Golphin absent. Discussion on remaining two schemes. Mr. Dean reported it’s very typical at this point to do valued engineering exercises and identify the areas that are causing it to be over budget. It’s not unusual to have 5% overage when you do your first cost estimates. We can identify where we should look for cost savings. General Overview of Each Scheme Entry Area - Scheme B has very little room at entry. Scheme C has more. Trustee expressed strong desire to make entry more inviting with adequate space for bike parking, strollers, etc. Would a hybrid of schemes B and C with a saw tooth roof and mezzanine fit within the budget? Desire to bring light into the building (liked saw tooth roof for this reason.) Valued engineering would help us identify if the saw tooth roof would be less expensive than the glass second story. Trustee Franklin – Initially liked Scheme B but after some thought likes a B-C hybrid. Scheme B is too tight, especially at the entrance area. A hybrid would be a grander presence on University Avenue. Really liked the sawtooth roof, it allows for good light. Placing the Literacy Program on a mezzanine level could make it more visually connected to the library. Chair Kupfer – Also likes Scheme C. We need to have flexibility to have a second level. However, we don’t want to start down a road where we are already over budget at the start. Would like to go with a 2 story scheme, if within the budget. We want civic presence, outdoor space, flexibility. Solar Photovoltaic System - Zero Net Energy may actually present cost savings, but the photovoltaic system cost are not currently included in the budget. Photovoltaic system could be purchased by bond funds but likely will not fit in the budget. Estimated cost is $140,000.00. Mr. Dean provided information for Funding Solar Photovoltaic System for the West Branch Library Project (Attachment L). • Savings by Design could provide $10-15K, but no guarantee. • California Solar Initiatives could provide $22K, but no guarantee. • Demand- Response Incentive – amount unknown but not expected to be very large if at all. • Third-Party Provider agreements (PPA) – City would lease the system and pay the PPA instead of PG&E – would use operating budget. Director Corbeil expressed concerns about photovoltaic leasing. We have an unknown of long term energy cost concerns. We were hopeful that one or two of the projects would have included PV costs. Library staff would be responsible for applying for any grants or programs. III. CONSENT CALENDAR R10-014 Moved by Trustee Moore, seconded by Franklin, to approve the consent calendar as presented. Motion passed unanimously. Trustee Henry-Golphin absent.

A. Approve minutes of January 13, 2010 Regular Meeting R10-015 Moved by Trustee Moore, seconded by Franklin, to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2010 regular meeting of the Board of Library Trustees as presented. Motion passed unanimously. Trustee Henry-Golphin absent.

IV. INFORMATION REPORTS A. Library Budget Update No discussion. 2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1330 of 2369 Berkeley Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 10, 2010 Page 7

B. Update on the Branch Bond Program No discussion. C. February 2010 Monthly Report from Library Director Donna Corbeil No discussion. D. Library events: No discussion.

I. AGENDA BUILDING A. The next special meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at the South Branch Library, 1901 Russell Street, Berkeley. • Library Budget (April) • Library Director review (March)

II. ADJOURNMENT R10-016 Moved by Trustee Moore, seconded by Franklin, to adjourn the regular meeting of the board at 9:00 PM. Motion passed unanimously.

Attachments: A-H Field Paoli Presentation on South Branch I-K Gould Evans Baum Thornley Presentation on Claremont Branch L Harley Ellis Devereaux/Greenworks Studio Memorandum on Funding Solar Photovoltaic System for the West Branch Library Project.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1331 of 2369

AttachmentConsent 3 - Final III, EIR Item B Page 1332Attachment of 2369 #L Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1333 of 2369

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

Regular Meeting AGENDA South BRANCH May 12, 2010 6:30 pm 1901 Russell Street

The Board of Library Trustees may act on any item on this agenda. I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

A. Call to Order B. Public Comments (6:30 – 7:00 PM) (Proposed 30‐minute time limit, with speakers allowed 3 minutes each) C. Report from library employees and unions, discussion of staff issues Comments / responses to reports and issues addressed in packet. D. Report from Board of Library Trustees E. Approval of Agenda

II. BRANCH PROJECT ARCHITECT PRESENTATIONS

A. Measure FF West Branch Library Update 1. Presentation by Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio on the Schematic Design Phase; and Staff Report on the Process, Community Input and Next Steps. 2. Public Comment (on this item only) 3. Board discussion B. Measure FF Claremont Branch Library Update 1. Presentation by Gould Evans Baum Thornley Architects on the Design Development Phase; and Staff Report on the Process, Community Input and Next Steps. 2. Public Comment (on this item only) 3. Board discussion

III. PRESENTATIONS

A. Quarterly Branch Renovation Program Update by Steve Dewan, Kitchell CEM B. Proposed Bond / Measure FF FY2011 Mid‐Biennial Budget Update

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR

The Board will consider removal and addition of items to the Consent Calendar prior to voting on the Consent Calendar. All items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. A. Approve minutes of April 14, 2010 Regular Meeting Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the April 14, 2010 regular meeting of the Board of Library Trustees. B. Resolution of Gratitude to Jane Scantlebury Recommendation: Adopt a resolution expressing gratitude to Jane Scantlebury, who served as a Librarian for the Berkeley Public Library from September 1984 to April 2010. C. Collection Development Policy Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Collection Development Policy for the Berkeley Public Library.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 [ (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY PageBOARD 1334 OF TRUSTEES of 2369 AGENDA May 12, 2010 Page 2

V. INFORMATION REPORTS

A. Update on the Branch Bond Program Discussion of staff report on status of implementation of the Measure FF branch improvement program, to include update on Request for Proposals, schedule, and budget. B. May 2010 Monthly Report from Library Director i. Library Development ii. Professional Activities iii. Programs, Services and Collections iv. Personnel C. Library events: Calendar of events and press releases for various Library programs are posted at http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org D. FY2010 Third Quarter Budget Review E. Audit Suggestions for Fiscal Year 2011

VI. AGENDA BUILDING The next meeting will be a Special Meeting held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 25, 2010 at the Northbrae Community Church, 941 The Alameda, Berkeley.

VII. ADJOURNMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Written materials may be viewed in advance of the meeting at the Central Library Reference Desk (2090 Kittredge Street), or any of the branches, during regular library hours. “This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability‐related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981‐6342 (V) or 981‐6345 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.” I hereby certify that the agenda for this regular meeting of the Board of Library Trustees of the City of Berkeley was posted in the display cases located at 2134 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and in front of the Central Public Library at 2090 Kittredge Street, as well as on the Berkeley Public Library’s website on May 6, 2010.

//s// ______Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services Serving as Secretary to the Board of Library Trustees For further information, please call (510) 981‐6195.

COMMUNICATIONS Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e‐mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e‐mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 [ (510) 981-6195 [ (510) 548-1240 (TDD) [ (510) 981-6111 fax [ [email protected] Attachment 3 - Final EIR II Architect Presentations, Item A Page 1335 of 2369

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY

PRESENTATION CALENDAR May 10, 2010

TO: Board of Library Trustees

FROM: Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services

SUBJECT: MEASURE FF WEST BRANCH LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE: REPORT ON SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE

INTRODUCTION

In November 2008 voters approved Measure FF, a Library bond to renovate, expand and make seismic and access improvements at the four neighborhood branch libraries. Since that time the board has overseen the selection of four design firms, one for each project. Harley Ellis Devereaux (HED) with GreenWorks Studio is the selected design firm under contract to address the needs of the West Branch Library located at 1125 University Avenue; the consultant’s contract commenced on September 25, 2009.

BACKGROUND

At the Saturday, February 6, 2010 BOLT Special meeting, Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio design team members made a presentation on three possible conceptual schemes. At the February 10, 2010 meeting, the board voted to pursue an option that would result in an all new building on the site. The discussion continued at the March 10, 2010 regular BOLT meeting of whether to pursue a one-story or two-story new facility. The board concluded the discussion with action, by adopting a resolution, R10-018 to pursue a single-story scheme for the West Branch Library. Past board packets are available online at: http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/about_the_library/bolt/bolt.php.

Based on the input provided by the Berkeley Public Library Board of Library Trustees (BOLT) at the March 10th meeting, HED was directed by staff to proceed with schematic design for an all new one-story library on the project site.

Per the contract, the consultants prepared a final conceptual design package for the construction of a new West Branch Library structure; completed a preliminary LEED checklist, and engaged a professional cost estimator to prepare order of magnitude construction estimates for this design. Deliverables received during this period were West Branch Library Concept Design Report, March 22, 2010.

In January staff transmitted to the design consultant the approved, West Branch Library / Berkeley Reads, Berkeley Public Library Building Program, January 2010, prepared by Page + Moris LLC.

Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1336 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT May 2010 West Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 2

CURRENT SITUATION

The West Branch project is in the schematic design phase. During this phase the consultant attended and participated in meetings and discussions with the City’s Planning and Building departments to review compliance status and begin to secure necessary approvals. Efforts related to achieving a sustainable design and LEED rating, including holding a preliminary LEED charette in order to ensure a minimum Silver LEED rating for the project will continue. The branch is still assumed to be a NZE (net zero energy) project, the consultant continues to work on this effort.

The COB Planning Department staff has informed the library that they will selection a firm to conduct an EIR (Environmental impact report), focused on the historical resource aspects of the building. The project budget and timeline has accounted for this activity.

Michael Buhlander AIA from Harley Ellis Deveraux has replaced Sylvia Wallis on the West Branch project. Mr. Buhlander has extensive design experience including library construction.

COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND DESIGN PROGRESS

The design team has continued to receive feedback and input from staff and the library program consultant on possible layouts as they relate to the branch program and functions. Suzanne Olawski is the library lead on the branch program discussions, coordinating and facilitating staff and design team meetings.

To date three community meetings have been held. Two meetings, on December 3, 2009 and January 7, 2010, took place prior to the architects’ presentation on concept design options to the board on February 6, February 10, 2010 and March 10, 2010. The most recent community meeting was held at the West Branch on April 22, 2010 to review progress on schematic design. The agenda and notes from this meeting are included (Attachment 1). The design team reviewed a new building design option that conformed to the board’s preference for a one-story scheme with a civic presence on University Avenue and that meets the library’s program . In addition, possible landscape options and a revised site / floor plan were reviewed and discussed with public comment and questions recorded. (Attachment 2)

NEXT STEPS

Following board discussion and consensus on the schematic design presentation, including: drawings and documents illustrating project scale, layout, site issues, massing / elevations and functionality, staff will capture board directed modifications and communicate design direction to the consultant. The conclusion of this phase includes development and submission by the design consultant of: schematic design plans, elevations, sections and other key details; schematic site and landscape plans; preliminary materials boards; building materials boards; an updated building construction cost estimate; and updated LEED score sheet and NZE option update. The next phase will be design development. Staff will bring more developed plans to the board during this phase for additional review and direction.

Following the board meeting, staff will seek advice from the Planning Department to confirm next steps in the approval process. The Planning Department staff will engage consultant services for a CEQA process on the West Branch Project, to complete an EIR. Design consultants will prepare and submit a Structural Alterations permit (SAP) for demolition of the current building to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) for consideration in the near future. Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1337 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT May 2010 West Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 3

A community meeting will be scheduled to share the most recent design plans and to continue to gather input. During the Design Development Phase, staff will bring more developed plans to the board for additional review and direction.

ATTACHMENTS

1. April 22, 2010 Community Meeting: Agenda, Meeting Notes & Summary of Comment / Survey forms 2. Presentation boards from April 22, 2010 community meeting

Attachment 3 - Final EIR II ArchitectPage Presentations, 1338 of 2369 Item A Attachment 1 West Branch Library Design Community meeting April 22, 2010 6:30 – 8:00 PM

AGENDA

Welcome! Marge Sussman, Branch Supervisor

Agenda and Project Review Donna Corbeil, Library Director

Previous Meeting Recap Ed Dean AIA and Michael Bulander AIA, Harley Ellis Devereaux / Green Works Studio

Program Review Ed Dean AIA and Michael Bulander AIA, Harley Ellis Devereaux / Green Works Studio

Design considerations discussion Ed Dean AIA and Michael Bulander AIA, Harley Ellis Devereaux / Green Works Studio

Landscape Discussion Ed Dean AIA and Michael Bulander AIA, Harley Ellis Devereaux / Green Works Studio

Questions & Comments

Next Steps Donna Corbeil, Library Director Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1339 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1340 of 2369

Notes by Alan Bern from West Branch Schematic Community Meeting, 4‐22‐10

Attendance: 7 nonlibrary attendees, over ½ were first time attendees 9 library attendees Library staff: Marge Sussman, Donna Corbeil, Alan Bern, Dennis Dang; Consultants: Steve Dewan, Rene Cardineaux, Ed Dean, Michael Buhlander; Library Foundation: David Snyder; Library Trustee: Winston Burton

After Marge’s intro and Donna going over Agenda, the Architect Ed Dean summarized the process so far, including the 3 alternatives and how BOLT had chosen to go with the one‐story plan and the plan to make a NetZero building. He emphasized how they had listened to community and staff suggestions, including: ‐ Make it big ‐ Transparency through the building ‐ Include quiet place to read a book ‐ Better visibility from University Avenue ‐ Incorporate historic elements

Architect Michael went over the Schematics, describing: ‐ Berkeley Historic elements to give a flavor of old Oceanview ‐ Acoustical buffers throughout the Library ‐ Double height space ‐ Inclusion of Community Meeting Room as a usable part of the Library when not in use and own entrance for after‐hour use ‐ Garden near Children’s area; redwood will give shade to reading room and elsewhere ‐ Daylight without electricity in most areas ‐ Mezzanine for mechanicals, etc. ‐ Transparency through space Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1341 of 2369

Comments [and responses from Architects]: ‐ Tall one‐story [from comment to have big presence and substantial structure, BUT will cast NO shadow on other structures] ‐ (Donna) What kind of ‘feel’ inside? [big volume inside with a hint of an Oceanview warehouse; daylight throughout as possible between photovoltaic( pv) panels; 160 photovoltaics on roof; building will be passive – no fans, AC; ceiling will drive air through building; solar chimney may be an option] ‐ Architects: historic elements on sidewalk and former archway echo ‐ Hospitable as a polling place [Donna: don’t need us now, but we’ll do it in the future and it will be easier to do.] ‐ Marge: many have asked about the Mural [AB will research history.] ‐ (David Snyder) Parking area for strollers? [Marge: a challenge now. Architects: may be easier with Multipurpose room in new building; perhaps some in Lobby.] ‐ (Winston) Pleased with new version: congrats for hearing and incorporating many community comments. Good for next 50 years; building will be part of the gateway to Berkeley on University Avenue ‐ Architects: scale will remain; design will change in next phases ‐ (New attendee) Great presence. Will solar chimney be on top of façade; eyebrow look is nice [Architects: not sure yet whether solar chimney will be included, but, if so, will look like one unit] ‐ Architects: elements – 1. Color leading patterns in glass wall to garden 2. Glazing of glass will enhance atmosphere 3. At front strong signage, perhaps with shadow from sign 4. Trellis and perhaps pv in front – educational to community 5. Trellis with plants will create atmosphere 6. Steel with warm‐colored wood (Oceanview echo in steel) 7. Seating around glass wall – connected to garden

II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1342 of 2369 Attachment 2 DESIGN SCHEMES A RECONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1343 of 2369 Attachment 2 DESIGN SCHEMES B NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY ONE-STORY

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1344 of 2369 Attachment 2 DESIGN SCHEMES C NEW CONSTRUCTION THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1345 of 2369 Attachment 2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

FLOOR PLAN

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1346 of 2369 Attachment 2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

FACADE IMAGES HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1347 of 2369 Attachment 2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

LANDSCAPE/EXTERIOR IMAGES HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1348 of 2369 Attachment 2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

INTERIOR IMAGES HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX II ArchitectAttachment Presentations, 3 - Final EIR Item A Page 1349 of 2369 Attachment 2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

MASSING STUDY

SECTION STUDY HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR II Architect Presentations, Item B Page 1350 of 2369

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY

PRESENTATION CALENDAR May 12, 2010

TO: Board of Library Trustees

FROM: Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services

SUBJECT: MEASURE FF CLAREMONT BRANCH LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE: REPORT ON DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE

INTRODUCTION

In November 2008 voters approved Measure FF, a Library bond to renovate, expand and make seismic and access improvements at the four neighborhood branch libraries. Since that time the board has overseen the selection of four design firms, one for each project. Gould Evans Baum Thornley (GEBT) is the selected design firm under contract to address the needs of the Claremont Branch Library located at 2940 Benvenue Avenue; the consultant’s contract commenced on September 29, 2009.

BACKGROUND

Schematic Design The consultants presented the results of the schematic design phase process at the February 10, 2010 Regular meeting of the board. This and the March 10, 2009 BOLT agenda packet includes extensive minutes on the presentation, board discussion and direction on the project. Past board packets are available online at: http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/about_the_library/bolt/bolt.php.

Based on the input provided by the Berkeley Public Library Board of Library Trustees (BOLT) at the meeting on February 10, 2010 and the submission of contract specified deliverables, GEBT was directed by staff to proceed with the design development phase of the project shortly thereafter.

Design Development Per the contract, the consultants prepared a design development package including site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, section drawings, draft specifications and other relevant documents for the renovation and expansions. The expansion plans add a total of approximately 350 SF to the building by infilling at 3 corners of the addition (at the SW, NW and NE corners) and an addition of new construction for children’s services at the junction between the old and new buildings at lobby (corner facing the backyard). The most recent LEED scorecard completed in schematic design summary (3/05/10) shows that the project is highly likely to achieve LEED Silver certification as required by city ordinance. Deliverables received during this period were 50% DD plans (March 18, 2010) and 100% DD plans, specifications and major area recommendation (received on April 16, 2010).

Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1351 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT May 2010 North Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 2

During this phase, per contract, Kitchell CEM completed an in-house construction cost estimate on the 100% design development plans provided by the design team. The completed estimate was provided to the consultant’s team for review to identify areas requiring resolution or discrepancies related to construction.

CURRENT SITUATION

The Claremont Branch project is in the design development design phase. During this phase the consultant attended and participated in meetings and discussions with the City’s Planning and Building departments to review compliance status and begin to secure necessary approvals. In addition, the consultant responded to questions regarding landscape and site plans with the adjoining property owners. Efforts related to achieving a sustainable design and LEED rating continued.

Staff and the program team continue to consult with the Planning Department on next steps. The design consultant submitted a City of Berkeley Use Permit application on April 1, 2010; this application will result in a hearing at the ZAB (Zoning Adjustment Board) at a time to be scheduled. Notice of the application is posted at the site.

COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND DESIGN PROCESS

The design team has continued to receive feedback and input from staff and the library program consultants on possible layouts and technology infrastructure as they relate to the branch program, functions and general operations. Suzanne Olawski is the library lead on the branch program discussions, coordinating and facilitating staff and design team meetings. Steve Dewan, Bond program manager, Kitchell CEM, is the lead on coordinating design and planning related meetings and schedules with consultants and city staff.

Landmark Preservation Commission: Subcommittee meetings held - November 5th, 2009, November 24, 2009 & February 1, 2010 Informational presentation at regular commission meeting on April 1, 2010

Community meetings held: Conceptual Design - November 2 and November 19, 2009 Schematic Design - February 3, 2010 Design Development – March 31, 2010

BOLT presentations: Conceptual Design - December 9, 2009 Schematic design – February 10, 2010 Design Development – May 12, 2010

NEXT STEPS

Following board discussion and consensus on the design development presentation, staff will capture any board directed modifications and communicate design direction to the consultant. The conclusion of this phase will occur when the design consultant has submitted: 100% design development plans, preliminary bidding specifications and binder of initial recommendations for major project areas, including: specifications, civil, landscape, mechanical, lighting, acoustics MDF/IDF, LEED, signage and furniture; and cost estimate review is completed. The next phase will be construction documents, during this phase final design drawings and specifications will Attachment 3 - Final EIR BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 1352 of 2369 PRESENTATION REPORT May 2010 North Branch Library Project, Measure FF Page 3 be developed to comprise a fully biddable, permittable, construction project. Staff will bring more developed plans to the board during this phase for additional review and direction.

Following the completion of the design development phase staff will set a date for the next community meeting and BOLT meeting. Staff will schedule a meeting with the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) appointed subcommittee members to review materials and any changes to the historic features, including the re-use of the historic entry.

Following the board meeting staff will seek advice from the Planning Department on the next steps in the approval process.

ATTACHMENTS 1. March 31, 2010 Community Meeting: Agenda 2. Presentation boards from March 31, 2010 community meeting 3. Meeting Notes & Summary of Comment / Survey forms Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1353 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Berkeley Public Library – Branch Improvement Program Page 1354 of 2369 West Branch Community Meeting – Conceptual Design September 11, 2010 - 12:00-1:30PM

Attendance: 14 community members Board of Library Trustees members: Winston Burton Presenting design team members: Ed Dean, AIA - Harley Ellis Devereaux / GreenWorks Studio John N. Roberts, ASLA - John Northmore Roberts & Associates | Landscape Architects and Land Planners Presenting library staff: Marge Sussman, Branch Supervising Librarian Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services

Audience Participation Adults will want to sit in the back and looking at the trees (viewing garden) and not at University Avenues Q: What kind of glass will be used for the windows facing University Avenue? Can vehicles be seen through the glass? A: The glass will be tinted and shades will be drawn depending on sun level but when shades are up one will be able to see vehicles through the tinted glass. Q: Will the window glazing lessen exterior sounds? A: Yes. Acoustical glazing will be used with a high sound transmission class (STC) rating to block out street noise. Q: Can the adult seating face another way as not to look out at University Avenue traffic. A: Yes. Library staff can reposition the furniture. Q: What is the total number of seats? A: The program summary chart shows the totals: 20 adult, 14 teens, and 17 children’s. Q: Are the architects sharing best practices, such as landscaping ideas, between the branch projects? A: Yes. It has been happening and will continue to occur. This practice also was a City request. I have security concerns about passing by a dark, plant covered area at night (branch entry area). A: The plans show no hiding spaces with the area at a low level, almost even with the sidewalk. Additionally, the area will be well lit. Q: Wisteria doesn’t bloom that long. Is there another plant with a longer bloom period that can be used? A: Wisteria has a beautiful structure and is a muscular plant which can stand up to the building and fits with the planned trellis. Q: I am concerned about landscape maintenance. What is the Library’s commitment to keeping up with garden maintenance? A: We will be developing a landscape manual which addresses maintenance needs. The Library currently contracts for landscape services and will continue to do so for all the branches. Wisteria is gorgeous but requires rigorous pruning; you might want to choose plants that require less maintenance. Q: With the false front exterior of 32’, what fills that space on the inside? A: The interior ceiling height varies because of the ceiling “panels” that are suspended at an angle below the skylights. The very lowest point of these panels is 18 ft above the floor and the ceiling between the skylights is 21 ft. At the skylights, the height gets up above 24 ft, the roof height. The upper part of the interior space will be light feeling to allow for natural air flow and light to filter down into the public spaces which will be warmer and cozier based on furniture and fixture finishes. Solar panels and air vents will be behind the exterior façade.

Page 1 of 2 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Berkeley Public Library – Branch Improvement Program Page 1355 of 2369 West Branch Community Meeting – Conceptual Design September 11, 2010 - 12:00-1:30PM

Q: How much will all of this cost? A: It’s the design team’s responsibility for the project to be on budget in order to proceed with the project. Estimates have been done at each design phase to make sure we are on budget. The budget includes the photovoltaic system to achieve net zero energy. Q: Have you conducted simulations to make sure it (green energies) all works? A: Yes, we have run many simulations and the results were shown at previous meetings. I don’t understand how the photovoltaic panels work with the skylights. A: It was a challenge to make work but it does by running skylights and photovoltaic panels parallel to each other. Q: How much forward looking is the Library doing regarding public use space since there seems to be significant dedicated staff space. A: While difficult to predict future trends, the Library always is looking future forward and this building is being designed to allow for greatest space use flexibility so it may serve this community well for the next twenty or so years. This branch also is home to Berkeley Reads adult and family literacy program, which now occupies most of the branch meeting room. In the new building they will have considerably more dedicated program space. Additionally, there is a new enclosed teen room, a quiet study room which will hold up to four people, and more restrooms to meet code, including a separate family restroom. The staff workroom will allow staff to work more efficiently and effectively processing materials and getting them back on the shelves quicker. Just this past year the Library circulated over 2 million items so we are getting busier and busier Q: Have you thought about switching the adults and children’s areas? It would be nice to come in and get comfortable while looking out at the garden. A: Careful thought was given to the placement of the children’s area. Children often require more assistance from staff so it was essential that their area be adjacent to the staff service area but separate from the adult area because of noise. There also was a safety concern to have small children away from the entry. The multipurpose room, which also looks out to the viewing garden, will serve as additional seating and work space for patrons when not in use. We will look into adding some comfortable seating in that room. Q: I heard the Library is getting rid of the reference desk. Is that true? A: No. The branch currently has a two person service desk for reference and circulation and the new branch will have space for a third staff person for additional assistance. We are not removing reference desks from any of the branches. Q: I keep hearing about less collections (books); is that true? A: No. All branches except for the Claremont Branch are gaining more shelving for collections. There will be a variety of shelving types for the variety of formats the Library provides. Q: For how long will the branch be closed? A: The branch will be closed for approximately 12- 14 months for construction. The library will be providing a book van so it may continue service to the branch neighborhood during construction. Q: Where will the collection go when the branch will be closed? A: The collection will be boxed and stored but staff will keep buying new materials during the closure as part of the branch’s opening day collection.

Page 2 of 2 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1356 of 2369

!" #$$% &''( )*&+,! -")"-**)) .*, )*'/ .* /.' - &')"0

-'( /"' &*, 12#3&*, / -,4, 5 , ,'/ 0

5 +& '#$$7 .* ,,.*'&')",&''( '8 )0

6/,&''( !1$$.05 '( 5 * .'/ !1#$.0 ,0

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1357 of 2369 9 :;

12#3 12<3

T :> U @#$$3A

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1358 of 2369 9

)" + )" + )" + HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1359 of 2369

' " ,&''('/'+.*,,(.*)," -&*, / /0 ' " -&*, /+ ,, +)) .*,,(+ / " ,), 5'+ , * 0 ' " '8 ))&* / .'" &," +*0 ' " /))" 5 C ' '/( '.'+) 0 ' " /)'' ." "') , + -,,. *' "'), ,('' -( + " / ',' '5&8 )5 *, " #$$3 )0

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1360 of 2369 9 9 > ; :

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1361 of 2369 :

)"'*/"*&,) + 4/

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR

URBAN SCALE "FRAME" Page 1362 of 2369 AND CIVIC PRESENCE: FIBER CEMENT BOARD ON STEEL FRAME

TRANSPARENCY, OPENESS AND DAYLIGHT:

CLEAR, TINTED AND SPANDREL GLAZING IN ALUMINUM FRAME

FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE MATERIALS

WYSTERIA VINE AT ENTRY REDWOOD TREE VIEW GARDEN AT REAR GARDEN SCREEN WALLS

PEDESTRIAN SCALE, WELCOMING AND WARM:

WARM COLORED SIDING I.E. WOOD (FSC CERTIFIED) AT ENTRY CONTINUES INTO INTERIOR

BUILDING INTEGRATED SIGNAGE, VISIBILTY, NIGHT GLOW:

GLASS-APPLIED, BACKLIT AND SOLID LETTERS

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1363 of 2369

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1364 of 2369

9 -.*&,) +.'+*"- ' ' 9 -.*&,) +.'+ '"- ' '

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1365 of 2369

9 --' ", ' W 4 , 9 --' ", ' W.'+'(

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1366 of 2369 !: >

,,) *..* -" *', (,/"

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1367 of 2369 E E : " .' "/* ' '.'9 , ,/

!"0 / 0 >+*+* ' + 0

!0-/ 09'(/+*. * '5- )"+ (,(0

!#0',( ,/ 0)' +*.* '.'),/5- )"+ ( 5 /4(,/"0

!$0 ,/ 0>6+*+' +5 + 5'..0@4(,/"' ), 0A .T/"*'//U*/*', 5 ,-"),/"'0

!%0 4 ,/5 0>+*+* '0 ,) */)",, - '' ,&.'+&)4*" *+0

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1368 of 2369 9: > 9 9

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1369 of 2369

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1370 of 2369

West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

08 October 2010 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1371 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1372 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1 ... 1. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN...... 3

1.1 ZERO NET ENERGY DESIGN ...... 3

1.2 LEED CERTIFICATION...... 6

2. DESIGN NARRATIVES...... 8

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX i Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1373 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report PROJECT DESIGN TEAM

Harley Ellis Devereaux 2430 5th Street, Studio M ARCHITECT Berkeley, CA 94710 Edward Dean, AIA 510.644.2814

GreenWorks Studio 2430 5th Street, Studio M ZERO NET ENERGY DESIGN Berkeley, CA 94710 Edward Dean, AIA 510.644.2814

Timmons Design Engineers 901 Market Street, Suite 480 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING San Francisco, CA 94103 ENGINEERING 415-957-8788 Sean Timmons

Tipping-Mar 1906 Shattuck Ave STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Berkeley, CA 94704 John Wolfe 510-549-1906

John Northmore Roberts & Associates 2927 Newbury Street, Suite B LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Berkeley CA 94703 John Roberts 510-843-3666

Moran Engineering 1930 Shattuck Avenue, #A CIVIL ENGINEERING Berkeley CA 94704-1237 David Franco 510-848-1930

Cumming Corporation 1970 Broadway, Suite 630 COST ESTIMATING Oakland CA 94612 Kan Pang 510-463-0100

Rosen Goldberg Der & Lewitz 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ACOUSTICS, NOISE CONTROL Larkspur CA 94939 Tim Der 415-464-0150

ii HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1374 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is an update of the Schematic Design Report dated 3 June 2010. Included in this document is the updated report on the ZNE design, the LEED certification and the design narrative by all disciplines.

Zero Net Energy

The design utilizes strategies of daylighting and natural ventilation to reduce energy loads for lighting and cooling as well as on-site renewable energy production for heating and electricity through the use of solar photovoltaic and solar thermal panels. This design approach continues to achieve zero net energy (ZNE) for the building according to the latest whole building energy analysis. The annual building energy demand has been modeled at 18 EUI (18 MBTU/sf-yr), which will be provided by 170 solar photovoltaic panels and 18 solar thermal panels located on the roof of the building.

LEED Certification

The West Branch design also continues to be on track to achieve a minimum of LEED-Silver certification. The design still appears to achieve 76 points, which is enough for a LEED-Gold certification.

Design Development Phase Narrative Updates

This report includes an update of the narratives in the Schematic Design Report.

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 1 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1375 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

Fig. 1. West Branch Library interior view of main space.

2 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1376 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report 1. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN the skylight shafts. For very warm days, the building will be flushed at night using the natural ventilation system 1.1 ZERO NET ENERGY (ZNE) DESIGN to pre-cool building surfaces and, if needed for extreme days, the heat pump will operate on its reverse cycle to One of the principal goals of the West Branch Library chill water and pump it through the radiant floor slab. project is to achieve a design that uses no net energy over the course of a typical year for heating, cooling The mechanical system design is based on maximum and electricity. The design uses a number of “passive” utilization of natural ventilation known as the Mixed strategies to minimize the energy load, which is offset Mode design. Through the use of automatically by the solar photovoltaic and solar thermal systems controlled exterior windows and small fans, the system installed on the roof of the building. provides air at the appropriate temperature to maintain comfort while minimizing the use of electric power. Fig. 2 The building will participate in PG&E’s solar electric on the following page illustrates this design concept. program. When there is an abundance of solar energy available from the PV system, the building will export Design Strategy: Lighting energy into the electric grid, essentially running the electric meter backwards and getting credit from PG&E. Daylighting will provide all general lighting required in the When there is inadequate solar energy available, such library. Task lighting will be utilized at some workstations as during dark winter days, then the building will draw for the visually impaired. On dark days or during evening on the PG&E electric grid for its needs. With the zero net hours, energy-efficient electric lighting will be used. energy design of the building, the net balance at the end of a typical weather year will just balance to zero and the Design Strategy: Plug Loads library’s net energy bill for the year will be zero. The largest demand for electric energy in the building A detailed report on the zero net energy design for the will be “plug loads”, which are dominated in the library West Branch Library at the end of Schematic Design is by computer equipment demand. The design team has being issued under separate cover. The design strategies created an inventory of all plug loads and has measured and design features are summarized here. The results of the average energy use over a period of time. The plug the whole building energy model have confirmed that the load demand will have to be carefully monitored and design is achieving a ZNE performance. controlled to achieve the zero net energy goal.

Design Strategy: Heating Whole Building Energy Analysis

The building will be heated using a solar thermal hot The current design was modeled for its energy use over water system (18 panels), a radiant heating concrete slab the course of a “typical” weather year, using a standard and an air-to-air heat pump backup system for extreme weather data file for Berkeley. The result was a total cold days. annual electrical energy demand of 50 Mwhr (174 MBtu), which corresponds to an Energy Use Index (EUI) of Design Strategy: Ventilation 18 (kBTU/sf-year). This compares to the current U.S. average (site) EUI for libraries of 104. To meet the annual Fresh air will be provided through natural ventilation energy demand, there will be 170 solar photovoltaic of all occupied spaces, satisfying all ASHRAE codes panels, assuming 315 watts per panel, and 18 solar for minimum ventilation. During the heating season, thermal panels for the radiant heating system. air intake at occupied spaces will be pre-heated using Runtel type warm water units at the openings. The These panel arrays can be accommodated on the roof natural ventilation will be driven by wind chimneys of the building as designed. Based on this analysis, the located at the south end of the building. building continues to be on track to achieve the goal of zero net energy design and carbon neutrality. Design Strategy: Cooling A simple graph showing the breakdown of the building During comfortable and warm days, occupants will have energy loads and the offsetting renewable energy the option of opening windows for cooling air. Increased supplied by the building systems is shown in Fig. 3 on air flow will be achieved using ventilating skylights and the following page. low energy fans located in the wind chimney area and at HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 3 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1377 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

4 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1378 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

Fig. 2. Mixed Mode System: design and operation.

Fig. 3. Whole Building Energy Analysis: modeled performance of design at end of the Design Development phase HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 5 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1379 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report 1.2 LEED CERTIFICATION

The West Branch Library is also required to achieve a LEED Silver certification. The design team has reviewed the LEED point total projected at the end of the Schematic Design Phase and determined that the design is still on track to achieve the estimated LEED point total of 76, satisfying the project requirement of a minimum of LEED -Silver certification. The updated LEED checklist is shown in Fig. 4, which includes only a couple of changes with regard to Sustainable Sites.

6 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1380 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

Fig. 4. LEED Scoresheet: summary at end of Design Development Phase.

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 7 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1381 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

2. DESIGN NARRATIVE 2.1 CIVIL ENGINEERING

The building is designed as a one story structure with The basis of the site utility design is that most site a second story mechanical/electrical equipment level utilities have been previously provided to the site, and located above the toilet rooms and accessible using an those connections will be unchanged and reused. outside stair. The height required for the roof and the The additional service at the site is the fire sprinkler solar panels produces a relatively high space for the prevention line, which has been designed on a public reading areas, which are extensively daylighted preliminary basis from the applicable fire code based using three major skylights. on the floor area of the new building and the required demand for this type of construction. The interior plan accommodates the program requirements as shown in Fig. 5 on the following page, Site excavation will require the removal of soil to permit the current building layout at the end of the Design a finished floor elevation of +55.0’ utilizing a 14” deep Development phase. mat slab over sub-slab drainage. City sidewalk will be rebuilt with appropriate slopes for drainage. Utility work Exterior materials on the south facade are proposed includes connection of new water and sewer lines from to be fiber cement panels, a glass curtainwall system the building to existing lines, new fire water connection and, in the inset area near the entrance, an exterior for the sprinkler system (4” pipe, 1,750 gpm), electrical finish consisting of fire-rated, certified sustainable wood upgrade, 4 @4” telecom pipe and a stub-in for natural lumber. A trellis with classic Berkeley flowering wisteria gas for possible future connection. Note that there is no vine is located within the inset area and caps the entry city storm drain and storm drainage will be taken through area. planters to achieve proper filtration before discharging from the site. Exterior finishes for other facades blend the use of fiber cement panel to form a uniform treatment as well 2.2 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE as cement plaster for less visible sides of the building. Climbing fig will be planted on the east side to provide The West Branch Library building and landscape designs a “living” surface for staff and Berkeley Reads Program are very closely integrated, reflecting the important users outside of normal library hours. physical and regulatory constraints of the site. Since the new building will take up most of the site, there are The largest existing redwood tree in the northwest corner only limited areas available for planting or for outdoor of the site is being preserved and utilized as part of a uses, and these outdoor spaces must satisfy the “Redwood View Garden” that is visible from the public stormwater and landscape regulations of the city and reading areas and Multipurpose Room. county in addition to the standard building codes. The proposed site design gracefully resolves the regulatory Interior finishes include a continuation of the exterior requirements with a carefully chosen combination of wood lumber paneling, painted gypsum board walls, elements to link the building with its surroundings; to over 1000 sq. ft. of interior glazing, and suspended provide handsome, usable, and inviting outdoor spaces; acoustic panels from the roof structure. For the radiant and to support the building’s civic presence along heating floor, the finish will be linoleum throughout the University Avenue. non-utility and toilet areas. Principal Landscape Concepts Noise control at the south end of the building is achieved through an acoustic sound-trap configuration for the The primary outdoor areas designed to create the entry area. In addition, an acoustic “cloud” above the landscape/urban design setting for the building include main entry door will reduce noise penetration when the the street frontage at the main public entry and the door is open. Finally, insulated glazing will be used at all rear garden court in the northwest corner of the lot windows facing University Avenue. under the existing large redwood tree. The trellised garden-like entry to the building is set back from the The following sections contain design narratives for each sidewalk sufficiently to accommodate an accessible of the design disciplines,describing the systems required path, sculptural climbing vines, flow-through planters, for the construction of the building, which are used as benches, and bicycle parking, while establishing a rich the basis of design in this phase and documentation in landscape presence along University Avenue integral the future phases. 8 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1382 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

Fig. 5. Interior Plan at end of the Design Development Phase.

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 9 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1383 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report with the building. The “Redwood View Garden” under the reasons: the existing curb-cut and driveway entrance existing redwood tree in the rear of the building is visible must be removed and replaced; portions of the sidewalk from the front entry, the reading rooms, and the multi- must be removed to allow various utility connections purpose room. The integrated design allows the garden (drainpipes from the flow-through planters, and utilities greenery to be part of the experience within the library. serving the building); some portions of the sidewalk that Additional planting beds and handsome permeable exceed a 2% (1/4” per foot) cross-slope—the maximum paving mark the other points of public access, along the allowed under the guidelines for universal accessibility— north and east sides of the building. should be replaced; and two accessible curb ramps are required. Building Entries and University Avenue Frontage The three existing street trees in the sidewalk fronting The finish floor elevation of the building will be the Library (tulip trees, Liriodendron tulipifera) are to be approximately 2.5 feet above the existing sidewalk level, removed and replaced with species recommended by with the main entry set back from and overlooking the the City Forester. The most westerly of the three trees sidewalk a sufficient distance to gracefully negotiate was severely damaged and has been removed by the the difference in elevation. In the entry niche carved out City Forester but not yet replaced. The two others will be of the front of the new building, site developments will removed as part of this project. They are infested with include a universally-accessible path with permeable aphids that produce dripping honeydew in summer and pavers, a concrete landing at the front door, a small create a nuisance on the sidewalk and street below as concrete stair as an alternate access route, flow-through well as maintenance problems for adjacent buildings. concrete planters bounded by low walls, racks for Residents have strongly expressed their desire to have bicycle parking at the sidewalk level, and a flowering these trees removed and replaced with more compatible vine-covered trellis. Slopes along the accessible path trees in a manner that does not constrict the sidewalk. will be 5% or less, thus not requiring handrails. The Further, the existing tree wells effectively reduce the landing outside the front door will also include a bench useable area of sidewalk to less than six feet. The plan or other seating, creating a small waiting area or porch. recommends replacing all three trees with Thornless The flow-through planters in the niche and between the Honeylocust trees (Gleditsia triacanthos inermis sidewalk and reading room west of the main entry, which ‘Shademaster’) in the sidewalk behind the curb with establish a vegetated base to the University Avenue 3’ x 6’ Neenah tree grates and tree guards. The trees frontage, will receive the runoff from the front half of the will be located symmetrically in front of the building, library’s roof. Six bike-parking racks along the sidewalk approximately 35 feet on center but adjusted to mark the will accommodate 12 bicycles. entries and to avoid conflict with either the utilities or the curb ramps. At the southeast corner of the building, a new metal gate will divide the public street frontage from the building’s Four curbside parking spaces are provided in front of the secondary entrances. These secondary entrances building: one handicap-accessible parking space, one will also be universally accessible, but a ramp (with a handicap-accessible loading space, one loading space, slope of 1:12) will be required between the gate and and one general public parking space. The curb-cut the first door, leading to the Staff Work Room. The at the existing driveway will be removed and replaced pathway continues flat to the next secondary building with a continuous curb and the parking spaces re- entry serving the Multi-Purpose Room and the Literacy striped along the frontage. In an arrangement developed Program Rooms. A narrow planting bed follows along collaboratively with the City Disability Coordinator, each the ramp at the building. The paving leading to these accessible space (parking and loading) will have an two doors will be permeable pavers. A new 8-foot-tall accessible route striped behind the car with curb cuts stuccoed concrete wall extends along the property line, and a 3.5-foot-wide access ramp parallel to the curb. with creeping fig vines clinging to the surface. Since there is insufficient space in the narrow sidewalk for a perpendicular ramp, landing, and 6-foot clear Sidewalk, Street Trees and Accessible Parking sidewalk, the narrow parallel ramp with landings allow adequate clearance for all users. The landing for the The existing street frontage along University Avenue accessible parking space is aligned with the Library’s will include new sidewalks, curbs, curb ramps, and main entry path. A PG&E box, the neighbor’s gas valve, trees. The entire sidewalk in front of the library will be and storm drain lines from the adjacent property will be replaced to its full width of 10 feet. Little of the existing relocated to accommodate the accessible parking ramp. sidewalk would remain intact anyway, for various 10 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1384 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report stones will pass through the maintenance gate behind Redwood View Garden at Northwest Corner the northern building wall, and feather into the garden to provide maintenance access. The area outside the northwest corner of the building will include a small wall-enclosed garden courtyard Rear Gardens at Northeast Corner (approximately 22’ x 26’) featuring a large existing coast redwood tree. Windows from the Children’s Reading The area outside the northeast corner of the new Room and the Multi-Purpose Room face directly into building will include a flow-through planter at the this garden, making it an important and highly visible building wall, a paved pathway with permeable paving part of the interior space. Since the existing ground level from the Multi-Purpose Room door, a mulched path for a at the base of the tree is about one foot higher than the maintenance connection to the Redwood Garden court, proposed finished floor elevation, and since lowering covered bicycle parking for four staff bicycles, a raised the ground level in the garden would severely damage planter at the back wall, and vine pockets at the wall the trees’ roots, the garden design accepts the existing behind the bicycles. This area will be visible from inside grade with the difference in elevation retained in the the Literacy Program Meeting Room and Staff Office. building walls. An accessible path linking the inside and The elevated flow-through planter will receive the runoff outside spaces is infeasible without either seriously from the rear half of the roof, and will look like a window- compromising the tree roots and losing the tree by box. Since the vine-covered rear wall will be only 10 cutting down to create an exterior ramp, or ramping on feet from the windows, the plants will filter the view from the interior and eliminating library program space. As a these windows and create an illusion of greater depth. result, the space will be treated as a viewing garden with no public access directly into the space from the Library. Along the west (left), north (rear), and east (right) Maintenance access will be provided around the back of property lines, the site design includes new concrete the building. walls or fences with heights of 6 to 8 feet. Each will have planting along its face. At select corners and other New plantings appropriate to a redwood-forest transitions, the wall will end with the security enclosure understory will surround tree and help frame views into continuing as a metal picket fence, which will provide the court from the library windows. Picturesque flowering some spatial relief and allow light to cross into the evergreen shrubs/small trees (compact Strawberry space. Since the new library will have a finished floor Madrone, Arbutus unedo) will form a sculptural backdrop elevation different from the existing grade at the rear of to the garden behind the redwood and against the the building, the elevations around the building must also northerly 8-foot high stucco wall. A delicately textured, be adjusted to conform. Hence, the bottom of these new deciduous small native tree with stunning fall color (Vine walls will retain some soil to take up the change in grade. Maple, Acer circinatum) will be in the foreground close The walls will block the parking lots to the west, provide to the Children’s Reading Room windows, in front of privacy for the neighbors to the north, and screen the the redwood trunk, creating a veiled view of the garden. backside of the building to the east. And a large deciduous native flowering shrub (Western Azalea, Rhododendron occidentalis) will provide Existing Trees on Site seasonal interest while similarly framing and filtering views from the Multi-Purpose room. The understory will Of the two large Coast Redwood trees (Sequoia be a mix of ground covers, ferns, and shrubs native to or sempervirens) growing near each other at the rear of compatible with redwood forests, such as Wild Ginger the site, one will remain and become the centerpiece (Asarum caudatum), Western Sword Fern (Polystichum of a garden courtyard. The second, southerly tree will munitum), and Inside-Out Flower, Vancouveria be removed. After exploratory trenches were dug in the planipetalum. vicinity of each of the trees, it was clear that the primary root system of the southerly tree would be destroyed Along the western wall, and elevated 30” above the by the building foundation excavation and that the tree ground will be a flow-though planter to receive roof would probably not survive the proposed construction. runoff from the northwesterly roof. The open-bottomed The root system of the northerly tree, on the other planter will be contained by a concrete grade beam, hand, had apparently adapted to the foundations of which will double as the planter wall anchored at each the existing building and was likely to survive new end. The grade beam will require minimal excavation into construction in the same location as the existing walls the soil (at most 6 inches) in order to minimize impacts and building. After consultation with the City Forester, to the root zone of the existing redwood tree. Stepping it was determined that the southerly tree should be HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 11 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1385 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report removed and that the northerly tree should be saved of flow-through planters. In addition, most paving on (by following the City Forester’s recommendations). The site will be permeable, and the water that drains through existing grade in the rear courtyard will remain as-is, it will be collected in sub-surface pipes that connect to without additional excavation in the root zone, and the the gutter. stump of the removed tree will not be ground out. All other trees on the site will be removed. These include 2. The City of Berkeley mandates that we meet the the three redwood trees at the northeast (rear right) Bay-Friendly Guidelines. Since the landscape area corner (generally unhealthy and severely constrained of this project is less than 2,500 square feet, this by both the adjacent and new building – a diagnosis project must satisfy the 9 required items on the Bay- accepted by the City Forester), one additional distressed Friendly Checklist, but full certification is not required. small redwood along the west property line, and seven Nevertheless, any project that meets Alameda County’s other small trees either within or immediately next to the C.3 requirements will by default satisfy several other building footprint. The small trees are four Victorian box items on the Checklist, so our plans will attempt to trees (Pittosporum undulatum), one distressed Japanese satisfy additional items if feasible. The nine requirements maple (Acer palmatum), and two distressed Washington govern the selection of plants and the design of the thorns (Crataegus phaenopyrum). irrigation system. The landscape and irrigation plans will meet the requirements. Responses to Key Regulatory Requirements 3. The landscape design will account for a few credits Underlying the design of these outdoor spaces is the in the project’s LEED certification, such as irrigation integrated resolution of the requirements for Alameda efficiency (WE 1.1). Additional credits for stormwater County’s C.3 stormwater regulations, the Bay-Friendly treatment (SS 6.1, SS 6.2, SS 7.1) should be achieved Landscape Guidelines, LEED Silver certification, and through the engineering design of our flow-through whole access according to the California Building Code. planters and drainage system. The details of those points will be worked out in future design stages. 1. Alameda County’s C.3 stormwater regulations are a key factor driving the site design and will also influence 4. The site design allows for universal accessibility the design of the roof. The regulations apply to any throughout the site. The finished floor elevation of the project that involves building or replacing at least 10,000 building was set with accessibility in mind. The detailed square feet of impervious surfaces (roofs and pavement). grading plan shows how we have achieved accessibility These regulations require us to consider the quality and on all paths and at all entrances. quantity of stormwater runoff from our project. 2.3 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Of the design options shown in the Stormwater Guidebook, the ones most applicable to this highly For lowest initial construction cost and lowest possible constrained site are the flow-through planter, specially carbon footprint, the structure will be wood-framed. designed planter boxes at the base of a building’s walls, Exterior walls and roof joists will have extra width and and permeable paving. During a rainstorm, rain from depth to provide extra insulation thickness for improved the library’s roof will run down the rainwater leaders into thermal performance and occupant comfort. The roof will the flow-through planters, where plants and a special be framed with wood I-joists spanning to glulam beams. soil mix will clean the water before sending it out to the Glulam posts will be used wherever practical, and general storm-drain system. The plants must be able steel tube posts will be used where required. Skylight to tolerate occasional inundation but must also survive openings in the roof will be framed out with glulam through the dry summer, possibly aided by summer beams, and diaphragm shear will be transferred across irrigation. Here, the situation is made more complicated the openings via steel rod cross-bracing. because there is no buried storm-drain pipe under University Avenue, so the drainage network on this site The foundation will be a reinforced concrete mat slab must flow out to the gutters of University Avenue. (14” to 16” thick) with two feet-wide turned down edges extending a minimum of three feet below lowest Compliance requires that the total area of the planters adjacent grade to minimize seasonal soil moisture be at least 4% of the area of the roof; the new library swings and expansive soil effects. The top of mat slab will have a roof area of roughly 10,000 square feet, thus will be recessed by 7” between curbs to allow 2” of rigid requiring that the flow-through planters have an area of foam insulation and a 5” topping slab with radiant piping 400 square feet. The proposed plan has 437 square feet to be placed over the mat slab. 12 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1386 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

The southern storefront and trellis will be framed using 4. Cement Plaster Exterior Finish steel tubes. The four entryway pillars will be steel tubes wrapped with wood framing, plywood and stucco. The Cement plaster finish will be applied over Type 5 wood tall columnar walls at the southwest and southeast framing system, with sand float finish. Control joints will corners of the building will be constructed from glulam be drawn, dimensioned and specified to avoid cracking studs enclosed with plywood and stucco. in any direction. System will be flashed using single pieces of stainless steel flashing. Rock wool insulation 2.4 ARCHITECTURE will be provided within the framing cavity; the overall R-value will be 21 including the effect of the framing Exterior Envelope members. The interior side of the framing system will be finished with gypsum board of Type 5 finish. An air 1. Fiber Cement Panels barrier will be applied to the exterior sheathing; which will be Dense Glass Gold or equivalent. The fiber cement panel siding system will be designed on rain screen principles. The assembly will be 5. Skylights supported by Type V wood frame system. Rock wool insulation will be provided within the framing cavity; The framing system will sit on wood frame roof system the overall R-value will be 21, including the effect of with R-50 rock wool insulation below the sheathing. intervening wood studs. The interior side of the framing The basis of design will be Velux flat panel, insulated system will be finished with gypsum board. An air barrier venting skylights with interior shade, utilizing clear glass. will be applied to the exterior sheathing; which will be Gypsum board on the interior side of the skylight shafts Dense Glass Gold or equivalent. will be finished with a Level 5 finish.

2. Curtainwall System 6. Single-Ply Roofing

The curtainwall system located on the south elevation The roof assembly will be a white single-ply. The fully will consist of double-insulated glazing panels, which adhered membrane will be either reinforced TPO meeting will be a combination of a clear glass, translucent white requirements of FM Approvals’ Wind Uplift Classification glass and pale blue tint with low “E” coating. These will 1-90. The system will be required to carry a minimum 20- be installed with two conditions: (1) over an insulated year warranty. Details on warranty to be further specified wall or as a spandrel condition with insulation; (2) over a in the next phase of design. window opening. The basis of design for the curtainwall will be Arcadia T-500 Series. Interior Systems

All exterior aluminum doors are thermally broken and 1. Interior Partitions contain insulated glazing panels. Typical Walls will be 5/8” gypsum board on both sides of 3. Wood Panel Siding 2-3/4” X 7-1/2” mini-lam studs @ 24” o.c.

Wood panel siding system will be installed over Type 2. Acoustically Sensitive Room Separation Walls 5 wood framing system using standard rain screen principles. A sustainably-harvested wood species, resin- Multipurpose room, Teen Room, private offices, toilet infused to create high durability and fire resistance, rooms, etc., will be 5/8” gypsum board on both sides will be laid up horizontally with 3/4” gaps. This lumber of wood studs to underside of structure above. Provide material has the trade name DreamDex and is available acoustical sealant at all joints. Provide sound attenuation locally. Rock wool insulation will be provided within the insulation within the cavity as shown in wall type detail. framing cavity; the overall R-value will be 21 including the effect of the framing members. 3. Ceiling

The interior side of the framing system will be finished Ceiling in the public areas will be composed of large with gypsum board. An air barrier will be applied to the planes of painted gypsum board and acoustic absorbing exterior sheathing; which will be Dense Glass Gold or material suspended from the structure above. Planes will equivalent. be placed in relation to the skylight openings and will also serve as light diffusing surfaces. HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 13 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1387 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report

The standard acoustic ceiling in the Literacy suite, Exterior Stair Multipurpose Room and Staff Work area will be an exposed tee, suspended aluminum intermediate-duty Prefabricated painted, galvanized metal stair with metal system to receive acoustical ceiling panels. A w-shaped treads, guardrails and handrails. shadow molding shall be typically provided at room perimeters. All exposed cut edges of raised tegular Specialties / Equipment ceiling panels shall be painted. 1. Toilet Partitions • Toilet Rooms and Soffits 5/8” gypsum board (non-sag) on wood stud Floor mounted solid plastic HDPE toilet compartments, suspended framing system. 100% recycled material and recyclable in the future.

• Exterior Plaster Ceilings 2. Lockers Provide cement plaster anchored to suspended framing system at entrance locations. Solid plastic HDPE lockers, 100% recycled material and recyclable in the future. 4. Flooring See the Outline Specification for additional items. Linoleum flooring is proposed for all non-utility and non- toilet room spaces. Thin set ceramic tile will be used at Specialties all toilet rooms. Dexotex material will be used at utility spaces and mechanical/electrical room. 1. Library Shelving

5. Wall Finishes All shelving and media storage units will be metal library shelving for stack shelving. Basis of design will be A level 5 finish is required at all gypsum board walls Montel Aetnastak. taller than 10 feet in height or adjacent to glazing, soffits, fascia panels. 2. Window Shades

Ceramic Tile will be used at all toilet room walls. Mechoshades at all exterior windows on south and east Cementitious backer board should be provided in lieu of elevations. Motorized shades will be used at the large gypsum board. window in the Adult Reading area, the large west-facing window at the Multipurpose Room and the clerestory 6. Doors windows in the Multipurpose Room (primarily for room- darkening.) Interior doors will typically be 3’-0” x 8’-0” flush solid core premium grade wood doors with wood finish, set in 2.5 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 18 gauge welded hollow metal frames. Eggers doors are recommended for their use of certified sustainable wood Design Criteria product.

Exterior doors will be aluminum frame to match the curtainwall system. Frames will be medium stile and thermally broken.

7. Casework and Shelving

All back-of-house casework will be plastic laminate on all surface of mdf panels. All public casework will be wood veneered with plastic laminate on non exposed surfaces of mdf panels. Casework will have European style concealed hinges, specialty pulls and silencers.

14 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1388 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report spaces shall be within 25 ft of an operable window. In Proposed Mechanical System places that do not meet natural ventilation, supplemental exhaust shall be supplied to encourage airflow. With the intent to achieve Net Zero Energy Building, the design uses natural ventilation to condition the building. Mechanical exhaust shall be provided for any janitor’s Natural ventilation, unlike fan-forced ventilation, uses the closet or restroom that does not have a window. natural forces of wind and buoyancy to deliver fresh air into buildings. It is crucial that the occupants understand Cooling natural ventilation will not move interior conditions into the comfort zone 100% of the time. Occupants should The building can be cooled by natural ventilation most of expect a swing in internal temperature. Room design the time. For peak days, air source heat pumps used in temperatures can fluctuate between 68°F to 78°F. The heating system will be sized to complement the cooling mechanical heating and cooling system will only operate load, and be available for peak cooling load days. during peak days. Space ventilation fans shall be installed to improve air movement in the space. Heating 2.6 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Radiant slab and radiators will be used throughout the building. Radiant slab is used as it is a good way to store Proposed Electrical System thermal energy during the winter. Radiators locate in front of operable windows to preheat ventilation air. The Power System & Distribution hot water will be supplied to the slab and radiator piping using a solar thermal HW system. Three (3) 115-gallon The electrical systems will be designed to utilize the solar heating storage tanks will be used as a source of available three-phase utility power source. Based on thermal storage medium. A heat dump system shall be principles of energy conservation, the electrical system implemented to prevent the collectors from overheating will include occupancy sensors, photocells and lighting during the summer. control system to regulate the use of the energy when the luminaires are not being used and in response to the For peak heating days or in case of sequential days of amount of daylight available. bad weather, three (3) 4.5-ton air source heat pumps locate in the mechanical room will be used as backup. New Service Three (3) condensing units serving the heat pumps will be located outside the building or on the roof. Based on load calculations as well as connected HVAC, lighting and electrical equipment load and the Most, if not all, occupied rooms shall have individually photovoltaic system for the library, one (1) 800A, 208/120 controllable thermostats. The solar thermal HW system Volt, 3-phase, 4-wire rated main disconnect switch and will operate under its own packaged controls. service will be required. Connected to the main switchboard will be three (3) Ventilation panelboards rated at 200A, 200A and 150A, provided for the receptacle, lighting, and HVAC loads. The Natural ventilation using automated high louvers/ panelboards will be equipped with branch circuit windows and manually operated low windows with monitors to meter the energy usage of every individual security screen on the north side of the building. Solar circuit and allow trend logging. The meters will interface activated chimneys will be located on the south side, with the Building Management System (BMS) to allow facing University Avenue to drive the natural flow of fresh data compilation and display at a central location. air through the building. Fresh air will be introduced to Two (2) dedicated breakers from the main switchboard, internal rooms through air inlet towers or wall louvers rated at 100A each, will be provided for photovoltaic with exhaust in each room to solar activated chimney. (PV) system. The PV system will be composed of two Small inline exhaust fan locates inside the chimney (2) grid-tied inverters with built-in disconnects, each shall assist with create more air movement drawing air sized at 30kW to support half of the solar panel modules through the building. Care must be taken in designing such that natural ventilation code is met in all occupied spaces. To do this, each room shall have windows of operable area equaling 4% of the floor area. Also, all HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 15 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1389 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report on the roof. This increases the overall reliability of the water into the new system with a point of connection system compared to a single inverter system. Separate at the location determined by the City of Berkeley revenue grade meters will be provided to measure the Fire Department. In addition, the City of Berkeley Fire system output and allow real-time and trend monitoring Department shall determine a new fire riser with a through the BMS. reduced pressure type backflow preventer. The new fire riser shall be located at the interior of the building and Fire Alarm System shall be provided with a means of drainage for service. The new fire protection system shall be hydraulically Although a fire alarm system is not required by Code for calculated based upon the latest requirements of the a type B occupancy, TDE recommends a new fire alarm NFPA. system be considered as it is fairly common for public access buildings such as a library to have one in order to The new automatic fire sprinkler system shall be increase safety. designed and installed to the latest NFPA 13, 14 and the City of Berkeley standard requirements. The Fire Fire alarm devices, such as smoke detectors, strobes sprinkler contractor shall provide a design build new and horns, will be placed according to NFPA 72 code, fire sprinkler system including the hydraulic design such as in all regularly occupied areas, as well as the and calculations, complete with floor-control valve corridors and restrooms. Furthermore, the FACP (Fire assemblies for each zone. System will be supplied Alarm Control Panel) will need to be installed at the main with black steel Schedule 40 piping and Victaulic type entrance of the building, where the fire fighters can easily mechanical joints. locate it. Lastly, manual pull stations are required to be located at the exit doors. Proposed Plumbing Systems

2.7 PLUMBING ENGINEERING General

Proposed Fire Protection System The installation shall be upgraded to comply with all the governing codes mentioned and shall meet all The system design shall be based on local fire protection requirements of local standards. authority design criteria and the City of Berkeley Fire Department shall approve the sprinkler plans with Domestic cold water and hot water, sanitary sewer and hydraulic calculations. vent, and storm sewer systems shall be designed and installed to the current codes. The system shall be All fire sprinkler work shall be designed in accordance complete, including connections to all plumbing fixtures with the authority having jurisdiction, the building code, and equipment in the building. and the requirements of the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), Fire Marshal, and the owner’s insurance The isolation of piping shall be done to minimize or agency. The project shall include a complete building eliminate the water-flow noise. All water supply piping, automatic sprinkler system subject to the approval of hot water piping, waste and drain piping shall be the Fire Marshal. A wet pipe sprinkler system shall installed with acoustical isolators and shall be vibration be used throughout the facility integrated with the isolated from any structural members, wall sections existing decorative trusses and beams at the ceilings. or other materials that could transmit sound to the A possible, preferred option will be the use of sidewall occupied areas. All piping, pipe connectors, or valves sprinklers. The new building fire protection system shall not be allowed to directly touch the structure shall be connected to the street main. All fire protection studs, gypsum board or other pipes. All piping support requirements including fire hose, automatic sprinklers, shall be provided as required by International Code and flow demands, approval of detector check valve, SMACNA guidelines. fire main, and fire department connections shall be determined with the City of Berkeley Fire Department The water supply piping shall be sized to maintain and be checked and approved by the Fire Marshal. maximum water flow rates at 5 feet per second for pipes 2-inches and smaller. Note: Hot water piping shall be The new fire protection incoming water supply line sized for a maximum flow rate of 4 feet per second to to the building shall be sized based on the hydraulic conform to the plumbing code. calculations that shall be submitted by the fire protection contractor. The new fire protection line shall feed fire 16 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1390 of 2369 West Branch Library

Design Development Phase Report thickness of fiberglass and fire retardant jacket. All sanitary waste systems shall be sloped at ¼ inch per foot, except where noted to conform to the structure. Provide insulation for hot water and hot water circulation The storm drainage system shall be sloped at ¼ inch per piping to fixture rough-ins as required by energy code, foot to clear structure or ductwork. but not less than 1½-inch thick.

Building energy conservation measures shall be Provide insulation on domestic hot water storage tanks implemented. The energy saving in plumbing systems with insulation thickness not less than 3 inches using shall be implemented by reducing domestic water fiberglass insulation and aluminum jacket. temperatures, resulting in less heat loss from the piping. The insulation for piping and equipment shall Storm and domestic cold water piping will be insulated be provided to minimize heat loss, to protect against for acoustics using a minimum of ¾-inch thick for ¾-inch personal burns, reduce noise and control condensation. and smaller piping, 1-inch thick for 1 though 2-inch piping, 1½-inch for 2½-inch and larger piping. Water will be distributed through mains, risers, and branches to plumbing fixtures and equipment. All valves installed in water piping systems shall be insulated with same thickness as line size of piping. Cold water system will be designed to maintain a maximum velocity of 6 fps at design flow conditions. Hot water return system will be designed to a maximum velocity of 4 feet per second.

All Cold Water piping, components, and equipment subject to sweating will be insulated with appropriate thickness of fiberglass and covered with fire retardant jacket.

Domestic Hot Water Table 3: EPACT 1992 Fixture Flow Rate Requirements

Point-of use (electrical) system will be installed in each restrooms to accommodate the hot water demand.

Sanitary Waste and Vent System

Soil, waste and vent systems above grade will consist of service weight hub-less cast iron soil pipe with standard type stainless steel no-hub couplings with neoprene gaskets. Soil, waste and vent piping below ground will consist of service weight hub-less cast iron soil pipe with heavy-duty type no-hub couplings with neoprene gaskets. Table 4: Low Flow Fixture Flow Rates Plumbing Fixtures

All fixtures shall at a minimum conform to the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 fixture rating requirements is listed in Table 3 below. To further minimize water use TDE recommends that fixtures with flow rates listed in Table 4 be used.

Insulation

All piping, components, and equipment subject to sweating or heat loss will be insulated with appropriate HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 17 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1391 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1392 of 2369

A PPENDIX I

H ISTORIC R ESOURCE R EPORTS

...... Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1393 of 2369

...... Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1394 of 2369

Historic Resource Report Berkeley South Branch Library Final Draft 1901 Russell Street

September 2010

Prepared for Design Community & Environment Berkeley, CA Prepared by page & turnbull, inc. 1000 Sansome St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94111 415.362.5154 / www.page-turnbull.com Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1395 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 I. INTRODUCTION...... 2 I1. HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION...... 2 A. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS...... 2 B. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ...... 2 C. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ...... 6 D. HISTORIC CONTEXT ...... 6 E. EVALUATION ...... 16 F. EVALUATION OF PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS...... 18 G. SUGGESTED MITIGATION ...... 21 H. IMPACTS CONCLUSION...... 21 IV. CONCLUSION...... 22 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 23 ARTICLES:...... 23 BOOKS:...... 23 UNPUBLISHED REPORTS/LETTERS:...... 23

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 1 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1396 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Technical Report was prepared at the request of Design Community & Environment (DC&E), for the Berkeley South Branch Library at 1901 Russell Street in Berkeley, California. The Berkeley South Branch Library is a modern neighborhood branch library constructed in 1961. The building was designed by Bay Area architect John Hans Ostwald. In 1974, a meeting room addition, also designed by Ostwald’s firm, was constructed. The tool lending library, not designed by Ostwald or Ostwald’s firm, was constructed in 1991.

The proposed project is part of the Branch Library Improvement Program that began in 2009 as a result of the passage of Bond Measure FF in November 2008. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing Berkeley South Branch Library, and the construction and operation of a new 8,656-square-foot library on the same site. The Berkeley South Branch Library was previously evaluated in The Berkeley Public Library Branch Libraries Facilities Master Plan, 2008 (Facilities Master Plan).

This report provides a peer review of the historic significance statement and evaluation provided by Frederic Knapp Architects as part of the Facilities Master Plan and includes additional research and survey work necessary to provide conclusions for use in the DEIR. The report includes a preliminary evaluation of eligibility of the property for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and an evaluation of the proposed project under the provisions of CEQA.

I1. HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION The following section of this report includes the historic resource evaluation typically included in the technical report for an EIR. This section provides an examination of the existing historical status of the property and an architectural description of the building. The section also includes an evaluation of eligibility of the property for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and an evaluation of the proposed project under the provisions of CEQA.

A. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The existing library is not identified by the City of Berkeley as a designated landmark nor is it identified in the California Historical Resources Information System’s Northwest Information Center (Northwest Information Center).

However, as part of the Facilities Master Plan, Frederic Knapp Architects completed a report on the features of the library pertaining to its historic significance. Knapp Architects concluded that the original 1961 structure including the reading room was eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources because of its association with the original architect, John Hans Ostwald, and for its design characteristics. The 1974 meeting room addition is eligible for listing because its design is highly compatible with the original building and because it was designed by Ostwald’s firm, although it was completed after Ostwald’s death. The 1991 tool library could not be considered eligible because it is utilitarian in design and not associated with Ostwald. Given this opinion about the 1961 and 1974 portions of the structure, there could be a potentially significant impact if the current library building were demolished.

B. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION According to the Knapp Architects report:

The building is sited on the northeast corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Russell Street. The lot is flat and there are concrete sidewalks on the two streets. A walkway leads from MLK Way to the front door located on the Russell Street façade. A gated driveway enters from Russell Street for employee and utility access. The tool loan facility is a separate

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 2 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1397 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

structure accessed from MLK Way where parking occurs for a couple of cars. Residences occur on the adjacent properties.

The structure is basically a T-shape plan and occupies much of the lot. It is one story in height and is a slab on grade. The building’s volume is focused on a square plan form, located in the lot’s southeast corner, which has a low pitched sloping roof higher than the flat roofs to the west and north. All the roofs are cantilevered well beyond the wall face.

The primary exterior wall material is painted concrete block laid in stacked bond. This is sometimes an infill material between cast in place concrete columns. Painted dimensional wood trim set at a downward facing angle finishes the eaves. Walkways and the courtyard are exposed aggregate concrete. Metal framed windows are either full height or clerestory. A detail using concrete block turned on its side to expose the two cell construction is infilled with colored glass. This occurs as a horizontal band.

The building’s patron entry is through a painted metal door consisting of two glass panels which are flanked by glass sidelights. Upon entering is an open area which continues west into the children’s reading room. This room can be temporarily partitioned off with a wood accordion door stacked against the north wall. This area is illuminated by surface mounted fluorescent light fixtures which are of a newer vintage. Interspersed are large round recessed fluorescent fixtures which have been abandoned. There is exposed wood structure on the ceiling which is infilled with sand finish painted gypsum board. The floors are integrally colored concrete. A pop-out occurs in the room’s southwest corner where a glass front and metal framed display case occurs. Two egress doors occur in the space, one in the north elevation to the courtyard and another in the building’s southwest corner next to the display case.

Proceeding to the opposite direction from the main entry is the adult reading room which has a higher perimeter ceiling. This develops further into a low sloping, four square ceiling culminating in a square skylight. The sloping surface is clad in horizontal V-groove natural wood planks mitered at the corners. The floor is the same concrete and has a detail of a divider strip in a darker tone and where the strips cross is an inset of 6” square Kraft tile. Suspended fluorescent light fixtures of a newer vintage illuminate the room. Small, flush round light fixtures occur in the fascia but are abandoned. Two single use toilets are entered off the north of this space.

Directly adjacent is the open entry to a work room which is an L-shaped plan and lined with built-in counters. The walls, except for concrete block on the west, are painted wood paneling, although natural wood peeks through in some places. To the north of this room is the utility room with a toilet room. The staff room is just west of this.

Located on the north wall and between the children’s and adult areas is an entrance to a corridor which has windows to the exterior on the west. Windows also occur on the corridor’s east elevation looking into adjacent rooms. Directly to the north is a glass door into the community room. The floor is colored concrete, although it is a slightly different color from that in the reading rooms.

The meeting room is a square plan and column free. The exterior walls are exposed painted concrete block while the series of closets on the south and single use toilets on the east are gypsum board faces. Large natural wood beams in a four square pattern crisscross the ceiling whose center portion is a skylight. The skylight is the same wood detailing as in the adult reading room. The surrounding gypsum board ceiling infill has large square recessed fluorescent light fixtures. The floor is fully carpeted.

The exterior courtyard is entered off of the children’s reading room and is fully enclosed. Sited at the inside corner of the structure the two opposing walls are cast in place square

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 3 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1398 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

concrete columns infilled with painted horizontal wood boards. The ground is covered by a slab of exposed aggregate concrete. A tool shed sits in the northwest corner.

The tool loan building abuts the meeting room’s west exterior elevation but has no access from the main building. The west and north facades are painted concrete block. The south façade is partially of block construction, while most is painted horizontal V-groove wood plank. The roof is flat with a wood faced eave. The interior is illuminated with surface mounted fluorescent strip lights and the walls clad in painted pegboard.

A notable feature, which is incompatible with the structure’s design, is the suspended and surface mounted fluorescent lighting located throughout the reading rooms. Also, due to shelving being added, windows are blocked along the Russell Street façade.

South and west facades. Page & Turnbull, May 2010

Main Entry, South façade. Page & Turnbull, May 2010

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 4 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1399 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Tool Lending Library. Page & Turnbull, May 2010

Reading Room, Wood Slat Ceiling. Page & Turnbull, May 2010

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 5 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1400 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

C. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials.

The character-defining features of the Berkeley South Branch Library include, but are not limited to:

• Rectangular plan with paired pavilions • Planar massing • Flat roof with exaggerated eave overhangs • Shallow sloped pyramidal roof • Original concrete block walls • Original windows • Wood slat ceiling with central skylights in the Reading Room and Meeting Room • Original decorative details including exposed cells of concrete blocks

D. HISTORIC CONTEXT

Branch Libraries in Berkeley Page & Turnbull completed a site visit to all four branch libraries, took digital photographs, and completed limited research into the construction history, architects, and current historic status of each of the buildings. The following bulleted list represents our preliminary assessment of these buildings:

• The West Branch Library (1923) originally designed by William K. Bartges with additions by Architect Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader is designated a Structure of Merit by the City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Committee (LPC). The Structure of Merit designation only includes the original 1923 portion of the building. • The Claremont Branch Library (1924) a Tudor Revival style building designed by James Plachek with a Modern addition by Architect Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader appears to have architectural value, and likely would qualify as an historical resource. • The North Branch Library (1936) a Spanish Colonial Revival style building designed by James Plachek is designated a City of Berkeley Landmark. • The South Branch Library (1961) a Modern style building designed by John Hans Ostwald appears to be a qualified historical resource.

The four branch library buildings do not appear to be a cohesive thematic historic district. While each building was constructed to serve as a branch of the Berkeley Public Library, they were not constructed during a single building campaign, were designed in various architectural styles, and have undergone inconsistent alterations and additions. Overall, the buildings likely have individual significance, but do not appear to have sufficient similarity and association to form a cohesive historic district.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 6 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1401 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

History of Branch Libraries in Berkeley The following is an examination of the history of each of Berkeley’s Public Branch Libraries – West, North, Claremont, and South. This information is largely based upon the Facilities Master Plan.

West Branch The first public branch library in the west Berkeley district, known as Oceanview, was located in a facility at 845 University Avenue, between Sixth and Seventh Streets. It was, “domiciled in rented quarters in an unpretentious frame building.” The library, which opened on February 4, 1896, was constructed under the management of the City of Berkeley which took over the Holmes Library Association in December of 1895. The Holmes Library Association, named for Oliver Wendell Holmes, was formed in 1892 by three recent University of California graduates to found Berkeley’s first public library.

The current West Branch Library, located at 1125 University Avenue, was dedicated on August 13, 1923. The parcel on which the library was constructed was a portion of the Curtis Tract. The original building was designed by William K. Bartges of the Roy O. Long Company and featured a rectangular plan so that it could be potentially expanded into a U-shape. Additions with flat roofs were built to the south, including a reading room, and north, including reading rooms, offices and a meeting room. Additionally a new entry and toilets were added to the east. All of these alterations were completed in 1974, nearly doubling the building’s square footage. Architect Ratcliff-Slama- Cadwalader designed the additions.

The building’s primary or south façade, which featured a Classical architectural style, originally contained the main entry. Constructed for $14,000, the structure was to be comprised of a “frame construction, resting on concrete foundation and roofed with tar and gravel. The roof is to be supported on four Howe trusses.” The City Park department landscaped the project site with “lawns and massed shrubs.” Purportedly, the building was built with Carnegie funds; however, this could not be verified through documentation.

The interior contained an entry vestibule line by “two low wall cases” and the circulation desk, which was located directly ahead, separated the adult and children’s divisions. Each division contained six standard tables, resulting in a total seating capacity of 74. Behind the charge desk was a large reference table. The northwest corner held a “workroom and help’s rest room.” The opposite corner, to the northeast, had a similar configuration which held “the janitor’s room and men’s and women’s rest rooms.” The building contained windows of “the Kawneer-Simplex type” which were “mechanically operated by a crank on the lower jamb.” A “ventilated skylight” was centered in the roof above the charge desk. An “American Radiator Company hot water system” provided heat. The main reading room was lit through “ten ceiling fixtures of 300 watts each” that “hung four feet below the 14-foot high ceiling.” The fire exit doors each featured a “Van [sic] Duprin self releasing fire exit latch.” “Two (fire) hose reels” were located at the rear [north wall] of the main room. The capacity of the shelving was to be “8,000” volumes.

The original (1923) portion of the building was designated a Structure of Merit by the LPC on May 5, 2003.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 7 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1402 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

West Branch

Berkeley West Branch Library. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Berkeley West Branch Library, Entrance. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 8 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1403 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

North Branch

Berkeley North Branch Library. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Berkeley North Branch Library, Entrance. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Nine residents of North Berkeley petitioned the Board of Library Trustees in 1901 to “establish a branch reading room in this part of town.” In 1910, the first branch was established “in makeshift quarters over a drug store at Shattuck Avenue and Vine Street.” Six years later, the branch moved to the lower floor of the former Penniman mansion at Shattuck Avenue and Berriman Street after the city acquired the estate and converted it into Live Oak Park. In 1922, the City of Berkeley took the Berkeley Development Company to court for ownership of two roughly triangular parcels in Northbrae: between Josephine Street, The Alameda, and Hopkins Street, and between The Alameda, Marin Avenue, and Monterey Avenue. Alameda County Superior Court ruled in favor of the city in 1923, providing ownership of what would become the site for the new North Berkeley branch.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 9 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1404 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

During the Depression, the city launched the library design and construction. As late as August, 1935, a site at Solano Avenue and The Alameda was the favorite, but plans to extend Solano Avenue east through the site made this plan unfeasible. When the library was proposed for the current site, some neighbors objected, stating the city should use the land only for a park, but the city attorney ruled the city had the authority to decide on library use.

The city had unused funds after construction of the main library but the North Branch Library project encountered financial problems even with federal aid. When bids were opened in 1935, the lowest bid was $47,000 despite a pre-bid estimate of only $35,000 and only $44,000 available, composed of $28,000 in the city’s library building fund and $16,000 in New Deal WPA funding from the federal government. Because of the shortfall, the city voided the bids and revised the plans, deleting the clubrooms and a kitchen. The revised project, with a lower bid of $42,368, was awarded to contractors Kelly & Tulloch. Groundbreaking was Jan. 21, 1936 and the building was dedicated September 1 of the same year. The final cost of the building was $45,235. When it opened, the branch had a collection of 8,000 books.

The Berkeley North Branch Library is a one-story with raised basement building with an L-shaped plan designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The building features a one-and-one-half-story central octagonal block flanked by two one-story wings. The walls are horizontal board formed concrete with painted finish, and the building is capped by a hipped roof clad in terra cotta mission tile. The building features elements of the Spanish Colonial style including its substantial massing, decorative terra cotta tile, paired arched windows, ornate door surround with pilasters, and decorative iron sconces.

Designed by architect James Plachek, who also designed the Main Berkeley Public Library, the north branch was designated City Landmark #243 on October 1, 2001.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 10 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1405 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Claremont Branch Between 1909 and 1923, the Claremont Public Library was located in a series of temporary spaces, including the Emerson School at Piedmont Avenue and Garber Street, in rented retail space at Ashby and College Avenues, and at 2704 Russell Street. The parcel on which the branch would ultimately stand was purchased for $5,100 from Mercantile Securities, who financed construction of the original building.

Berkeley Claremont Branch Library. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Berkeley Claremont Branch Library, Entrance. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Designed by James W. Plachek, the original branch opened on October 27, 1924 and housed 10,000 volumes. The building was constructed for $24,000 and could accommodate 100 library patrons. The building included, “an adult’s reading room with alcove, children’s room, librarian’s room, work room and wash rooms.” Each alcove contained a fireplace. The fireplace in the children’s story hour alcove had a hand molded frieze of tile that depicted a hunting scene. A frieze in the adults’ room

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 11 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1406 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California which stated in old English, “My Books Shall Be by [sic?] Company.” In 1976, an addition was planned for the library. A residence located immediately south of the branch was procured for $1 with the contingency that the building be relocated rather than demolished. The residence now stands two blocks away. Designed by Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader, the new library addition, which cost $213,000, expanded the shelf capacity of the branch to 15,000 books and included space for special collections, the children’s reading room, and a meeting room.

The Berkeley Claremont Branch Library is a two-story with raised basement building with an L- shaped plan designed in the Tudor Revival style. The building is capped by a cross gable and hip-on- gable roof. The walls feature a Flemish bond base and half-timbering. The building features elements of the Tudor Revival style including its gable roof, decorative half timbering; tall, narrow windows in multiple groups with multi-pane glazing; chimneys; and cast concrete Tudor arched door surround at the original main entry.

A one-story addition, completed in the Modern style, is located to the south of the original Tudor Revival style structure. The 1976 addition draws on the materials of the original building and features a brick base, stucco upper walls, and a combination flat and shed roof.

South Branch The first south branch library for Berkeley opened in 1896 in a small rented room on Alcatraz Avenue. In 1901 the branch moved to a building at 3234 Adeline Street between Fairview and Harmon Streets. The first purpose-built library to serve the southern district opened on May 4, 1927 at 1839 Woolsey Street, between Grove (now Martin Luther King Jr. Way) and Harper Street. The architect was James W. Plachek and the building cost $22,800.

The current building at 1901 Russell Street was designed by John Hans Ostwald and dedicated on April 30, 1961. Constructed at a cost of $108,000, the library featured adult and children’s reading rooms with skylights and a staff office. The building could accommodate a book collection of 8,000 volumes. In 1974, a meeting room was added to the north façade at a cost of $46,000. The meeting room addition was designed in a compatible style by Ostwald’s firm, although it was completed after Ostwald’s death. In 1979, a tool lending library was added to augment the library’s resources. It was housed in a portable metal shed structure installed in the northern portion of the existing courtyard where it remains. With increased popularity of the self-help tool lending facility a new, larger permanent structure was built in the lot’s northwest corner which formally opened to the public on May 7, 1991.

Modern Branch Library Architecture Typical 1960s branch library design was driven by the popularity of the Modern architectural style and the need to efficiently construct services in residential areas removed from the downtown core. According to images in contemporary architectural journals, the designs for small libraries of the period were characterized by rectangular plans, juxtaposed planes of walls and roofs, large plate glass windows, modern materials, and open uninterrupted reading rooms with little architectural detailing. The interior spaces were clean, well-lit, and often centered on interior courtyards.

John Hans Ostwald, Architect of the South Branch Library John Hans Ostwald was born in Berlin in 1913, raised in Vienna, and educated in Switzerland. He adapted the woodsy, modern Bay Region style to his European design sensibilities. Ostwald worked briefly for Richard Neutra, then for Anshen + Allen in San Francisco. By 1947, he was a partner with Frederick Confer, and became the chief designer for the firm’s residential projects. By 1954, Ostwald started his own firm. In 1965, he partnered with E. Paul Kelly and the firm name was changed to Ostwald & Kelly.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 12 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1407 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Throughout his career, Ostwald practiced in the Bay Area and around Lake Tahoe. He was well- known in Berkeley and the East Bay for his residential architecture. However, his firm also completed larger commissions in his later career, including libraries, a large county office building in Hayward (Kelly was the designer), and several churches.

According to an article on Ostwald, his designs were characterized by paired pavilions connected by glassed-in breezeways – which Ostwald termed “terrace halls” or “garden rooms”. Ostwald was known for “redwood or shingled houses with open plans and terraces and dramatic woodsy interiors.” Ostwald’s most dramatic spaces were “pyramidal rooms,” with “exposed beams converging on a central skylight.” 1

Ostwald was active in the Berkeley community from the early 1960s, participating in the Civic Art Commission, Design Review Committee, the Civic Art Foundation, and the School Master Plan Committee. Ostwald was honored as a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects in 1971. Ostwald died on May 24, 1973.

Ostwald’s Library Designs In addition to the Berkeley South Branch, Ostwald was also involved in the study and design of with other libraries in Berkeley during the 1960s. In 1963, Ostwald worked with the City Librarian Frank Dempsey to complete the Berkeley Public Main Library Expansion Project report. Ostwald was hired to complete several studies focusing on the Central Library, supervised the Central Library Annex design and minor interior remodeling at the Central Library. He completed additional feasibility studies to renovate and expand the West and Claremont Branch Libraries, and add a ramp at the North Branch Library. In addition to libraries in Berkeley, Ostwald’s firm designed the San Lorenzo Library in 1967 and the Pinole Library in 1974.

According to the book John Hans Ostwald: Architect, “The South Branch Library was an early expression of a strong interest in the organization of libraries to respond to changing attitudes toward the function of the library in the life of the community. The design for this library was followed by an analysis of and study for the reorganization of the Berkeley Main Library and by several articles for library magazines. The San Lorenzo Library, completed in the late 1960s, successfully combined a monumentality befitting its function in the community with an informality in keeping with Ostwald’s ideas about the enjoyment of books. In the early 1970s, the firm designed the Pinole Public Library, an important project which allowed the full expression of the most modern concepts of library design and successfully integrated artwork in the building.”2

1 Dave Weinstein, “Signature Style: John Hans Ostwald/Modern Ski Chalet” San Francisco Chronicle, January 28, 2006. 2 Donald Reay, and Peter Paret, John Hans Ostwald: Architect. Berkeley, CA: The John Hans Ostwald Memorial Fund, 1975, 15-16. September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 13 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1408 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

San Lorenzo Library. Constructed 1967. Source: John Hans Ostwald: Architect.

San Lorenzo Library, Interior. Constructed 1967. Source: John Hans Ostwald: Architect.

South Branch Library The light, almost residential style, design of the Berkeley South Branch Library was consistent with Ostwald’s belief that libraries should be approachable and informal. The library includes many of Ostwald’s characteristic design elements. The building includes paired pavilions, one serving as the adult reading room, the other as the children’s reading room, connected by a vestibule. The building includes a striking pyramidal space, the Reading Room, which is capped by a wood slat ceiling and central skylight. The building was awarded the Berkeley Civic Art Commission Community Award in 1965 and an Award of Merit by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) 1966 Library Buildings Award Program. In addition to these awards, the building was featured in a variety of architectural journals of the period focused on small library buildings. The building was featured in “A/W Looks

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 14 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1409 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California at Little Libraries,” Architecture/West (January 1963), and “Small Libraries,” Architectural Record (April 1963).

Berkeley South Branch Library. Constructed 1961. Source: John Hans Ostwald: Architect.

Berkeley South Branch Library, Interior. Constructed 1961. Source: John Hans Ostwald: Architect.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 15 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1410 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

E. EVALUATION

California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.

In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria:

• Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

• Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

• Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.

• Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 16 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1411 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Criterion 1 (Events) While the Berkeley South Branch Library is associated with the development of neighborhood branch libraries in Berkeley, it is not a notable individual factor in that trend.

Criterion 2 (Persons) No persons of local, California, or national history are associated with the Berkeley South Branch Library.

Criterion 3 (Architecture) The Berkeley South Branch Library is significant for its residential style modern design and for its association with Bay Area architect John Hans Ostwald.

The Berkeley South Branch Library is consistent with Ostwald’s characteristic design elements. The building includes paired pavilions, one serving as the adult reading room, the other as the children’s reading room. The Reading Room includes one of Ostwald’s signature treatments, a space capped by a pyramidal wood slat ceiling and central skylight.

The building was awarded an Award of Merit by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) 1966 Library Buildings Award Program. In addition to this award, the building was featured in a retrospective of Ostwald’s career and a variety of architectural journals of the period focused on small library buildings. The building was featured in John Hans Ostwald, Architect (1975), “A/W Looks at Little Libraries,” Architecture/West (January 1963), and “Small Libraries,” Architectural Record (April 1963).

Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The analysis of the Berkeley South Branch Library for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources, and therefore it is not evaluated as part of this report.

Integrity The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the California Register and the National Register. According to the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, these seven characteristics are defined as follows:

• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property. • Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building/s. • Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. • Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 17 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1412 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

The Berkeley South Branch Library appears to be in fair condition, and retains integrity of location and setting as a neighborhood branch library on the corner of Russell Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way in Berkeley. The Berkeley South Branch appears to retain integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. The property has undergone two additions, including the addition of a meeting room in 1974 and the addition of a 1991 tool lending library. However, the 1974 meeting room was completed in a style compatible with the original library building and was designed by Ostwald’s firm, although it was completed after Ostwald’s death. The 1991 tool lending library is located at the northwest corner of the site. The utilitarian tool lending library does not detract from the design of the original library building.

The interior of the main library also retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. The interior largely retains the original volumes, spaces, and finishes. However, some finishes have been removed and new suspended and surface mounted lighting throughout the reading rooms has been added, detracting from the original lighting design. Although the library is overcrowded with shelving, this does not affect the historical integrity since the shelves could be removed to reinstate the original volume. Additionally, the Berkeley South Branch Library retains a high degree of integrity of association and feeling as a neighborhood branch library. Overall, the building retains sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance.

The “Fifty Year Rule” In order to be determined eligible for listing in the National Register, resources less than fifty years of age must be shown to have “exceptional importance.” This is not the case with the California Register. According to the California Office of Historic Preservation:

In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.3

The property will cross the fifty year threshold in April 2011. Since a book about Ostwald, John Hans Ostwald: Architect, was written in 1975, it is likely that adequate scholarship has occurred to allow an assessment of the significance of the building.

Evaluation Conclusion Based upon the information presented in the Knapp Architects report and additional research, Page & Turnbull believes that the property is eligible for listing in the California Register.

F. EVALUATION OF PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS This section will analyze the project-specific impacts of the proposed project on the environment, as required by CEQA.

Status of Existing Building as an Historic Resource A building may qualify as a historic resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are:

3 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historic Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001) .11 September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 18 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1413 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).

• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

In general, a resource that meets any of the four criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) is considered to be a historical resource unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates” that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.”4

Therefore, the Berkeley South Branch Library, which appears eligible to the California Register, under the first of the categories listed above, is a qualified historic resource under CEQA.

Determination of Significant Adverse Change Under CEQA According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”5 Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired.”6 The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” and that justify or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register.7 Thus, a project may cause a substantial change in a historic resource but still not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined by CEQA as long as the impact of the change on the historic resource is determined to be less-than-significant, negligible, neutral or even beneficial.

4 Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. 5 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). 6 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1). 7 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2). September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 19 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1414 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties.8 The Standards are used by Federal agencies in evaluating work on historic properties. The Standards have also been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed rehabilitation work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Conformance with the Standards does not determine whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource. Rather, projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less-than- significant adverse impact on an historic resource.9 Projects that do not comply with the Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource.

Proposed Project Description According to the Initial Study prepared by Design, Community & Environment (June 10, 2010), the project would involve demolition of the Berkeley Public Library’s South Branch, a single-story 5,400- square-foot composite building consisting of the Main Library and Tool Lending Library, and the construction and operation of a new 8,656-square-foot library on the same site.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis Since the proposed project includes the demolition of the Berkeley South Branch Library building, which is a historic resource; the project would not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and could cause a substantial adverse impact on the historic resource.

Analysis of Project Specific Impacts Under CEQA Provided below is an analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts to historic architectural resources in terms of CEQA criteria (determination of significant adverse impact).

Impact 1.0 – The proposed project would demolish the Berkeley South Branch Library building, which is a qualified historic resource.

The proposed project would demolish the Berkeley South Branch Library building, which is a qualified historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. The demolition would be considered a significant adverse impact, since it would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historic resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its

8 W. Brown Morton III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992). The Standards, revised in 1992, were codified as 36 CFR Part 68.3 in the July 12, 1995 Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 133). The revision replaces the 1978 and 1983 versions of 36 CFR 68 entitled The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. The 36 CFR 68.3 Standards are applied to all grant-in-aid development projects assisted through the National Historic Preservation Fund. Another set of Standards, 36 CFR 67.7, focuses on “certified historic structures” as defined by the IRS Code of 1986. The Standards in 36 CFR 67.7 are used primarily when property owners are seeking certification for Federal tax benefits. The two sets of Standards vary slightly, but the differences are primarily technical and are not substantive in nature. The Guidelines, however, are not codified in the Federal Register. 9 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 20 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1415 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California eligibility for inclusion in the State and local registers. Therefore, there would be a significant impact associated with a substantial adverse change to a historic resource.

Cumulative Impacts “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probably future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

The proposed project at the Berkeley South Branch Library is part of a larger Branch Improvement Program, which will affect all four branch libraries in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, since the branch libraries of Berkeley do not appear to be a thematic historic district, and the project impacts will be examined on a project-by project basis, there will be no cumulative impacts.

G. SUGGESTED MITIGATION Historic resource mitigations are typically developed on a case-by-case basis, providing the opportunity to tailor them to the characteristics and the significance of the resource and the impacts to it. Common mitigation measures for demolition consist of documentation of the resource, typically to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), preparation of a salvage plan for significant features and materials, or making a commemorative plaque. While in some instances these mitigation measures are judged to reduce the level of adverse effects to a less than significant level, they often do not alter the loss to community character and collective history. Section 15126.4(b)(2) of the Public Resources Code is clear in this regard: “In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.” The following mitigation measures could be appropriate:

Salvage Program The project sponsors should undertake a salvage program to save and reuse historically significant materials, namely the wood slat ceiling. The project sponsors should contact qualified salvage contractors and companies with experience in historic buildings should salvage the wood slat ceiling prior to demolition.

Interpretive Program The project sponsors could also fund a permanent exhibition and interpretive program on the history the development of the Berkeley South Branch Public Library. The Berkeley South Branch Library is one of four branch libraries in the city, and the history of the South Branch Library and its architect could be shared with the public through an exhibition and interpretive program. Components of this mitigation program could include a kiosk containing historic photographs and plans, as well as a signage program and permanent gallery.

H. IMPACTS CONCLUSION The proposed project includes the demolition of a qualified historic resource. This would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance. As such, the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on the historic resource under CEQA. Mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact of the proposed project, such as a salvage program, and an interpretive program. Although these mitigation measures would help convey the significance of the historic resource, the proposed project September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 21 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1416 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California demolishes an historic resource and the mitigation measures are insufficient to avoid a substantial adverse change in the resource. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

IV. CONCLUSION Designed in 1961 as a purpose-built library building, the Berkeley South Branch Library is an excellent example of an intact modern style branch library building, and appears significant for design and its association with architect John Hans Ostwald. The building remains in use as a library and retains the building’s character-defining features including its original scale, massing, fenestration pattern, and materials.

The Berkeley South Branch Library appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture). The proposed demolition of the Berkeley South Branch Library, would not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the state register. As such, the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on the historic resource under CEQA. Mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact of the proposed project, such as a salvage program and an interpretive program. However, since the proposed project would still demolish a historic resource, this impact would be deemed to be significant and unavoidable.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 22 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1417 Berkeley South of 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ARTICLES: Weinstein, Dave. “Signature Style: John Hans Ostwald/Modern Ski Chalet.” San Francisco Chronicle. January 28, 2006. “Designed for Low Maintenance: South Branch, Berkeley Public Library.” Architectural Record. April 1963. 133: 166-167. “Four Buildings for Business.” Architectural Record. June 1967. 141, 7: 165-170. “House, Berkeley, California.” Progressive Architecture. April 1947. 28: 69-72. “House in Kentfield, Cal.” Arts and Architecture. October 1966. 83, 9. 16-17. “Library Buildings Award Program.” American Institute of Architects Journal. August 1966. 46, 2: 45-46. “Suburban House.” Arts and Architecture. February 1950. 67: 28-29.

BOOKS: Reay, Donald and Peter Paret, John Hans Ostwald: Architect. Berkeley, CA: The John Hans Ostwald Memorial Fund, 1975.

UNPUBLISHED REPORTS/LETTERS: Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA), EIR Comments, South Berkeley Branch Library, July 16, 2010. Noll & Tam, The Berkeley Public Library Branch Libraries Facilities Master Plan, 2008.

September 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 23 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1418 of 2369

Historic Resource Report Berkeley West Branch Library Final Draft 1125 University Avenue

December 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1420 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 I. INTRODUCTION...... 2 I1. HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION...... 2 A. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS...... 2 B. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ...... 2 C. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ...... 7 D. HISTORIC CONTEXT ...... 7 E. EVALUATION ...... 17 F. EVALUATION OF PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS...... 19 G. SUGGESTED MITIGATION ...... 21 H. IMPACTS CONCLUSION...... 22 III. CONCLUSION...... 22 IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 23 BOOKS:...... 23 ARTICLES:...... 23 PUBLIC RECORDS:...... 23 UNPUBLISHED REPORTS:...... 23 INTERNET SOURCES:...... 23

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 1 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1421 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Technical Report was prepared at the request of Design Community & Environment (DC&E), for the Berkeley West Branch Library at 1125 University Avenue in Berkeley, California. The Berkeley West Branch Library is a neighborhood branch library constructed in 1923. The building was designed by Bay Area architect William K. Bartges. In 1974, a substantial addition designed by Architect Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader, was constructed. The 1923 portion of the building was designated a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit on May 5, 2003.

The proposed project is part of the Branch Library Improvement Program that began in 2009 as a result of the passage of Bond Measure FF in November 2008. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing Berkeley West Branch Library, and the construction and operation of a new two-story building with a total floor area of 9,600 gross square feet and a building footprint of 8,900 square feet on the same site. The Berkeley West Branch Library was previously evaluated in The Berkeley Public Library Branch Libraries Facilities Master Plan, 2008 (Facilities Master Plan).

A. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The existing library is a designated City of Berkeley Structure of Merit. The building is not identified in the California Historical Resources Information System’s Northwest Information Center (Northwest Information Center).

The Structure of Merit designation includes only the original (1923) portion of the building. The 1974 addition could not be considered eligible because it is a non-compatible contemporary design. Due to the building’s designation as a Structure of Merit, there could be a potentially significant impact if the current library building were to be demolished.

B. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION According to the Structure of Merit Landmark Application:

The Classical Revival style as represented by the West Berkeley Branch Library achieves a monumental effect. Symmetrical, with few angles or projections, the roof line is level. The single story venerable Carnegie style library, built in 1923, just after the Carnegie program had drawn to a close, is obviously influenced by the City Beautiful Movement of the first quarter of the 20th century, drawing heavily on the Beaux Arts influence, emphasizing that beauty could be an effective social control device. This movement was brought to the state and to Berkeley by such notable names as John Galen Howard, Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan. While not financed through the Carnegie program, there is no doubt that the exterior and interior design followed the example of scores of Carnegie buildings. The original building is frame construction with a stucco exterior on a concrete foundation, built four or five feet higher than the street out front, there was once a staircase leading up to the front entry.

The central street façade element, which faces south on the busy Berkeley node is modeled on a Roman triumphal arch, with engaged columns supporting an entablature. There is a multi-paned semi-circular window within the arch. The original entry doors have been replaced with simple glass and wood doors.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 2 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1422 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

There is a round ornamental medallion adjacent to the arch to the upper right with a raised detail of an open book. There was originally an identical medallion on the other side of the arch.

The south façade had large Kawneer Simplex multi-paned wood framed windows. There were originally three floor-to-ceiling banks of windows on each side of the main entry. There are now only the eastern banks remaining, to the right of the entry, but the multi-panes have been replaced with three large paned sheets of glass in each window. The east and west facades still have their original series of smaller multi-paned wood windows situated high on the walls, broken in rhythm by one drooping double-long window, allowing light to come into the center of the library over the interior stacks.

In 1974, a remodel was performed on the building that added additional square footage to the library. The original library was small, 2,400 sq. ft., and could hold 8,000 volumes, whereas the library as remodeled was 5,500 sq. ft., and was built to hold 25,000 volumes, but the volume in 2007 was over 45,000 volumes. As a result of the 1974 remodel, there is now a windowless, unattractive and plain box-shaped structure jutting out on the west side of the front façade, built for the young adult area. This unfortunate remodel included the removal of a portion of the original façade. There is also a large single story addition to the rear.

At this same time, the entry was moved to the east façade, and a concrete ramp was installed from the street for accessibility. A very tall wooden fence now completely obstructs the street façade. The original (now unused) entryway was designed two steps below the main floor to prevent floor drafts. The original skylight in the center of the building has been covered over by a dropped acoustic tile ceiling, which was installed with the remodel. The librarian’s desk is in the center of the library, so that one librarian could monitor the entire library. Architect Bartges reportedly worked very closely with the city’s librarian, C. B. Joeckel to insure that the building met the needs of the librarian and the community.

There are three mature redwood trees on the rear of the property.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 3 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1423 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

South and west facades. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Main Entry, South façade. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 4 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1424 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

North and West Facades, view southeast. Page & Turnbull, August 2010

Rear addition, view northeast. Page & Turnbull, May 2010

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 5 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1425 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Interior, view to north. Page & Turnbull, August 2010

Interior, detail of window at south façade. Page & Turnbull, August 2010

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 6 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1426 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

According to Structure of Merit designation, the character-defining features of the Berkeley West Branch Library include, but are not limited to:

• Roman triumphal arched entry with semi-circular window and engaged columns • Round ornamental medallion right of the arch • Window proportions of three banks of windows flanking the arched entry • Wood framed windows on west and east facades • Cornice on the west, south, and east facades • Remaining incised lettering from the original “West Berkeley Branch Library”

D. HISTORIC CONTEXT

• The West Branch Library (1923) originally designed by William K. Bartges with additions by Architect Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader is designated a Structure of Merit by the City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Committee (LPC). Only the original 1923 portions of the building have been designated a Structure of Merit. • The Claremont Branch Library (1924) a Tudor Revival style building designed by James Plachek with a Modern addition by Architect Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader appears to have architectural value, and likely would qualify as an historical resource. • The North Branch Library (1936) a Spanish Colonial Revival style building designed by James Plachek is designated a City of Berkeley Landmark. • The South Branch Library (1961) a Modern style building designed by John Hans Ostwald appears to be a qualified historical resource.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 7 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1427 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

History of Branch Libraries in Berkeley The following is an examination of the history of each of Berkeley’s Public Branch Libraries – South, North, Claremont, and West. This information is largely based upon the Facilities Master Plan.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 8 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1428 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

South Branch

Berkeley South Branch Library. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Berkeley South Branch Library, Entrance. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 9 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1429 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

North Branch

Berkeley North Branch Library. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Berkeley North Branch Library, Entrance. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 10 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1430 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Designed by architect James Plachek, who also designed the Main Berkeley Public Library, the north branch was designated City Landmark #243 on October 1, 2001.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 11 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1431 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Berkeley Claremont Branch Library. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

Berkeley Claremont Branch Library, Entrance. Page & Turnbull, July 2010

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 12 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1432 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California which stated in old English, “My Books Shall Be by [sic?] Company.” In 1976, an addition was planned for the library. A residence located immediately south of the branch was procured for $1 with the contingency that the building be relocated rather than demolished. The residence now stands two blocks away. Designed by Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader, the new library addition, which cost $213,000, expanded the shelf capacity of the branch to 15,000 books and included space for special collections, the children’s reading room, and a meeting room.

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1433 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California latch.” “Two (fire) hose reels” were located at the rear [north wall] of the main room. The capacity of the shelving was to be “8,000” volumes.

The 1923 portion of the building was designated a Structure of Merit by the LPC on May 5, 2003.

Branch Library Architecture Typical 1920s branch library design was driven by the popularity of the Carnegie Library program and the Beaux-Arts architectural style.

Carnegie Libraries Andrew Carnegie and the Carnegie Corporation had a tremendous impact on the growth of public library development in the United States. Between 1889 and 1923, Carnegie donated over $40 million to construct 1,679 libraries in the United States.1 Carnegie would ultimately spend about 90% of his money on philanthropic causes.2 Carnegie chose to fund libraries because he wanted to support motivated individuals to educate themselves much as he had as an immigrant. Contrary to common belief, Carnegie did not donate libraries; instead he gave grants to construct buildings that would be occupied by libraries.3 The municipality was responsible for establishing the library, collecting books, hiring employees, providing a site for the library building, and raising tax money for its maintenance and support. Carnegie only supported free public libraries (as opposed to subscription libraries, which charged a fee) and did not give money to state libraries or state historical society libraries.4 The Carnegie grant was to be used to construct the building, while the community was expected to provide a site and to tax itself at the annual rate of 10% of the grant amount for the purchase of books and for staffing and upkeep of the library.

Building Plans for Carnegie Libraries According to a study of Carnegie Libraries of California, Carnegie libraries were innovative designs that helped revolutionize the small public library as a building type. Efficiency was the operative word, both for Carnegie and for the professional librarians who advised him, and their goal was to allow a single librarian to supervise the entire library. Thus, the Carnegie program recommended a one-story building without full-height interior partitions; an arrangement which gave the librarian seated at the centrally-located charging desk an unencumbered view of the bookshelves lining the perimeter walls.5

The Carnegie grant program changed the design of American libraries. These libraries were often built in small towns and were intended to bring literacy to working class citizens. The fact that municipalities financially supported the libraries meant that the costs were judged by the citizens; ostentatious temples built to honor wealthy donors did not fit into this model.6 This did not mean, however, that new libraries were always designed in a practical manner. In the early Carnegie grants, towns could build the libraries as they pleased. This resulted in several libraries with elaborate exterior detailing that were either ill-suited as libraries because of their plans, or who spent so much money on elaboration that there was little left for the library. Carnegie Corporation Secretary James

1 George S. Bobinski, Carnegie Libraries: Their History and Impact on American Public Library Development (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1969), 3. 2 Bobinski, 3. 3 Bobinski, 39. 4 Bobinski, 39 5 Dr. Abigail A. Van Slyck, “Styles: Carnegie Library Architecture,” http://www.carnegie-libraries.org/ accessed August 24, 2010. 6 Bobinski, 25. December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 14 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1434 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Bertram became frustrated with this waste, and around 1908, he began requiring that plans be approved for all Carnegie grants.7

In addition, during the 1890s, the closed stack system began to be replaced with open stacks that allowed patrons to browse. Children were also encouraged to visit the library by the inclusion of children’s areas and story hours. Carnegie libraries seemed to spur or at least support this trend; more Carnegie libraries had children’s rooms and open stacks than non-Carnegies.8

As the Carnegie grant program became established, a wave of articles on library design and planning began. In 1902, two hefty articles were written on library design in Architectural Review (January 1902) and Architects’ and Builders’ Magazine (December 1902). The latter wrote:

The recent increased demand for this class of structures has called the attention of the architect and the public more particularly to the matter of library architecture. This has been especially the case in the last two or three years on account of the number of buildings being designed and erected in consequence of the liberal gifts in this direction by Mr. Carnegie…9

The libraries shown in these articles were generally Beaux-Arts or Classical Revival structures, influenced by the City Beautiful movement that swept the country following the World’s Columbia Exposition held in Chicago in 1893. The Exposition, also known as the “White City,” was an early example of Beaux-Arts planning and architecture in the United States and impacted the course of architecture and design during the turn of the century. As a clean and orderly microcosm of an ideal city, with grand buildings, lagoons, and ample open space, the Chicago Exposition provided a tangible example to the rest of the country of what the chaotic American city could become. About 79% of Carnegie libraries were designed in a Beaux-Arts derived architectural style, which included Classical Revival.10 24% of Carnegies were Classical Revival structures, generally distinguished by evenly spaced columns, a dome, a hip roof, a pediment, stone construction, a long set of entry steps, and a rectangular plan with a projecting central pediment.11 Smaller towns often substituted brick for stone construction. In East San Jose, a wood frame covered in stucco was used to mimic stone. This was somewhat unusual; very few Carnegie libraries were wood-frame buildings.12

For a small municipality with few, if any, public buildings, the library became the symbol of culture and respectability, and were often the fanciest building in the town. Library designs included Classical details to establish a connection with the past, “to show that here was a place where the past was honored, where humankind’s rich heritage of ideas were preserved and venerated.”13 This symbolism of stability and security was also used on bank architecture during the early twentieth century, imprinting on the minds of Americans that “an important civic building must feature columns supporting a pediment.”14 Libraries were seen as “visual proof of a town’s commitment to education, and to the community’s history and future”; a symbol generally associated with larger cities, the

7 Bobinski, 47. 8 Abigail A. Van Slyck, Free to All: Carnegie Libraries & American Culture, 1890-1920 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995), 34. 9 “Some Recent American Libraries,” Architects’ and Builders’ Magazine 4 (December 1902): 312. 10 Theodore Jones, Carnegie Libraries Across America: A Public Legacy (New York: Preservation Press and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997), 61. 11 Jones, 67. 12 Bobinski, 63. 13 Karal Ann Marling, Foreword, in Theodore Jones, Carnegie Libraries Across America: A Public Legacy (New York: Preservation Press and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997), xi. 14 Jones, 3. December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 15 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1435 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California library in a small town could establish the community as one that was stable and respectable, and thus, worthy of economic growth.15

In 1911, Bertram composed a guide called “Notes on Library Bildings [sic],” and began sending them to communities.16 His mission was to help communities plan more efficient libraries, rather than spending excess money on architectural detailing. The “Notes” included sample plans and encouraged that small libraries should be one-story buildings with basements and rectangular floor plans. The main floor was to hold the book stacks, the circulation desk, and reading space for adults and children, and could be subdivided by the addition of bookshelves. It was to be 12 to 15 feet high and have windows at least 6 feet from the floor to allow for bookshelves. The basement was to be 9 to 10 feet high and be about 4 feet below grade. It was to contain storage, lecture, and workrooms, the heating plant, and the restrooms. The “Notes” stated that minimal space was to be used for coatrooms, toilets, and stairs. The exterior of the building was to be plain and not contain a lot of frivolous ornamentation; they were supposed to be libraries, not Greek temples.17

William K. Bartges, Architect of the West Branch Library William K. Bartges, Sr. was born in Oakland in 1894. During his early career, he worked with the Roy O. Long Building Company, a local Berkeley builder. Roy O. Long’s business was described in the May 20, 1922 edition of the Berkeley Courier,

Mr. Long…has built many of the homes that make Berkeley noted as a city of beauty. It is true that he sells real estate, but he augments the service of that department by his staff of architectural designers and draftsmen. You may secure the home completed, for he is prepared to sell the land, design the home after your desires, and construct it.18

Bartges worked for Roy O. Long as a designer prior to receiving his architectural license on July 8, 1926.19

According to an index of City of Berkeley building permits compiled by the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Bartges worked in Berkeley from 1922 until 1930, constructing residences throughout the city. Bartges’ work was completed in a variety of popular architectural styles and included Colonial Revival and Classical Revival style buildings. One of Bartges’ commissions, a residence for Mr. D. B. Gray (no address is given, but it is possibly 1932 Yosemite Road) was pictured in the May 27, 1927 issue of Architect and Engineer. Bartges joined the California State Department of Architecture in 1931 and worked as a supervising architect for 30 years, retiring in 1961.

The California State Department of Architecture does not retain files on past employees, and no documentary evidence of the buildings Bartges’ supervised while with the State Department of Architecture has been located. Since the State Department of Architecture provides design oversight for K-12 schools and community colleges, it can be supposed that the majority of Bartges’ career was devoted to school architecture and would have encompassed the period from 1931 to 1961. Bartges died in Sacramento in October 1970.

15 Jones, 17. 16 Bertram and Carnegie were proponents of the simplified spelling system, which used words like “bilding” instead of “building.” 17 Bobinski, 58; 62. 18 “Roy O. Long Co. – Real Estate and Homes,” Berkeley Courier (May 20, 1922). 19 California Secretary of State, Index to Architects, William K. Bartges, License #1484, July 8, 1926. December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 16 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1436 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

West Branch Library Although the West Branch Berkeley Library was not funded by a Carnegie grant, it was largely similar in plan and detailing to the Carnegie libraries of the era. The design of the Berkeley West Branch Library was consistent with the Carnegie library program’s belief that libraries should be approachable and efficient civic institutions.

Even though the Berkeley West Branch Library was constructed in 1923, six years after the Carnegie grant program was suspended in 1917, the building’s design was influenced by the ideals of the Carnegie library. The Berkeley West Branch Library featured many of the elements characteristic of Carnegie libraries, including: one-story height building with a rectangular plan completed in the Classical Revival style with symmetrical fenestration and Classically derived ornament including the building’s cornice, arched entry, and decorative medallions.

One element that the Berkeley West Branch Library included that was atypical of Carnegie libraries was the large windows on the front (south) façade, which would have prevented high bookshelves from being placed at the windows.

E. EVALUATION

In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria:

• Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 17 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1437 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Criterion 1 (Events) The Berkeley West Branch Library was the first branch library constructed in Berkeley and spurred the evolution of the City of Berkeley branch library system. Similarly, the Berkeley West Branch Library was the first public library building to be paid for by the citizens of Berkeley.

Criterion 2 (Persons) No persons of local, California, or national history are associated with the Berkeley West Branch Library.

Criterion 3 (Architecture) The Berkeley West Branch Library is significant for its Classical Revival style design and is the only Carnegie program influenced library remaining in the City of Berkeley.

Although the West Branch Berkeley Library was not funded by a Carnegie grant, it was largely similar in plan and detailing to the Carnegie libraries of the era. The design of the Berkeley West Branch Library was consistent with the Carnegie library program’s belief that libraries should be approachable and efficient civic institutions.

Even though the Berkeley West Branch Library was constructed years after the Carnegie grant program was suspended, the building’s design featured many of the elements characteristic of Carnegie libraries including: one-story height building with a rectangular plan completed in the Classical Revival style with symmetrical fenestration and Classically derived ornament including the building’s cornice, arched entry, and decorative medallions.

The Berkeley West Branch Library’s significant features include the Roman Triumphal arched entry with semi-circular window and surrounding engaged columns; the round ornamental medallion right of the arch; window proportions of three banks of windows on either side of arched entry on the south façade; wood framed windows on west and east facades; the cornice on the west, south, and east facades, and the remaining incised lettering from the original, “WEST BERKELEY BRANCH LIBRARY.”

Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The analysis of the Berkeley West Branch Library for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources, and therefore it is not evaluated as part of this report.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 18 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1438 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. • Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The Berkeley West Branch Library appears to be in fair condition, and retains integrity of location on University Avenue between San Pablo Avenue and Curtis Street in Berkeley. The building was originally constructed on an open block, but is now crowded on a much more dense streetscape, compromising the building’s integrity of setting. The Berkeley West Branch underwent an extensive alteration and addition in 1974, and it no longer retains integrity of design, materials, or workmanship. The 1974 addition demolished a portion of the original south façade, and was completed in an unsympathetic contemporary style with modern materials. Overall, the new addition obscures the original building from view, and detracts from the design of the original library building.

The interior of the library has also been altered over time, including the addition of new spaces, removal of original finishes, and the insertion of a drop ceiling. Therefore, the interior’s volumes, spaces, and finishes have been compromised. The Berkeley West Branch Library has been significantly altered and no longer retains integrity of association and feeling as a Classical Revival style neighborhood branch library. Overall, the building does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance.

Evaluation Conclusion Based upon the information presented in the Landmark Application report and additional research, Page & Turnbull believes that the property does not retain sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register.

However, the original 1923 building is a designated City of Berkeley Structure of Merit, and therefore is presumed to be an historic resource for the purposes of the EIR.

F. EVALUATION OF PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS This section will analyze the project-specific impacts of the proposed project on the environment, as required by CEQA.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 19 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1439 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Therefore, the Berkeley West Branch Library, which has been designated a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit, under the second of the categories listed above, is a qualified historic resource under CEQA.

Determination of Significant Adverse Change Under CEQA According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”21 Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired.”22 The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” and that justify or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to local ordinance or resolution.23 Thus, a project may cause a substantial change in a historic resource but still not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined by CEQA as long as the impact of the change on the historic resource is determined to be less-than- significant, negligible, neutral or even beneficial.

Proposed Project Description According to the Initial Study prepared by Design, Community & Environment (September 7, 2010), the project would involve demolition of the existing Berkeley West Branch Library, and the construction and operation of a new a two-story building with a total floor area of 9,600 gross square feet and a building footprint of 8,900 square feet on the same site.

20 Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. 21 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). 22 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1). 23 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2). December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 20 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1440 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

Proposed Project Analysis Since the proposed project includes the demolition of the Berkeley West Branch Library building, which is a historic resource; the project could cause a substantial adverse impact on the historic resource.

Impact 1.0 – The proposed project would demolish the Berkeley West Branch Library building, which is a qualified historic resource.

The proposed project would demolish the Berkeley West Branch Library building, which is a qualified historic resource. Demolition is considered to be a significant adverse impact, since it would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historic resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the state and local registers.

The proposed project at the Berkeley West Branch Library is part of a larger Branch Improvement Program, which will affect all four branch libraries in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, since the branch libraries of Berkeley do not appear to be a thematic historic district, and the project impacts will be examined on a project-by project basis, there will be no cumulative impacts.

Salvage Program The project sponsors shall undertake a salvage program to save and promote reuse of the building’s historically significant materials and features to the extent reasonably feasible, namely the Classical decorative elements called out in the Structure of Merit designation: the cornice, original wood framed windows, original arched entry with semi-circular window, engaged columns, ornamental medallion, and remaining incised lettering. Salvage allows for the removal of individual architectural elements for potential reuse. Salvaged elements could be reused at the project site or another project, December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 21 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1441 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California or be given to an architectural salvage company. Salvage has the added benefit of landfill and waste diversion.

Interpretive Program The project sponsors could also fund a permanent exhibition and interpretive program on the history the development of the Berkeley West Branch Public Library. The Berkeley West Branch Library is the first of four branch libraries in the city, and the history of the West Branch Library and its architect could be shared with the public through an exhibition and interpretive program. Components of this mitigation program could include a kiosk containing historic photographs and plans, as well as a signage program and permanent gallery.

H. IMPACTS CONCLUSION The proposed project includes the demolition of a qualified historic resource. This would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance. As such, the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on the historic resource under CEQA. Mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact of the proposed project, such as a salvage program, and an interpretive program. However, since the proposed project demolishes an historic resource, the mitigation measures are insufficient to avoid a substantial adverse change in the resource. Therefore, this impact would be deemed to be significant and unavoidable.

III. CONCLUSION Designed in 1923 as a purpose-built library building, the Berkeley West Branch Library is an excellent example of a Classical Revival style branch library building, and appears significant for design. The building remains in use as a library but does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance. However, the original 1923 portion of the building has been designated a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit, and therefore is a qualified historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.

The proposed demolition of the Berkeley West Branch Library, would not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the local register. As such, the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on the historic resource under CEQA. Mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact of the proposed project, such as a salvage program and an interpretive program. However, this impact would be deemed to be significant and unavoidable.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 22 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR

Historic Resource Technical Report Page 1442 Berkeley Westof 2369Branch Library Final Draft Berkeley, California

IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS: Bobinski, George S. Carnegie Libraries: Their History and Impact on American Public Library Development. Chicago: American Library Association, 1969. Jones, Theodore. Carnegie Libraries Across America: A Public Legacy. New York: Preservation Press and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. Van Slyck, Abigail A. Free to All: Carnegie Libraries & American Culture, 1890-1920. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.

ARTICLES: “House for Mr. D.B. Gray, Berkeley, California.” Architect & Engineer. May 27, 1927. 89, 2: 51. “Roy O. Long Co. – Real Estate and Homes.” Berkeley Courier. May 20, 1922. “Some Recent American Libraries,” Architects’ and Builders’ Magazine 4 (December 1902).

PUBLIC RECORDS: City of Berkeley, Building Permit Number 13769, March 29, 1923. California Secretary of State, Index to Architects, William K. Bartges, License # 1484, July 8, 1926.

UNPUBLISHED REPORTS: Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Index of Building Permits, accessed August 27, 2010. Noll & Tam. The Berkeley Public Library Branch Libraries Facilities Master Plan. 2008.

INTERNET SOURCES: Dr. Abigail A. Van Slyck, “Styles: Carnegie Library Architecture,” http://www.carnegie-libraries.org/ accessed August 24, 2010.

December 2010 Page & Turnbull, Inc. - 23 -

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1443 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1444 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1445 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1446 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1447 of 2369

A PPENDIX J

G EOTECHNICAL R EPORTS

...... Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1448 of 2369

...... Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1449 of 2369

Prepared for City of Berkeley

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIBRARY BUILDING BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY, SOUTH BRANCH BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT

May 27, 2010 Project No. 10-217

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1450 of 2369

May 27, 2010 Project No. 10-217

Mr. Dennis Dang Berkeley Public Library 2031 Bancroft Way Berkeley, California 94704

Subject: Final Report Geotechnical Investigation New Library Building Berkeley Public Library, South Branch Berkeley, California

Dear Mr. Dang:

We are pleased to present our geotechnical report, dated May 27, 2010, for the proposed new Berkeley Public Library, South Branch building to be constructed at 1901 Russell Street in Berkeley, California. Our services were provided in accordance with our proposal dated February 11, 2010 and our Personal Services Contract with the City of Berkeley, dated March 18, 2010.

The project site is a relatively level parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Russell Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. It is currently occupied by a single- story, concrete-block building constructed around 1960. The proposed improvements will consist of the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new approximately 9,000-square-foot, one-story building.

On the basis of our investigation, we conclude the proposed improvements may be constructed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical issues to be addressed in the design and construction of the proposed building are the presence of existing fill, a shallow groundwater table, and the presence of existing drilled pier foundations within the footprint of the proposed structure. We conclude the most appropriate foundation system for the proposed building consists of a well-reinforced concrete mat foundation underlain by at least 12 inches of compacted on-site soil

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1451 of 2369

Mr. Dennis Dang Berkeley Public Library May 27, 2010 Page 2

The recommendations contained in our report are based on a limited subsurface exploration. Consequently, variations between expected and actual subsurface conditions may be found in localized areas during construction. Therefore, we should be engaged to observe grading and foundation installation during which time we may make changes in our recommendations, if deemed necessary.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any questions, please call.

Sincerely yours, ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Craig S. Shields, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Steven Dewan, Kitchell

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1452 of 2369

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 2

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...... 2 3.1 Test Borings ...... 3 3.2 Laboratory Testing ...... 3

4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...... 4

5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...... 5 5.1 Regional Seismicity ...... 5 5.2 Geologic Hazards ...... 8 5.2.1 Ground Shaking ...... 8 5.2.2 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards ...... 8 5.2.3 Cyclic Densification ...... 9 5.2.4 Ground Surface Rupture ...... 9

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 10 6.1 Site Preparation and Grading ...... 10 6.1.1 Select Fill ...... 13 6.1.2 Exterior Flatwork Subgrade Preparation ...... 14 6.1.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ...... 14 6.1.4 Utility Trench Backfill ...... 14 6.1.5 Surface Drainage ...... 15 6.2 Foundation Support ...... 15 6.3 Retaining Walls ...... 17 6.4 Porous Concrete Pavement or Pavers ...... 18 6.5 Rigid (Portland Cement Concrete) Pavement ...... 18 6.6 Seismic Design...... 19 6.7 Soil Corrosivity ...... 19

7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ...... 20

8.0 LIMITATIONS ...... 20

9.0 REFERENCES ...... 21

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1453 of 2369

FIGURES APPENDIX A – Logs of Test Borings APPENDIX B – Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C – Logs of Previous Test Borings by Others

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Site Plan

Figure 3 Seismic Hazard Zones Map

APPENDIX A

Figures A-1 Logs of Borings B-1 and B-2 and A-2

Figure A-3 Classification Chart

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1454 of 2369

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIBRARY BUILDING BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY, SOUTH BRANCH Berkeley, California

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed by Rockridge Geotechnical for the proposed new Berkeley Public Library South Branch building to be constructed at 1901 Russell Street in Berkeley, California. The project site is a relatively level parcel on the northeast corner of Russell Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, as shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1). It is currently occupied by a single-story, concrete-block building.

The proposed improvements will consist of the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new approximately 9,000-square-foot, one-story building. Constructed around 1960, the existing building is supported on drilled, cast-in-place concrete piers that reportedly range in length from 11 to 15 feet. An addition constructed on the north side of the existing building is also supported on drilled piers ranging in length from 7 to 9 feet. According to Mr. Gordon Yagisawa with Tipping Mar, the project structural engineer, the design floor loads for the new building will range from 50 to 150 pounds per square foot (psf), with the heaviest loading in the stack areas. In addition, there will be concentrated loads ranging from approximately 1,000 to 2,000 pounds throughout the building.

A geotechnical investigation was previously performed at the site for the existing building by Woodward-Clyde-Sherard & Associates (WCSA), the results of which were presented in a report titled Soil Investigation for the Proposed Berkeley Public Library Building, South Branch, Grove and Russell Streets, Berkeley, California, dated May 23, 1960. We used the data in the WCSA report in our evaluation of subsurface conditions at the site. The site plan and boring logs from the WCSA report are presented in Appendix C of this report.

10-217 1 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1455 of 2369

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

Our investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated February 11, 2010 and our Personal Services Contract with the City of Berkeley, dated March 18, 2010. Our scope of work consisted of exploring subsurface conditions at the site by drilling two test borings, performing laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained from the test borings, and performing engineering analyses to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding:

 the most appropriate foundation type(s) for the proposed building  design criteria for the recommended foundation type(s), including vertical and lateral capacities for each of the foundation type(s)  estimates of total and differential foundation settlement  design criteria for retaining walls, including active, at-rest, and passive pressure, and coefficient of sliding friction  subgrade preparation for slab-on-grade floors and walkways  flexible and rigid pavement design  site grading and excavation, including criteria for fill quality and compaction  site seismicity and seismic hazards, including the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground failure  2007 California Building Code (CBC) site class and design spectral response acceleration parameters  corrosion potential of near surface soil  construction considerations.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling two test borings and performing laboratory testing on selected soil samples. Prior to drilling the test borings, we obtained a permit from the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department Toxics Management Division and contacted Underground Service Alert (USA) to notify them of our work, as required by law. We also retained Precision Locating, LLC, a private utility locator, to check

10-217 2 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1456 of 2369

that the boring locations were clear of existing utilities. Details of the field exploration and laboratory testing are described below.

3.1 Test Borings

We supplemented the available subsurface data by drilling two test borings, designated as B-1 and B-2, at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). The borings were each advanced to a depth of 25 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) on April 1, 2010 by Exploration Geoservices, Inc. of San Jose, California. The borings were drilled using a truck- mounted drill rig equipped with eight-inch-outside-diameter hollow-stem augers.

During drilling, our field engineer logged the soil encountered and obtained representative samples for visual classification and laboratory testing. The logs of the borings are presented on Figures A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A. The soil encountered in the borings was classified in accordance with the classification chart shown on Figure A-3.

Soil samples in the borings were obtained using a Sprague and Henwood (S&H) split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch-outside diameter, 2.5-inch-inside diameter, and lined with brass tubes with an inside diameter of 2.43 inches. The S&H sampler was driven with a 140-pound, downhole, safety hammer falling 30 inches. The blow counts required to drive the S&H sampler the final 12 inches of an 18-inch drive (N-values) were converted to approximate SPT N-values using a conversion factor of 0.6 and are shown on the boring logs. Upon completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with cement grout.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

We examined each soil sample in the office to confirm the field classification and select representative samples for laboratory testing. Soil samples were tested to measure moisture content, dry density, shear strength, Atterberg Limits, and corrosivity. The test results are presented on the boring logs, except for the corrosivity test results which are presented in Appendix B.

10-217 3 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1457 of 2369

4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The site consists of a relatively level parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Russell Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. It is bordered by residential properties to the north and east. The site is currently occupied by a single-story, concrete-block building constructed around 1960. A topographic survey performed by Logan Surveying in September 2009 indicates the finished floor elevation for the existing building is 115.5 feet (City of Berkeley datum).

The WCSA report indicates there was an old filled-in basement on the site prior to construction of the existing library building in 1960. The outline of the former basement, as shown on Figure 1 of the WCSA report, is plotted on Figure 2 of this report. Because of the presence of up to seven feet of fill in the filled-in basement, as well as up to four feet of fill in other portions of the site, WCSA recommended the proposed building be supported on drilled, cast-in-place concrete piers taking support through skin friction below the fill. Based on this information, we conclude the fill in the basement area probably still exists.

The borings drilled for our investigation and the previous WCSA borings indicate the site is predominantly underlain by stiff to very stiff clay with varying sand and gravel content that extends to the maximum depth explored of 25 feet bgs. Atterberg limits tests indicate the near- surface clay has low to moderate expansion potential. Fill was encountered in all four WCSA borings, ranging in thickness from approximately 1-1/2 to 7-1/2 feet. The two borings drilled in the former basement area encountered between 7 and 7-1/2 feet of fill. We did not encounter soil that appeared to be fill in our two borings; however, the upper two feet of clay in Boring B-2 had relatively low moist unit weight, indicating this material may be fill.

Groundwater was initially measured during drilling at depths of 8 and 13 feet bgs in Borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. Measurements taken shortly after drilling was completed showed the groundwater level had risen in both borings to depths of approximately 4-1/2 and 6 feet bgs in Borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. These latter groundwater levels are consistent with the groundwater levels measured by WCSA in May 1960.

10-217 4 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1458 of 2369

5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Regional Seismicity

The major active faults in the area are the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas faults. For these and other active faults within a 40-kilometer radius of the site, the distance from the site and estimated maximum Moment magnitude1 [Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) (2008) and Cao et al. (2003)] are summarized in Table 1.

1 Moment magnitude is an energy-based scale and provides a physically meaningful measure of the size of a faulting event. Moment magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area.

10-217 5 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1459 of 2369

TABLE 1 Regional Faults and Seismicity

Approximate Distance from Direction from Maximum Fault Segment Site (km) Site Magnitude

North Hayward 2 East 6.5 Total Hayward 2 East 6.9 Total Hayward-Rodgers Creek 2 East 7.3 South Hayward 6 East 6.7 Mt Diablo-MTD 21 East 6.7 Total Calaveras 23 East 6.9 Concord/Green Valley 24 East 6.7 San Andreas-1906 Rupture 27 West 7.9 San Andreas – Peninsula 27 West 7.2 San Andreas – North Coast South 28 West 7.5 Rodgers Creek 29 Northwest 7.0 Northern San Gregorio 32 West 7.2 Total San Gregorio 32 West 7.4 West Napa 34 North 6.5 Greenville 39 East 6.9

Since 1800, four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault. In 1836, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of VII on the Modified Mercalli (MM) scale occurred east of Monterey Bay on the San Andreas Fault (Toppozada and Borchardt 1998). The

estimated Moment magnitude, Mw, for this earthquake is about 6.25. In 1838, an earthquake occurred with an estimated intensity of about VIII-IX (MM), corresponding to an Mw of about 7.5. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 caused the most significant damage in the history of

10-217 6 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1460 of 2369

the Bay Area in terms of loss of lives and property damage. This earthquake created a surface rupture along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Bautista approximately 470 kilometers in length. It had a maximum intensity of XI (MM), an Mw of about 7.9, and was felt 560 kilometers away in Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles. The most recent earthquake to affect

the Bay Area was the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 17 October 1989 with an Mw of 6.9. This earthquake occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains about 92 kilometers southwest of the site.

In 1868, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of X on the MM scale occurred on the southern segment (between San Leandro and Fremont) of the Hayward Fault. The estimated

Mw for the earthquake is 7.0. In 1861, an earthquake of unknown magnitude (probably an Mw of about 6.5) was reported on the Calaveras Fault. The most recent significant earthquake on this fault was the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake (Mw = 6.2).

The U.S. Geological Survey’s 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has complied the earthquake fault research for the San Francisco Bay area in order to estimate the probability of fault segment rupture. They have determined that the overall probability of moment magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Region during the next thirty years is 63 percent. The highest probabilities are assigned to the Hayward/Rodgers Creek Fault and the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault. These probabilities are 31 and 21 percent, respectively (USGS, 2008).

10-217 7 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1461 of 2369

5.2 Geologic Hazards

Because the project site is in a seismically active region, we evaluated the potential for earthquake-induced geologic hazards including ground shaking, ground surface rupture, liquefaction,2 lateral spreading,3 and cyclic densification4. We used the results of the borings to evaluate the potential of these phenomena occurring at the project site.

5.2.1 Ground Shaking

The seismicity of the site is governed by the activity of the Hayward Fault, although ground shaking from future earthquakes on other faults, including the Calaveras and San Andreas faults, will also be felt at the site. The intensity of earthquake ground motion at the site will depend upon the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the earthquake epicenter, and magnitude and duration of the earthquake. We judge that strong to very strong ground shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults.

5.2.2 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards

When a saturated, cohesionless soil liquefies, it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength created by a transient rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement, loss of bearing strength, ground fissures and sand boils are evidence of excess pore pressure generation and liquefaction.

2 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, cohesionless soil experiences temporary reduction in strength during cyclic loading such as that produced by earthquakes. 3 Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization, the surficial blocks are transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and gravitational forces. 4 Cyclic densification is a phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is compacted by earthquake vibrations, causing ground-surface settlement.

10-217 8 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1462 of 2369

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has prepared a map titled State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones, Oakland West Quadrangle, Official Map, dated February 14, 2003, that shows areas where geologic conditions warrant a detailed evaluation of liquefaction potential. As shown on Figure 3, the site is not within a designated liquefaction hazard zone. Our borings and the previous WCSA borings indicate the soil underlying the site has sufficient cohesion to resist liquefaction and, therefore, we conclude the potential for liquefaction at the site is low. Considering the low potential for liquefaction at the site, we conclude the potential for lateral spreading is also very low.

5.2.3 Cyclic Densification

Cyclic densification (also referred to as differential compaction) of non-saturated sand (sand above groundwater table) can occur during an earthquake, resulting in settlement of the ground surface and overlying improvements. We did not encountered granular soils above the groundwater table, therefore, we conclude the potential for cyclic densification is nil.

5.2.4 Ground Surface Rupture

Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. We therefore conclude the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low. In a seismically active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously existed; however, we conclude the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure from previously unknown faults is also very low.

10-217 9 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1463 of 2369

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From a geotechnical standpoint, we conclude the site can be developed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications and implemented during construction. The primary geotechnical issues to be addressed in the design and construction of the proposed building are the presence of existing fill, a shallow groundwater table, and the presence of existing drilled pier foundations within the footprint of the proposed structure. Our conclusions and recommendations to address these issues are presented below.

6.1 Site Preparation and Grading

Demolition of the site should include removal of all existing grade beams, slabs, asphalt pavement, and concrete flatwork. The existing drilled pier foundations should be cut off at least 18 inches below the bottom of the proposed mat foundation, which is described below in Section 6.2. Any vegetation and organic topsoil should be stripped in areas to receive improvements (i.e., building, pavement, or flatwork). Removed asphalt concrete should be taken to an asphalt recycling facility. Tree roots with a diameter greater than 1/2 inch within two feet of subgrade should be removed. If it is not possible to remove tree roots at a particular location because it may damage a tree that will remain, we should evaluate the potential impact on the new construction. Excessively dry soil at tree removal locations, as determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer, should also be excavated and replaced with engineered fill.

In general, abandoned underground utilities should be removed to the property line or service connections and properly capped or plugged with concrete. Where existing utility lines are outside of the building footprint and will not interfere with the proposed construction, they may be abandoned in-place provided the lines are filled with lean concrete or cement grout to the property line. Voids resulting from demolition activities should be properly backfilled with engineered fill following the recommendations provided later in this section.

10-217 10 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1464 of 2369

After demolition and site clearing is complete, potholing should be performed to investigate the lateral extent and depth of the existing fill in the former basement area. The existing fill should then be excavated and stockpiled for reuse as engineered fill. Drilled piers exposed in the excavation should be cut off to the bottom of the excavation. Dewatering of the excavation will be necessary to allow access for equipment and placement of fill. After the fill has been removed, a layer of geotextile (Mirafi HP370 or equivalent) should be placed on the excavation bottom. A minimum of 12 inches of open-graded, ¾-inch drain rock should then be placed over the geotextile and static-rolled with a small smooth drum roller. The resulting surface should be proof-rolled with a fully loaded water truck or 10-wheel dump truck to confirm the subgrade is adequately stabilized. Additional drain rock should be added if the proof-rolling indicates the subgrade is not adequately stabilized. After it is confirmed the subgrade is adequately stabilized, the drain rock should be covered with a filter fabric (Mirafi 140NC or equivalent) to minimize the potential for migration of fines into the drain rock. Engineered fill can then be placed in lifts above the filter fabric. The fill should be compacted with a sheepsfoot-type compactor without use of vibratory energy.

In other areas to receive improvements or fill, the soil exposed by stripping should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to at least two percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.5 The soil subgrade should be kept moist until it is covered by fill or concrete. If the subgrade is not kept moist, the contractor will be required to scarify and recompact. Because of the high groundwater table, we anticipate the soil subgrade over much of the proposed building footprint will be too wet to achieve the recommended minimum relative compaction. Therefore, the grading contractor should be prepared to scarify and aerate the subgrade to dry it prior to attempting compaction. The subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches; the scarified material should be turned at least twice a day to promote uniform drying. Once the moisture content of the aerated

5 Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same material, as determined by the ASTM D1557 laboratory compaction procedure.

10-217 11 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1465 of 2369

soil has been reduced to acceptable levels, the soil should be compacted in accordance with our recommendations above. Aeration is typically the least costly subgrade stabilization alternative; however, it generally requires the most time to complete and may not be practical if warm weather is not expected when grading is performed. If aeration is not practical, we recommend treating the upper 12 inches of subgrade with a minimum of four percent hi-calcium quicklime.

The excavated on-site soil can be reused for engineered fill; however, the material will likely be too wet to compact the recommended minimum relative compaction. Therefore, the grading contractor should be prepared to aerate the excavated material, as described in the previous paragraph, to lower its moisture content. Alternatively, the excavated material can be treated with quicklime or off-hauled and replaced with imported fill. If material to be used as fill is imported to the site, it should meet the requirements of select fill given in Section 6.1.1. A summary of the compaction requirements for the various types of fill that may be used at the site is presented in Table 2.

10-217 12 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1466 of 2369

TABLE 2 Summary of Compaction Requirements

Required Relative Compaction Moisture Location (percent) Requirement Building pad subgrade- native soil 90+ 2+% above optimum General fill - select fill/lime-treated 90+ Above optimum on-site soil less than five feet thick General fill - select fill/lime-treated 95+ Above optimum on-site soil more than five feet thick General fill - native soil less than 5 90+ 2+% above optimum feet thick General fill - native soil more than 5 93+ 2+% above optimum feet thick Utility trench backfill - native soil 90+ 2+% above optimum Utility trench backfill - select fill/lime- 90+ Above optimum treated on-site soil Utility trench - clean sand or gravel 95+ Near optimum Exterior slabs – native soil subgrade 90+ 2+% above optimum Exterior slabs – select fill/AB 90+ Above optimum

6.1.1 Select Fill

Select fill should consist of imported soil that is free of organic matter, contain no rocks or lumps larger than three inches in greatest dimension, have a liquid limit less than 40 and plasticity index less than 12, and be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition, the select fill should contain at least 20 percent fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) to reduce the potential for surface water to infiltrate beneath slabs. Select fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness, moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 2. Samples of proposed select fill material should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer at

10-217 13 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1467 of 2369

least three business days prior to use at the site. The grading contractor should provide analytical test results or other suitable environmental documentation indicating the imported fill is free of hazardous materials at least three days before use at the site. If this data is not available, up to two weeks should be allowed to perform analytical testing on the proposed imported material.

6.1.2 Exterior Flatwork Subgrade Preparation

We recommend four inches of Class 2 aggregate base (AB) be placed beneath exterior concrete flatwork on the site, such as patios and sidewalks. The AB should be moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Prior to placement of the AB, the soil exposed at subgrade level should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and moisture-conditioned and compacted in accordance with the requirements presented in Table 2.

6.1.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation

In vehicular pavement areas where native or imported soil is exposed at subgrade level, the upper eight inches of subgrade should be moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction to achieve a firm, unyielding subgrade. The soil subgrade should be kept moist until it is covered by AB. The AB placed beneath pavements receiving vehicular traffic should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.

6.1.4 Utility Trench Backfill

All trenches should conform to the current CAL-OSHA requirements. To provide uniform support, pipes or conduits should be bedded on a minimum of four inches of sand or fine gravel. After the pipes and conduits are tested, inspected (if required) and approved, they should be covered to a depth of six inches with sand or fine gravel, which should be mechanically tamped. The pipe bedding and cover should be eliminated where an impermeable plug is required as described in the following paragraph. Backfill for utility trenches and other excavations is also considered fill, and should be placed and compacted as according to the recommendations previously presented. If imported clean sand or gravel (defined as soil with less than 10 percent

10-217 14 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1468 of 2369

fines) is used as backfill, it should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Jetting of trench backfill should not be permitted. Special care should be taken when backfilling utility trenches in pavement areas. Poor compaction may cause excessive settlements, resulting in damage to the pavement section.

An impermeable plug consisting of lean concrete, at least three feet in length, should be installed where the trenches enter the building footprint. Furthermore, where sand- or gravel-backfilled trenches cross planter areas and pass below pavements, a similar plug should be placed at the edge of the pavement. The purpose of these recommendations is to reduce the potential for water to become trapped in trenches beneath the building or pavements.

6.1.5 Surface Drainage

Positive surface drainage should be provided around the building to direct surface water away from the foundation. To reduce the potential for water ponding adjacent to the building, we recommend the ground surface within a horizontal distance of five feet from the building slope down away from the building with a surface gradient of at least two percent in unpaved areas and one percent in paved areas. In addition, roof downspouts should be discharged into controlled drainage facilities to keep the water away from the foundation.

6.2 Foundation Support

The primary issues to be addressed in selecting a suitable foundation type for the proposed building are the presence of up to 7-1/2 feet of undocumented fill in the previous basement area and the presence of drilled pier foundations for the existing building. Although deep foundations, such as drilled, cast-in-place concrete piers, will provide suitable support for the proposed building, these foundation types are typically more costly than a shallow foundation system. We conclude spread footings are not feasible because of the potential for differential settlement between footings underlain by existing drilled piers and nearby footings underlain by only native soil. Consequently, we conclude the most appropriate foundation system for the proposed building consists of a well-reinforced concrete mat foundation underlain by at least 12

10-217 15 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1469 of 2369

inches of compacted on-site soil. As discussed above, the existing drilled piers should be cut off at least 18 inches below the bottom of the mat.

The mat foundation should be at least 12 inches thick and the edge of the mat should extend at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. For design of the mat, we recommend using a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of 50 pounds per cubic inch (pci) where there are no existing drilled pier foundations and 100 pci where the mat will be underlain by an existing drilled pier. These values are for a one-foot-square plate and should be scaled to account for the size of the mat foundation. The mat may be designed using allowable bearing pressures of 3,000 and 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads and total loads, respectively. Localized higher bearing pressures may be acceptable; however, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We estimate total settlement of the mat foundation will be less than ¾ inch, which includes approximately ½ inch of post-construction settlement due to the building contents. We estimate post-construction differential settlement will be less than ¼ inch over a horizontal distance of 25 feet.

Lateral loads can be resisted by a combination of passive pressure on the outside edges of the mat foundation and friction along the bottom of the mat. Passive resistance may be calculated using a uniform pressure of 1,000 psf. The upper one foot of soil should be ignored unless it is confined by slabs or pavement. Frictional resistance should be computed using a base friction coefficient of 0.30 where the mat is in contact with soil and 0.20 where the mat is in underlain by a vapor retarder. These values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5.

A vapor retarder meeting the requirements for Class A vapor retarders stated in ASTM E1745-97 should be placed directly on the subgrade soil below the mat foundation. The vapor retarder should be placed in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1643-98. These requirements include overlapping seams by six inches, taping seams, and sealing penetrations in the vapor retarder. If required by the structural engineer, the vapor retarder can be covered with two inches of sand to aid in curing the concrete.

10-217 16 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1470 of 2369

The mat subgrade should be free of loose material, debris, and shrinkage cracks prior to placing the vapor retarder. The subgrade should be moistened as needed to prevent formation of shrinkage cracks during installation of underslab utilities. We should examine the subgrade prior to placement of the vapor retarder to confirm the condition of the subgrade is acceptable.

6.3 Retaining Walls

Retaining walls that are restrained from movement at the top or sides should be designed for at- rest conditions using an equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution) of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Walls that are not restrained may be designed for active conditions using an equivalent fluid weight of 40 pcf. Because site retaining walls, if any, will likely consist of landscape walls less than five feet high, it is not necessary to include a seismic pressure increment in the design.

The foregoing design pressures assume the walls will be properly backdrained. One acceptable method for backdraining retaining walls is to place a prefabricated drainage panel (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent) against the backside of the walls. The drainage panel should extend down to a perforated PVC collector pipe at the base of the wall. The pipe should be surrounded on all sides by at least four inches of 3/4-inch crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140NC or equivalent). The pipe should be sloped to drain into a closed collection system, such as the storm drain system. We should review the manufacturer's specifications for proposed prefabricated drainage panel material and drain pipe to verify they are appropriate for the intended use.

Where wall backfill is required, it should be compacted to the relative compaction recommended in Section 6.1 using light (hand-operated) compaction equipment. If heavy equipment is used, the wall should be appropriately designed to withstand loads exerted by the equipment and/or temporarily braced.

10-217 17 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1471 of 2369

6.4 Porous Concrete Pavement or Pavers

If porous concrete pavement or porous pavers are used, the pavement or pavers should be underlain by ¾-inch, open-graded crushed rock (i.e., drain rock). Bedding sand beneath pavers should be separated from the drain rock with a layer of filter fabric (Mirafi 140NC or equivalent). For pavement or pavers that will receive truck traffic, the drain rock should be at least 12 inches thick. If the vehicular traffic will only consist of light passenger vehicles, the drain rock should be at least 9 inches thick. The upper six inches of the subgrade should be moisture-conditioned and compacted in accordance with requirements presented in Table 2 in Section 6.1. Prior to placement of the drain rock, a layer of geotextile (Mirafi HP370 or equivalent) should be placed on the compacted subgrade. The drain rock should be compacted with at least six passes of a smooth-drum roller.

Because the permeability of the near-surface clay will be very low, it will be necessary to install a subdrain to collect surface water that infiltrates through the pavement and direct it to an appropriate discharge point. The soil subgrade beneath the drain rock should slope at a gradient of at least two percent toward perforated drain pipes spaced at no more than 20 feet apart. The drain pipes should consist of four-inch-diameter, perforated Schedule 40 PVC pipes installed in a 12-inch-wide by 12-inch-deep trench. The drain pipes should also slope at a gradient of at least one percent to the discharge point.

6.5 Rigid (Portland Cement Concrete) Pavement

Concrete pavement design is based on a maximum single-axle load of 20,000 pounds and a maximum tandem axle load of 32,000 pounds and light truck traffic (i.e., a few trucks per week). The recommended rigid pavement section for these axle loads is six inches of Portland cement concrete over six inches of Class 2 aggregate base. For driveways that will experience only passenger vehicle traffic, the recommended pavement section is five inches of Portland cement over six inches of Class 2 aggregate base.

10-217 18 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1472 of 2369

The modulus of rupture of the concrete should be at least 500 psi at 28 days. Contraction joints should be constructed at 15-foot spacing. Where the outer edge of a concrete pavement meets asphalt concrete pavement, the concrete slab should be thickened by 50 percent at a taper not to exceed a slope of 1 in 10. For areas that will receive weekly garbage truck traffic, we recommend the slab be reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 bars at 16-inch spacing in both directions. Recommendations for subgrade preparation and aggregate base compaction for concrete pavement are the same as those we have described above for asphalt concrete pavement.

6.6 Seismic Design

For design in accordance with the 2007 CBC, we recommend Site Class D be used. The latitude and longitude of the site are 37.8563 and -122.2708, respectively. The spectral acceleration at a period of 0 seconds (corresponds to the PGA) is 0.49 times gravity (g) for the design-level earthquake. Hence, in accordance with the 2007 CBC, we recommend the following:

 SMs = 1.828g, SM1 = 1.03g

 SDs = 1.219g, SD1 = 0.687g.

6.7 Soil Corrosivity

On the basis of the results of the corrosivity analyses performed on a sample of the near-surface soil obtained during our field investigation, we conclude the near-surface soil is considered “severely corrosive”. Accordingly, buried iron, steel, cast iron, galvanized steel, and dielectric- coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion. The results indicate that sulfate and chloride ion concentrations are insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures below ground, and the pH of the soil does not present a problem with buried iron, steel, mortar- coated steel, and reinforced concrete.

10-217 19 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1473 of 2369

7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES

Prior to construction, Rockridge Geotechnical should review the project plans and specifications to verify that they conform to the intent of our recommendations. During construction, our field engineer should provide on-site observation and testing during site preparation, placement and compaction of fill, and installation of building foundations. These observations will allow us to compare actual with anticipated subsurface conditions and to verify that the contractor's work conforms to the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications.

8.0 LIMITATIONS

This geotechnical study has been conducted in accordance with the standard of care commonly used as state-of-practice in the profession. No other warranties are either expressed or implied. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that the subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed in the exploratory borings. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified so that additional recommendations can be made. The foundation recommendations presented in this report are developed exclusively for the proposed development described in this report and are not valid for other locations and construction in the project vicinity.

10-217 20 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1474 of 2369

9.0 REFERENCES

Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum D. and Wills, C. J. (2003). “The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps”

California Division of Mines and Geology (1996), Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California, DMG Open-File Report 96-08.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey (2003), State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Parts of Oakland West Quadrangle, Official Map, 14 February 2003. California Geological Survey (2008), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.

Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas with locations and ages of recent volcanic eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale 1: 750,000.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): prepared by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1437.

10-217 21 May 27, 2010

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1475 of 2369

FIGURES

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1476 of 2369

SITE

Base map: The Thomas Guide 0 1/4 1/2 Mile Santa Clara County 1999 Approximate scale

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOUTH BRANCH Berkeley, California SITE LOCATION MAP ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL Date 04/03/10Project No. 10-217 Figure 1 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1477 of 2369

EXPLANATION

B-1 Approximate location of boring by Rockridge Geotechnical; April 2010 WCS-1 Approximate location of previous boring by Woodward-Clyde-Sherard & Associates; May 1960 B-1 Probable extent of old basement as shown in May 23, 1960 report by WCS

WCS-4 WCS-3

WCS-2

WCS-1 B-2

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOUTH BRANCH Berkeley, California

SITE PLAN 0 20 40 Feet Date 05/03/10 Project No. 10-217 Figure 2

Approximate scale ROCKRIDGE Reference: Base map from a drawing titled "Topographic Survey, South Branch Berkeley Library", by Logan Surveying, dated September 23, 2009. GEOTECHNICAL

Edward Street Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1478 of 2369

SITE

EXPLANATION Liquefaction; Areas where historic occurence of liquefaction, 0 2,000 4,000 Feet or local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface Approximate scale water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements.

Earthquake-Induced Landslides; Areas where previous occurence of Reference: landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and State of California "Seismic Hazard Zones" subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground Oakland West Quadrangle. displacements. Released on February 14, 2003

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOUTH BRANCH Berkeley, California SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONES MAP ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL Date 05/04/10 Project No. 10-217 Figure 3 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1479 of 2369

APPENDIX A Logs of Test Borings

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1480 of 2369 PROJECT: BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOUTH BRANCH Berkeley, California Log of Boring B-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 Boring location: See Site Plan, Figure 2 Logged by: C. Divis Date started: 4/1/10 Date nished: 4/1/10 Drilling method: 8-inch O.D. Hollow-Stem Auger

Hammer weight/drop: 140 lbs./30 inches Hammer type: Downhole LABORATORY TEST DATA Sampler: Sprague & Henwood (S&H) SAMPLES 1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION % Test Fines Natural Type of Strength Moisture Pressure Conning Lbs/Sq Ft Lbs/Sq Ft Lbs/Cu Ft Content, % Dry Density SPT Type (feet) Shear Strength Sample Sampler N-Value Blows/ 6" DEPTH LITHOLOGY 1-1/2-inch Asphalt Concrete (AC) 1 6-inch Aggregate Base (AB) 4 24.7 95 S&H 5 7 CL CLAY (CL) 22.4 101 2 6 black with red nodules, sti , wet LL = 38, PI = 23 3 CLAY (CL) 6 4 CL gray, sti to very sti , wet, with occasional S&H 15 22 sand/gravel UC 2,300 17.6 113 21 5 4/1/10 (immediately after drilling) PP 2,000 11 S&H 15 25 PP 3,250 6 CLAY with SAND and GRAVEL (CL) 26 mottled brown/gray, very sti , moist PP 4,000 7

8 4/1/10 (during drilling) 7 9 increased sand content, wet S&H 10 14 PP 4,500 14 CL 10

13 14 14 GC CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND (GC) S&H 24 31 brown, dense, wet 28 15 SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL (CL) brown, hard, wet 16 CL 17

18 CLAY (CL) 8 19 brown, very sti , wet, with occasional gravel S&H 16 22 PP 3,500 21 20

21 CL

23 7 24 CL SANDY CLAY (CL) S&H 7 8 brown, medium sti to sti , wet 7 SC 25 CLAYEY SAND (SC) brown, medium dense, wet 26

30 1 S&H blow counts converted to SPT N-Values using a factor Boring terminated at a depth of 25 feet below ground of 0.6. surface. Boring backlled with cement grout. Groundwater encountered at a depth of 4.5 feet during Project No.: Figure: drilling. 10-217 A-1 GEOTECH LOG - NO LOGO 10-217.GPJ TR.GDT 5/4/10 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1481 of 2369 PROJECT: BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOUTH BRANCH Berkeley, California Log of Boring B-2 PAGE 1 OF 1 Boring location: See Site Plan, Figure 2 Logged by: C. Divis Date started: 4/1/10 Date nished: 4/1/10 Drilling method: 8-inch O.D. Hollow-Stem Auger

Hammer weight/drop: 140 lbs./30 inches Hammer type: Downhole LABORATORY TEST DATA Sampler: Sprague & Henwood (S&H) SAMPLES 1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION % Test Fines Natural Type of Strength Moisture Pressure Conning Lbs/Sq Ft Lbs/Sq Ft Lbs/Cu Ft Content, % Dry Density SPT Type (feet) Shear Strength Sample Sampler N-Value Blows/ 6" DEPTH LITHOLOGY 4-inch Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 1 CL CLAY (CL) 9 black, sti , dry to moist S&H 7 8 2 PP 3,250 13.0 92 6 LL = 28, PI = 14 CLAY (CL) 3 PP 2,000 CL gray/ olive, sti , moist 4 4 LL = 41, PI = 28 S&H 8 12 UC 1,490 19.7 105 12 5 9 CLAY with SAND and GRAVEL (CL) S&H 15 24 mottled orange/ gray, sti to very sti , moist 6 UC 2,250 19.1 111 25 4/1/10 (20 minutes after drilling) PP 3,000 7

8 8 9 increased sand content S&H 11 15 CL PP 4,250 14 10

13 4/1/10 (during drilling) 9 14 CL SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL (CL) S&H 18 26 brown, very sti , wet PP 3,250 25 15 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC) brown, medium dense, wet 16 SC 17

18 8 19 CLAY with GRAVEL (CL) S&H 12 18 olive/ brown/ black, very sti , wet PP 3,000 18 20

21 CL

23 7 24 CLAY (CL) S&H 17 22 CL mottled olive/ brown, sti , wet PP 1,750 19 25

Major Divisions Symbols Typical Names

GW Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Gravels (More than half of GP Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines coarse fraction > GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures no. 4 sieve size) GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures SW Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines

sieve size sieve Sands (More than half of SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines coarse fraction < Coarse-Grained Soils Coarse-Grained SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures no. 4 sieve size)

(more than half of soil > no. 200 (more than half of soil > no. SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures ML Inorganic silts and clayey silts of low plasticity, sandy silts, gravelly silts Silts and Clays CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays LL = < 50 OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts of high plasticity Silts and Clays CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays LL = > 50 < no. 200 sieve size) 200 sieve < no. Fine -Grained Soils (more than half of soil OH Organic silts and clays of high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat and other highly organic soils

SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS/SYMBOLS GRAIN SIZE CHART Sample taken with Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a Range of Grain Sizes 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter. Darkened Classification U.S. Standard Grain Size area indicates soil recovered Sieve Size in Millimeters Classification sample taken with Standard Penetration Test sampler Boulders Above 12" Above 305 Cobbles 12" to 3" 305 to 76.2 Undisturbed sample taken with thin-walled tube Gravel 3" to No. 4 76.2 to 4.76 coarse 3" to 3/4" 76.2 to 19.1 Disturbed sample fine 3/4" to No. 4 19.1 to 4.76 Sand No. 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.075 coarse No. 4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 Sampling attempted with no recovery medium No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 fine No. 40 to No. 200 0.420 to 0.075 Core sample Silt and Clay Below No. 200 Below 0.075 Analytical laboratory sample

Unstabilized groundwater level Sample taken with Direct Push sampler

Stabilized groundwater level Sonic

SAMPLER TYPE C Core barrel PT Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube CA California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter S&H Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter D&M Dames & Moore piston sampler using 2.5-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube SPT Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch outside diameter and a 1.5-inch inside diameter O Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube) advanced with hydraulic pressure

BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY - SOUTH BRANCH Berkeley, California CLASSIFICATION CHART ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL Date 04/03/10 Project No. 10-218 Figure A-3 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1483 of 2369

APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results

Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1484 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1485 of 2369