PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS OF THE STANDARD PROJECT
BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Andrew Young Executive Vice President Landmark Properties, Inc. 455 Epps Bridge Parkway, Suite 201 Athens, Georgia 30606
Prepared by:
Michael Hibma, M.A., RPH #603 LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810
Kimberly Butt, M.S., AIA Interactive Resources 117 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 510.236.7435
LSA Project No. TMK1501
April 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LSA prepared this Project Impacts Analysis (PIA) for The Standard Project (project). The analysis utilized information drawn from previous historical resource evaluations, property records, and conceptual site plans. The background research and field review identified the two following built environment cultural resources 45 years old or older within the project site: • Fred Turner Building at 2546-2554 Bancroft Way was designed by architect Julia Morgan and constructed circa 1940. This building is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and is Berkeley City Landmark #49. This building qualifies as a “historical resource” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1; and • Bancroft Center at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way was designed by Berkeley-based architect John Hans Ostwald and built in 1963, Bancroft Center. In 2016 LSA evaluated this building and found that it does not appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or for listing as a City of Berkeley Landmark, or as a Structure of Merit, or as a contributing element to a historic district. It does not qualify as a “historical resource” under CEQA. See separate LSA evaluation in Appendix B.
The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a mix of new construction and partial rehabilitation and re-use of the Fred Turner Building. To accommodate the new construction, the project would partially demolish the southern half (rear) of the Fred Turner Building and construct an eight-story addition. The project would rehabilitate the front, street-facing half of the building and courtyard and remove several non-historic alterations. The main façade contains much of the character-defining features of Julia Morgan’s original design. The portion slated for demolition would be confined to areas significantly altered by previous tenants and owners. Bancroft Center would be entirely demolished and as it does not appear to qualify as a historical resource under CEQA, it is not included in the impacts analysis.
However, in applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for determining the appropriateness of the proposed development, LSA found the project will result in a net loss of historic fabric of a City Landmark. Based on the results of this analysis, LSA concludes that the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse change in the historical significance of the Fred Turner Building as defined at CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b). This change is due to the proposed partial demolition of the Fred Turner Building to accommodate the new construction.
1 Defined at California Public Resources Code §21084.1; as well as at §3.24.110 of the City of Berkeley Landmark Preservation Ordinance
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.1.1 Project Location ...... 1 1.1.2 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ...... 2 2.0 METHODS ...... 5 2.1 RECORDS SEARCH ...... 5 2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 6 2.3 FIELD SURVEYS ...... 7 3.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW ...... 8 3.1 BERKELEY ...... 8 3.1.1 Southside Neighborhood ...... 9 3.1.2 Project Site History ...... 10 3.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT ...... 10 3.2.1 One-Part Commercial Block ...... 10 3.2.2 Arts and Crafts ...... 11 4.0 RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS ...... 12 4.1 FRED TURNER BUILDING ...... 12 4.1.1 Significance Under CEQA ...... 12 4.1.2 Architectural Evaluation ...... 13 4.2 BANCROFT CENTER ...... 16 4.2.1 Significance Under CEQA ...... 16 5.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS ...... 17 5.1 PROPOSED DEMOLITION ...... 17 5.2 PROPOSED REHABILITATION ...... 17 5.3 THRESHOLD FOR IMPACT ...... 18 5.4 SECRETARY’S STANDARDS ...... 18 5.4.1 Rehabilitation Standard 1 ...... 20 5.4.2 Rehabilitation Standard 2 ...... 21 5.4.3 Rehabilitation Standard 3 ...... 21 5.4.4 Rehabilitation Standard 4 ...... 22 5.4.5 Rehabilitation Standard 5 ...... 22 5.4.6 Rehabilitation Standard 6 ...... 23 5.4.7 Rehabilitation Standard 7 ...... 23 5.4.8 Rehabilitation Standard 8 ...... 23 5.4.9 Rehabilitation Standard 9 ...... 24 5.4.10 Rehabilitation Standard 10 ...... 25 5.5 CONCLUSION ...... 25 6.0 TREATMENT MEASURES TO AVOID IMPACTS ...... 27 6.1 TREATMENT PHASES ...... 27 6.2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ...... 28 6.2.1 Report Content and Format ...... 28 6.2.2 Initial Survey ...... 28
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) i
6.2.3 Condition Assessment Preparation ...... 28 6.3 PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND MONITORING ...... 29 6.3.1 Protection Measures for the Fred Turner Building ...... 29 6.3.2 Monitoring Protocol ...... 29 7.0 MEASURES TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS ...... 31 7.1 FRED TURNER BUILDING MAIN FACADE ...... 31 7.1.1 Rehabilitation ...... 31 8.0 CONCLUSION ...... 32 9.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED ...... 33
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures Figure 1: Regional Location ...... 3 Figure 2: Project Site ...... 4
Tables Table A: Exterior Features – Fred Turner Building ...... 14 Table B: Interior Features – Fred Turner Building ...... 15 Table C: Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Fred Turner Building ...... 19 Table D: Treatment Phase by Project Stage ...... 27
APPENDICES
A. Built Environment Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment of 2546-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California (LSA 2015a). B. Historical Resource Evaluation of Bancroft Center, Berkeley, Alameda County, California (LSA 2015b). C. The Standard Project Plans and Perspective Views (January 2017).
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) ii LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Project Impacts Analysis (PIA) was prepared by LSA, at the request of Landmark Properties, Inc., for The Standard Project (project). This PIA presents the results of a two-step process: (1) an analysis of the compatibility of the proposed design with the character-defining elements of the Julia Morgan-designed Fred Turner Building; and (2) an assessment of the potential for the project to result in a “substantial adverse change” in the historical significance of the Fred Turner Building as described in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b). Further, this PIA was peer-reviewed by a preservation architect from Interactive Resources (IR), Inc., who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History and Historic Architecture.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.1.1 Project Location The 0.652-acre project site, contained within Assessor Parcel Number 055-1877-019-02, is located at 2546-2580 Bancroft Way in the Southside neighborhood of the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site consists of two, single-story, multi-unit commercial buildings known as the Fred Turner Building, constructed circa 1940 at 2546-2554 Bancroft Way, and Bancroft Center, built in 1963 at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way.
1.1.2 Project Description The proposed project would demolish Bancroft Center at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way and retain and rehabilitate the historic, street-facing façade of the Fred Turner Building at 2546-2554 Bancroft Way. The Fred Turner Building is a single-story Arts and Crafts-styled commercial building constructed circa 1940 by prominent architect Julia Morgan; it is listed as Berkeley City Landmark #49 and is individually eligible for listing in the California Register, and it is therefore a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA. The project proposes to rehabilitate and repair the main façade of the Fred Turner Building in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) for Rehabilitation. The historic character would be retained and preserved, distinctive features would be retained and preserved, and deteriorated features would be preserved or replaced based on documentation of their original characteristics. The northern or street-facing portion of the existing ground floor commercial space would continue as commercial use. The ground floor would also retain the Fred Turner Building’s historic arched entrance, arcaded walkway, and courtyard as the main entrance and lobby area for use by residential tenants and visitors. The southern or rear portion of the building would be demolished to accommodate construction of an eight-story building. The eight-story addition would have a rooftop building height of 85 feet. The proposed eight-story addition to the Fred Turner Building would be set back approximately 60 feet from the edge of the main façade plane.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 1 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Bancroft Center would be demolished, and the site would be redeveloped with an eight-story, mixed- use building that would connect with the proposed residential spaces above the Fred Turner Building and would contain the following: • An approximately 24,000-square-foot, below-grade basement to accommodate parking for 47 automobiles, space for 10 bicycle lockers, building utilities, refuse space, an elevator, and stairs; • A 17,000-square-foot ground floor containing four commercial spaces and a 7,500-square-foot residential lobby with an entrance off Bancroft Way via the Fred Turner Building’s arcade and central courtyard. The Lobby space would contain a leasing office, a conference room, a study area, and bicycle storage; • A 21,760-square-foot second floor residential space with 15 residential units containing 44 beds; • 19,850 square feet of residential space on the third through seventh floors each with 15 residential units containing 44 beds; and a • Top (eighth) floor containing 18,770 square feet of residential space with 14 residential units containing 30 beds.
Of the total 104 total residential dwelling units proposed, two would be single-bedroom units, 38 would be two-bedroom units, 40 would be three-bedroom units, and 24 would be four-bedroom units. The project would also install a 5,000-square-foot roof deck for use by the residential tenants and visitors. The existing underground parking area under Bancroft Center would be retained along with additional subterranean parking area under the rear half of the Fred Turner Building. Automobile access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a 20-foot-wide concrete ramp off Bancroft Way. The underground parking garage would be private, for use only by residential tenants. No other buildings on the site would provide parking.
1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This PIA presents the results of a two-step process. The first step analyzed the scope, nature, and design of the proposed development for compatibility with the historical character-defining elements of the Fred Turner Building that justify its status as a historical resource under CEQA. The second step assessed whether the proposed development would cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the resource using the criteria described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The sections of this PIA that follow outline the methodology, nature, and design of the proposed development for compatibility with the historical character-defining elements of the Fred Turner Building identified on the building’s main, street-facing façade.
Following the impacts analysis is a description of a multi-phase treatment plan comprised of pre- construction, construction, post construction, and the specific approaches, standards, and methods prescribed to minimize the loss of those character-defining features of the Fred Turner Building. Application of these measures, along with applicable municipal regulations for construction, will avoid damaging the building’s character-defining features. The next section presents measures established to mitigate impacts. Treatments include moving, storing, and protecting; deconstruction and salvage, and restoration of character-defining features.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 2 asta Rd n A Lo Sh ri M s th C a a l A S r n i o Pa M a T r T i e k n Marin 780 g e u Dr e A a e K G m A v u K A h ¨ l v e r A v Ave s ¦§v e e e e l s o l A e v a s e o r e e A l e v
f r p i e e
d
e Tilden Park 4 R r vTS Martinez a a ey A Corona Ct d Golf Course r M A St e 80 t S r Spruce St Spruce Sierra Sutter St S n eSonoma ¦¨§ C o n t r a c C o n t r a Concordt v h S o p A A Eunice Covert Path u T M RichmondAve la C o s t a Pleasantr m 580 h St u m m Hill Q e ¨§ c ¦ i C o u n t y u t e e Walnut St Walnut G e e R Hopkins d Walnut a R Walnut m l d n d HenrySt e a o St CreekS L n s a e A t d L v v Ave 24 A a Berryman Bonita StTS e Carlotta 680 l Ave e Monterey Berkeley St Oxford ¦¨§Rose St 101 Berkeley A
¤£ Ave L
r Grizzly Project Site a CarlottaAve c S580t 13 S l e H a os TS St Spruce h i L h R St Grant ¦¨§ Greenwood Ter n Pea k Blvd e o n 80 S r a A San n e Oakland t Sant m Oakland D
¨§ t
S ¦ t r n
v
Ada St t e y e
s VineA St l a m e d a a NorthSt A l a m ee du a Franciscoo e C v E R A S A c Comstock Cedar St d Alameda a Ct Alameda C o ut n t y v n k 1 e 280 i e C u t
TSB ¦¨§ h Castro St y edar San c S C Valley lo Virginia St E LeandroLeandro St Arch t Lincoln St R tr A u d on c Daly 580 v l San e St San i City 101 ia Ashland¦¨§ d City ¤£ Virgin LorenzoLorenzo Ashland San University of Bruno M st Ave ear Gayley i H California Delaware St l v S
i Berkeley a Rd e R H v S a arst A d He St Oxford l l D t nia r l ten Wickson Rd en e C sity Av Project Site Univer mic Canyon Rd nora Berkeley a Sq Bancroft P P Piedmont Ave Pl Way BowditchSt r ay o W T Allston Way S t crof s an e B p h
le e Grant St Grant
a
M c
t Milvia St Milvia g t
t a
r S
u a Bancroft Way r Channing Way t c t p
i k
n h C
L A o t Way A u igh v w l
D v
l t
e
e EllsworthSt e h
FultonSt
g
e
e
r
S
K A a
v i c t n Southwest Pl r S H A arke e r P
g
i c a Stephens
l Way
l t m e o J Garber St Pine Path Slater Ln g n e r CaliforniaSt a
n S W s t t t Stuart St s o a S Shattuck Ave Shattuck
Av y e S y e b v e h n s t A A i e T l Av t u e n n n d 13 o e A TS m l e R r d a l Vicente Pl Ave C hby R e s As D h d e T n a Ellis St Ellis g la Woolsey n p e U Raymond St a St n t Prince St S S t
S Crossways 13 t t TS 67th S abot Ch Rd B z Ave Hillegass ood a Harmon St lcatra rw k A a Ave H e 24 e Av y TS r a Shattuck Chabot Rd w S 62nd St d t Poirier a M Ave o St r Co a B Eustice C nt r 60th St os ra S k Ave ta 62nd St t e R t 60th St d FIGURE 1
2456-2580 Bancroft Way 0 1000 2000 Berkeley, Alameda County, California FEET Regional Location SOURCE: ESRI StreetMap North America (2012). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (5/4/2015) Project Site
LEGEND FIGURE 2 Project Site
2456-2580 Bancroft Way 0 1000 2000 Berkeley, Alameda County, California FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo Quads - Oakland West, Calif. (1980), Project Site Oakland East, Calif. (1980), Richmond, Calif. (1980), and Briones Valley, Calif. (1968). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 2_Project Site.mxd (5/12/2015) LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2.0 METHODS
To establish the baseline conditions for built environment cultural resources within the project site and vicinity, LSA prepared a cultural resource constraints assessment of the project site (Appendix A) and a subsequent California Register and City of Berkeley Landmark Preservation Ordinance (LPO)- based historical resource significance evaluation of Bancroft Center (Appendix B). The assessment and evaluation included background research consisting of records searches at local repositories, a literature review, focused archival research, and architectural field surveys.
2.1 RECORDS SEARCH At the request of LSA, staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in Rohnert Park conducted a records search (File No. 14-1509) on May 6, 2015, of the project site and a one block radius to identify built environment cultural resources. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resource records and reports for Alameda County.
As part of the records search, LSA also reviewed the following local and State inventories for cultural resources within and adjacent to the project site: • City of Berkeley Landmarks Designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association 2015); • California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976); • Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988); • California Points of Historical Interest (California Office of Historic Preservation 1992); • California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation 1996); and • Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (California Office of Historic Preservation April 5, 2012). The directory includes National Register and California Register listings, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.
Results. The NWIC records search identified one recorded built environment resource within the project site: • P-01-005148; 2546-2554 Bancroft Way, Fred Turner Building. The Fred Turner Building, constructed circa 1940, was designed by the prominent architect Julia Morgan. The Fred Turner Building is individually eligible for listing in the National Register and was dedicated City Landmark #49 on December 21, 1981.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 5 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
The NWIC records search and literature review identified one recorded built environment resource within one block of the project site: • P-01-005304; 2500 Durant Avenue, Cambridge Apartments. The Cambridge Apartments, built in 1914, is located at the southeast corner of the Durant Avenue and Telegraph Avenue intersection. It was designed by Walter H. Radcliffe, Jr., a well-known Berkeley-based architect. The Cambridge Apartments was dedicated as Berkeley City Landmark #301 on September 6, 2007.
A review of State and local Berkeley historical resource inventories and local and regional architectural guidebooks identified 10 Berkeley City Landmarks within one block of the project site: • College Women’s Club at 2680 Bancroft Way (City Landmark #33; State of California designation P-01-005162); • Site of Carrington House at 2323 Bowditch Street (City Landmark #54; State of California designation P-01-005194); • Samuel G. Davis House at 2547 Channing Way (City Landmark #79; State of California designation P-01-005232); • Durant Hotel at 2600 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #180; State of California designation P-01-005308); • Dr. Cornelius Beach Bradley House at 2639 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #201; State of California designation P-01-005309); • The Brasfield at 2520 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #219; State of California designation P-01-005305); • Ellen Blood House at 2526 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #220, Structure of Merit; State of California designation P-01-005313); • The Albra at 2532 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #221); • Robcliff Apartment House at 2515 Channing Way (City Landmark #222); and • Epworth Hall at 2521 Channing Way (City Landmark #223).
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW LSA reviewed the following publications, maps, and websites for historical information about the project site and its vicinity: • Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California (American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section 1977); • California Place Names (Gudde 1998); • Historic Spots in California (Hoover et al. 1990); • California 1850: A Snapshot in Time (Marschner 2000); • Historical Atlas of California (Hayes 2007);
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 6 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
• San Francisco Quadrangle, 60-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1892, 1939); • San Francisco, Calif., 15-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1895, 1899, 1915, 1942, 1946, 1948); • Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1949, 1959, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1992, 1993); • Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. Maps for Berkeley, Alameda County, California (1894, 1911, 1929, 1950); • An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area (Cerny 2007); • A Living Legacy: Historic Architecture of the East Bay (Wilson 1987); • Online Archive of California at http://www.oac.cdlib.org; and • Calisphere at http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu.
Please see Section 7.0, References Consulted, for a complete list of the materials reviewed.
2.3 FIELD SURVEYS An LSA architectural historian conducted field surveys of the project site on May 8, 2015 and August 7, 2015, to identify built environment resources and characterizes their architectural style and identify prior structural alterations. All cultural resources within the project site were visually inspected and photographed. A review of the project site vicinity was also done to obtain architectural and land use contextual information.
Additionally, on March 22, 2017, an IR preservation architect who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History and Historic Architecture conducted a pedestrian field survey to assess the existing condition, physical context and historical significance of the Fred Turner Building and its architectural features.1 The preservation architect also reviewed background information provided by LSA of the building and its history, and reviewed the proposed design prepared by Landmark Properties, Inc. dated January 13, 2017.
1 Published in 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61, the qualifications define minimum education and experience required to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities. In some cases, additional areas or levels of expertise may be needed, depending on the complexity of the task and the nature of the historic properties involved.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 7 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
3.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW1
This section briefly describes the history of the project site vicinity, including the project site’s historical architectural context, as determined by the records searches and literature review described above.
3.1 BERKELEY The project site is entirely within the Rancho San Antonio land grant, which was granted to Luis Maria Peralta on August 3, 1820, for his service to the Spanish government. His 44,800-acre rancho included what are now the cities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, and Piedmont, and a part of San Leandro. Peralta’s land grant was confirmed after Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1822, and his title was honored when California entered the Union by treaty in 1848. In 1842, Peralta’s son, José Domingo, received the northern portion of the rancho which includes the modern communities of Albany, El Cerrito, and Berkeley (Cerny 2001:276).
In 1852, Francis Kittredge Shattuck, George Blake, James Leonard, and William Hillegass purchased 1 square mile of land in the area now bounded by College Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Addison Street, and Russell Street. The main thoroughfare would later become Shattuck Avenue (Cerny 2001:276), and the area would become the core of early Berkeley’s commercial, residential, and civic development. The arrival of the University of California in 1873 from Oakland guaranteed a future for Berkeley’s early residents and real estate speculators (Office of Historic Preservation 1996:1). At the time of the University’s arrival, “Berkeley hardly existed; a restaurant and a small hotel [comprised] the downtown area. There were neither sidewalks nor a practicing physician. Students and faculty continued to live in Oakland commuting via horse-drawn trolley until homes and boarding houses could be built” (Starr 1973:147-148).
In 1876, Shattuck purchased a spur line of the Southern Pacific Railroad originating in Oakland and running north to Berkeley along Adeline Street, then along Shattuck Avenue to its terminus at what would become Shattuck Square. Shattuck Avenue provided the necessary width for wagon and rail transportation into the heart of the fledgling community. Commercial space along the avenue came at a premium. University Avenue was the main east/west transportation arterial connecting the shoreline commercial activity and the hillside residential areas with the university campus and downtown. These events underscored the burgeoning importance of Shattuck and University avenues as catalysts for downtown development. Two years later, Berkeley was incorporated (Cohen 2008).
1 Except as noted, this overview was adapted from the Built Environment Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment of 2546-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California (LSA 2015a; Appendix A) and a Historical Resource Evaluation of Bancroft Center, Berkeley, Alameda County, California (LSA 2015b; Appendix B).
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 8 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
3.1.1 Southside Neighborhood The history of the Southside neighborhood is closely associated with the establishment of a university in what would become Berkeley. In the late 1850s, land speculators and civic boosters enticed the College of California to move north from Oakland to a more natural area along Strawberry Creek, a location that was still close to Oakland and, via ferry service, San Francisco. In response to the move being hindered by a lack of funds, George Blake agreed to sell the College land south of the proposed location so that the subsequent subdivision and resale could finance the relocation. To do this, the trustees created the College Homestead Tract Association to facilitate sales (Wollenberg 2002). This development created the first residential neighborhood in Berkeley (Wilson 1987:136-140).
The College Homestead Tract Association marketed the parcels to prosperous citizens interested in living in a small college town (Wood 1883:782). The trustees hired famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted to plan the development, but his ideas were deemed unsuitable. While Olmsted envisioned a network of landscaped roads and tree-lined lanes following topographic contours, the trustees favored a traditional grid pattern, perhaps in an effort to maximize parcel sales. In a move designed to appeal to educated buyers, the north-south streets were named alphabetically after prominent scientists such as Audubon (now College Avenue), Bowditch, Choate (now Telegraph Avenue), Dana, Ellsworth, Fulton, and Guyot (now Shattuck Avenue). East-west streets were named after authors, such as Allston, Bancroft, Channing, and Dwight. Bancroft Way was named after historian George Bancroft, who also served as the American Ambassador to Great Britain and later as Secretary of the Navy under President James Polk (Aronivici 2004:2).
As the Homestead Tract gradually developed as a residential area during the 1880s and 1890s, commercial development began along Shattuck Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, and Bancroft Way. Recognizing an opportunity, the Central Pacific Railway built a commuter line along Shattuck Avenue to provide a convenient route from east and west Berkeley to Oakland and San Francisco. A horse car line and later an electric streetcar station stop, known as “Dwight Station,” was at the southeast corner of the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Dwight Way. The railroad facilitated the development of the Southside neighborhood fostered prosperous commercial areas nearby (HABS 1991:7-8). In 1902, the route was purchased by the Oakland Consolidated Street Railway and later became part of the Key System, which was a regional streetcar system in Oakland and Berkeley. Streetcar service ended in November 1948, and the area began to change due to the end of the Key System and the post-World War II rise of the automobile (Sappers 2007:60-65, 174-177). By 1950, the Sanborn map of the project site shows an increasing concentration of residential and commercial activity on Bancroft Way (Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Ltd. 1950).
In the aftermath of World War II and through the 1970s, the student population at the Berkeley campus grew consistently, resulting in a steady demand for student housing. In response, new units were built in the Southside neighborhood. Also during this period, many established families and older residents moved out of the area and to the Berkeley/Oakland hills or outlying suburbs. This shift led to a significant change in the nature of the older “single-family” enclaves in the Southside neighborhood. Some single-family homes were converted to apartments or flats, and others were razed to accommodate larger multi-story “shoebox” apartment buildings (LSA 2013). Pressure from the ever-growing University resulted in constant change, as additional living space was built for students and workers in support industries. Today, the Homestead Area is known locally as the “Southside” and is mostly residential in nature, with university students forming the bulk of the population.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 9 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
3.1.2 Project Site History Fred Turner Building. This resource is a single-story commercial building built circa 1940 at 2546- 2554 Bancroft Way. The building is located near the University of California’s Berkeley campus in the city’s Southside neighborhood. The building was designed by noted architect Julia Morgan circa 1940 as a small, boutique-style building containing four separate commercial spaces organized around a covered arcade that led to an open central courtyard. The rear portion of the building was the location of the Black Sheep Restaurant until 1968. According to building permit information on file with the City of Berkeley, a portion of the east exterior wall was demolished in 1968 to create an interior connection to the adjacent Joseph Magnin store for additional sales space. In 1973, the courtyard was covered with a fiberglass roof (Cerny 2001:186). In the 1980s, the interior connection was filled and the rear portion of the Fred Turner Building was reoriented to the courtyard and used as restaurant space. The front commercial area on the west side contained the George J. Good haberdashery from circa 1940 to 2000. Other occupants included a travel agency, an Indian restaurant, a café, and a women’s casual clothing store. Major alterations to the building include the addition of a semi-transparent roof covering the original open central courtyard and the enclosure of the central archway in the north façade. The interior retail spaces have also been significantly remodeled as necessary to accommodate the different businesses.
Bancroft Center. This resource is a single-story commercial building built in 1963 at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way. The building is located near the University of California’s Berkeley campus in the city’s Southside neighborhood. The building was designed around a central open courtyard space and adjoining water feature, but both elements have been significantly altered or removed. At its opening, the building’s flagship store was Joseph Magnin, a high-end clothier who remained in Bancroft Center until 1983. Other tenants included the Clark Company from 1967 to 1984, and Bruce Men’s and Boys’ Clothing from 1964 until 1969. The shops currently serve the original purpose as commercial retail and service space catering primarily to students and faculty. However, the building has sustained alterations and renovations that have reduced its historical and architectural value. The area around Bancroft Center continues to develop commercially in response to a growing university student body.
3.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT The architectural qualities of the Fred Turner Building parallel trends elsewhere in California from the early-to-mid 20th century. The section below describes the Fred Turner as a building type followed by a discussion of its architectural design and the general character-defining features of its design.
3.2.1 One-Part Commercial Block The Fred Turner Building is an example of the one-part commercial block building type. This building type developed in the mid-19th century and became common in communities throughout the country. The one-part commercial block building had a simple, box form with flat roofs, storefronts, and ornamentation along the cornices. Most of these buildings were inexpensive to build and promptly generated income (Longstreth 2000:54-67). Most of these buildings were used as retail stores. This building type is common to downtown areas in many communities in the San Francisco
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 10 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Bay Area and California. Limited in size, buildings such as these represent small-scale commercial activity. They are utilitarian in purpose and do not typically possess a large amount of architectural detail or ornamentation.
3.2.2 Arts and Crafts Typically expressed via a residential bungalow building type, Arts and Crafts represented a certain lifestyle and aesthetic movement that began in England in the mid-19th century and spread to the United States by the early-20th century. The movement’s English origins are credited to William Morris, Philip Webb, and Edward Burne-Jones, who rejected the materialist influences of the Industrial Revolution on English society. Custom furniture maker and publisher Gustav Stickely brought the movement to the United States. Similar to the English roots, the American Arts and Crafts movement was a philosophical rejection of mass-produced items and favored hand-made items made by individual craftsmen. Arts and Crafts spread via various groups that sponsored lectures and programs. A growing American middle class allowed architects to plan homes, furniture, and other interior accoutrements for their more-affluent clients using the design principles of the Arts and Crafts movement. The widespread adoption of the Arts and Crafts movement in the United States led to regional variations. In California, an appreciation for the simplistic design and local materials used in the pre-American Spanish and Mexican eras created fertile ground for the principle of using hand-made craftsmanship of a pre-industrial era in architectural design. This process began removing unnecessary and mass- produced ornamentation typical of earlier Victorian-era architecture to reveal a more authentic form and shape using local materials, such as redwood. The application of Arts and Crafts in California began with the work of Pasadena-based Charles Sumner Greene and Harry Mather Greene who used Arts and Crafts in designing both simple residential homes as well as larger “super-bungalows” of intricate detail and craftsmanship. In Berkeley, local architects such as Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan typically incorporated these concepts to design modest, simple, economical wood-framed houses clad in unpainted or lightly stained shingles devoid of pretense. In addition to the aesthetic attributes of Arts and Crafts described above, the general character- defining features of this design, when applied to architecture, include: • A rustic, straightforward design; • Single-story building covered by a low-pitched, end-gabled, or hipped roof; • Use of local materials; • Windows that bring in natural light; and • Wall cladding of unpainted or lightly-stained wood shingles or stone, brick, and textured stucco.
The popularity of Arts and Crafts in the Berkeley area and the larger Bay Area ranged from 1895 to 1930. Beginning in the 1920s, residential home design began to draw from the various popular Period Revivals. In California, the trends in revival styles included the Mission, Colonial, Spanish Colonial, Tudor, and Monterey. The use of Revival style architecture on the Berkeley hillsides is partially explains the design switch from an Arts and Crafts-based tradition outlined above. The 1923 Berkeley Fire was the main catalyst for the spread of the Revival styles in this area of Berkeley. While some homes were rebuilt to their original design, many post-fire residential buildings were designed in a Revival style (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association 1992:1-3; City of Berkeley 1994:15).
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 11 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4.0 RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
The records searches, literature review, and field survey identified two built environment cultural resources over 50 years old within the project site. These resources are known as the Fred Turner Building and Bancroft Center. A description of these resources, and a summary of the eligibility for listing in the California Register and their City status (i.e., under the LPO criteria), are presented below.
4.1 FRED TURNER BUILDING This resource consists of a single-story multi-unit commercial building built circa 1940 and designed by architect Julia Morgan as a modest example of an Arts and Crafts-styled boutique. The building currently contains four separate commercial spaces organized around a small, central courtyard accessed by a covered arcade between two wide, projecting bays flanking the entrance. The building is covered with a low-slope roof with clay tile accents at parapets on the street-facing façade and at the central roof section. The symmetrical façade is clad in smooth-finished, beige-colored stucco, and fenestration includes two full-height showcase bays with multi-paned, steel sash windows. Window bays are topped with concave standing seam copper-clad hoods and wide copper-clad cornices stamped with a Classical-referenced frieze with vertical accents and clamshell or sunburst motifs mid- span and at the corners. The four entrances to the retail shops on Bancroft Avenue are located at the outer diagonal walls of the bays. Three of the four doors maintain the original three-lite division. Major alterations to the building include the installation of corrugated fiberglass over a wood-frame roof structure covering the original open central courtyard; the enclosure of the central archway in the north façade; the addition of a large transom window in the courtyard archway; the construction of a stair, platform and accessible lift at the courtyard south wall, and alterations to the east façade to accommodate the driveway entrance to the underground parking garage. The interior retail and restaurant spaces were remodeled to accommodate different businesses.
4.1.1 Significance Under CEQA The Fred Turner Building appears to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register and retains sufficient overall integrity to convey its historical significance. In addition, the Fred Turner Building is a designated City Landmark (#49). The Fred Turner Building, therefore, is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA due to its eligibility for listing in the California Register and inclusion in an officially designated register of historical resources.1
1 CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(2)(3).
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 12 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4.1.2 Architectural Evaluation Because the Fred Turner Building was determined to be a historical resource as defined by CEQA and the proposed development will involve the resource, the building was further evaluated by a preservation architect to specifically identify character-defining features and designate a value to the building’s existing components.
Based on the findings in the Berkeley Landmark application and the Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory form, the period of significance for the Fred Turner Building would be from circa 1940, the approximate date of construction, to 1967 when the Black Sheep Restaurant closed. Therefore, building elements remaining from the period of significance that serve to convey the building’s historical significance are identified as character-defining features that should be maintained.
In evaluating the Fred Turner Building, IR used a four-tiered historic value rating system. Historic value entails a professional judgement of the historic importance of each component based upon the review of historic documents and on-site observations. The ratings are as follows:
Very Significant: The space or components are central to the building’s architectural and historic character. In addition, the space or component displays a very high level of craftsmanship, or is constructed of an intrinsically valuable material. These spaces or components shall not be altered or removed under any condition.
Significant: The space or components are associated with the qualities that make the building historically significant. They make a major contribution to the structure’s historic character. In addition, they display a high level of craftsmanship. These spaces or features shall not be altered or removed.
Contributing: The space or components may not be extraordinarily significant as isolated elements but contain sufficient historic character to play a role in the overall significance of the structure.
Non-contributing: The space or components fall outside of the building’s period of significance, or are historic but have been substantially modified. Little or no historic character remains..
The two tables below, list those features in ranking and if the project proposes to retain or remove these features.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 13 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Table A: Exterior Features – Fred Turner Building
Character-Defining Features Retain Remove
Very Significant
Northern, Bancroft Way-facing facade X
Twin Projecting Window Bays X
Copper standing-seam bay hoods X
Pressed-copper storefront friezes X
Steel sash multi-pane storefront bay windows; X
Three-lite storefront doors; X
Central Archway X
Clay tile at parapet X
Cement plaster cladding X
Significant
Projecting Cornice X
Continuous Concrete Sill X
Copper downspouts X
Contributing
East Facing façade X
West facing façade X
Steel sash windows on the east façade X
Non-Contributing
South (rear) façade X
Light fixtures (on north-facing façade) X
Signage (on north-facing façade) X
Multi-pane storefront door (at rear unit) X
Multi-pane storefront window and door within the central archway X
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 14 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Table B: Interior Features – Fred Turner Building
Character-Defining Features Retain Remove
Very Significant
Arcade X
Arched arcade ceiling X
Courtyard X
Courtyard and arcade steel sash multi-pane windows X
Significant
Courtyard window hoods X
Molded archway header X
Contributing
Clay tile at parapet above the courtyard. X
Non-Contributing
Accessible lift X
Stair X
Platform X
Guardrail X
Courtyard roof X
Lighting X
Doors and windows at the western courtyard wall X
Wood multi-pane paired doors at the eastern courtyard wall X
Existing restaurant interior X
Scored concrete floor; and X
Multi-pane transom window within the archway at the eastern courtyard X wall.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 15 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4.2 BANCROFT CENTER This resource consists of a single-story, multi-unit commercial building built in 1963 by architect John Hans Ostwald. The building is covered with a flat or very low-pitched roof and clad in sections of exposed aggregate concrete divided by paired attached pilasters. Portions of the north-facing façade are clad in textured stucco and screen walls of circular glass block. The building has irregularly spaced entrances on the main, north-facing façade that are covered by a full-length, bulky projecting boxed overhanging eave. The main entrances contain double doors set in square frames and contain wood and glass panels set in an arched stile. Alterations include renovations to the façade and courtyard, removal of the original street level “BANCROFT CENTER” signage, removal of the “Joseph Magnin” signage on the façade, removal of skylights, removal of the water feature, and the addition of stucco cladding on the fascia, parapet, and courtyard. The building's interior has also been significantly altered over time. Historical ceilings, walls, and unit sizes have been changed to meet tenant needs. The eastern corner of the building's façade is a non-historical alteration that removed all historical materials. All storefront windows have been replaced. The original doors are in place in three of the four original locations, and pebbled concrete exists on portions of the façade, but these details do little to offset the numerous alterations. Aerial photographs indicate that the five original square bubble skylights, as drawn on the original plans, were subsequently filled in or replaced with smaller, flat units by 1987 (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1968, 1980, 1987). The original plaster-faced fencing that enclosed roof-top climate control equipment was removed, and flat-topped metal panels were installed.
4.2.1 Significance Under CEQA Bancroft Center does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register due to a lack of significant association with a historic context. Moreover, it does not retain sufficient overall integrity to convey its historical significance, if it possessed any. Background research indicates that Bancroft Center is not a designated Berkeley City Landmark, Structure of Merit, or a contributing element to an identified or potential historic district. Bancroft Center, therefore, is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA due to a lack of significant association with a historic context (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(2)(3)).
Please see Appendix B of this impacts analysis for a California Register and Berkeley LPO-based eligibility evaluation of Bancroft Center.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 16 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS
This section assesses the potential of the proposed development to result in a significant impact to the Fred Turner Building. As Bancroft Center does not appear to qualify as a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA, an impacts analysis for this building was not undertaken.
5.1 PROPOSED DEMOLITION The proposed project would demolish the southern or rear half of the Fred Turner Building and remove the roof structure that enclosed the original open central courtyard. The proposed demolition work and subsequent addition would alter the Fred Turner Building’s materials, massing, and spatial relationships. The extent of the alterations would be confined to the rear half of the building to accommodate the proposed new construction and reconfiguration of the interior space as part of a conversion into a multi-story residential property. As stated in Preservation Brief 18, rehabilitation of historic buildings necessitates, to some degree, some alteration to interior spaces to accommodate new uses or expansion of original uses (National Park Service 1998:1). The degree of acceptable change to interior spaces largely depends on the building. Buildings such as theaters, auditoriums, public halls, union hiring halls, schools, and factory spaces are defined to a greater degree by the design, plan, and ornamentation of their interior spaces more so than single-family homes, or utilitarian agricultural and commercial buildings. For buildings such as the Fred Turner Building, a higher level of adaptation is acceptable insofar as the underlying feel of being in a commercial space is not entirely removed. Although the project would demolish and rebuild the rear portion of the Fred Turner Building to accommodate a residential entrance lobby area, the commercial areas contained in the front, primary portion of the Fred Turner Building will remain.
5.2 PROPOSED REHABILITATION All of the Fred Turner Building’s identified “very significant” and “significant” character-defining features and spaces would be retained and rehabilitated as part of the proposed project. The northern or front, street-facing half of the Fred Turner Building fronting Bancroft Way would be rehabilitated and remain in use as commercial space. The Fred Turner Building’s characteristic arcaded entry way and courtyard would also be retained and rehabilitated as the residential entrance and lobby area. The northern, or front, half of the Fred Turner Building is the building’s most prominent visible aspect and contains the building’s main “public face,” which is reflected in its design and ornamentation. The main, street-facing façade, which encompasses the majority of the existing character-defining features, would be retained and repaired as appropriate. If pre-construction surveys indicate that the level of deterioration to any of the character-defining elements of the façade is to a degree that it could not be feasibly repaired and replacement is required, the materials, techniques, and workmanship of the replacement would be in keeping with the original.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 17 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5.3 THRESHOLD FOR IMPACT According to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b), a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would create “an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” Specifically, substantial adverse changes include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(1)). With respect to mitigating such impacts: Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(3)). [Italics added].
Therefore, a project’s impact on a historical resource can be considered less than significant if the project is implemented in accordance with the Secretary's Standards.
5.4 SECRETARY’S STANDARDS Because the Fred Turner Building is a Berkeley City Landmark and therefore a historical resource under CEQA, the proposed project should comply with the Secretary’s Standards. The Secretary’s Standards provide guidance for working with historic properties and are used by Federal agencies and local governments to evaluate proposed rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, and reconstruction work on historical resources; they are applied to a wide variety of resource types, including buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts. As described above in Section 5.2, the Secretary’s Standards, and the degree to which a proposed project conforms to their guidance, are a practical means for assessing and describing the potential impacts to historical resources. Under CEQA, generally a project that follows the Secretary’s Standards would be considered as mitigated to a level of less than significant (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(3)).
The Secretary’s Standards comprise four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:2). Those four distinct treatments are defined as follows: Preservation: The Standards for Preservation “... require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time.” Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation “... acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” Restoration: The Standards for Restoration “... allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods.” Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction “... establish a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.”
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 18 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. According to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b), a proposed project with “an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Examples of substantial adverse change include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” For this project, partial demolition of an existing historical resource would be done to accommodate new construction to add additional floors. This project would also rehabilitate the front façade of the Fred Turner Building. Therefore, the following discussion applies only the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation to the Fred Turner Building.
Table C: Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Fred Turner Building
Not Not Rehabilitation Standard Compliant Compliant Applicable
Standard 1: A property would be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, X spaces and spatial relationships.
Standard 2: The historic character of a property would be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, X spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property would be avoided.
Standard 3: Each property would be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical X development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, would not be undertaken.
Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their X own right would be retained and preserved.
Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property would X be preserved.
Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features would be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, X texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, would be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage X to historic materials would not be used.
Standard 8: Archaeological resources would be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures would be X undertaken.
Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that X characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale,
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 19 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential X form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The following discussion assesses the compatibility of the proposed project design with retaining the existing visual aspects of the building. The assessment is based on the conceptual guidance provided in the Secretary’s Standards, especially as it pertains to the proposed new construction.
5.4.1 Rehabilitation Standard 1 A property would be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. The Fred Turner Building is a single-story commercial building constructed circa 1940 and is associated with Julia Morgan, a prominent architect who designed the building. It was intentionally sited along Bancroft Way to capitalize on the commercial opportunities along a busy street near the University of California, Berkeley campus. This original location has persisted since construction. The northern, front half of the building will maintain its historical use as commercial boutique. The use of the southern, rear half will be changed from commercial to lobby and office spaces as part of a larger multi-unit residential property. The Fred Turner Building would remain within the project site but will have the southern, rear portion of the building demolished to accommodate new, eight-story, multi-unit residential construction on the site. The partial demolition will remove the entire rear façade and roughly half of the eastern and western or secondary façades. This activity, when moderate in scale, is allowable per Preservation Brief 14:
Generally, constructing the new addition on a secondary side or rear elevation-in addition to the material preservation-will also preserve the historic character. Not only will the addition be less visible, but because a secondary elevation is usually simpler and less distinctive, the addition will have less of a physical impact on the historic building. Such placement will help to preserve the building’s historic form and relationship to site and setting (Grimmer and Weeks 2010:5).
The proposed eight-story multi-unit residential addition would be constructed in the place of the demolished portion of the Fred Turner Building. The new construction would also redesign associated interior spaces which might result in a significant alteration to selected character-defining features of the Fred Turner Building, which is also characterized in Preservation Brief 14:
A new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation, or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely integrate the historic and new interiors, and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls, as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards (Grimmer and Weeks 2010:3).
As proposed, the northern, front section of the Fred Turner Building, which maintains the majority of the character-defining features identified as very significant, significant or contributing, would
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 20 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
remain. Minimal changes would occur to the distinctive materials, features, and spaces of the building’s front half. The southern, rear section, which retains little of the original significant fabric, would be removed and a new eight story structure with a new use would be constructed in its place. The new addition would create a significant change to the existing spatial relationship between the front and rear sections of the Fred Turner Building, and the new use would require the loss of some distinctive materials and features, namely exterior walls, some windows and sections of clay tile roofing at the parapet. Therefore, as designed, the proposed development would not be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 1.
5.4.2 Rehabilitation Standard 2 The historic character of a property would be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property would be avoided. This historic character of the Fred Turner Building is conveyed by its architectural qualities as a single-story, multi-unit commercial boutique building type. The proposed project would include the demolition of the rear half of the building and redesign of associated interior spaces, namely the creation of a residential entry lobby with offices and provisions for further access to a new eight-story multi-unit residential building. Although the project does not propose altering or removing any of the very significant façade elements, fenestration pattern or materials, or ornamentation on the main, street-facing façade, the degree to which the overall character of this historical resource will change as a result of project implementation will be significant in terms of the introduction of a large addition, a significant change in existing spatial relationship, and loss of historic fabric Therefore, as designed, the proposed development would not be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 2.
5.4.3 Rehabilitation Standard 3 Each property would be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, would not be undertaken. The proposed building incorporates plain, sand-finished plaster wall cladding materials and large aluminum-framed windows set in recessed, paired arched casements or in rectangular casements. The new construction incorporates various styling cues and design elements of the Beaux Arts and Classical architectural styles. The proposed project design echoes general styling cues of prominent Beaux Arts and Classical-styled buildings found on the University of California, Berkeley campus. These are materials and styling cues that are not generally compatible with the modest example of Arts and Crafts-inspired commercial architecture found on the Fred Turner Building. The Beaux Arts, Classical, and Arts and Crafts architectural styles were popular in Berkeley and California during the early-20th century. However, these styles were used on different buildings for different purposes. For example, the Beaux Arts and Classical were favored in designing large imposing institutional or civic buildings to impart a sense of a noble purpose or serving a public good, while the softer, informal Arts and Crafts style found favor in residential and small-scale commercial building design.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 21 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
The proposed building uses these materials in different and more modern ways and, thus, distinguishes itself from the Fred Turner Building. It will be designed in a Contemporary interpretation of the Beaux Arts and Classical-styled university buildings, which includes few ornamental features but uses varied cladding and façade articulation to stimulate visual interest. The articulation of the façade with projecting bays and recessed light wells, in particular, upholds the strong division of structural bays seen in many of the modern buildings in the vicinity, while also referencing common elements such as bay windows and overhanging cornices on other historical buildings in Berkeley dating from the early to mid-20th century. The proposed construction will utilize regularly spaced tripartite sections of copper cladding on the second through fifth floors to reference the copper-finished hoods covering the large picture-frame windows of the Fred Turner Building. The proposed style would be obviously modern and will be well differentiated from Julia Morgan’s Arts and Crafts derived design for the Fred Turner Building.
Based on this exploration of the proposed design, aside from the proposed scale and massing, it appears that the design of the proposed addition will be compatible with, but differentiated from, the Fred Turner Building. Its design incorporates articulated bays and façade divisions that loosely references traditional façade organization seen elsewhere in Berkeley. The materials it incorporates are largely compatible with those found in the area but are applied in modern ways that clearly differentiate them from the historic fabric of the surrounding built environment.
As designed, the proposed development would be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 3.
5.4.4 Rehabilitation Standard 4 Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right would be retained and preserved. The Fred Turner Building was constructed circa 1940 and all character-defining elements of this property were present since its construction, and no additional features have subsequently acquired significance. According to building permits on file with the City, a permit was issued on March 6, 1968 to redesign the back half of the Fred Turner Building to provide additional retail and storage space with the newly built Bancroft Center, east of and adjacent to the Fred Turner Building. This renovation resulted in the demolition of the rear portion of the east-facing wall to connect with the Bancroft Center retail space. A building permit issued on February 17, 1983 indicated that the entrances, doors, windows, and interior walls at the rear of the Fred Turner Building were altered to accommodate a transition from a retail clothier to a sandwich shop. Building permits that documented the enclosure of the open central courtyard were not located, but the City of Berkeley Landmarks application indicates that the north façade’s arched entry was enclosed in the late-1960s in order to transform the arcade and courtyard into a retail space. As designed, the proposed development would be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 4.
5.4.5 Rehabilitation Standard 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property would be preserved. The project does not propose altering or removing any of the distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship found on the main, street-facing façade of
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 22 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
the Fred Turner Building that best characterize its Arts and Crafts design. To the extent known, the materials, features, finishes, construction techniques and examples of craftsmanship (if any) originally used circa 1940 to construct the rear, secondary portion of the Fred Turner Building are representative of construction practices and techniques commonly used at that time and are not of primary significance. Background research indicated that the rear portion of the east-facing façade of the Fred Turner Building was demolished to create a pass-through to additional retail and storage space from the neighboring Joseph Magnin clothier in Bancroft Center. The front portion of the east- facing façade was also altered in order to accommodate the construction of a driveway entrance to the Bancroft Center’s basement level parking garage. Accordingly, the proposed project would demolish select areas that were previously altered. As designed, the proposed development would be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 5.
5.4.6 Rehabilitation Standard 6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. The features of the Fred Turner Building’s main, street-facing façade, such as its stucco siding, decorative copper-clad window hoods and ornamentation, arched arcade entrance, fenestration pattern, and materials, would be retained and preserved. Those features that are deteriorated and could not be repaired would be replaced with in-kind materials. The rear of the building, which has been altered significantly in the 76 years following construction, would be removed and rebuilt as residential entrance and lobby space. As designed, the proposed development would be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 6.
5.4.7 Rehabilitation Standard 7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, would be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials would not be used. The proposed project would demolish approximately half of the Fred Turner Building, resulting in damage to historic materials. As designed, the proposed development would not be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 7.
5.4.8 Rehabilitation Standard 8 Archaeological resources would be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures would be undertaken. Archaeological resources are not expected to be found on the project site, as the area for proposed construction has been disturbed by prior development, including excavation of an underground parking facility under Bancroft Center, and other development-related activities. However, the proposed project does include excavation work under the rear portion of the Fred Turner Building. If
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 23 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
any archaeological material should be encountered during this project, construction should be halted and appropriate mitigation measures taken to identify and avoid, or substantially lessen, potential impacts. The proposed development would be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 8.
5.4.9 Rehabilitation Standard 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. As discussed in Standards 1 and 2, the proposed demolition of the rear, secondary portion of the Fred Turner Building would not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships to such a degree that Julia Morgan’s original design intent and use of the Fred Turner Building, as a whole, could no longer be understood. As discussed in Standard 1, proposed new construction would occur along secondary façades, which is encouraged under the Rehabilitation Standards. As discussed in Standard 3, aside from the proposed scale and massing of the new construction, the new addition would be differentiated from, yet compatible with, the existing historic fabric and spatial patterns. The project site contains a single-story, modestly styled Arts and Crafts boutique. The single-story massing is an important attribute of the building’s historical character. Changes to this relationship through the construction of an eight story addition in place of the rear portion of the existing single- story building would significantly alter this collective historic character, essentially subordinating this prominent façade feature. Even with a 60-foot façade setback, the eight-story addition proposed by the project would impose a significant and unavoidable size and massing change that would be out of scale and proportion to the single-story host building’s historical character and appearance as a modest, one-story commercial boutique.
Technical guidance produced by the National Park Service emphasizes the potentially disruptive effect of rooftop additions that are several stories in nature. “Generally, a rooftop addition should not be more than one story in height to minimize its visibility and its impact on the proportion and profile of the historic building. It is difficult, if not impossible, to minimize the impact of adding an entire new floor to relatively low buildings, such as small scale residential or commercial structures, even if the new addition is set back from the plane of the façade” (Grimmer and Weeks 2010:12).
Based on the unambiguous technical guidance promulgated by the National Park Service, it is unlikely that any design alternative other than one that calls for a single-story, recessed addition with compatible materials, features, and form as the original building would be in compliance with the Secretary’s Standards.
However, the proposed development as designed would not be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 9.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 24 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5.4.10 Rehabilitation Standard 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. If the proposed eight-story addition to the Fred Turner Building was removed and proposed rehabilitation work converted back to its original configuration and alterations present at the time of the building’s Landmarking in 1981, the essential form of the Fred Turner Building as a whole would be adversely affected. The removal of the new construction would not restore the back, or rear portion of the Fred Turner Building. Only half of the original building would remain. As designed, the proposed development would not be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 10.
5.5 CONCLUSION As described above, the project will partially rehabilitate and partially demolish the Fred Turner Building, a listed Berkeley City Landmark that is also individually eligible for listing in the California Register; therefore, the project will result in a significant adverse change in the significance of this historical resource (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)(2)(a)(b)). The Secretary’s Standards, which offer four treatment options for historical resources (Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction), are not applicable with respect to demolition. As demonstrated in the analysis above, the following are the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation that specifically pertain to allowable construction of additions to historic buildings: • Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
As discussed above in Section 5.3, although Standards #9 and #10 are open to interpretation, they do provide some general design criteria that must be met in order for the addition to be in compliance with the Secretary’s Standards. The project complies with some elements of Standards 9 and 10, including retention of the Fred Turner Building’s historic façade and character-defining features, distinguishing new construction from the historic through the use of different materials and finishes, and a setback over the main, street-facing façade edge plane of the Fred Turner Building. If the proposed addition was later removed, the essential form and integrity of the Fred Turner’s main, street-facing façade would be unimpaired, however, the roughly rear half of the existing building would remain demolished.
Other elements of the proposed project would not be in compliance with guidance provided by the National Park Service for additions (Grimmer and Weeks 2010). Notably, the scale and massing of the proposed eight-story addition conflict with a principle design tenet of additions to historic buildings: such additions should be minimally visible, unobtrusive in design, and subordinate to the historic building (Grimmer and Weeks 2010:14). In fact, rooftop additions above one-, two- or three-
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 25 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
story residential or commercial buildings are rarely found to be compatible as this would measurably alter the historic building’s proportions and profile, thereby negatively impacting its historic character (Grimmer and Weeks, 2010:12).
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 26 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
6.0 TREATMENT MEASURES TO AVOID IMPACTS
This section provides descriptions of measures to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to the Fred Turner Building as a result of project implementation. Many of the proposed treatments should be undertaken before construction begins; others during construction activities, while the remaining treatments are implemented following construction.
This HPTP should be implemented under the oversight of Preservation Architect who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History and Historic Architecture (48 CFR 44738-9). This should ensure that the measures identified in this section are uniformly applied in the most effective manner to minimize potential impacts.
6.1 TREATMENT PHASES The treatment measures for the Fred Turner Building should be phased to ensure minimal schedule complications. Consequently, the approach to construction will not be linear, and some of the measures necessarily will not be completed before new construction begins. Table B below lists general treatment measures related to project stage. How these treatments will be arranged with the individual contracts, the demolition and construction plans (once completed), and throughout the duration of the project should be determined by the supervising Preservation Architect as appropriate.
Table D: Treatment Phase by Project Stage
Pre-Construction
Assessment Conditions assessment of Fred Turner Building, (i.e., character-defining features as presented in Tables A and B in Section 4.1.2 above). Identification and marking of salvageable materials, as required, for storage off-site and later reuse.
Protection Enclose remaining portion of Fred Turner Building with fencing to prevent inadvertent damage from equipment operation.
Alteration/Demolition Partial demolition of Fred Turner Building (e.g., removal of rear, southern portion of building).
During Construction
Protection Monitor avoidance measures and resource condition, as necessary. Address accidental damage, if necessary.
Interpretation Commemorative historical plaques and designed signage.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 27 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Alteration/Construction Rehabilitate Fred Turner Building and reinstall removed or salvaged architectural features, as necessary.
Post-construction
Assessment Reassessment of rehabilitated front portion of Fred Turner Building to ensure the character-defining architectural features reflects the property’s original Julia Morgan design and associated period of significance of circa 1940-1967.
Protection Monitor avoidance measures and conditions of resources as necessary. Address accidental damage, if necessary.
Details of each treatment, and how the treatment will be applied to specific resources, are described in the following sections.
6.2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT The Fred Turner Building should undergo pre-construction conditions assessments during the pre- construction phase to provide a baseline for a post-construction assessment.
6.2.1 Report Content and Format There is no published guidance specific to the preparation of stand-alone condition assessments. The format and content requirement is described here and will be applied to the resources, as appropriate.
6.2.2 Initial Survey A survey of the building should be performed to document physical spaces and elements and to assess the current condition of building materials and systems. Information gathered during the survey should be documented with field notes on baseline drawings or digital photographs. Many of the features recorded may not be historic; as previously noted, conditions assessments are often regular practice for development projects involving older buildings.
6.2.3 Condition Assessment Preparation The built resource that will be assessed is a relatively simple, minimally adorned stucco-clad commercial building and may not require exhaustive level of detail prior to rehabilitation. The Preservation Architect may determine that other professionals, such as a materials scientist or a conservator are necessary, based on initial observations. Other built environment elements in the rear portion of the Fred Turner Building should not undergo this level of assessment, as they will be demolished.
Written assessments should be accompanied by photo documentation and sketch drawings. Digital photographs should be printed in the highest resolution practicable, and also electronically saved in .jpeg file format. Each assessment will include a summary report on the overall condition of the
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 28 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
building element; a recommendation for protective measures, if needed, will also be included. The assessment should inform the appropriate protection methods during demolition, construction and rehabilitation.
6.3 PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND MONITORING Precautions are commonly used in construction areas to avoid inadvertent project-related damage to historical resources. Project plans and specifications will indicate that these buildings are environmentally sensitive and should be identified as such on site. Pre-construction recordation and condition assessments should inform appropriate and feasible method(s) of protection, avoidance, and monitoring treatments in conjunction with demolition, relocation, and construction plans. General protocols are described below.
6.3.1 Protection Measures for the Fred Turner Building Protective measures and the safety plan should clearly indicate access and boundary limitations with the use of signed fencing. Examples include, but are not limited to, orange nylon-mesh fencing commonly used to demarcate environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), chain-link fencing, plywood as appropriate. Some windows and doors on the Fred Turner Building should be covered with plywood. Fencing should be temporary self-supporting mesh chain-link fence or appropriate height, unless otherwise specified by municipal regulation, and form a continuous barrier without entry points to deter trespass. The fencing should serve as a barrier to prevent encroachment or damage to historic buildings by construction activity or equipment during site preparation work (e.g., site grubbing, grading, etc.). Ropes, cables, guys, or signs should not be attached to trees.
Additional measures should include storing any salvaged materials such as windows, doors, and other related materials slated for reuse in a secure, lockable shipping container, to prevent theft or accidental damage from equipment or fire to maximize their value. Installation of temperature and humidity monitors should be installed in buildings left empty for long periods of time, and adequate drainage systems in pace to ensure that water is properly drained away from buildings. Fire prevention and safety protocols should include the safe use of portable heating equipment and cutting/welding/soldering torches as well as appropriate provisions to restrict smoking. Combustible materials should not be placed near historic buildings. Fire extinguishers should be readily available and cutting, welding, soldering occurs near historic buildings should be monitored. Fire and emergency-vehicle access to historic buildings should be maintained at all times and water service remains connected on site.
6.3.2 Monitoring Protocol While it will be the responsibility of the contractor to install and maintain all avoidance materials, once the materials are installed, the supervising Preservation Architect, or their designated representative, should be available as necessary to monitor the condition of the materials weekly, or some other acceptable interval, throughout demolition and construction phases. The installation and monitoring schedule should be defined by the demolition and construction schedule and will be included in the project plans and project permits. In areas where intensive demolition or construction activities are underway, a full-time architectural monitor should be present. The monitor should keep
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 29 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
a monitoring diary and provide daily updates and place documentation in a field binder containing completed and approved conditions-assessment reports so that any indication of damage will be quickly verified. The monitor should summarize his/her findings on a weekly basis, and electronically file the reports with the applicant, the supervising Preservation Architect, and the appropriate City representative.
Following identification of any damage, work should stop in the proximity of the damage and supervising Preservation Architect immediately informed. The Preservation Architect will immediately contact the project engineer and Applicant’s designated representative. While actions to check any continued damage will be immediately taken, the supervising Preservation Architect should determine if the damage needs to be repaired immediately to prevent further damage or adjust protective measures and/or construction methods and postpone repair until after construction. All repairs must be completed in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards and overseen by the supervising Preservation Architect. Repairs will be recorded via field notes and photographs.
Monitors should be in daily communication with the supervising Preservation Architect who will consult with the project engineer. Monitors should participate in construction meetings to be properly informed about project schedules, constructability issues, and alteration of plans or construction methods. The monitors should also verify that the contractor(s) and project engineer are fully informed of avoidance and protection requirements. Should there be any changes; the monitor(s) should inform the supervising Preservation Architect who in turn should contact the applicant’s designated representative so that any necessary adjustments to mitigation plans or project schedules can be made.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 30 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
7.0 MEASURES TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Measures to mitigate adverse impacts include the rehabilitation of the front façade, arcade and courtyard of the Fred Turner Building.
7.1 FRED TURNER BUILDING MAIN FACADE As discussed above at section 4.1.1, the Fred Turner Building will be protected to the degree necessary before project-related activity begins and will continue to be protected and monitored during and after construction until rehabilitation are completed. To the extent feasible, the protecting and rehabilitating of the Fred Turner Building will be conducted in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards. Although the protection process is relatively straightforward, construction of additions to or new buildings near or adjacent to historic buildings remains a sensitive undertaking and requires careful planning. This section provides guidance for subsequent rehabilitation of the Fred Turner Building.
7.1.1 Rehabilitation The approach for the rehabilitation of the Fred Turner Building is to retain its historic character during the conversion process of the rear portion into a combination lobby and office space. The original rear section of Fred Turner Building was significantly altered since its construction. A tenant located east of and adjacent to the building partially demolished the rear half of the east-facing facade to create more retail and storage space. The once-open courtyard was enclosed with a fiberglass roof and the interior spaces rearranged to meet the needs of subsequent tenants and owners. The Fred Turner Building is currently used as a multi-use commercial property and much of the original design of the building and the interior finishes have been altered or removed. Please see section 4.1.1 of this report and a Cultural Resource Constraints Assessment for this project prepared by LSA in 2015 (Appendix A) for an analysis of the alterations to the Fred Turner Building.
Protection Plan for Historic Elements during Project-Related Activity. The building should be documented photographically before the demolition phase so that significant areas and features can be restored to their original appearance, as practicable. In order to protect the fabric of the building during demolition and adjacent construction, certain precautions must be taken, as follows.
1. Exterior Wall Finishes: exterior wall surfaces should be protected. 2. Doors and windows: exterior doors and windows should be covered with plywood as necessary for protection. 3. Floors: floors of the interior spaces of the northern portion of the building should be protected by homasote boards or plywood laid on top of walking surfaces. 4. Waterproofing: temporary waterproofing measures should be implemented during the course of the project and during its reconstruction.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 31 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
8.0 CONCLUSION
The Fred Turner Building is a small, boutique-style building containing four separate commercial spaces organized around a central courtyard. The building is Berkeley City Landmark #49, and, therefore, qualifies as a “historical resource” under CEQA, as well as §14.01.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. As mentioned above, a project that proposes physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings that may result in “an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)). The proposed project would demolish the neighboring Bancroft Center and retain and rehabilitate the historic, street-facing façade and front half of the Fred Turner Building. The southern, rear portion of the Fred Turner Building would be demolished to accommodate construction of an eight-story multi-unit residential addition. The proposed addition would be 85 feet tall and would have an approximate 60- foot setback from the edge of the Bancroft Way façade plane.
The project proposes to rehabilitate the main façade of the Fred Turner Building; however the project also proposes to demolish half of the existing building and construct an eight-story multi-unit residential addition in its place. As demonstrated in the analysis above, the proposed project is not in compliance with the Secretary’s Standards and would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a “historical resource” under CEQA and, therefore, would result in a significant effect on the environment. It is recommended that the very significant and significant features identified above in section 4.1 be retained and rehabilitated to the greatest extent possible in order to lessen the projects overall impacts on the historical resource.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 32 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
9.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED
Aronovici, John Ginno, Ed. 2004 Quick Index to the Origin of Berkeley’s Street Names. Berkeley Historical Society, Berkeley, California.
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association 2011 Berkeley Landmarks Designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Berkeley, CA. Electronic document, http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/all_landmarks.html, accessed April 11, 2012.
California Office of Historic Preservation 2003 California Historic Resource Status Codes. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/chrstatus%20codes.pdf, accessed June 23, 2015. 2011 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6 - California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011% 20update.pdf, accessed June 23, 2015.
Cerny, Susan Dinkelspiel 2001 Berkeley Landmarks: An Illustrated Guide to Berkeley, California’s Architectural Heritage. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, California. 2007 An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Gibbs Smith Publisher, Santa Barbara, California.
City of Berkeley 1994 “Historical Overview,” Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines. City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_(new_site_map_walk- through)/Level_3_-_General/D.%20Historical_Overview.pdf, accessed December 17, 2011. 2009 Berkeley Historic Resources, Noteworthy Buildings, and Potential Development Opportunity Sites. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _DAP/HistoricResourcesMap.pdf, accessed April 12, 2012.
Cohen, Alan 2008 A History of Berkeley, From the Ground Up. Electronic document, http://historyofberkeley.org/index.html, accessed August 12, 2015.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 33 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Gelernter, Mark 1999 A History of American Architecture: Buildings in their Cultural and Technological Context. University Press of New England, Hanover and London, United Kingdom.
Gottfried, Herbert, and Jan Jennings 2009 American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors 1870-1960. W. & W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York.
Grimmer, Anne E., and Kay D. Weeks 2010 New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns. National Park Service Preservation Brief #14. Washington, D.C. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/14Preserve-Brief- Additions.pdf, accessed January 12, 2017.
Historic American Building Survey 1991 Davis-Byrne Building, HABS NO. CA-2314. Historical American Building Survey, National Park Service, Western Region, Department of the Interior, San Francisco, California. Electronic document, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Buildings/index.php?state=CA&city=Berkeley&id=3035, accessed August 12, 2015.
Jackson, John Brinckerhoff 1984 Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Longstreth, Richard 1983 On the Edge of the World: Four Architects in San Francisco at the Turn of the Century. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 2000 The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to American Commercial Architecture. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
LSA Associates, Inc. 2013 Historical Evaluation of 2201 Dwight Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. 2015a Built Environment Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment of 2546-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. 2015b Historical Resource Evaluation of Bancroft Center, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California.
Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, H. Ward Jandl 1992 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.
National Park Service 1988 Preservation Brief 18: Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Electronic document,
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 34 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/18Preserve-Brief- Interiors.pdfm, accessed August 10, 2014. 1997 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria of Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 2015 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historical Documentation. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_5.htm, accessed May 28, 2015.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1968 Aerial Photograph of 2580 Bancroft Way. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed May 8, 2015. 1980 Aerial Photograph of 2580 Bancroft Way. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed May 8, 2015. 1987 Aerial Photograph of 2580 Bancroft Way. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed May 8, 2015.
Reay, Donald and Peter Poret 1975 John Hans Ostwald, Architect. Greenwood Press, San Francisco.
Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. 1894 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1911 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1929 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1950 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York.
Sappers, Vernon J. 2007 Key System Streetcars: Transit, Real Estate, and the Growth of the East Bay. Bay Area Electric Railroad Association, Signature Press, Wilton, California.
Starr, Kevin 1973 Americans and the California Dream: 1850-1915. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer 1995 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, and Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Heritage Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 35 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wilson, Mark A. 1987 A Living Legacy: Historic Architecture of the East Bay. Lexikos Press, San Francisco, California.
Wiseman, Carter 2000 Twentieth-Century American Architecture: The Buildings and Their Makers. W.W. Norton, New York.
Wollenberg, Charles 2002 Berkeley, a City in History. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Wood, M.W. 1883 History of Alameda County, California. M.W. Wood, Publishers, Oakland. Reprinted 1969, Holmes Book Company, Oakland, California.
Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge and Chuck Byrne 1992 San Francisco Architecture: The Illustrated Guide to Over 1,000 of the Best Buildings, Parks, and Public Artworks in the Bay Area. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, California. 2005 San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California. Ten Speed Press, Toronto, Canada.
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) 36 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX A
Built Environment Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment of 2546-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California (LSA 2015a)
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRESNO RIVERSIDE 157 PARK PLACE 510.236.6810 TEL BERKELEY IRVINE ROCKLIN PT. RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94801 510.236.3480 FAX CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 19, 2015
TO: Blair Sweeny, Landmark Properties
FROM: Michael Hibma, Senior Cultural Resources Manager, LSA Associates, Inc.
SUBJECT: Built Environment Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment of 2546-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California (LSA Project No. LMK1501)
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), conducted a cultural resources constraints assessment of a parcel (APN 055-1877-019-02) (study area). The study area contains two commercial buildings: 2456-2554 (Fred Turner Building) and 2560-2580 Bancroft Way (Bancroft Center). This constraints assessment provides background information the buildings’ design, construction history, and current status under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and under City of Berkeley preservation programs. Archaeological and paleontological resources were not included in this constraints assessment; only built environment cultural resources were addressed.
The constraints assessment consisted of background research, including a records search, literature review, and focused archival research; and a field review by an architectural historian. The methods and results of these tasks are presented below. Please note that this constraints assessment does not include any eligibility evaluations (i.e., eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or City of Berkeley listing.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH Records Search At the request of LSA, staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in Rohnert Park conducted a records search (File No. 14-1509) on May 6, 2015, of the study area and a one block radius to identify built environment cultural resources. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resource records and reports for Alameda County.
As part of the records search, LSA also reviewed the following local and state inventories for cultural resources in and adjacent to the study area: • City of Berkeley Landmarks Designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association 2015); • California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976); • Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988); LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
• California Points of Historical Interest (California Office of Historic Preservation 1992); • California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation 1996); and • Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (California Office of Historic Preservation April 5, 2012). The directory includes NRHP, CRHR listings, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.
Results. The NWIC records search identified one recorded built environment resource in the study area: • 2546-2554 Bancroft Way, Fred Turner Building. The Fred Turner Building, built in 1940, was designed by the prominent architect Julia Morgan. The Fred Turner Building (State of California designation P-01-005148) is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and was dedicated City Landmark #49 on December 21, 1981.
The NWIC records search and literature review identified one recorded built environment resource within one block of the study area: • 2500 Durant Avenue, Cambridge Apartments. The Cambridge Apartments, built in 1914, and is located at the southeast corner of the Durant Avenue and Telegraph Avenue intersection. It was designed by Walter H. Radcliffe, Jr., a well-known Berkeley-based architect. The Cambridge Apartments (State of California designation P-01-010659) was dedicated Berkeley City Landmark #301 on September 6, 2007.
A review of state and Berkeley historical resource inventories and local and regional architectural guidebooks identified 10 City Landmarks within one block of the study area: • College Women’s Club at 2680 Bancroft Way (City Landmark #33); • Site of Carrington House at 2323 Bowditch Street (City Landmark #54); • Davis House at 2547 Channing Way (City Landmark #79); • Durant Hotel at 2600 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #180); • Cornelius Beach Bradley House at 2639 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #201); • The Brasfield at 2520 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #219); • Ellen Blood House at 2526 Durant Avenue (Structure of Merit, City Landmark #220); • The Albra at 2532 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #221); • Robcliff Apartment House at 2515 Channing Way (City Landmark #222); and • Epworth Hall at 2521 Channing Way (City Landmark #223).
\\ptr11\projects\LMK1501\Cultural\Memo\2546-2580_Bancroft_Way_Constraints_Memo.doc (05/21/15) 2 sta Rd A a n Lo Sh ri M s th C a ar l A i S P M a o T n ar T in Marin 780 g e k D e A a e K e u G r v m A u h ¨§A v K A v Ave s ¦v le ee r e o l e A l s v e a e o s r e e l
e A v f r p
i e e e d Tilden Park r vTS4 Martinez R a ey a A Corona Ct d Golf Course r M A St e 80 t S r Spruce St Spruce Sierra S n e ¦¨§ C o n tSutter r St a c Sonoma Concordt v h o p S A A Covert Path u T Eunice M l r RichmondAve a C o s t a Pleasant m 580 h u m St Hill Q m e ¦¨§ c C o u n t y u i e e t Walnut St Walnut e G R d Walnut R e Hopkins Walnut a l n HenrySt d d a om e St CreekS L n s a A t e d L v v Ave a Bonita 24 A TS e Carlotta Berryman St 680 l Ave e Monterey Berkeley St Oxford ¦¨§Rose St 101 Berkeley A
¤£ Ave L
r Grizzly Project Site a CarlottaAve c S580t 13 S l e H S St Spruce os T h ia L h R St Grant ¨§ Greenwood Ter ¦ n Pea k Blvd e o S n r 80 a A San n e Sant Oakland t Oakland m D ¨§ t
S ¦ t r n
v
t e e Ada St y
s VineA St l a m e d a a NorthSt e u Franciscoo e A l a m e d a C
E
v S R A A c Comstock d Alameda Cedar St Ct Alameda a C o ut n t y v n k e 280 i e C 1u t TSB ¦¨§ h Castro St y edar San c S C Valley l E LeandroLeandro Virginia St Arch o t R tr Lincoln St A u d on c Daly 580 v l San e t San i City a S Ashland¦¨§ d City ¤£101 Virgini LorenzoLorenzo Ashland San University of Bruno M Ave Bruno earst i H Gayley California l
Delaware St v S
i Berkeley a R H Rd
e S a rst Av d ea St Oxford l H t ial Dr l tenn Wickson Rd en e C sity Av Project Site Univer mic Canyon Rd nora Berkeley Sq Bancrof a P t Piedmont Ave Pl P Way BowditchSt r ay o W T Allston Way S t crof s an e B p h
l e Grant St Grant
a e
M c
t g Milvia St Milvia t
t a
r S
u
r a
Bancroft Way Channing Way t c t p
i k
n h C
L A o t Way A u igh v w l
D v
l t
e
e EllsworthSt e h
FultonSt
g
e
e
r
S
K A a
v i c n Southwest Pl t H S e A ker r Par g
i c a Stephens
l Way
l t m e o J Pine Path Garber St g Slater Ln n e r
CaliforniaSt a
n S W s t t t Stuart St s o a S Shattuck Ave Shattuck
A y e S v y e b v
e h n s t A A i e T l Av t u e n n n d 13 o e A TS m l e R r d a l Vicente Pl Ave C hby R e s As D h d e T n a Ellis St Ellis g a Woolsey n l e p Raymond St U a St n t Prince St S S t
S Crossways t t TS13 67th S abot Ch Rd B z Ave Hillegass ood a a Alcatr rw k Harmon St Ave Ha e 24 e Av y TS r a Shattuck Chabot Rd w S 62nd St d t Poirier a M Ave o St r Co a B Eustice C n r 60th St o tra S k Ave sta t e R 62nd St t 60th St d FIGURE 1
2456-2580 Bancroft Way 0 1000 2000 Berkeley, Alameda County, California FEET Regional Location SOURCE: ESRI StreetMap North America (2012). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (5/4/2015) Project Site
LEGEND FIGURE 2 Project Site
2456-2580 Bancroft Way 0 1000 2000 Berkeley, Alameda County, California FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo Quads - Oakland West, Calif. (1980), Project Site Oakland East, Calif. (1980), Richmond, Calif. (1980), and Briones Valley, Calif. (1968). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 2_Project Site.mxd (5/12/2015) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH LSA architectural historian Michael Hibma conducted archival research on May 7, 2015, at the offices of the City of Berkeley Department of Planning & Development and the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.
City Building Permits A review of building permits on file at the City of Berkeley Department of Planning & Development was done to identify previously permitted events and historical information about the buildings in the study area.
Results. A review of building permit records indicates that two buildings are in the study area: the Fred Turner Building at 2546-2554 Bancroft Way; and the Bancroft Center at 2560-2580 Bancroft Way. Due to their frequency, the tables omit permits for minor electrical and plumbing repairs. A summary of information about each building’s construction and alterations is presented in Table A and Table B, below.
The original building permit for the Fred Turner Building was not located in the city’s files and is presumed lost or misplaced. Permit research did not locate a permit documenting the enclosure of the open central courtyard and arcade.
Table A: Building Permit Information – Fred Turner Building
Date Permit Number Description
March 25, 1963 N/A – architectural Interior redesign of back half of the western portion of plans building to create additional sales space and house climate control equipment.
February 17, 1983 217838690 Repair entrance, doors, windows and inside wall of building to accommodate sandwich shop a rear of building.
April 17, 1986 05158666 Permit to hang a sign.
February 29, 1988 04278813396 Installation of pantry, shelving, and cabinets.
March 4, 1988 05318814424 Interior remodel.
April 27, 1988 04278813396 Install bar sink.
July 13, 1988 101188013696 Permit to hang a sign.
August 1, 1988 02068922073 Permit to hang a sign.
August 12, 2001 01-1869 Install 12-foot interior wall to separate rear storage space form front retail sales area. Associated electrical work.
\\ptr11\projects\LMK1501\Cultural\Memo\2546-2580_Bancroft_Way_Constraints_Memo.doc (05/21/15) 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Scanned documents on microfiche included a copy of the original architectural plans for the Bancroft Center building. The plans, dated October 21, 1963, propose to demolish three buildings and build the current one single-story, multi-unit commercial retail building with underground parking in this location. The plans show that the building was designed by noted architect John Hans Ostwalt. The original building permit was not located and is presumed lost or misplaced.
Table B: Building Permit Information – Bancroft Center Building
Date Permit Number Description
May 4, 1965 Illegible Extend front add a show window (2576 Bancroft Way).
May 6, 1968 Illegible Expansion of Magnin store into adjacent restaurant in Fred Turner Building.
March 7, 1983 324839395 Sign permit (Häagen-Dazs – 2564 Bancroft Way).
August 19, 1983 0819832936 Install new roof top air conditioning units (2560 Bancroft Way)
October 27, 1983 1109834990 Remodel retail store into bakery (2562 Bancroft Way).
March 27, 1984 043084-8584 Install skylight and enclose open courtyard (2562-2564 Bancroft Way).
November 19, 1984 1119843943 Sign permit.
August 16, 1985 0723859974 ADA access improvements (add concrete steps, ramps, and railings in front of main façade).
April 4, 1985 0624859170 Interior remodel.
June 11, 1986 062387015 Sign permit (2570 Bancroft Way).
April 30, 1987 0601872922 Unspecified tenant improvements.
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association A review of information on file at the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) was done to examine previous architectural surveys, archival photographs, or newspaper articles for historical information about the buildings.
Results. Records at BAHA for the Fred Turner Building consisted of a Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey form (No. 17968) prepared in 1979 by Betty Marvin; a State of California Historic Resources Inventory form (No. 446) prepared by Sara Holmes Boutelle in 1979; and Berkeley Landmark Application documentation prepared by Anthony Bruce in 1981 (BAHA 1979a, 1979b, 1981). Other documents included a letter dated November 20, 1981, from the Julia Morgan Association to the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission in support of the City Landmark application, and a document dated January 22, 1982 from the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission formally designating the Fred Turner Building a City Landmark. A scanned copy of the original building permit (issued March 8, 1940) was obtained from the Donogh File, a compendium of information of
\\ptr11\projects\LMK1501\Cultural\Memo\2546-2580_Bancroft_Way_Constraints_Memo.doc (05/21/15) 6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Berkeley’s early to mid-20th century built environment compiled by East Bay relator Ormsby Donogh (BAHA 1940, 1982; Julia Morgan Association 1981). Records at BAHA for the Bancroft Center consisted of a Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey form (No. 17969) prepared in 1979 by Betty Marvin (BAHA 1979c). Due to insufficient age at the time of recordation (16 years), the building was not evaluated. Other documentation included a December 16, 1963, Berkeley Daily Gazette article on the Bancroft Center’s groundbreaking ceremony. An architectural description in the article stated that the Bancroft Center would “complement the “informality” of the University of California community.” The 20,000-square-foot building was designed by Berkeley-based architect John Hans Ostwalt and contained four separate storefronts along Bancroft Way. The spaces were designed for retail sales and service. The flagship or anchor tenant was Joseph Magnin, a high-end retailer specializing in women’s fashion. The article stated that the 20,000-square-foot building would have a 5,000-square-foot inner courtyard with landscaping and a pool. The entrance to the Magnin store was accessed via a bridge over the pool (Berkeley Daily Gazette 1963).
FIELD REVIEW LSA’s architectural historian reviewed the exterior of the two buildings in the study area on May 8, 2015. The purpose of the review was to characterize the buildings’ architectural style and identify prior structural alterations.
Results Fred Turner Building. Based on its form and design, the Fred Turner Building was built circa 1940 as a small, boutique-style building containing four separate commercial spaces organized around a central courtyard. The single-story commercial building is covered with flat, copper-clad roof behind a raised parapet. It was built in 1940 and is a modest example of Arts and Crafts-inspired commercial architecture. The walls are clad in textured, beige-colored stucco. The symmetrical, main street-facing façade has two full-height showcase bays with multi-paned, metal-framed windows. Window bays are topped with concave copper roofs and cornices stamped with a classical-inspired frieze with vertical accents and shell motifs. The window bays flank a recessed primary entrance set underneath a shallow archway that leads to an arcade and seating area. The two secondary entrances are located at the far left and right sides of the symmetrical, street-facing façade. Alterations to the building include a semi-transparent roof covering the original open central courtyard and walkway. The interior spaces have also been remodeled as necessary to accommodate different businesses.
Bancroft Center. Based on its form and design, the Bancroft Center was constructed circa 1960 as a single-story, multi-unit commercial building covered with very-low pitched roof. It is a modest example of Modern/Brutalist style architecture. The walls are clad in sections of exposed aggregate concrete that are divided by paired, vertical, smooth-textured concrete pilasters. Portions of the main, street-facing façade are clad textured stucco or screen walls of circular glass block. Building entrances are covered by a full-length projecting boxed eave and accessed from the public sidewalk by three separate sets of short concrete steps. The individual commercial spaces are irregularly spaced and generally flanked by a decorative concrete and glass screens or by full-height plate glass windows. Entrance doors consist of wooden double doors with double-paned glass set in arched frames.
\\ptr11\projects\LMK1501\Cultural\Memo\2546-2580_Bancroft_Way_Constraints_Memo.doc (05/21/15) 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Alterations to the building included covering the open central courtyard with a skylight and filling in the pool water feature (Reay 1975:47). Other alterations include new windows and siding at the far left side of the main street facing façade (location of Avant-Card). The original Joseph Magnin signage was removed. The concrete steps were reconfigured and metal railings added to meet disability access requirements. The original “BANCROFT CENTER” script stamped in or affixed to the concrete at the right of the courtyard steps was subsequently filled in or removed (Reay 1975:47). The interior spaces have also been remodeled as necessary to accommodate different businesses. Aerial photos indicate that the five original square bubble skylights, as drawn on the original plans, were subsequently filled in or replaced with smaller, flat units by 1987 (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1968, 1980, 1987). The original plaster-faced fencing that enclosed roof-top climate control equipment was removed, and flat-toped metal panels were installed.
CONCLUSION The constraints assessment identified one built-environment cultural resource in the study area: the Fred Turner Building at 2546-2554 Bancroft Way. This building is over 50 years old, is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, and is a City Landmark; this status qualifies the building as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Project actions that may impact the building through demolition, alteration, or new construction in the vicinity would require consideration during the environmental review of discretionary approvals.
The constraints assessment also identified the Bancroft Center at 2560-2580 Bancroft Way. This building is over 50 years old and designed by architect John Hans Ostwalt (1913-1973), a prolific architect active in the Bay Area and in the Lake Tahoe region from 1940 to 1973 (Reay 1975:11-17). It was built in 1963 and has undergone several alterations. It has not been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, the CRHR, or for local City of Berkeley listing. Further research is recommended to identify this building’s status under CEQA. Should the Bancroft Center building quality as a historical resource, project actions that may impact the building through demolition, alteration, or new construction in the vicinity would require consideration during the environmental review of discretionary approvals.
\\ptr11\projects\LMK1501\Cultural\Memo\2546-2580_Bancroft_Way_Constraints_Memo.doc (05/21/15) 8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
REFERENCES CONSULTED
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) n.d. Donogh File building permit - 2546-2554 Bancroft Way. On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California. 1979a Historic Resources Inventory form – Fred Turner Building. On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California. 1979b Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey form No. 17968 (2546 Bancroft Way). On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California. 1979c Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey form No. 17969 (2580 Bancroft Way). On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California. 1981 Application Requesting Designation for Landmark Status – Fred Turner Building (2546-54 Bancroft Way). On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California. 1982 Notice of Decision – Fred Turner Building. On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California. 2015 Berkeley Landmarks. Designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Berkeley, CA. Electronic document, http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/landmarks1-100.html, accessed May 5, 2015.
Berkeley Daily Gazette 1963 Work on Huge Bancroft Center Gets Underway. Berkeley Daily Gazette, 16 December 1963. On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California.
Boutelle, Sara Holmes 1988 Julia Morgan, Architect. Abbeville Press, New York.
California Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1996 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2009 California Historical Landmarks: Alameda. Electronic document http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21388, accessed February 21, 2014. 2012 Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Alameda County, April 05, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
\\ptr11\projects\LMK1501\Cultural\Memo\2546-2580_Bancroft_Way_Constraints_Memo.doc (05/21/15) 9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Cerny, Susan Dinkelspiel 2001 Berkeley Landmarks: An Illustrated Guide to Berkeley, California’s Architectural Heritage. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, California. 2007 An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Gibbs Smith Publisher, Santa Barbara, California.
City of Berkeley various Building permit records. On file at City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development, Berkeley, California. 2004 City of Berkeley Designated Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historical Districts. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Online_Service_Center/Level_3_- _General/landmarks[1].pdf, accessed May 5, 2015. 2009 City of Berkeley Historic Resources. Electronic document, http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_- _General/Landmarks20031231.pdf, accessed May 5, 2015.
Julia Morgan Association 1981 Letter to Berkeley landmarks Preservation Commission, 20 November 1981. On file at BAHA, Berkeley, California.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1968 Aerial Photograph of 2580 Bancroft Way. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed May 8, 2015. 1980 Aerial Photograph of 2580 Bancroft Way. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed May 8, 2015. 1987 Aerial Photograph of 2580 Bancroft Way. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed May 8, 2015.
Reay, Donald, and Peter Paret 1975 John Hans Ostwalt, Architect. Greenwood Press, Sacramento, California.
Wilson, Mark A. 1987 A Living Legacy: Historic Architecture of the East Bay. Lexikos Press, San Francisco, California.
Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge and Chuck Byrne 1992 San Francisco Architecture: The Illustrated Guide to Over 1,000 of the Best Buildings, Parks, and Public Artworks in the Bay Area. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, California. 2005 San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California. Ten Speed Press, Toronto, Canada.
\\ptr11\projects\LMK1501\Cultural\Memo\2546-2580_Bancroft_Way_Constraints_Memo.doc (05/21/15) 10 LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX B
Historical Resource Evaluation of Bancroft Center, Berkeley, Alameda County, California (LSA 2015b)
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17)
HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF BANCROFT CENTER
BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
August 2015
Cover Photograph
Bancroft Center, 2558-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley. North façade. View to the southwest.
HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF BANCROFT CENTER
BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for: Mr. Blair Sweeney Landmark Properties 455 Epps Bridge Parkway, Building 100, Suite 201 Athens, Georgia 30606
Prepared by: Michael Hibma, M.A., RPH #603 Angelique Theriot, M.A. LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 www.lsa-assoc.com
LSA Project #LMK1501
August 2015
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 4 2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...... 4 2.2 CITY OF BERKELEY ...... 5 3.0 METHODS ...... 7 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ...... 7 3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 3.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ...... 8 3.4 FIELD SURVEY ...... 8 4.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ...... 9 4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ...... 9 4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10 4.2.1 Online Research ...... 10 4.2.2 Literature and Map Review ...... 10 4.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ...... 11 4.3.1 Building Permits ...... 12 Table 1: Building Permit Information ...... 12 4.3.2 University of California in Berkeley Environmental Design Archives ...... 12 4.4 FIELD SURVEY ...... 13 5.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION ...... 14 5.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 14 5.1.1 Berkeley...... 14 5.1.2 Southside Neighborhood ...... 15 5.1.2 Bancroft Center ...... 16 5.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT ...... 16 5.2.1 John Hans Ostwald ...... 16 5.2.2 Modern ...... 17 5.2.3 Brutalism ...... 18 5.3 APPLICATION OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ...... 19 5.3.1 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria ...... 19 5.3.2 Landmark Preservation Ordinance Criteria ...... 20 5.4 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT ...... 23 6.0 CONCLUSION ...... 24 Table 2: Resource Status Summary ...... 24 7.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED ...... 25
FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location and Project Area ...... 2 Figure 2: Project Area ...... 3
TABLES Table 1: Building Permit Information ...... 12 Table 2: Resource Status Summary ...... 24
i
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX Appendix: California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Form Record
ii
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of eligibility historical resource evaluation of Bancroft Center, a single-story commercial building built in 1963 at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County (Figures 1 and 2). LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), conducted background research through literature review and archival research, a field survey, and resource recordation to prepare this evaluation. The evaluation applies the significance criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources and the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
This report includes (1) a description of the regulatory context for cultural resources in the project area; (2) a summary of the methods used to prepare the analysis; (3) a description of Bancroft Center and its historical context; and (4) a California Register of Historical Resources eligibility evaluation.
Although Bancroft Center is associated with the mid-20th century commercial development of Berkeley, background research indicates Bancroft Center was not a prominent or important example of this association. The building is also associated with Modern/Brutalist architecture and Berkeley- based architect John Hans Ostwald, but it no longer retains sufficient integrity of his original design. Bancroft Center is neither the last nor best remaining example of Ostwald’s work and is a typical example of mid-20th century commercial development, which is well represented and documented in Berkeley and Alameda County.
Based on the results of background research and field survey, the Bancroft Center does not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or for listing as a City of Berkeley Landmark, a Structure of Merit, or as a contributing element to a historic district. As such, it does not appear to be a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (PRC Code §21084.1).
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 1
asta Rd n A Lo Sh ri M s th C a a l A S r n i o Pa M a T r T i e k n Marin 780 g e u Dr e A a e K G m A v u K A h ¨ l v e r A v Ave s ¦§v e e e e l s o l A e v a s e o r e e A l e v
f r p i e e
d
e Tilden Park 4 R r vTS Martinez a a ey A Corona Ct d Golf Course r M A St e 80 t S r Spruce St Spruce Sierra Sutter St S n eSonoma ¦¨§ C o n t r a c C o n t r a Concordt v h S o p A A Eunice Covert Path u T M RichmondAve la C o s t a Pleasantr m 580 h St u m m Hill Q e ¨§ c ¦ i C o u n t y u t e e Walnut St Walnut G e e R Hopkins d Walnut a R Walnut m l d n d HenrySt e a o St CreekS L n s a e A t d L v v Ave 24 A a Berryman Bonita StTS e Carlotta 680 l Ave e Monterey Berkeley St Oxford ¦¨§Rose St 101 Berkeley A
¤£ Ave L
r Grizzly Project Site a CarlottaAve c S580t 13 S l e H a os TS St Spruce h i L h R St Grant ¦¨§ Greenwood Ter n Pea k Blvd e o n 80 S r a A San n e Oakland t Sant m Oakland D
¨§ t
S ¦ t r n
v
Ada St t e y e
s VineA St l a m e d a a NorthSt A l a m ee du a Franciscoo e C v E R A S A c Comstock Cedar St d Alameda a Ct Alameda C o ut n t y v n k 1 e 280 i e C u t
TSB ¦¨§ h Castro St y edar San c S C Valley lo Virginia St E LeandroLeandro St Arch t Lincoln St R tr A u d on c Daly 580 v l San e St San i City 101 ia Ashland¦¨§ d City ¤£ Virgin LorenzoLorenzo Ashland San University of Bruno M st Ave ear Gayley i H California Delaware St l v S
i Berkeley a Rd e R H v S a arst A d He St Oxford l l D t nia r l ten Wickson Rd en e C sity Av Project Site Univer mic Canyon Rd nora Berkeley a Sq Bancroft P P Piedmont Ave Pl Way BowditchSt r ay o W T Allston Way S t crof s an e B p h
le e Grant St Grant
a
M c
t Milvia St Milvia g t
t a
r S
u a Bancroft Way r Channing Way t c t p
i k
n h C
L A o t Way A u igh v w l
D v
l t
e
e EllsworthSt e h
FultonSt
g
e
e
r
S
K A a
v i c t n Southwest Pl r S H A arke e r P
g
i c a Stephens
l Way
l t m e o J Garber St Pine Path Slater Ln g n e r CaliforniaSt a
n S W s t t t Stuart St s o a S Shattuck Ave Shattuck
Av y e S y e b v e h n s t A A i e T l Av t u e n n n d 13 o e A TS m l e R r d a l Vicente Pl Ave C hby R e s As D h d e T n a Ellis St Ellis g la Woolsey n p e U Raymond St a St n t Prince St S S t
S Crossways 13 t t TS 67th S abot Ch Rd B z Ave Hillegass ood a Harmon St lcatra rw k A a Ave H e 24 e Av y TS r a Shattuck Chabot Rd w S 62nd St d t Poirier a M Ave o St r Co a B Eustice C nt r 60th St os ra S k Ave ta 62nd St t e R t 60th St d FIGURE 1
2456-2580 Bancroft Way 0 1000 2000 Berkeley, Alameda County, California FEET Regional Location SOURCE: ESRI StreetMap North America (2012). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (5/4/2015) Project Site
LEGEND FIGURE 2 Project Site
2456-2580 Bancroft Way 0 1000 2000 Berkeley, Alameda County, California FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo Quads - Oakland West, Calif. (1980), Project Site Oakland East, Calif. (1980), Richmond, Calif. (1980), and Briones Valley, Calif. (1968). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 2_Project Site.mxd (5/12/2015)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Discretionary project approvals must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The term CEQA uses for significant cultural resources is “historical resource,” which is defined as any resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; • Listed in a local register of historical resources; • Identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or • Determined to be an historical resource by a project's lead agency.
An historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manu- script 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 . . . 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 (CRHR)” (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a) (3)). For a cultural resource to qualify for listing in the CRHR it must be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2: Associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to being significant under one or more criteria, a resource must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as an historical resource and retain integrity, which is defined as the ability of a resource to convey the reasons for its significance (CCR Title 14 §4852(c)). Generally, a cultural resource must be 50 years old or older to qualify for the CRHR.1
National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service 1997:2) states that the quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity. There are seven aspects of integrity to consider when evaluating a cultural resource: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association:
1 Generally, for a cultural resource to be considered for listing in the CRHR—and a historical resource for purposes of CEQA—it must be at least 50 years old or enough time must have passed for there to be a scholarly perspective on the resource and the reasons for its potential significance. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 4
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historical events and persons.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. Physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including topographic features, vegetation, paths or fences, or relationships between buildings and other features or open space.
• Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of the artisan's labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site.
• Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historical character.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
“To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects” (National Park Service 1997:44).
2.2 CITY OF BERKELEY Chapter 3.24 of the Berkeley Municipal Code contains the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO). Enacted by the Berkeley City Council in 1974, the LPO authorized the creation of a Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to implement the ordinance, which sought to protect those sites, structures, or areas that are: (1) reminders of past eras, events, and persons important to local, state, or national history; (2) significant examples of architectural styles of the past; or (3) landmarks in the history of architecture, or unique or irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods. In addition, the LPO seeks to: (1) develop and maintain appropriate architectural settings for identified resources; (2) enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, and increase economic benefits to the City; (3) preserve the City’s various architectural styles; and (4) encourage an understanding of the living heritage of the City’s past, as expressed by its historically significant built environment features.
The LPC is authorized to designate Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts. In addition to its designation duties, the LPC reviews applications for the alteration or demolition of Landmarks and Structures of Merit, as well as new construction in Historic Districts. Designation proposals may originate from private individuals, the LPC, the Planning Commission, the Civic Arts Commission, or the City Council.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 5
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
In considering designation applications for Landmarks and Historic Districts, the LPC uses the following criteria established by the LPO section 3.24.110: 1. Architectural Merit: a) A property is the first, last, only, or most significant architectural property of its type in the region; b) A property is the prototype of, or outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement, or construction, or is an example of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer, or master builder; or c) A property is an architectural example worth preserving for the exceptional values it adds as part of the neighborhood fabric.
2. Cultural Value: A structure, site, or area associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social, and economic development of the City.
3. Educational Value: A structure worth preserving for its usefulness as an educational force.
4. Historic Value: A structure that represents the preservation and enhancement of structures, sites, and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States. History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious, or military.
5. Historic Property: Any property listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
In considering applications for Structure of Merit designation, the LPC uses the following criteria: 1. General Criteria: A structure shall be judged on its architectural merit and/or cultural, educational, or historic interest or value. If a structure does not meet Landmark criteria, it may be designated a Structure of Merit if it is worthy of preservation as part of a neighborhood, a block or street frontage, or as part of a group of buildings that includes Landmarks.
2. Specific Criteria a) The age of the structure is contemporary with: (1) a Landmark within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; or (2) a historic period or event of significance to Berkeley, or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; b) The structure is comparable in size, scale, style, materials, or design with a Landmark structure within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; c) The structure is a good architectural design example; d) The structure has historical significance to Berkeley and/or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 6
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
3.0 METHODS
A records search, literature review, archival research, field survey, and eligibility evaluation were conducted for this study. Each task is described below.
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH At the request of LSA, staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in Rohnert Park conducted a records search (File No. 14-1509) on May 6, 2015, for the project area and a one-block radius to identify built environment cultural resources. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resource records and reports for Alameda County.
As part of the records search, LSA also reviewed the following local and state inventories for cultural resources in and adjacent to the project area:
• City of Berkeley Landmarks Designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association 2015);
• California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976);
• Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988);
• California Points of Historical Interest (California Office of Historic Preservation 1992);
• California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation 1996); and
• Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (California Office of Historic Preservation April 5, 2012). The directory includes NRHP, CRHR listings, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.
3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW LSA reviewed the following publications, maps, and websites for historical information about the project area, and its vicinity: • Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California (American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section 1977); • California Place Names (Gudde 1998); • Historic Spots in California (Hoover et al. 1990); • California 1850: A Snapshot in Time (Marschner 2000); • Historical Atlas of California (Hayes 2007);
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 7
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
• San Francisco Quadrangle, 60-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1892, 1939); • San Francisco, Calif., 15-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1895, 1899, 1915, 1942, 1946, 1948); • Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1949, 1959, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1992, 1993); • Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. Maps for Berkeley, Alameda County, California (1894, 1911, 1929, 1950); • An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area (Cerny 2007); • A Living Legacy: Historic Architecture of the East Bay (Wilson 1987); • Online Archive of California at http://www.oac.cdlib.org; and • Calisphere at http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu.
3.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH LSA architectural historian Michael Hibma conducted archival research on May 7, 2015, at the offices of the City of Berkeley Department of Planning & Development, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, and the Berkeley Historical Society. The archival research included an examination of local histories, maps, images, government records, and previous survey evaluation forms for historical information. Information identified included former owners, past land use activity, and the architectural context of the neighborhood.
LSA architectural historian Angelique Theriot conducted supplemental archival research on August 7, 2015, at the Berkeley Historical Society. The archival research included a review of historical resources related to the University of California in Berkeley campus and the Southside neighborhood. Materials reviewed included historical photos taken of the Southside neighborhood and occupancy information identified in city directories from 1964 through 1984.
Mr. Hibma and Ms. Theriot conducted supplemental archival research on July 29, 2015, at the University of California, Berkeley’s Regatta Center in Richmond to review architectural plans, drawings, color slides, and other information related to the work of John Hans Ostwald.
3.4 FIELD SURVEY LSA architectural historian Michael Hibma conducted a field survey of the project area and a visual review of the surrounding neighborhood on May 8, 2015. The exterior of the Bancroft Center was reviewed and photographed, as was the architectural context of the surrounding neighborhood.
LSA Architectural Historian Angelique Theriot conducted a supplemental field survey of the project area and a visual review of the surrounding area on August 7, 2015. The exterior of the Bancroft Center, the streetscape, and the block composition were closely reviewed and photographed. The interiors of the individual commercial spaces, enclosed courtyard, and underground parking garage were reviewed to identify alterations and present conditions.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 8
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area. One City Landmark, the Fred Turner Building, is west of, and adjacent to, the project area; a Structure of Merit property is 200 feet west of the project area; and a second City Landmark is located approximately 450 feet southwest of the project area. In addition, there are eight other City Landmarks within 500 feet of the project area. Collectively, these commercial and residential properties contribute to the historic character of the Downtown area, and all are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
The NWIC records search and literature review identified one recorded built environment resource adjacent to the project area:
• 2546-2554 Bancroft Way, Fred Turner Building. The Fred Turner Building, built in 1940, was designed by the prominent architect Julia Morgan. The Fred Turner Building (State of California designation P-01-005148) is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and was designated City Landmark #49 on December 21, 1981.
The NWIC records search and literature review identified one built environment resource within one block of the project area:
• 2500 Durant Avenue, Cambridge Apartments. The Cambridge Apartments, built in 1914, are located at the southeast corner of the Durant Avenue and Telegraph Avenue intersection. It was designed by Walter H. Radcliffe, Jr., a well-known Berkeley-based architect. The Cambridge Apartments (State of California designation P-01-010659) was designated Berkeley City Landmark #301 on September 6, 2007.
A review of local and state historical resource inventories and architectural guidebooks identified 10 City Landmarks within one block of the project area:
• College Women’s Club at 2680 Bancroft Way (City Landmark #33, built 1928);
• Site of Carrington House at 2323 Bowditch Street (City Landmark #54, built 1893);
• Davis House at 2547 Channing Way (City Landmark #79, built 1899);
• Durant Hotel at 2600 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #180, built 1928);
• Cornelius Beach Bradley House at 2639 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #201, built 1897);
• The Brasfield at 2520 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #219, built 1911);
• Ellen Blood House at 2526 Durant Avenue (Structure of Merit, City Landmark #220, built 1891);
• The Albra at 2532 Durant Avenue (City Landmark #221, built 1921);
• Robcliff Apartment House at 2515 Channing Way (City Landmark #222, built 1921); and
• Epworth Hall at 2521 Channing Way (City Landmark #223, built 1927).
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 9
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW LSA reviewed online archives to identify scanned photographs and written materials.
4.2.1 Online Research No information pertinent to the Bancroft Center or John Hand Ostwald was identified in the literature review.
4.2.2 Literature and Map Review No buildings or structures are depicted in the project area on the plat for Rancho San Antonio (General Land Office 1868). Sparse development is depicted in the area on the San Francisco, Calif., 15-minute quadrangle (USGS 1895, 1899). Subsequent versions of the same quadrangle do not depict individual buildings, suggesting a high density of development (USGS 1942, 1946, 1948). The Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute quadrangle depict the project area in a shaded pink color also indicating a high density of development in the area (USGS 1949, 1959, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1992, 1993).
According to an analysis of Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of Berkeley, the following chronological summary documents the development of the built environment on City Block 5328 from 1894 through 1911. • In 1894, the project area is depicted as a vacant lot in an undeveloped portion of the city (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1894). • By 1911, the project area was depicted containing four single-family residences on two separate parcels. One parcel in the project area contained two buildings. One is identified as 2532 Bancroft Way and is depicted as a one-story building with a raised basement. This building is sited at the rear of the parcel. The other building is identified as 2534 Bancroft Way and is depicted as a two- story building with a raised basement and a rear addition. This building is sited at the front of the parcel. • The second of two parcels in the project area contained two buildings. One is identified as 2536 Bancroft Way. This building is depicted as a two-story with a raised basement. The building has a north-facing bay window. This building was sited near the front of the parcel. The other building is identified as T 2536 ½ Bancroft Way. This building is depicted as a two-story dwelling sited at the rear of the parcel. • The area experienced an overall shift from single-family housing to apartments to accommodate the growing student population. • The 3-story “El Granada” apartment complex is visible at the intersection of Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue, and includes 46 units over first-floor commercial tenants. The streetscape of Durant Street included a 24-unit apartment building, as well as a fraternity house, in keeping with development related to the growth of the University of California student population (Sanborn- Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1911).
The following chronological summary documents the development of the built environment on City Block 5238 in 1929:
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 10
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
• A single-family dwelling identified at 2532 Bancroft Way in 1911 was converted to a boarding house and readdressed as 2562 Bancroft Way. • The single-family dwelling identified at 2534 Bancroft Way in 1911 was also converted to a boarding house and readdressed as 2570 Bancroft Way. The building included a large garage addition on its east side. • The single-family dwelling identified at 2536 Bancroft Way in 1911, had a 1-story storefront addition added and readdressed as 2576 Bancroft Way. • The building identified at 2536 ½ Bancroft Way in 1911 was reconfigured into two units and readdressed as 2538 Bancroft Way. • The project area was bordered to the east by the Masonic Club of the University of California, a 1-story building with a mezzanine and basement. • The area was predominantly commercial in use, as many new shops replaced apartment buildings (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1929).
The following chronological summary documents the development of the built environment on City Block 5238 in 1950: • The project area was cleared of all previous residential and commercial buildings depicted in 1911 and 1929 and subsequently depicted containing two medical office buildings. • The medical office building located at 2560-70 Bancroft Way is depicted as a square, 2-story building. • The medical office building located at 2580 Bancroft Way is depicted as a rectangular 1-story building. • The Masonic Club of the University of California is depicted east of the project area. • The Fred Turner Building, which was designed by Julia Morgan as a small, boutique-style commercial building. The rectangular 1-story building has a flat, copper-clad roof behind a raised parapet. The building contained four separate spaces organized around a central courtyard. • The fraternity house at 2547 Durant Street is depicted. • The area remained predominantly commercial in nature, with 31 commercial spaces present on City Block 5238. This development pattern reflected the post-war growth of the University of California student body (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1950).
4.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH A review of the Berkeley historical resource inventories and local and regional architectural guidebooks indicates that the Bancroft Center is not listed as a City Landmark, a Structure of Merit, a contributor to a district, or otherwise regarded for its architectural qualities (BAHA 1987, Bohn 1971; Cerny 2001, 2007; City of Berkeley 2004, 2010; Wilson 1987; Woodbridge 1992, 2005).
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 11
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4.3.1 Building Permits A review of building permit records for Bancroft Center produced several examples of permitted events in the building’s history. Scanned documents on microfiche included a copy of the original architectural plans of Bancroft Center as designed by John Hand Ostwald. The plans, dated October 21, 1963, proposed to demolish three buildings and build the extant single-story, multi-unit commercial retail building with underground parking in this location. The original building permit was not located and is presumed lost or misplaced.
A summary of information about the building’s construction and alterations is presented below. Due to the volume of the permits, the table omits minor electrical and plumbing repairs.
Table 1: Building Permit Information
Date Permit Number Description
May 4, 1965 Illegible Extend front add a show window (2576 Bancroft Way).
May 6, 1968 Illegible Expansion of Magnin store into adjacent restaurant in Fred Turner Building.
March 7, 1983 324839395 Sign permit (Häagen-Dazs – 2564 Bancroft Way).
August 19, 1983 0819832936 Install new roof top air conditioning units (2560 Bancroft Way)
October 27, 1983 1109834990 Remodel retail store into bakery (2562 Bancroft Way).
March 27, 1984 0430848584 Install skylight and enclose open courtyard (2562-2564 Bancroft Way).
November 19, 1984 1119843943 Sign permit.
August 16, 1985 0723859974 ADA access improvements (add concrete steps, ramps, and railings in front of main façade).
April 4, 1985 0624859170 Interior remodel.
June 11, 1986 062387015 Sign permit (2570 Bancroft Way).
April 30, 1987 0601872922 Unspecified tenant improvements.
4.3.2 University of California in Berkeley Environmental Design Archives Research at the Regatta Center of the University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives in Richmond included an analysis of original building plans of four of Ostwald’s projects from the 1960s, and color projector slides of 32 other residential projects by Ostwald. The slides included residential building for various clients throughout California. These slides depict numerous residential buildings designed in a minimalist modern style, and incorporated open split-level floor plans with terraced outdoor spaces and courtyards. Both interiors and exteriors featured natural wood treatments that were both cosmetic and structural. These designs highlight Ostwald’s preference for
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 12
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
steep lots, as they provided him with the opportunity to design in a way that complimented the topography.
Three plans were of residential, commercial, and civic projects in Berkeley, and one residential project in the Lake Tahoe area. The selected plans were a representative sample of the varied scope of his work. All displayed a variety of styles, with their unifying characteristic being simplicity of design. These projects all showed a preference for natural wood finishes, exposed brick, and abundant light. Two of the projects were renovations or additions, consistent with the bulk of Ostwald’s work throughout the 1960s.
The Goodman Office Building at 1535 Shattuck Avenue was designed by Ostwald in 1966. The design included a water feature and a landscaped courtyard for visitors, two features that were also incorporated in to the original design of the Bancroft Center. The plans also included a sod roof, which, incidentally, shares a similarity with Ostwald’s plans for an addition to the Main Branch Annex of the Berkeley Public Library. The Goodman Office Building is extant; however, the water feature, signage, and courtyard have been removed, as they have also been removed at the Bancroft Center. These changes likely speak to the difficulty of maintaining such features in small commercial spaces over time.
4.4 FIELD SURVEY The field survey of the project area identified the Bancroft Center, a single-story, rectangular commercial building located at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way. The Bancroft Center was designed and constructed in 1963 as a single-story, multi-unit commercial building covered with very-low pitched or a flat roof. It is a very modest example of Modern/Brutalist style architecture. The walls are clad in sections of exposed aggregate concrete that are divided by paired, vertical, smooth-textured concrete pilasters. Portions of the main, street-facing façade are clad in textured stucco or screen walls of circular glass block. Building entrances are covered by large, full-length projecting boxed eaves and accessed from the public sidewalk by three separate sets of short concrete steps. The individual commercial spaces are irregularly spaced and generally flanked by decorative concrete and glass screens or by full-height plate glass windows. Entrance doors consist of wood double doors with double-paned glass set in arched frames.
Alterations to the building included the addition of a skylight to cover the open central courtyard and the filling in of the water feature (Reay 1975:47). Other alterations include new windows and siding at the far left side of the main street facing façade (current location of Avant-Card). The original “Joseph Magnin” signage was removed sometime in the 1980s. The concrete steps were reconfigured and metal railings added to meet disability access requirements. The original “BANCROFT CENTER” letter script affixed to the concrete at the right of the courtyard steps was subsequently removed (Reay 1975:47). The interior spaces have also been remodeled as necessary to accommodate different businesses. Aerial photos indicate that the five original square bubble skylights, as drawn on the original plans, were subsequently filled in or replaced with smaller flat units by 1987 (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1968, 1980, 1987). The original plaster-faced fencing that enclosed roof-top climate control equipment was removed, and flat-toped metal panels were installed.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 13
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION
This section presents the historical and architectural context of the project area and evaluates the eligibility of the Bancroft Center at 2558-2580 Bancroft Avenue under CRHR and LPO significance criteria.
5.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT This section describes the historical context of the project area, including property-specific development, as well as the architectural context of the Modern/Brutalist style.
5.1.1 Berkeley The project area is entirely within the Rancho San Antonio land grant, which was granted to Luis Maria Peralta on August 3, 1820, for his service to the Spanish government. His 44,800-acre rancho included what are now the cities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Piedmont, and a part of San Leandro. Peralta’s land grant was confirmed after Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1822, and his title was honored when California entered the Union by treaty in 1848. In 1842, Peralta’s son, José Domingo, received the northern portion of the rancho lands, which includes the modern communities of Albany, El Cerrito, and Berkeley (Cerny 2001:276).
In 1852, Francis Kittredge Shattuck, George Blake, James Leonard, and William Hillegrass purchased one-square mile of land bounded by College Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Addison Street, and Russell Street. The main thoroughfare would later become Shattuck Avenue (Cerny 2001:276), and the area would become the core of early Berkeley’s commercial, residential and civic development. The arrival of the University of California in 1873 from Oakland guaranteed a future for Berkeley’s early residents and real estate speculators (Office of Historic Preservation 1996:1). At the time of the University’s arrival, “Berkeley hardly existed; a restaurant and a small hotel [comprised] the downtown area. There were neither sidewalks nor a practicing physician. Students and faculty continued to live in Oakland commuting via horse-drawn trolley until homes and boarding houses could be built” (Starr 1973:147-148).
In 1876, Shattuck purchased a spur line of the Southern Pacific Railroad originating in Oakland and running north to Berkeley along Adeline Street, then along Shattuck Avenue to its terminus at what would become Shattuck Square. Shattuck Avenue provided the necessary width for wagon and rail transportation into the heart of the fledgling community. Commercial space along the avenue came at a premium. University Avenue was the main east/west transportation arterial connecting the shoreline commercial activity and the hillside residential areas with the university campus and downtown. This event and the burgeoning importance of Shattuck and University avenues were was the catalyst for downtown development. Two years later, Berkeley was incorporated (Cohen 2008).
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 14
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5.1.2 Southside Neighborhood The history of the Southside neighborhood is closely associated with the establishment of a university in what would become Berkeley. In the late 1850s, land speculators and civic boosters enticed the College of California to move north from Oakland to a more natural area along Strawberry Creek, a location that was still close to Oakland and, via ferry service, San Francisco. In response to the move being hindered by a lack of funds, George Blake agreed to sell the College land south of the proposed location so that the subsequent subdivision and resale could finance the relocation. To do this, the trustees created the College Homestead Tract Association to facilitate sales (Wollenberg 2002). This development created the first residential neighborhood in Berkeley (Wilson 1987:136-140).
The College Homestead Tract Association marketed the parcels to prosperous citizens interested in living in a small college town (Wood 1883:782). The trustees hired famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted to plan the development, but his ideas were deemed unsuitable. While Olmsted envisioned a network of landscaped roads and tree-lined lanes following topographic contours, the trustees favored a traditional grid pattern, perhaps in an effort to maximize parcel sales. In a move designed to appeal to educated buyers, the north-south streets were named alphabetically after prominent scientists such as Audubon (now College Avenue), Bowditch, Choate (now Telegraph Avenue), Dana, Ellsworth, Fulton, and Guyot (now Shattuck Avenue). East-west streets were named after authors, such as Allston, Bancroft, Channing, and Dwight. Bancroft Way was named after historian George Bancroft who also served as the American Ambassador to Great Britain and later as Secretary of the Navy under President James Polk (Aronivici 2004:2).
As the Homestead Tract gradually developed as a residential area during the 1880s and 1890s, commercial development began along Shattuck Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, and Bancroft Way. Recognizing an opportunity, the Central Pacific Railway built a branch line along Shattuck Avenue to provide a convenient route from east and west Berkeley to Oakland and San Francisco. A horse car line and later an electric streetcar station stop, known as “Dwight Station” was at the southeast corner of the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Dwight Way. The railroad facilitated the development of the Southside neighborhood fostered prosperous commercial areas nearby (HABS 1991:7-8). In 1902, the route was purchased by the Oakland Consolidated Street Railway and later became part of the Key System, which was a regional streetcar system in Oakland and Berkeley. Streetcar service ended in November 1948, and the area began to change due to the end of the Key System and the post- World War II rise of the automobile (Sappers 2007:60-65, 174-177). By 1950, the Sanborn map of the project area shows an increasing concentration of residential and commercial activity on Bancroft Way (Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Ltd., 1950).
In the aftermath of World War II and through the 1970s, the student population at the Berkeley campus grew consistently, resulting in a steady demand for student housing. In response, new units were built in the Southside neighborhood. Also during this period, many established families and older residents moved out of the area and to the Berkeley/Oakland hills or outlying suburbs. This shift led to a significant change in the nature of the older “single-family” enclaves in the Southside neighborhood. Some single-family homes were converted to apartment or flats, and others were razed to accommodate larger multi-story “shoebox” apartment buildings (Hibma 2013). Pressure from the ever-growing University resulted in constant change, as additional living space was built for students and workers in support industries. Today, the Homestead Area is known locally as the “Southside” and is mostly residential in nature, with university students forming the bulk of the population.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 15
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5.1.2 Bancroft Center Bancroft Center is a single-story commercial building built in 1963 at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way. The building is located near the University of California’s Berkeley campus in the city’s Southside neighborhood. The building was designed around a central open courtyard space and adjoining water feature, but both elements have been significantly altered or removed. At its opening, the building’s flagship store was Joseph Magnin, a high-end clothier who remained in Bancroft Center until 1983. Other tenants included the Clark Company from 1967 to 1984, and Bruce Men’s and Boys’ Clothing from 1964 until 1969. The shops currently serve the original purpose as commercial retail and service space catering primarily to students and faculty. However, the building has sustained alterations and renovations that have reduced its historical and architectural value. The area around the Bancroft Center continues to develop commercially in response to a growing university student body.
5.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT 5.2.1 John Hans Ostwald A review of published materials about notable architects on the Bay Area and California provided minimal information about the work of John Hans Ostwald. Although records indicate that he designed numerous buildings throughout the in 1960s and 1970s, none have been documented in architectural literature. Records also indicate that the bulk of his work included residences and structural alterations.
John Hans Ostwald was born in Berlin, Germany, to a Jewish family in 1913. After the end of World War I, his family relocated to the suburb of Dahlem, where the family prospered in the banking industry. When Ostwald was 12 years old, the family relocated to Vienna, where his father took a position as senior partner of a private bank. The family was typical of those living in 1930s Vienna and participated in an active social scene. Ostwald, along with his siblings and parents, received musical and artistic instruction. This experience later informed his architectural focus on family- oriented open living spaces in his residential designs (Reay 1975: 11).
Ostwald enrolled in the University of Vienna in 1931, where he studied law and apprenticed as a banker. In 1932, he enrolled at the London School of Economics. Ostwald completed his law degree at the Institute of Technology in Vienna in 1934, and enrolled in the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich to pursue an architecture degree in the same year. He completed this program in 1938 and finished his doctorate in Technical Sciences a year later. Following graduation he worked in Zurich for modern architect Werner Moser. However, the changing social, political, and economic conditions in Austria following the Anschluss, when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in March 1938, compelled him to consider a new career path (Reay 1975:12).
As conditions deteriorated in central Europe in the late 1930s, Ostwald and his wife Rosemarie immigrated to California, where they settled first in San Francisco and later in Berkeley. Shortly after their arrival, Ostwald began working for several Bay Area firms including Richard Neutra, Reiners & Garren and Anshen & Allen. John began his architectural practice as the influence of modern architecture as expressed by Le Corbusier and Ernö Goldfinger was becoming popular in the Bay Area (Reay 1975:12). Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Ostwald’s work remained largely residential, with few commercial commissions. He partnered with architect Frederick L. Confer from 1947 to 1954. His early works were influenced locally by Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck, which is
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 16
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
evident in his early residential designs. His use of natural wood finishes, exposed brick, and abundant light is in keeping with the notable features of the Second Bay Tradition, a popular regional aesthetic following World War II. Ostwald himself, however, rejected the idea of adhering to any particular style. Rosemarie held a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Zurich and began working at the University of California, San Francisco’s College of Pharmacy. In 1946, she joined the Bio- Organic Group of the Radiation Laboratory (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) on the Berkeley campus. In 1957 she accepted a professorship in the Department of Nutritional Sciences.
Following his return to individual practice, Ostwald’s focus shifted from residential construction to alterations and additions to private and public buildings. Ostwald’s design portfolio included more civic buildings after 1955. By the time of his death in 1973, Ostwald designed alterations for over 100 existing buildings throughout California (Reay 1975:14). These alterations included additions and interior remodels of commercial properties such as the Andre Godet Shop in Berkeley and the Jack Hughes Shop in Orinda. Ostwald also designed additions to the Berkeley City Hall annex in 1963 and the Main Branch of the Berkeley Public Library two years later. He also designed a new sanctuary for the Julia Morgan-designed St. John’s Presbyterian Church at 2640 College Avenue in Berkeley. St. John’s Presbyterian Church is a Berkeley Landmark, as well as listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Many of Ostwald’s additions were subsequently removed as part of successive modernizations (UC Berkeley Index 2015:7).
In the 1960s and 1970s, Ostwald’s style diversified. His designs for commercial and civic buildings range in style and scale as he also began to integrate interactive components into his designs, such as public artwork and water features. During the 1960s, he served on the various Berkeley municipal committees and organizations, such as the Design Review Committee, Civic Art Commission, Civic Art Foundation, and the School Master Plan Committee. As a member of the Code Review Committee, he developed Berkeley’s privacy ordinance codes. From 1967-1968 he was a guest lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley College of Environmental Design (Reay 1975:16). In 1971, he won election to the American Institute of Architect’s College of Fellows, and the Oakland Tribune recognized his community service work in the East Bay (Oakland Tribune 1971). Soon afterward, Ostwald accepted a visiting professorship position with at Haile Selassie University in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where he developed a curriculum for architecture students. He also designed residences while in Ethiopia, and drafted plans for the renovation of the university’s library.
Ostwald died on May 24, 1973. Several of his designs were constructed posthumously. His legacy is complicated to define, given his rejection of adherence to style and desire in favor of building in a way that suited his clients’ particular needs (Reay 1975:16). His body of work indicates that he was a well-regarded architect with a prolific portfolio amassed during his career.
5.2.2 Modern The Modern style has its roots in the rise of industrial manufacturing during the late-19th century. Architects who favored this style focused on open floor plans and challenged traditional concepts of building layouts and massing. They sought to move away from decorative elements that referenced historical designs and motifs and toward designs that emphasized a building’s function. Modern style buildings also represent a large range of designs, from simple functional ranch residences to high- concept public facilities. During the early decades of the 20th century, architects gradually embraced the machine age, prompting a turn toward a sleeker, more refined appearance. While some architects
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 17
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
created eclectic interpretations of traditional design and forms, other architects disregarded such influences as archaic. Modern buildings also encompass several subtypes, including Prairie, Craftsman, and Brutalist designs. The advent of the Modern style was dependent on advances in building material technology, as the availability of steel and concrete encouraged 20th century architects to move away from traditional forms by removing their dependence on walls as load- bearing necessities.
Following the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s, designers stripped away Art Deco’s rich materials and jazzy ornamentation to emphasize a sense of smooth motion conveyed by clean lines. Known as “Streamlining,” this design concept reflected the hope held by many that science and technology would rejuvenate the economy. The streamlining design movement of the 1930s helped establish the modern, post-World War II American aesthetic, which abandoned all historical reference in architecture. Bricks and stone were replaced with sheets of glass or metal. This found widespread favor as reflective of post-war American society and spread to all major cities and outlying areas (Gelernter 1999:262-263). Modern-styled buildings were economical to build, with a simple design without elaborate ornamentation that was easily replicated, a quality that appealed to businesses (Wiseman 2000:149).
The general character-defining features of the Modern style are:
• Square or rectangular footprint;
• Flat roof;
• Subdued color schemes;
• Minimal amount of façade ornamentation to draw attention of passersby to the interior;
• Simple cubic "extruded rectangle" massing;
• Windows running in broken horizontal rows forming a grid;
• Façade angles at 90 degrees; and
• Building materials of steel, formed concrete, chrome, or plated surfaces (Gelernter 1999:248-249; McAlester and McAlester 2003:464-467).
5.2.3 Brutalism By the 1960s, architects pushed the boundaries of Modernism even further. They designed unconventional shapes to combine and create new building forms and experimented with massing once again, producing designs that are both vaulted and compact. A subtype that gained prevalence in the 1960s is Brutalism, which used concrete as the most common building material and emphasizes the sculptural qualities of that material shorn of all ornamentation.
Brutalism is from the French term for concrete, béton brut, which was often used by Le Corbusier to describe the appearance of the material. Brutalism is characterized by a focus on the visibility of building material, and typically displays the building materials themselves in an unadorned and unfinished fashion. Windows and entrances are unornamented, as well, and typically exist as voids in a solid concrete plane created by recessing windows into façades. An overall starkness of appearance was meant to evoke solemnity through its sheer size and simplicity. The chosen building materials were intended to appear durable and monolithic. The style gained popularity in design of institutional P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 18
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
buildings because of its ease in conveying monumentality to the observer (McAlester 2013: 664). The focus on the initial functional purpose of a Brutalist building often creates problems as the building ages. The concrete and steel building materials are often difficult to alter, which makes adaptive reuse difficult. Many were designed to serve a particular function, and deviation or adaptation for new purposes can prove difficult to meet changing needs in the community.
The general character-defining features of the Brutalism are: • Rectangular forms and footprints; • Exposed aggregate concrete; • Solid-to-void ratio of recessed windows and doors; • Flat roofs; • Unpainted exteriors; • Minimal amount of façade ornamentation; and • Exposed ductwork, pipes, and vents (McAlester 2013:664).
5.3 APPLICATION OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 5.3.1 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria This section applies the CRHR significance criteria to the Bancroft Center and assesses the building’s status under the LPO. The project area does not contain any built environment resources that were previously listed or determined eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or in a local inventory of historical resources.
Criterion 1: Is it associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage? Research indicates that the Bancroft Center is associated with the post-World War II growth of University of California, Berkeley student body and with the commercial development of Berkeley in the mid-20th century. At this location, these two trends developed in a complimentary manner. However, the Bancroft Center is one of many buildings in Berkeley and Alameda County that are associated with the post-war growth of secondary education in California and the concurrent commercial development of Berkeley and no evidence was identified to elevate the building in associative stature with these events; it does not possess specific, important associations with this context that distinguish it from hundreds of other buildings with similar design, construction history, and use. Moreover, this building was one of many commercial retail businesses along Bancroft Avenue, the Southside neighborhood and in Downtown nearby. For these reasons, Bancroft Center does not appear eligible under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: Is it associated with the lives of persons important in our past? Research in local history publications, architectural field guides, and building permit records on file at the City of Berkeley indicate that the Bancroft Center is not associated with the lives of persons important our past. The building was used as high-end commercial retail space, with high-end clothier Joseph Magnin as the flagship store. All of the original tenants have since
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 19
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
moved out and the building has sustained significant tenant turnover in the last 20-30 years with high end retailers replaced with business oriented with supporting a growing student population. For these reasons, the Bancroft Center does not appear eligible under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values? The Bancroft Center possesses some of the general architectural characteristics of Modern/Brutalist design, an architectural style well represented in the existing building stock of Berkeley, Alameda County, California, and nationwide. Bancroft Center was designed by noted architect John Hans Ostwald, an Austrian native who immigrated to the United Sates before World War II. From 1941 to 1973, Ostwald primarily worked in the Bay Area and statewide with occasional commissions in Europe and Ethiopia. His primary source of work was residential commissions that included new construction, remodels, and additions. Ostwald was also commissioned to design alterations to the Berkeley City Hall Annex (since demolished) and the Main Branch of the Berkeley Public Library Annex (since demolished). He was active in local Berkeley government was a design lecturer at the College of Environmental Design in 1967 and 1968 and later accepted a visiting professorship at Haile Selassie University in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1971-1972. Ostwald was one of many such commercial architects practicing in the area during this time however, his work has not been recognized in published architectural field, architectural encyclopedias, and published materials regarding architecture and design in the San Francisco Bay Area. The 1984 alterations to the Bancroft Center’s exterior and removal of outdoor courtyard spaces and water features have altered its original form, design, and related landscaping attributes diminishing its architectural qualities. Due to the cumulative effects of alterations over the last 30 years, Bancroft Center does not appear eligible under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: Has it yielded, or may it be likely to yield, information important to history? This criterion is usually used to evaluate the potential of archaeological deposits to contain information important in understanding the past lifeways of Berkeley’s early historical-period and pre-contact inhabitants. Its application to architecture is less common in eligibility assessments due to the prevalence of multiple media that thoroughly document the form, materials, and design of a given building type. Consequently, information about Modern/Brutalist design and construction techniques, as represented by Bancroft Center, can be obtained from other widely available sources on this familiar architectural style. Additionally, due to alterations, further study of this building will not result in new information about construction techniques or the Modern/Brutalist architectural style and design. For these reasons, Bancroft Center will not yield information important to the history of the local area, California, or the nation, and does not appear eligible under Criterion 4.
5.3.2 Landmark Preservation Ordinance Criteria The section below provides a discussion of Bancroft Center’s status per Section 3.24.110 of the LPO outlined above.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 20
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1. Architectural Merit: a) A property is the first, last, only, or most significant architectural property of its type in the region; This building is not the first, last, or most significant architectural property of its type in the region. Background research identified numerous Modern/Brutalist-styled buildings built by regional architects in Berkeley such as: - Goodman Office Building, 1535 Shattuck Avenue; - Edgar Jensen Cottage (Berkeley Landmark #277), 1650 La Vereda Road; and - University Art Museum (Berkeley Landmark #314), 2625 Durant Avenue. b) A property is the prototype, or outstanding example, of a period, style, architectural movement, or construction, or is an example of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer, or master builder; or While the building is the work of a prolific regional architect, John Hans Ostwald, it is not the prototype for any particular style associated with this architect. Bancroft Center is neither the most notable work nor the best surviving work in Berkeley, Alameda County, or California attributed to Ostwald. c) A property is an architectural example worth preserving for the exceptional values it adds as part of the neighborhood fabric. Background archival research of Bancroft Center indicates that it does not qualify under this criterion. A field survey of the building identified subsequent alterations that have compromised several original key architectural qualities. Currently the building more resembles an ordinary mid-century commercial building, a common resource type in Berkeley and the East Bay. Due to alterations, Bancroft Center is not significant under this criterion.
2. Cultural Value: A structure, site, or area associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social, and economic development of the City. This building is associated with the mid-20th century growth in centralized commercial retail. The building is also related to the post-war growth of the University of California, Berkeley’s student body. Alterations in the decades following its construction in 1963 have compromised the building’s architectural and cultural value, and have reduced its observable associations with these historic Berkeley trends.
3. Educational Value: A structure worth preserving for its usefulness as an educational force. Background research and field survey did not indicate that this building is worth preserving for its usefulness as an educational force. It is a typical example of mid-20th century design that uses materials and construction techniques common to that era, and it possesses no distinguishing or distinctive elements; the building stock that resulted from this architectural trend has been thoroughly documented through published architectural history books, websites, and local field guides that are widely available. Further study of Bancroft Center will not result in new information about construction techniques or the Modern/Brutalist architectural style.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 21
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4. Historic Value: A structure that represents the preservation and enhancement of structures, sites, and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States. History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious, or military. Background research and field survey indicated that, due to alterations, this building is no longer a suitable representative example of Modern/Brutalist design and currently resembles an ordinary mid-century commercial building, a common built environment resource type found in Berkeley, Alameda County, California, and nationwide. This building is one of many such commercial buildings of the period, and it does not embody the history of the area in any significant way. As such, it does not qualify under this criterion.
5. Historic Property: Any property listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Bancroft Center is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
In considering applications for Structure of Merit designation, the LPC uses the following criteria: 1. General Criteria: A structure shall be judged on its architectural merit and/or cultural, educational, or historic interest or value. If a structure does not meet Landmark criteria, it may be designated a Structure of Merit if it is worthy of preservation as part of a neighborhood, a block or street frontage, or as part of a group of buildings that includes Landmarks. Bancroft Center is adjacent to Berkeley Landmark No. 49, the Fred Turner Building, at 2536 Bancroft Way. However, the residential nature of the Landmark property, as well as its age and context, is different than that of Bancroft Center. The Fred Turner Building is Neoclassical in style, massing, ornamentation, and setback. Bancroft Center is Modern/Brutalist style, a design with bulky massing and minimal decoration. The building’s façade, massing, and function are also different from those found on the Fred Turner Building. Bancroft Center is not the last remaining mid-century commercial building in Berkeley’s Southside neighborhood.
2. Specific Criteria a) The age of the structure is contemporary with: (1) a Landmark within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; or (2) a historic period or event of significance to Berkeley, or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; Bancroft Center was built in 1963. The Landmark and Structure of Merit buildings in the area were constructed in 1891-1940. Their style, façade treatments, and massing are considerably different than those aspects of Bancroft Center. b) The structure is comparable in size, scale, style, materials, or design with a Landmark structure within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; The Bancroft Center is not comparable in size, scale, style, materials, or design with the Landmark and Structure of Merit properties nearby. It was constructed 23 years after the most recent Landmark property was built. c) The structure is a good architectural design example; Due to subsequent alterations, Bancroft Center no longer a representative example of the Modern/Brutalist architectural style, and currently it more resembles an ordinary mid-century
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 22
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
commercial building, a common resource type in Berkeley, Alameda County, California, and nationwide.
d) The structure has historical significance to Berkeley and/or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings. Background research and field survey indicates that subsequent alterations to Bancroft Center have diminished its architectural integrity. Given the prevalence of mid-century commercial buildings in the Modern/Brutalist style, this altered commercial building does not materially contribute to the overall architectural character of the neighborhood or street frontage. It is not a contributing element to a potential Southside neighborhood historic district.
5.4 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT As previously discussed, historical integrity refers to the ability of a resource to convey its significant historical associations. Integrity is a critical component of historical resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR. This section discusses Bancroft Center’s historical integrity with respect to all seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, feeling, materials, workmanship, and association. The results of this discussion further illustrate Bancroft Center’s critical lack of integrity, resulting in a lack of significance under the four CEQA criteria.
• Bancroft Center has not been moved and retains integrity of location.
• Bancroft Center does not retain integrity of feeling. This is due to the removal of signage, water features, skylights, and pebbled concrete that were part of Ostwald’s original design. The removal of these features has given the building an unremarkable appearance that does not differentiate it from others in its surroundings.
• Bancroft Center does retain integrity of setting. The building fabric of City Block 5328 remains largely as it was on the 1950 Sanborn map. The historical commercial buildings on Telegraph Avenue, as well as the large apartment buildings on Durant Avenue, are extant and still serve their original purposes. The signage for the El Granada apartment building remains in place as well, and remains mixed-use commercial and residential.
• Bancroft Center does not retain integrity of workmanship, design, or materials. This is due to alterations to the original function and historical fabric of the building as a result of renovations to the façade and courtyard, removal of the original street level “BANCROFT CENTER” signage, removal of the “Joseph Magnin” signage on the façade, removal of skylights, removal of the water feature, and the addition of stucco cladding on the fascia, parapet, and courtyard. The building’s interior has also been significantly altered over time. Historical ceilings, walls, and units sizes have been changed to meet tenant needs. The eastern corner of the building’s façade is a non-historical alteration that removed all historical materials. All storefront windows have been replaced. The original doors are in place in three of the four original locations, and pebbled concrete exists on portions of the façade, but these details do little to offset the numerous alterations. These alterations, taken together, diminish the integrity of workmanship, design, and materials, and design.
• Bancroft Center retains integrity of association with the growth of midcentury commercial development in Berkeley, Alameda County, California, and nationwide. The building is also associated with the growth of the University of California’s Berkeley campus.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 23
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
6.0 CONCLUSION
Background research and field survey identified one cultural resource in the project area at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way: Bancroft Center, a single-story, Modern/Brutalist commercial building designed by John Hans Ostwald. The building has housed many commercial ventures since its construction, and is associated with the growth of mid-century commercial development in Berkeley, Alameda County, California, and nationwide. However, the building’s specific association with this pattern of events is not a prominent or important. The building possesses several characteristics of the Modern/Brutalist architectural style; however, due to substantial alteration, the building is no longer a representative example of Modern/Brutalist architectural style. Taken altogether, the alterations have diminished the building’s integrity of workmanship, design, materials, setting, and feeling.
For the reasons stated above, Bancroft Center does not appear eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under any of the significance criteria, nor does it appear eligible as a City Landmark, Structure of Merit, or contributor to an identified historic district. In conclusion, the building does not qualify as a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) (1-3)).
Table 2: Resource Status Summary
Berkeley Resource Berkeley City CEQA Historical Resource Structure of Potential in Landmark? Resource? Merit? Other City Surveys?a Bancroft Center (2558-2580 No No No No Bancroft Way) a City of Berkeley Designated landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historical Districts (2004); Historic Resources (2009); Designated Landmarks (2010); Berkeley Southside (Stubbs 2004); Downtown Area Reconnaissance Survey Matrix (ARG 2008).
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 24
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
7.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED
American Society of Civil Engineers 1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California. American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.
Architectural Resources Group 2008 City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan Historic Resource Evaluation. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _DAP/B%20-%20Historic%20Resource%20Evaluation.pdf, accessed August 12, 2015.
Aronovici, John Ginno, Ed. 2004 Quick Index to the Origin of Berkeley’s Street Names. Berkeley Historical Society, Berkeley, California.
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) 1987 Buildings included in State Historic Resources Inventory, 1977-1979. On file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 2015 Berkeley Landmarks designated in 2015. Electronic document, http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/2015_landmarks.html, accessed August 7, 2015.
Bohn, Dave 1971 East of These Golden Shores: Architecture of the Earlier Days in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Junior League of Oakland & Scrimshaw Press, Oakland, California.
California Digital Library 2015 Calisphere. The Regents of the University of California. Electronic document http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu, accessed August 7, 2015. The Online Archive of California. The Regents of the University of California. Electronic document, http://www.oac.cdlib.org/, accessed August 7, 2015.
California Office of Historic Preservation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1996 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 25
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2012 Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Alameda County, April 15, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Cerny, Susan Dinkelspiel 2001 Berkeley Landmarks: An Illustrated Guide to Berkeley, California’s Architectural Heritage. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, California. 2007 An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Gibbs Smith Publisher, Santa Barbara, California.
Cohen, Alan 2008 A History of Berkeley, From the Ground Up. Electronic document, http://historyofberkeley.org/index.html, accessed August 12, 2015.
City of Berkeley 2004 City of Berkeley Designated Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historical Districts. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Online_Service_Center/Level_3_- _General/landmarks[1].pdf, accessed August 12, 2015. 2010 Designated Landmarks. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Online_Service_Center/Level_3_- _General/landmarks[1].pdf, accessed August 12, 2015.
Gelernter, Mark 1999 A History of American Architecture: Buildings in their Cultural and Technological Context. University Press of New England, Hanover and London, United Kingdom.
General Land Office 1868 Plat of the Northern Part of Rancho San Antonio partially confirmed to Vincent and Domingo Peralta. U.S. Surveyor’s Office, San Francisco, California. On file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names. The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Fourth edition revised and enlarged by William Bright. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hayes, Derek 2007 Historical Atlas of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hibma, Michael 2013 Historical Evaluation of 2201 Dwight Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California.
Historic American Building Survey 1991 Davis-Byrne Building, HABS NO. CA-2314. Historical American Building Survey, National Park Service, Western Region, Department of the Interior, San Francisco, California. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 26
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Electronic document, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Buildings/index.php?state=CA&city=Berkeley&id=3035, accessed August 12, 2015.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester 2003 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Marschner, Janice 2000 California, 1850: A Snapshot in Time. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento, California.
National Park Service 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Ostwald, John Hans. 1961 “Berkeley Public Library.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond. 1962 “Baby Nook.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Berkeley. 1964 “Bogardus House.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond. 1964 “Eckstein House.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond. 1966 “Goodman Office Building.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Regatta Center, Richmond.
Reay, Donald and Peter Poret 1975 John Hans Ostwald, Architect. Greenwood Press, San Francisco.
Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. 1894 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1911 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1929 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1950 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York.
Sappers, Vernon J. 2007 Key System Streetcars: Transit, Real Estate, and the Growth of the East Bay. Bay Area Electric Railroad Association, Signature Press, Wilton, California. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 27
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Starr, Kevin 1973 Americans and the California Dream: 1850-1915. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Stubbs, Joseph 2004 Berkeley Southside. Joseph Stubbs Creations. Electronic document, http://www.josephstubbscreations.com/southside/southside.html, accessed July 12, 2015.
The Oakland Tribune 1971 “Two East Bay Architects Among 62 Honored.” June 13, sec 5-C. Accessed July 30, 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey 1892 San Francisco, Calif. 60-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1895 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1899 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1915 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1939 San Francisco, Calif. 60-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1942 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1946 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1948 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1949 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1959 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1968 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1973 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1980 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1992 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1993 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 28
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wilson, Mark A. 1987 A Living Legacy: Historic Architecture of the East Bay. Lexikos Press, San Francisco, California.
Wiseman, Carter 2000 Twentieth-Century American Architecture: The Buildings and Their Makers. W.W. Norton, New York.
Wollenberg, Charles 2002 Berkeley, a City in History. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Wood, M.W. 1883 History of Alameda County, California. M.W. Wood, Publishers, Oakland. Reprinted 1969, Holmes Book Company, Oakland, California.
Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge and Chuck Byrne 1992 San Francisco Architecture: The Illustrated Guide to Over 1,000 of the Best Buildings, Parks, and Public Artworks in the Bay Area. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, California. 2005 San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California. Ten Speed Press, Toronto, Canada.
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 29
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALAUTION OF AUGUST 2015 BANCROFT CENTER BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX
California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Form Record
Bancroft Center, 2558-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County
P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 30
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code: Other Listings Review Code Reviewer ______Date Page 1 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
P1. Other Identifier: None P2. Location Not for Publication Unrestricted: a. County: Alameda b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Oakland West, Calif. Date: 1993; T1S/R3W; San Antonio (V. and D. Peralta); M.D.B.L. c. Address: 2558-80 Bancroft Way City: Berkeley Zip 94704 d. UTM: Zone 10; 564091mE/4191823mN e. Other Locational Data: APN 055-1877-019-02
P3a. Description: Bancroft Center was constructed in 1963 as a single-story, multi-unit commercial building covered with very-low pitched roof. It is a modest example of Modern/Brutalist style architecture. The walls are clad in sections of exposed aggregate concrete that are divided by paired, vertical, smooth-textured concrete pilasters. Portions of the main, street-facing façade are clad textured stucco or screen walls of circular glass block. Building entrances are covered by a full-length projecting boxed eave and interior spaces accessed from the public sidewalk by three separate sets of short concrete steps. The individual commercial spaces are irregularly spaced and generally flanked by a decorative concrete and glass screens or by full-height plate glass windows. Entrance doors consist of wooden double doors with double-paned glass set in arched frames.
P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP6) 1-3 story commercial building P4. Resources Present: Building P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: Bancroft Center (2558-80 Bancroft Way), north façade. View southwest. Photo taken 8/7/15.
P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Historic Built 1963, architectural plans on file at City of Berkeley Department of Planning & Development, Berkeley, California.
P7. Owner and Address: Bancroft Center Company 4111 East Madison Street, #244 Seattle, Washington 98112-3241
P8. Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801
P9. Date recorded: August 7, 2015
P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report Citation: Hibma, Michael and Angelique Theriot. 2015. Historical Resource Evaluation of Bancroft Center, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California.
Attachments: Location Map Continuation Sheet(s) Building, Structure, and Object Record
DPR 523A (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 14 NRHP Status Code: Resource Name: Bancroft Center
B1. Historic Name: Bancroft Center B2. Common Name: Same B3. Original Use: High end commercial retail B4. Present Use: Student-related commercial, food, and support services B5. Architectural Style: Modern/Brutalist B6. Construction History: According to records on file at the City of Berkeley’s Planning & Development Department, this building was constructed in 1963. Subsequent alterations from the 1980s include addition of nonhistoric stucco material, the replacement of historic storefront windows, the partial enclosure and removal of the historic façade, the removal of skylights, landscaping and associated water feature. Further alterations include the interior renovation of commercial units, including the removal of original walls and ceilings.
B7. Moved? No B8. Related Features: None B9. a. Architect: John Hans Ostwald b. Builder: Undetermined
B10. Significance: Theme: Commercial development Area: Berkeley, Alameda County
Period of Significance: N/A Property Type: Commercial building Applicable Criteria: N/A
This single-story commercial building is situated on a 28,401-square-foot parcel in a mixed-use commercial, residential, and educational urban setting. Research indicates that 2558-80 Bancroft Way is associated with Berkeley’s mid-century commercial growth in the area, as well as with the growth of the University of California’s Berkeley campus. Both historical themes made a significant contribution to the history of Berkeley, Alameda County, California, and nationwide. This building, however, is one of many in Berkeley and Alameda County associated with these themes. The building does not possess specific, important associations to distinguish it from hundreds of other commercial buildings with similar design, construction history, and use (Criterion 1). This building is not associated with the lives of persons important to the history of Berkeley, Alameda County, or nationwide (Criterion 2).This building is associated with the work of John Hans Ostwald, but does not serve as an exemplary work of that architect. It is also not the last extant example of Ostwald’s work (Criterion 3); (see continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: None
B12. References: See Continuation sheets. Bancroft Center; 2558-2580 Bancroft Way American Society of Civil Engineers 1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California. American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.
B13. Remarks: None
B14. Evaluator: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot North LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place, (This space reserved for official comments.) Point Richmond, California 94801
Date of Evaluation: August 7, 2015
DPR 523B (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015
B10. (continued) Bancroft Center at 2258-80 Bancroft Way has not yielded, and is unlikely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of Berkeley, Alameda County, or nationwide. Integrity Integrity is a critical component of historical resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR. This section discusses Bancroft Center's historical integrity with respect to all seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, feeling, materials, workmanship, and association. The results of this discussion further illustrate Bancroft Center's critical lack of integrity, resulting in a lack of significance under the four CEQA criteria. • Bancroft Center has not been moved and retains integrity of location. • Bancroft Center does not retain integrity of feeling. This is due to the removal of signage, water features, skylights, and pebbled concrete that were part of Ostwald's original design. The removal of these features has given the building an unremarkable appearance that does not differentiate it from others in its surroundings. • Bancroft Center does retain integrity of setting and to a lesser degree, feeling. The building fabric of City Block 5328 remains largely as it was on the 1950 Sanborn map. The historical commercial buildings on Telegraph Avenue, as well as the large apartment buildings on Durant Avenue, are extant and still serve their original purposes. The signage for the El Granada apartment building remains in place as well, and retains a feeling of a mixed-use commercial and residential area. • Bancroft Center does not retain integrity of workmanship, design, or materials. This is due to alterations to the original function and historical fabric of the building as a result of renovations to the façade and courtyard, removal of the original street level "BANCROFT CENTER" signage, removal of the "Joseph Magnin" signage on the façade, removal of skylights, removal of the water feature, and the addition of stucco cladding on the fascia, parapet, and courtyard. The building's interior has also been significantly altered over time. Historical ceilings, walls, and units sizes have been changed to meet tenant needs. The eastern corner of the building's façade is a non-historical alteration that removed all historical materials. All storefront windows have been replaced. The original doors are in place in three of the four original locations, and pebbled concrete exists on portions of the façade, but these details do little to offset the numerous alterations. These alterations, taken together, diminish the integrity of workmanship, design, and materials, and design. • Bancroft Center retains integrity of association with the growth of midcentury commercial development in Berkeley, Alameda County, California, and nationwide. The building is also associated with the growth of the University of California's Berkeley campus. B12. References (Continued) Architectural Resources Group 2008 City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan Historic Resource Evaluation. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_DAP/B%20- %20Historic%20Resource%20Evaluation.pdf, accessed August 12, 2015. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) 1987 Buildings included in State Historic Resources Inventory, 1977-1979. On file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 2015 Berkeley Landmarks designated in 2015. Electronic document, http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/2015_landmarks.html, accessed August 7, 2015. Bohn, Dave 1971 East of These Golden Shores: Architecture of the Earlier Days in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Junior League of Oakland & Scrimshaw Press, Oakland, California.
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015
B10. (continued) Historical Context This section describes the historical context of the project area, property-specific development, including the architect John Hans Ostwald, and a description of and listing of the character-defining features of the Modern/Brutalist architectural style of the Bancroft Center.
Berkeley The project area is entirely within the Rancho San Antonio land grant, which was granted to Luis Maria Peralta on August 3, 1820, for his service to the Spanish government. His 44,800-acre rancho included what are now the cities of Emeryville, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Piedmont, and a part of San Leandro. Peralta’s land grant was confirmed after Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1822, and his title was honored when California entered the Union by treaty in 1848. In 1842, Peralta’s son, José Domingo, received the northern portion of the rancho lands, which includes the modern communities of Albany and Berkeley (Cerny 2001:276). In 1852, Francis Kittredge Shattuck, George Blake, James Leonard, and William Hillegrass purchased one-square mile of land bounded by College Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Addison Street, and Russell Street. The main thoroughfare would later become Shattuck Avenue (Cerny 2001:276), and the area would become the core of early Berkeley’s commercial, residential and civic development. The arrival of the University of California in 1873 from Oakland guaranteed a future for Berkeley’s early residents and real estate speculators (Office of Historic Preservation 1996:1). At the time of the University’s arrival, “Berkeley hardly existed; a restaurant and a small hotel [comprised] the downtown area. There were neither sidewalks nor a practicing physician. Students and faculty continued to live in Oakland commuting via horse-drawn trolley until homes and boarding houses could be built” (Starr 1973:147-148). In 1876, Shattuck purchased a spur line of the Southern Pacific Railroad originating in Oakland and running north to Berkeley along Adeline Street, then along Shattuck Avenue to its terminus at what would become Shattuck Square. Shattuck Avenue provided the necessary width for wagon and rail transportation into the heart of the fledgling community. Commercial space along the avenue came at a premium. University Avenue was the main east/west transportation arterial connecting the shoreline commercial activity and the hillside residential areas with the university campus and downtown. This event and the burgeoning importance of Shattuck and University avenues were was the catalyst for downtown development. Two years later, Berkeley was incorporated (Cohen 2008).
Southside Neighborhood The history of the Southside neighborhood is closely associated with the establishment of a university in what would become Berkeley. In the late 1850s, land speculators and civic boosters enticed the College of California to move north from Oakland to a more natural area along Strawberry Creek, a location that was still close to Oakland and, via ferry service, San Francisco. In response to the move being hindered by a lack of funds, George Blake agreed to sell the College land south of the proposed location so that the subsequent subdivision and resale could finance the relocation. To do this, the trustees created the College Homestead Tract Association to facilitate sales (Wollenberg 2002). This development created the first residential neighborhood in Berkeley (Wilson 1987:136-140). The College Homestead Tract Association marketed the parcels to prosperous citizens interested in living in a small college town (Wood 1883:782). The trustees hired famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted to plan the development, but his ideas were deemed unsuitable. While Olmsted envisioned a network of landscaped roads and tree- lined lanes following topographic contours, the trustees favored a traditional grid pattern, perhaps in an effort to maximize parcel sales.
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015
B10. (continued) In a move designed to appeal to educated buyers, the north-south streets were named alphabetically after prominent scientists such as Audubon (now College Avenue), Bowditch, Choate (now Telegraph Avenue), Dana, Ellsworth, Fulton, and Guyot (now Shattuck Avenue). East-west streets were named after authors such as Allston, Bancroft, Channing, and Dwight. Bancroft Way was named after historian George Bancroft who also served as the American Ambassador to Great Britain and later as Secretary of the Navy under President James Polk (Aronivici 2004:2). As the Homestead Tract gradually developed as a residential area during the 1880s and 1890s, commercial development began along Shattuck Avenue. Recognizing an opportunity, the Central Pacific Railway built a branch line along Shattuck Avenue to provide a convenient route from east and west Berkeley to Oakland and San Francisco. A horse car line and later an electric streetcar station stop, known as “Dwight Station” was centered on the southeast corner of the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Dwight Way. The railroad eventually transformed Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Dwight Way into a prosperous commercial area (HABS 1991:7-8). In 1902, the route was purchased by the Oakland Consolidated Street Railway and later became part of the Key System, which was a regional streetcar system in Oakland and Berkeley. Streetcar service ended in November 1948 (Sappers 2007:60-65, 174-177), and the area began to change due to the end of the Key System and the post-World War II rise of the automobile. By 1950, the Sanborn map of the project area shows an increasing concentration of residential and commercial activity on Bancroft Way (Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Ltd., 1950). In the aftermath of World War II and through the 1970s, the student population at the Berkeley campus grew consistently, resulting in creating a steady demand for student housing. In response, new units were built in the Southside neighborhood. Also during this period, many established families and older residents moved out of the area and to the Berkeley/Oakland hills or outlying suburbs. This shift led to a significant change in the nature of the older “single-family” enclaves in the Southside neighborhood. Some single-family homes were converted to apartment or flats, and others were razed to accommodate larger, multi-story “shoebox” apartment buildings (Hibma 2013). Pressure from the ever-growing University resulted in constant change, as additional living space was built for students and workers in support industries. Today, the Homestead Area is known locally as the “Southside” and is mostly residential in nature, with university students forming the bulk of the population.
Bancroft Center Bancroft Center is a single-story commercial building built in 1963 at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way. The building is located near the University of California’s Berkeley campus along the northern border of the city’s Southside neighborhood. At its opening, the building’s flagship store was Joseph Magnin, an high-end clothier and occupied the space until 1983. Other tenants included the Clark Company from 1967 to 1984, and Bruce Men’s and Boys Clothing from 1964 until 1969. The building was designed around a central open courtyard space and adjoining water feature, but both elements have been significantly altered. The shops currently serve the same purpose and provide services to nearby University of California students, but the building itself has lost nearly all of its historical and architectural value. The area around the Bancroft Center continues to develop commercially.
John Hans Ostwald John Hans Ostwald was born in Berlin, Germany, to a Jewish family in 1913. After the end of World War I, his family relocated to the suburb of Dahlem, where the family prospered in the banking industry. When Ostwald was 12 years old, the family relocated to Vienna, where his father took a position as senior partner of a private bank.
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015
B10. (continued) The family was typical of those living in 1930s Vienna, and participated in an active social scene. Ostwald, along with his siblings and parents, received musical and artistic instruction. This experience later informed his architectural focus on family-oriented open living spaces in his residential designs (Reay 1975: 11). Ostwald enrolled in the University of Vienna in 1931, where he studied law and apprenticed as a banker. In 1932, he enrolled at the London School of Economics. Ostwald completed his law degree at the Institute of Technology in Vienna in 1934, and enrolled in the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich to pursue an architecture degree in the same year. He completed this program in 1938, and completed finished his doctorate program in Technical Sciences a year later. Following graduation he worked in Zurich for modern architect Werner Moser. However, the changing social, political, and economic conditions in Austria following the Anschluss, when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in March 1938, compelled him to consider a new career path (Reay 1975:12). As conditions deteriorated in central Europe in the late 1930s, Ostwald and his wife Rosemarie immigrated to California, where they settled at first in San Francisco and later in Berkeley. Rosemarie held a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Zurich, she began working at the College of Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco. John began his architectural practice as the influence of modern architecture as expressed by Le Corbusier and Ernö Goldfinger was becoming popular in the Bay Area. Rosemarie began a professorship at the University of California campus in Berkeley (Reay 1975:12). Shortly after his arrival, Ostwald began working for several Bay Area firms including Richard Neutra, Reiners & Garren, and Anshen & Allen. His early works were influenced locally by Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck, and this influence which is evident in his early residential designs. His use of natural wood finishes, exposed brick, and abundant light is in keeping with the notable features of the Second Bay Tradition. Ostwald himself, however, rejected the idea of complying with adhering to any particular style. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Ostwald’s work remained largely residential. He partnered with architect Frederick L. Confer in 1947; .in 1954, his partnership with Confer dissolved. Following his return to individual practice, Ostwald’s focus shifted from residential construction toward alterations and additions to existing private and public buildings. Ostwald’s design portfolio included more civic buildings after 1955. By the time of his death in 1973, Ostwald designed alterations for over 100 existing buildings throughout California (Reay 1975:14). These alterations included additions and interior remodels of commercial properties such as the Andre Godet Shop in Berkeley and the Jack Hughes Shop in Orinda. Ostwald also designed additions to the Berkeley City Hall annex in 1963 and the Main Branch of the Berkeley Public Library two years later. He also designed a new sanctuary for the Julia Morgan-designed St. John’s Presbyterian Church at 2640 College Avenue in Berkeley. St. John’s Presbyterian Church is a Berkeley Landmark, as well as listed on the National Register of Historic Places. , Many of these additions were subsequently removed as part of successive modernizations has taken their places. (UC Berkeley Index 2015: 7). In the 1960s and 1970s, Ostwald’s style also diversified as well. He also began to integrate interactive components into his designs, such as public artwork and water features. During the 1960s, he served on the various Berkeley municipal committees and organizations, such as the Design Review Committee, Civic Art Commission, Civic Art Foundation, and the School Master Plan Committee. As a member of the Code Review Committee, he developed Berkeley’s privacy ordinance codes. In From 1967-1968 he was a professor at the University of California, Berkeley College of Environmental Design (Reay 1975:16).
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015
B10. (continued) In 1971, he won election to the American Institute of Architect’s College of Fellows, and The Oakland Tribune recognized his community service work in the East Bay work done in community service (Oakland Tribune 1971). Soon afterward, Ostwald accepted a visiting professorship position with at Haile Selassie University in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where he developed a curriculum for architecture students. He also designed residences in Ethiopia, as well as created plans for the renovation of the university’s library. In 1971, he won election to the American Institute of Architect’s College of Fellows, and The Oakland Tribune recognized his community service work in the East Bay work done in community service (Oakland Tribune 1971). Soon afterward, Ostwald accepted a visiting professorship position with at Haile Selassie University in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where he developed a curriculum for architecture students. He also designed residences in Ethiopia, as well as created plans for the renovation of the university’s library. Ostwald died on May 24, 1973. Several of his designs were constructed posthumously. His legacy is complicated to define, given his rejection of adherence to style and desire to in favor of building in a way that suited individual clients’ particular needs (Reay 1975:16). His body of work indicates that he was a well-regarded architect with a prolific portfolio amassed during his career.
Architectural Context Modern The Modern style has its roots in the rise of industrial manufacturing during the late-19th century. Architects who favored this style focused on open floor plans and challenged traditional concepts of building layouts and massing. They sought to move away from decorative elements that referenced historic designs and motifs and toward designs that emphasized a building’s function. Modern style buildings also represent a large range of designs, from simple functional ranch residences to high-concept public facilities. During the early decades of the 20th century, architects gradually embraced the machine age, prompting a turn toward a sleeker, more refined appearance. While some architects created eclectic interpretations of traditional design and forms, other architects disregarded such influences as archaic. Modern buildings also encompass several subtypes, including Prairie, Craftsman, and Brutalist designs. The advent of the Modern style was dependent on advances in building material technology, as the availability of steel and concrete encouraged 20th century architects to move away from traditional forms by removing their dependence on walls as load-bearing necessities.
Following the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s, designers stripped away Art Deco’s rich materials and jazzy ornamentation to emphasize a sense of smooth motion conveyed by clean lines. Known as “Streamlining,” this design concept reflected the hope held by many that science and technology would rejuvenate the economy. The streamlining design movement of the 1930s helped establish the modern, post-World War II American aesthetic, which abandoned all historical reference in architecture. Bricks and stone were replaced with sheets of glass or metal. This found widespread favor as reflective of post-war American society and spread to all major cities and outlying areas (Gelernter 1999:262-263). Modern-styled buildings were economical to build, with a simple design without elaborate ornamentation that was easily replicated, a quality that appealed to businesses (Wiseman 2000:149).
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015 B10. (continued) The general character-defining features of the Modern style are:
• Square or rectangular footprint;
• Flat roof;
• Subdued color schemes;
• Minimal amount of façade ornamentation to draw attention of passersby to the interior;
• Simple cubic "extruded rectangle" massing;
• Windows running in broken horizontal rows forming a grid;
• Façade angles at 90 degrees; and
• Building materials of steel, formed concrete, chrome, or plated surfaces (Gelernter 1999:248-249; McAlester and McAlester 2003:464-467).
Brutalism By the 1960s, architects pushed the boundaries of Modernism even further. They designed unconventional shapes to combine and create new building forms and experimented with massing once again, producing designs that are both vaulted and compact. A subtype that gained prevalence in the 1960s is Brutalism, which used concrete as the most common building material and emphasizes the sculptural qualities of that material shorn of all ornamentation. Brutalism is from the French term for concrete, béton brut, which was often used by Le Corbusier to describe the appearance of the material. Brutalism is characterized by a focus on the visibility of building material, and typically displays the building materials themselves in an unadorned and unfinished fashion. Windows and entrances are unornamented, as well, and typically exist as voids in a solid concrete plane created by recessing windows into façades. An overall starkness of appearance was meant to evoke solemnity through its sheer size and simplicity. The chosen building materials were intended to appear durable and monolithic. The style gained popularity in design of institutional buildings because of its ease in conveying monumentality to the observer (McAlester 2013: 664). The focus on the initial functional purpose of a Brutalist building often creates problems as the building ages. The concrete and steel building materials are often difficult to alter, which makes adaptive reuse difficult. Many were designed to serve a particular function, and deviation or adaptation for new purposes can prove difficult to meet changing needs in the community..
The general character-defining features of the Brutalism are:
• Rectangular forms and footprints;
• Exposed aggregate concrete;
• Solid-to-void ratio of recessed windows and doors;
• Flat roofs;
• Unpainted exteriors;
• Minimal amount of façade ornamentation; and
• Exposed ductwork, pipes, and vents (McAlester 2013:664).
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015 B12 References (cont.) California Digital Library 2015 Calisphere. The Regents of the University of California. Electronic document
California Office of Historic Preservation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1996 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2012 Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Alameda County, April 15, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Cerny, Susan Dinkelspiel 2001 Berkeley Landmarks: An Illustrated Guide to Berkeley, California’s Architectural Heritage. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, California. 2007 An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Gibbs Smith Publisher, Santa Barbara, California.
Cohen, Alan 2008 A History of Berkeley, From the Ground Up. Electronic document, http://historyofberkeley.org/index.html, accessed August 12, 2015.
City of Berkeley 2004 City of Berkeley Designated Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historical Districts. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Online_Service_Center/Level_3_-_General/landmarks[1].pdf, accessed August 12, 2015. 2010 Designated Landmarks. Electronic document, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Online_Service_Center/Level_3_-_General/landmarks[1].pdf, accessed August 12, 2015. Gelernter, Mark 1999 A History of American Architecture: Buildings in their Cultural and Technological Context. University Press of New England, Hanover and London, United Kingdom.
General Land Office 1868 Plat of the Northern Part of Rancho San Antonio partially confirmed to Vincent and Domingo Peralta. U.S. Surveyor’s Office, San Francisco, California. On file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names. The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Fourth edition revised and enlarged by William Bright. University of California Press, Berkeley.
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015 B12 References (cont.) Hayes, Derek 2007 Historical Atlas of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hibma, Michael 2013 Historical Evaluation of 2201 Dwight Way, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California.
Historic American Building Survey 1991 Davis-Byrne Building, HABS NO. CA-2314. Historical American Building Survey, National Park Service, Western Region, Department of the Interior, San Francisco, California. Electronic document, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Buildings/index.php?state=CA&city=Berkeley&id=3035, accessed August 12, 2015.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester 2003 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Marschner, Janice 2000 California, 1850: A Snapshot in Time. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento, California.
National Park Service 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Ostwald, John Hans. 1961 “Berkeley Public Library.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond 1962 “Baby Nook.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond 1964 “Bogardus House.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond 1964 “Eckstein House.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond 1966 “Goodman Office Building.” University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives, Regatta Center, Richmond.
Reay, Donald and Peter Poret 1975 John Hans Ostwald, Architect. Greenwood Press, San Francisco.
Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. 1894 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1911 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1929 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1950 Berkeley, Alameda County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York.
Sappers, Vernon J. 2007 Key System Streetcars: Transit, Real Estate, and the Growth of the East Bay. Bay Area Electric Railroad Association, Signature Press, Wilton, California.
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015 B12 References (cont.) Starr, Kevin 1973 Americans and the California Dream: 1850-1915. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
The Oakland Tribune 1971 “Two East Bay Architects Among 62 Honored.” June 13, sec 5-C. Accessed July 30, 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey 1892 San Francisco, Calif. 60-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1895 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1899 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1915 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1939 San Francisco, Calif. 60-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1942 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1946 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1948 San Francisco, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1949 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1959 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1968 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1973 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1980 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1993 Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, Mark A. 1987 A Living Legacy: Historic Architecture of the East Bay. Lexikos Press, San Francisco, California.
Wiseman, Carter 2000 Twentieth-Century American Architecture: The Buildings and Their Makers. W.W. Norton, New York.
Wollenberg, Charles 2002 Berkeley, a City in History. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Electronic document, http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/system/historytext.html, accessed August 5 2015.
Wood, M.W. 1883 History of Alameda County, California. M.W. Wood, Publishers, Oakland. Reprinted 1969, Holmes book Company, Oakland, California.
Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge and Chuck Byrne 1992 San Francisco Architecture: The Illustrated Guide to Over 1,000 of the Best Buildings, Parks, and Public Artworks in the Bay Area. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, California. 2005 San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California. Ten Speed Press, Toronto, Canada.
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015 P5a. Photograph (continued)
Bancroft Center. View to the east. 8/7/15.
Bancroft Center. Façade and entrance detail. 8/7/15
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 13 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Recorded by: Michael Hibma and Angelique Theriot Date: August 7, 2015 P5a. Photograph (Continued)
Bancroft Center. Underground parking garage entrance. 8/7/15.
Bancroft Center. North and west façades. View to the east. 8/7/15.
DPR 523L (1/95)
State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 14 of 14 Resource Name: Bancroft Center
Map Name: USGS 7.5-minute Oakland West, Calif. Scale: 1:24,000 Date of Map: 1993
DPR 523J (1/95) LSA PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS APRIL 2017 THE STANDARD PROJECT BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX C
The Standard Project Plans and Perspective Views (January 2017)
P:\TMK1501_Bancroft_Center\Cultural\Impacts_Analysis\LSA_Standard_Project_PIA_Report_(MAY_2017).docx (05/23/17) The Standard 2580 Bancroft Way
Vicinity Map Residential Summary City of Berkeley Zoning Tabulation Project Team Sheet Index C-T with Southside Overlay One Bdrm Two Bdrm Two Bdrm Three Bdrm Three Bdrm Four Bdrm Total Unit Total Bed Permitted/ A0 Cover Sheet Existing Level 760 sf DBL OCC 900 sf DBL OCC DBL OCC Proposed Required Developer 560 sf Count Count Architect PH1 Existing Photos Units/Parking Spaces Basement Number of dwelling units 0 104 Landmark Properties, Inc. Johnson Lyman Architects A1 Ground Level Ground Level Number of Parking Spaces 0 50 0 Second Level Bike Parking 0 10 4 Andrew Young Dave Johnson A1A Basement Level Bancroft Way 2 Units 4 Beds 3 Units 6 Beds 5 Units 15 Beds 1 Unit 3 Beds 4 Units 16 Beds 15 Units 44 Beds 1375 Locust St., #202 Third Level 2 Units 3 Units 5 Units 1 Unit 4 Units 15 Units 44 Beds Yards & Heights 455 Epps Bridge Pkwy # 201 Fourth Level Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A2 Second Level 2 Units 3 Units 5 Units 1 Unit 4 Units 15 Units 44 Beds Front Yard Setback 0' 0' 0' Athens, GA 30606 Fifth Level 2 Units 3 Units 5 Units 1 Unit 4 Units 15 Units 44 Beds Side Yard Setback Left 0' 5' 0' 706.543.1910 925.930.9690 A3 Eighth Level Sixth Level 2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 44 Beds Side Yard Setback Right 0' 5' 0' 5 Units 1 Unit 15 Units F 706.543.1909 925.930.9039 A4 Roof Level Seventh Level 2 Units 3 Units 5 Units 1 Unit 4 Units 15 Units 44 Beds Rear Yard Setback 0' 5' 0' Eighth Level Building Stories 1 8 - 2 Units 2 Beds 6 Units 12 Beds 2 Units 4 Beds 1 Units 3 Beds 3 Units 9 Beds 14 Units 30 Beds A5 East/West Section Building Height 26' 75' 75' with Use Permit Bowditch Street Bowditch
Telegraph Avenue Telegraph A6 North Elevation Areas Civil Engineer Landscape Arch Lot Area 29,032 sf .67 Acres 29,032 sf .67 Acres - Thomas Baak & Assoc A7 East Elevation Gross Floor Area(Summary Below) 187,090 SF Humann Company 1021 Brown Ave., Rick Stover A8 West Elevation 18 Units 24,110 SF Total 2 Units 20 Units 31 Units 9 Units 24 Units 104 Units 294 Beds Basement Level Lafayette, CA 94549 1629 North Main A9 South Elevation Ground Level 23,200 SF Walnut Creek, CA 94956 2nd Level 21,760 SF Ph. 925.284.0265 C1 Existing Survey Ref 3rd Level 19,850 SF 925.933.2583 Building Code Summary Parking Summary 4th Level 19,850 SF Fax. 925.283.3578 North Site 925.033.0242 Type I Construction - with sprinklers Parking Required 5th Level 19,850 SF APN#055-1895-018 & 19 6th Level 19,850 SF Occupancy Group (Sec 309) Parking Provided 7th Level 19,850 SF 8th Level 18,770 SF R-2 Residential Building Footprint 24,110 SF - S2 - Basement Parking Bikes Required Lot Coverage 100% - 40 sf/Unit A0 Bikes Provided Usable Open Space 5,000 sf 4,160 sf M - Retail Floor Area Ratio 6.44 1.15.17 View from Bancroft looking southwest
View from Bancroft looking southwest
JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard Existing ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 PH1 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way Photos 1.15.17 B A N C R O F T W A Y
Ramp Down to Garage 0' -3.2' -2.2' -.9'' Datum +1.6' +3.9' 269.8' 270.8' 272.1' 273.0' N82°58'24"E 223.32' 274.6' 275.6' 276.9'
Gas Meters GATE Retail Lobby Fire Riser Retail Retail Basement Exit Stair & 1,500 sf 1,500 sf Elevator
Retail Existing Julia Morgan Building Elevator (Rear Portionto be demolished) Elev
y
y
a Equip. a
w
w
t
t
i
i
x Entryway to x
E E Residential Lo bby Retail Retail Residential 7,300 sf 6,700 sf Exit Stair FF 273.0' FF 275.0'
Elev
N07°01'36"W 130.00' N07°01'36"W Equip.
Residential 130.00' N07°01'36"W 127' 0" Office Entry Lobby Electrical 7,500 sf FF 271.0' Residential Exit Stair Study Amenities/Lounge
Storage Storage Conference Basement Garage Mail Bikes Exit Stair
55' 0" 60' 0" 55' 0"
SLATTED CHAINLINK FENCE N82°58'24"E 223.32' CONCRETE WALK
North
0 10' 40' JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard 1" = 10' ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A1 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way Site Plan 1.15.17 Domestic Boiler Room Backflow
9 Pump Room
8'6"x18'0" stalls with 24'0" aisle (typ) Stair & Elevator up to Ground Level Only 6
20' wide ramp (15%)
Residential Residential Residential 2 cubic Yard 2 cubic Yard 2 cubic Yard Recycle Refuse 3'x6' Organic 3'x6' Organic 3'x6' Organic Compactor Compactor Refuse Room Retail Retail Retail 2 cubic Yard 2 cubic Yard 2 cubic Yard 3'x6' Refuse 3'x6' Refuse 3'x6' Refuse Residential Residential 3 cubic Yard 3 cubic Yard 3'x6' Recycle 3'x6' Refuse Retail Retail Retail 2 cubic Yard 2 cubic Yard 2 cubic Yard 3'x6' Recycle 3'x6' Recycle 3'x6' Recycle 4
Ramp Up El. -12' 6" (259.5') 257.5' 47 CARS 9 8'6"x18'0" stalls 2% Slope with 24'0" aisle (typ) Stair up to 19 Bike Lockers Ground Level Only
Bike Storage(10 Bikes)
Total Cars Provided= 47 cars
North
0 10' 40' JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard 1" = 10' ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A1A 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way Basement Plan 1.15.17 1.15.17 A2 North
40' N07°01'36"W 130.00' N07°01'36"W 1" = 10'
"
0
'
3 F DW
1
x
'
9 10'
W
D 2 BD
D
W
F D CL
W
S
F
B
0 W D W
B
9
7
3
2 F 0
F
" W
0 2nd-7th Levels
'
9
1 W
x
'
0
1
D W
y
c
B
n
a 3 BD
p
3
F
u
D
S
F DW
c
0
c
0
B
0
O F
,
1
e
l
4
b
u
o DW
D
d
r
a
y
"
0
'
t
9 30'
1
x
'
r 2,100sf
0
1 Planters (typ)
u Stormwater Filtration W
y
c
n
F
a
D
S
p
Co DW
0
u
0
c
B
0
c F
,
1 N82°58'24"E 223.32' N82°58'24"E
O
4
e
l
b
u
o
D F DW W
D N82°58'24"E 223.32' N82°58'24"E W 3 BD
B
"
3
0
' F 9
1
x
'
0
1 W
y
c
n
D
a DW
y
p
c
u
B
n F
c
a
c
p
4
O
s
u
e
e
c
e
l
i
g
c
t
b
a
i
O
D F
l u
r
i
F
o
e
o
t
S
l
t
D
B
b
0
S U
u
6
o
9
3
D
W D
"
0
'
9
1
x
'
0
1 W
y
c
n
a
p DW
u
c F
c
D 2580 Bancroft Way
O
B e
l
y
c
b W
n
u CONCRETE WALKCONCRETE
4
a
o
p
D
D
)
u
c
s
'
c
B
5
O
d
e
l
2
b F
e DW
u
o
D
B
4
4 SLATTED CHAINLINK FENCE SLATTED CHAINLINK
(
F
s
y DW W
y y y
c The Standard
c c c
t
n
n n n
a
i
y
a a a
p
c
D
D
p p p
D
D
u
n
D
u u u
D
n
c
a
c c c
c
B
B
p
c c c
B
B
B
u
B
O
O O O
c
2
4
U
e
3
c
W
e e e
D
l 3
2
2
l l l F
)
) DW
b
)
O
b b b
)
)
u
u u u
B e
o
l
5
o o o
3 1 4
5
b
2
D
( ( (
D D D
1
(
u
(
2
o
D
GATE N07°01'36"W 130.00' N07°01'36"W JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Creek, Walnut Locust Street, #202, 1375 fax 930.9039 925.930.9690 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 1375 LocustStreet, #202, Walnut Creek, CA94596 ARCHITECTS LYMAN JOHNSON
N07°01'36"W 130.00' GATE The Standard
DW DW
2
B
D D
F 3
F
o
u
b
B
l
e
D
O
( ( (
1
D D
( (
c
1 2 6
3 2
c
o o 4
SLATTED CHAINLINKFENCE SLATTED
)
u
u u
)
p
b b
2580 Bancroft Way
)
)
3
)
a
l l
2
e e
2
n
1
U
3
B
O O c
B
B
y
B
c c
B
c c
D
n
D
u u
D
D
p p
D
a a
i
n n
t
c c
y y
s
(
3 0
CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE
B e
DW
d
s )
F
2
B
D
S
t
o
r
a
1 g
DW
e
B
D
D
3
o
F
u
b
B
l
e
D
DW O
c
c u
F p
F a
n
c y
F 3
N82°58'24"E223.32'
B
2
D
B D N82°58'24"E 223.32'
DW
F
2
B
D
D
2
2
o
u
0
b
B
B l
8th Level
e
D
O
D
c
c
u
p
a n
10'
c
D
DW F
F y
3
o
u
b
B
l
e
D O
W D
1" =10'
2
c
o c
u u
F
W
D
p
b B
F a
l DW
e n
F
D
2
O c
DW
y
c
1
c
B
u
B
p
a
D
n
D
c
9
y
'
x
1
6
'
0 " 40'
N07°01'36"W 130.00' North A3 1.15.17 1.15.17 A4 North 40' 1" = 10' 10' Roof Level 0
f
s
0
0
)
n
0
,
d
o
i
e
t
r
5 2580 Bancroft Way
i
a
r
u
t
l q
k
i
e
)
F
c
p
R
r
f
y
e
e
s
t
t
(
a
0
s
D
r
6
w
e
1
,
f
t
m
4
n
r
( o
o
a
l
t
o
S P
R The Standard JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Creek, Walnut Locust Street, #202, 1375 fax 930.9039 925.930.9690 PL PL Balcony Rooftop Patio
Roof 85'0"
Residential Residential 8 FF 75'0"
Residential Residential 7 FF 65'0"
Residential Residential 6 FF 55'0"
Residential Residential 5 FF 45'0"
Residential Residential Open Space Easment Above 4 FF 35'0" 75.0' Courtyard Julia Morgan Building Residential Residential 3 FF 25'0"
Residential Residential Skylight at Entry 2 FF 15'0" (288.0'_ Adjacent Adjacent Commercial Commercial Retail Residential Retail Retail Retail El+3.9' (276.9' ) Entryway Lobby Entry Datum El 0' (273.0 El-3.2' (269.8' ) Ramp down to Basement 2% Slope Basement Parking East/West Section 1" = 10'
Bowditch Street Telegraph Avenue
Overall Bancroft Avenue North elevation 1" = 20'
JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard 0 8' 32' ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A5 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way Section 1.15.17 Property Property Line Line
Copper Panels Plaster Decorative Cornice Horizontally Scored Metal Balcony with sand finish Plastert Base Aluminum 96' 0" Windows 89'0"
Eighth Floor +75'0"
Seventh Floor +65'0"
Sixth Floor +55'0"
Fifth Floor +45'0"
Fourth Floor +35'0"
Third Floor +25' 0"
Second Floor +15'0"
Ground Floor +0' 0" (Datum)
Metal Awnings Black Granite Base Existing Julia Morgan Building North Elevation Residential Entry 1/8"= 1'0"
JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard 0 8' 32' ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A6 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way North Elevation 1.15.17 Property Property Line Line
Aluminum Plaster Decorative Windows with sand finish Metal Balcony Cornice
89'0"
Eighth Floor +75'0"
Seventh Floor +65'0"
Sixth Floor +55'0"
Fifth Floor +45'0"
Fourth Floor +35'0"
Third Floor +25' 0"
Second Floor +15'0" Adjacent Building
East Elevation 1/8"= 1'0"
JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard 0 8' 32' ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A7 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way East Elevation 1.15.17 Property Property Line Line
Aluminum Plaster Decorative Windows with sand finish Metal Balcony Cornice 96' 0"
89'0"
Eighth Floor +75'0"
Seventh Floor +65'0"
Sixth Floor +55'0"
Fifth Floor +45'0"
Fourth Floor +35'0"
Third Floor +25' 0"
Second Floor +15'0" Adjacent Building
Ground Floor +0'0" (Datum) West Elevation 1/8"= 1'0"
JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard 0 8' 32' ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A8 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way West Elevation 1.15.17 Property Property Line Line
Plaster Decorative Metal Balcony with sand finish Cornice 96' 0" Aluminum Windows 89'0"
Eighth Floor +75'0"
Seventh Floor +65'0"
Sixth Floor +55'0"
Fifth Floor +45'0"
Fourth Floor +35'0"
Third Floor +25' 0"
Second Floor +15'0"
Adjacent Buildings
Ground Floor +15'0" (Datum)
South Elevation 1/8"= 1'0"
JOHNSON LYMAN The Standard 0 8' 32' ARCHITECTS 1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 A9 925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 2580 Bancroft Way South Elevation 1.15.17