City / Uc / Student Relations Committee Special Meeting Minutes Berkeley

CITY / UC / STUDENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

Monday, February 5, 2018 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM Eshleman Hall, Bay View Room (5th Floor) 2465 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94704

Committee Members (10) Representing Committee Member Council District 4 Kate Harrison Council District 6 Susan Wengraf Council District 7 Kriss Worthington Council District 8 Lori Droste Alternate Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, Mayor UC Berkeley Megan Fox, Student Government Advising/Leadership Dev. UC Berkeley Ruben Lizardo, Director, Local Government and Community Associated Students UC Jess Yang, ASUC Local Affairs Director Associated Students UC Rigel Chan Ho Robinson, External Vice President, ASUC Graduate Assembly Jonathan Morris, External Vice President, Graduate Assembly Graduate Assembly Allen Ratliff, Basic Need Chair, Graduate Assembly

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54653. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Erin Steffen, Assistant to the City Manager, at 981-7000.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Roll Call: 3:32 p.m.

Present: Wengraf, Worthington, Droste, Arreguin, Fox, Lizardo, Robinson, Morris, Ratliff

Absent: Harrison

1. Comments from the Public: 0 speakers

2. Introductions Action: none

This is a meeting of the City/UC/Student Relations Committee. The Committee works collaboratively on issues of mutual concern. Since a quorum of the Berkeley City Council may actually be present to discuss matters with the Committee, this meeting is being noticed as a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council as well as City/UC/Student Relations Committee meeting.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7000 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Page 2 City/UC/Student Relations Committee Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018

3. Approval of Minutes Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to approve the Minutes of October 30, 2017. Council Ayes – Arreguin, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Harrison. UC/Student Ayes – Fox, Lizardo, Robinson, Morris, Barnum.

4. Update from City Staff on Committee Structure a. Adopt a Standing Rule Allowing Student Votes to Be Recorded in Minutes Action: M/S/C (Wengraf/Arreguin) to allow student votes to be recorded in meeting minutes. Council Ayes – Arreguin, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Harrison. UC/Student Ayes – Fox, Lizardo, Robinson, Morris, Barnum.

5. Adopt a Recommendation to Berkeley City Council on Proposed Amendments to the Group Living Accommodation (GLA) Ordinance Update on Campus Housing Advisory Committee Comment: 9 speakers Action: M/S/C (Worthington/Arreguin) to a) continue the item to the next meeting and b) set up a subcommittee which shall review the issues presented and prepare a revised proposal for Committee consideration. Council Ayes – Arreguin, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Harrison. UC/Student Ayes – Fox, Lizardo, Robinson, Morris, Barnum.

6. Campus and Community Public Safety (time est. 20 mins) a. Campus National Night Out to Reduce Crime: Recommend the City Council refer to the City Manager Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to recommend the City Council refer to the City manager to create a Campus National Night Out type event to help reduce crime in the campus area. Council Ayes – Arreguin, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Harrison. UC/Student Ayes – Fox, Lizardo, Robinson, Morris, Barnum. b. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Timely and Cost Effective Installation of Five Street Lights Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to recommend to City Council to send a letter to PG&E to expedite the installation of the 5 street lights proposed near the UC Berkeley campus to enhance student, residential and business safety. Council Ayes – Arreguin, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Harrison. UC/Student Ayes – Fox, Lizardo, Robinson, Morris, Barnum.

7. Discussion on Proposed Landmark Declaration of the View Corridor from Base of Campanile Update on Process to Revise Campus Events Policy Action: None; Arreguin, Worthington, Wengraf, and Droste recused themselves from the item as they are unable to comment on quasi-judicial matters. Page 3 City/UC/Student Relations Committee Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018

8. Discussion on Future Meetings and Topics

• Draft 2017-18 Meeting Calendar Meeting Date Fall Semester 1st Meeting October 30, 2017

Fall Semester 2nd Meeting N/A

Spring Semester 1st Meeting February 5, 2018 Spring Semester 2nd Meeting TBD (Early / Mid-April)

• Potential Topics for Future Meetings o Campus Housing Master Plan o Campus Master Plan Process o Campus Public Safety o Comprehensive Parking and Memorial Stadium Event Issues o Demonstration Response Collaboration o Update on Street Lighting Around Campus o Other?

9. Adjournment: 5:34 p.m. CITY / UC / STUDENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

Monday, October 30, 2017 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM Eshleman Hall, ASUC Senate Chamber (5th Floor) 2465 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94704

Committee Members (10) Representing Committee Member Council District 4 Kate Harrison Council District 6 Susan Wengraf Council District 7 Kriss Worthington Council District 8 Lori Droste UC Berkeley Shirley Giraldo, Student Government Advising/Leadership Dev. UC Berkeley Ruben Lizardo, Director, Local Government and Community Associated Students UC Jess Yang, ASUC Local Affairs Director Associated Students UC Rigel Chan Ho Robinson, External Vice President, ASUC Graduate Assembly Jonathan Morris, External Vice President, Graduate Assembly Graduate Assembly Allen Ratliff, Basic Need Chair, Graduate Assembly

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Roll Call: 3:41 p.m.

Present: Wengraf, Worthington, Droste, Giraldo, Lizardo, Yang, Robinson, Morris, Ratliff

Absent: Harrison

1. Comments from the Public: 4 speakers

2. Introductions Action: none

3. Discuss Student Housing a. Update on Campus Housing Advisory Committee: Presented by Steve Sutton, Acting Vice Chancellor for UC Berkeley This is a meeting of the City/UC/Student Relations Committee. The Committee works collaboratively on issues of mutual concern. Since a quorum of the Berkeley City Council may actually be present to discuss matters with the Committee, this meeting is being noticed as a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council as well as City/UC/Student Relations Committee meeting.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7000 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] ITEM 3 Page 2 City/UC/Student Relations Committee Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018

Action: Committee received the presentation. b. Roundtable on Student Housing Policy Action: Discussion held.

4. Roundtable on Group Living Accommodation (GLA) Ordinance Action: Item to be continued on the next Committee meeting agenda as an action item.

5. Announcements a. Update on Process to Revise Campus Events Policy: provided by Ruben Lizardo, Director of Local Government and Community Affairs for UC Berkeley Action: none b. Discuss New City Policy to Track City-Incurred Expenses Related to Major 1st Amendment Protests that Originate on UC Campus Action: none

6. Discussion on Future Meetings and Topics

• Draft 2017-18 Meeting Calendar Meeting Date Fall Semester 1st Meeting October 30, 2017

Fall Semester 2nd Meeting TBD (December 1 – December 8)

Spring Semester 1st Meeting TBD (Early / Mid-February)

Spring Semester 2nd Meeting TBD (Early / Mid-April)

7. Adjournment: 5:34 p.m.

ITEM 3 Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

02/05/2018 To: 4x6 Committee Members From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Adopt a standing rule allowing student votes to be recorded in minutes.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee adopts a standing rule of the 4x6 subcommittee that student votes are recorded in the minutes, similar to how student vote is recorded in Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) minutes.

BACKGROUND: Designated representatives of the ASUC and The Graduate Assembly are official student members of the 4x6 by the virtue of their respective positions. In order to respect their participation and to maximize their ability to have their opinion recognized, we propose recording their votes in 4x6 committee meetings minutes. Technically, City Council subcommittees require a majority of City Council members’ votes to move an item forward. In spite of this technicality, it would be insensitive to not allow a recording of student committee members’ opinions.

The example of BUSD sets a legal precedent for this recommendation. The BUSD records the opinion of the High School student who serves as the High School representative to the School Board. Similar to the City Council’s rules, the High School students’ votes does not change the outcome but it allows a clear representation of their opinions. To see an example, here’s a link to the minutes of a recent board meeting:

http://www.berkeleyschools.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BoardMtgMins042617.Final_.pdf (see page 3)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: No negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170 Salmana Shah 925-597-0920

ITEM 4 –

Berkeley’s Municipal Code, which specifi the display of female breasts or “any portion of the breast at or below the areola thereof of any female person” in any place open to the public or any place visible

Vote: – – – –

–

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 1A Page 1 of 10 51

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170 FAX 510-981-7177 [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR September 12, 2017 (Continued from May 30, 2017)

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Amendments to Group Living Accommodations (GLA) Ordinance (No. 7445-NS)

RECOMMENDATION That the Berkeley City Council respond to student concerns voiced by student leaders in the ASUC, by revising the GLA Ordinance to respond to the worsening housing crisis in Berkeley and promote a fair and equal treatment of students. Specifically, we recommend the removal of BMC 13.42.040D, which currently allows the city to remove bedrooms, the addition of a student non-discrimination clause, the amendment of 13.42.005B(3)a to allow three violations instead of two, and the amendment of 13.42.036C to ensure consistency with the Community Noise Ordinance.

BACKGROUND In light of the Berkeley housing crisis, the ASUC has been vocal in its opposition to the Group Living Accommodations (GLA) Ordinance. To address concerns raised by community members that the Ordinance unfairly disadvantages and pushes students out of student housing, the Berkeley City Council proposes that the GLA Ordinance be revised. Taking student suggestions into consideration, we propose the following revisions:

We propose the withdrawal of section 13.42.040D, which allows the city to remove bedrooms. Allowing the city to remove bedrooms would exacerbate the housing crisis, as student housing opportunities would decrease at a time when we should be seeking solutions to the lack of available housing. Additionally, such a provision does not exist in laws like the Second Response Ordinance.

We propose the addition of a student non-discrimination clause, in line with the Second Response Ordinance, which states: “This chapter shall not be enforced in a manner which targets property housing students. Nothing in this section shall preclude the City from setting priorities in the use of its resources by enforcing this chapter against the events that are the most disruptive or against properties at which disruptive events are held most often or on the basis of other similar legitimate factors.” This addition ensures that students and other Berkeley residents will receive equal treatment.

Furthermore, we recommend that 13.42.005B(3)a should be amended to allow three violations within a twelve-month period instead of two. Such an amendment would be a step towards increasing access to housing for all residents of Berkeley.

We propose the amendment of 13.42.036C to allow the playing of recorded music after the times listed (10 PM from Sundays-Thursdays and 1 AM from Fridays-Saturdays or preceding national holidays) in order to comply with the Community Noise Ordinance (BMC 13.40). We should seek to ensure a consistency Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 1 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 2 of 10

throughout the Berkeley Municipal Code, and these noise restrictions placed by the GLA Ordinance fail to exist in the Community Noise Ordinance.

In the face of Berkeley’s worsening housing crisis, we recommend that these revisions be made to the GLA Ordinance. These select proposals from the ASUC are the ones that the Berkeley City Council feels most comfortable advocating for. Other components of their recommendations likely require more complicated analysis and a longer time frame to evaluate, thusly we seek to address in this City Council item the more minor modifications that can be accomplished most expeditiously.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Consistent with our environmental standards.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 2 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 3 of 10

ORDINANCE NO. 7,455–N.S.

AMENDING THE TITLE AND SECTIONS 13.42.010, 13.42.020, 13.42.030, 13.42.035 AND 13.42.040 OF THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING NEW SECTION 13.42.036, AND RENUMBERING AND AMENDING SECTION 13.42.070, REGULATING MINI-DORMS AND GROUP LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS

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

Section 1. That the title of Chapter 13.42 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

OPERATING STANDARDS FOR MINI-DORMS AND GROUP LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS

Section 2. That Section 13.42.070 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is renumbered as Section 13.42.005, and is amended to read as follows:

13.42.005 Applicability. A. This Chapter shall not apply to Community Care Facilities or Senior Congregate Housing as defined in Chapter 23F.04.

B. 1. A GLA that has adopted operating protocols that the City determines are functionally equivalent to the requirements set forth in this Chapter shall be exempt from this Chapter except as it applies to owners and/or property managers, provided that said protocols are consistently implemented and enforced. 2. Such protocols shall include provisions for monitoring and enforcement by a Monitoring Organization. 3. An exemption under this subdivision shall lapse upon written notice by the City to a GLA: a. of three violations of Section 13.42.030 or 13.42.036 on different dates at its location during any twelve-month period from September 1st through August 30th, unless those violations were remedied as provided in the adopted protocols; or abt. th the adopted protocols, although followed and enforced, are inadequate to ensure compliance with Sections 13.42.030 and 13.42.036. In such cases, the GLA shall be given a reasonable opportunity to propose revised protocols for review by the City. 4. An exemption under this subdivision premised on monitoring and enforcement by a Monitoring Organization shall lapse if the City determines, after written notice to the Monitoring Organization that the required monitoring or enforcement has not occurred or that it has omitted to report noncompliance with the protocols.

C. This Chapter shall not apply to any apartment house that is subject to and in compliance with Section 19.40.100, Chapter 17 of the Berkeley Housing Code, section 1701.

D. This Chapter shall not apply to hotels as defined in Section 7.36.020.A.

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 3 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 4 of 10

E. This Chapter shall not apply to owner-occupied buildings.

Section 3. That Section 13.42.010 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

13.42.010 Findings and purpose. A. The heavy demand for student housing in Berkeley, especially in low density areas near the University of California campus, has resulted in numerous existing single family and multifamily residential buildings being significantly modified by the addition of numerous bedrooms.

B. Prior to the enactment of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that regulated the addition of bedrooms in certain zoning districts such modifications were allowed as a matter of right without triggering discretionary review. As a result, there has been a proliferation of buildings that are occupied by a far larger number of persons than was ever contemplated by the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance in those districts. In addition, there are already numerous pre-existing Group Living Accommodations, including but not limited to fraternities and sororities, in these affected areas.

C. Because of the number of residents in such buildings and, in many cases, the lack of on-site managers, such buildings tend to impair the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhoods by creating trash and litter, creating excess parking demand, and being the location of numerous loud and unruly parties.

D. It is often the case that the loud and unruly parties involve the consumption of large amounts of alcoholic beverages, which often are consumed by individuals under the age of 21 who either reside in such buildings or attend such parties. Consumption of alcohol by minors is harmful to the minors and consumption of large amounts of alcohol by individuals of all ages at these gatherings contributes to the nuisance conditions affecting the surrounding neighborhood.

E. Police officers frequently have been required to make calls to a location of a party, in order to disperse uncooperative participants, causing a drain of staffing and resources and, in some cases, leaving other areas of the City with inadequate police protection.

F. The manner in which Group Living Accommodations and Mini-dorms operate, including the behavior of guests, is the collective responsibility of those who own and manage them and those who reside in them, and in particular the sponsors of events that result in large numbers of attendees. In some cases City emergency personnel responding to medical emergencies have been denied access to GLAs to provide treatment and/or transport to medical facilities. Therefore it is appropriate that owners and residents bear the consequences of any nuisances that are allowed to occur.

G. In areas most affected by the proliferation of such buildings and the resulting density and intensity of use, disturbances that would be considered minor and tolerable in less

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 4 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 5 of 10

intensely inhabited areas become much more severe and intolerable because they are no longer occasional, but have become chronic.

H. The purpose of this Chapter is to remedy these and other associated problems by adopting and providing for the enforcement of operating standards for such buildings, and by defining these disturbances as a public nuisance in areas that are most affected by them.

Section 4. That Section 13.42.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

13.42.020 Definitions. The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this Chapter.

A. "Mini-dorm" means any building in an R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, or R-3 Zoning District that contains a dwelling unit that is occupied by six or more persons over the age of eighteen years, but is not a Group Living Accommodation as defined in Chapter 23F.04. Permitted and Legal non-conforming Sororities, Fraternities, and Student Co-ops shall not be considered Mini-Dorms, as long as they have a resident manager.

B. "Bedroom" means any Habitable Space in a Dwelling Unit or habitable Accessory Structure other than a kitchen or living room that is intended for or capable of being used for sleeping with a door that closes the room off from other common space such as living and kitchen areas that is at least 70 square feet in area, exclusive of closets and other appurtenant space, and meets Building Code standards for egress, light and ventilation. A room identified as a den, library, study, loft, dining room, or other extra room that satisfies this definition will be considered a bedroom for the purposes of applying this requirement.

C. Accessory Structure," "Gross Floor Area," "Dwelling Unit" and "Group Living Accommodation" (or “GLA”) have the same meanings as set forth in Chapter 23F.04.

D. “Alcoholic Beverage” shall have the same meaning as Vehicle Code Section 109.

E.“Monitoring Organization” shall mean the University of California, the ASUC, the Interfraternity Council or any other organization that the City determines is capable of providing quarterly monitoring and reporting sufficient to enable the City to determine continued compliance with practices adopted by a GLA under Section 13.42.05.B.

F. “Responsible Resident” means a person or persons, or committee, designated pursuant to Section 13.42.030.B.

Section 5. That Section 13.42.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 5 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 6 of 10

13.42.030 Operating standards – Owners, Property Managers and Responsible Residents A. 1. Any person who owns a GLA or Mini-Dorm shall register with the City of Berkeley as such. Registration shall include contact information for both the owner and any property manager, including the name and contact information for a natural person who can be contacted in the event of an emergency. 2. The owner of any GLA with more than 15 residents, and the owner of more than one parcel that includes a Mini-dorm, shall hire a property manager. The property manager need not be a resident of a GLA or Mini-dorm but must be available and authorized to respond to complaints about the GLA or Mini-dorm at all times. The owner or property manager shall provide all tenants with a copy of this Chapter and Chapter 13.48 at the time they begin their tenancy. For purposes of this subdivision, a person owns a Mini-dorm or GLA if he or she has a majority or controlling interest in a Mini-dorm or GLA. 3.Owners and property managers shall be liable for any violation of this Chapter resulting from a condition over which they have sole control.

B. The residents of each Mini-dorm or GLA shall designate a Responsible Resident, who shall be responsible for: 1. ensuring that all refuse and materials to be recycled are properly managed and collected, and that all refuse and recycling containers are returned to their appropriate locations after collection; 2. ensuring that all vehicles at each Mini-dorm or GLA are utilizing off-street parking in approved spaces in compliance with Section 23D.12.080; and 3. establishing a written regular maintenance schedule that details the tasks required to keep the property in compliance with Chapters 12.32 and 12.34, free and clear from accumulations of solid waste, overgrown vegetation, graffiti, and rodent harborage. A copy of the maintenance schedule shall be made available to City staff on request; and 4. responding to all complaints regarding the Mini-dorm or GLA within 24 hours; keeping a log of all complaints, the response to the complaint and the resolution of the complaint; and retaining the complaint log for no less than 24 months. The complaint log shall be made available to City staff on request. The logs shall be made available to Berkeley residents residing within 300 feet of a mini-dorm or GLA within 10 days of a request. Any Berkeley residents residing within 300 feet of a mini-dorm or GLA may submit to the City a written request for a copy of the Responsible Resident’s log and City staff shall within 10 days of receipt of such request ask for a copy of the Responsible Resident’s log on behalf of the requesting resident; and 5. promptly notifying the owner and property manager (if any) of any notices under Chapters 12.70 or 13.48. The Responsible Resident shall not be responsible for any of the foregoing tasks that are the sole responsibility of the owner or property manager.

C. The owner or property manager shall provide notice to all residents within 300 feet of: 1. the existence and location of the Mini-dorm or GLA;

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 6 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 7 of 10

2. the contact information for the Responsible Resident , which shall include at least a telephone number or numbers, or e-mail address or addresses at which the Responsible Resident can be reached at any time; and 3. the name and contact information for the property manager (if any)_and the owner and the phone numbers at which they can be reached at any time. Such notice shall be provided at least annually by September 1st, and whenever the identity or contact information for the Responsible Resident, property manager or owner changes.

D. For any event subject to Section 13.42.036, the Responsible Resident shall notify at least one of the residents of each confronting or abutting property no less than 48 hours prior to the event and provide a contact number at which a Responsible Resident can be reached during the entire course of the event. Such notification may be in any form reasonably calculated to provide actual notice.

Section 6. That Section 13.42.035 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

13.42.035 Nuisances

A.Any occurrence at a Mini-dorm or GLA that constitutes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of a neighborhood, such as excessive noise under Section 13.40.030 or traffic, obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles, public intoxication, the service to or consumption of alcohol by minors, fights, disturbances of the peace, litter or other similar conditions, constitutes a public nuisance.

B. It shall be a public nuisance for any resident of a GLA or Mini-dorm where an event is taking place to refuse access to, or interfere with access by, Fire Department personnel responding to an emergency call or investigating a situation.

C. Notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 13.48 to the contrary, a public nuisance as defined in this Section shall be subject to the remedies set forth in Section 13.42.040.

Section 7. That a new Section 13.42.036 is added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows:

13.42.036 Entertainment events involving service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages

This Section applies to entertainment events that are open to the public as defined in Section 13.46.030.A.& B that: (1) draw, or can reasonably be expected to draw over 50 attendees; (2) involve the service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages at any Mini-dorm or GLA; and (3) are not limited to the residents of that GLA or Mini-dorm.

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 7 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 8 of 10

A. The following actions during events subject to this Section may be deemed a public nuisance: 1. use of or entry upon the roof except for purposes of escaping a fire when entry upon the roof is required for legal egress. For purposes of this paragraph, “roof” does not include decks or balconies, wherever located, that were legally constructed and are in compliance with all applicable safety requirements; 2. service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages in Bedrooms occupied by residents under the age of 21 years; 3. service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages in common areas where they are accessible to persons under the age of 21, unless service or availability is controlled in a manner that does not allow service or availability to persons under 21 years of age; 4. service to or availability of Alcoholic Beverages to persons under the age of 21.

B.Events subject to this Section should be kept to a manageable size, generally under 200 persons total, and should not be allowed to take place in any part of the public right of way.

C. Events subject to this Section should end by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and by 1:00 a.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and days preceding national holidays.

D. The presence of a minor who is under the influence of alcohol at an event subject to this Section shall create a rebuttable presumption that the event is not being conducted in compliance with the provisions of this Section relating to service and availability of Alcoholic Beverages.

E. If a resident or guest at a Mini-dorm or GLA is convicted of or enters a plea of no contest to violation of any of Penal Code Sections 220, 243.4, 244, 244.5, 245, 261, 261.5, 261.9, 273.5, 286, 288(a), or 289, or any other felony assault, or felony sexual assault, and the crime was committed in an area where an event subject to this Section is taking place, then the Mini-dorm or GLA at which the violation occurred may be deemed a nuisance. Nuisance proceedings under this subdivision based on a report of a sexual assault by a survivor shall only conducted if the survivor of the sexual assault initiates such proceedings with a written complaint to the City and explicitly consents to such proceedings.

F. This Section does not apply to regularly scheduled meetings and/or meals involving non-residents if such meetings or meals involve only members or alumni of the entity that owns or operates the Mini-dorm or GLA and their parents or guardians, even if such meetings or meals include the service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages, as long as such service or availability is limited to persons of 21 years of age or more.

G. Notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 13.48 to the contrary, a public nuisance as defined in this Section shall be subject to the remedies set forth in Section 13.42.040.

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 8 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 9 of 10

Section 8. That Section 13.42.040 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

13.42.040 Remedies. A. This Chapter may be enforced as set forth in Chapters 1.20 and 1.28.

B. Violation of any provision of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance subject to abatement under Chapters 1.24, 1.26 and 23B.64.

C. In any enforcement action, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; provided that, pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.5, attorneys’ fees shall only be available in an action or proceeding in which the City has elected, at the commencement of such action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees. In no action or proceeding shall an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding.

D. This chapter shall not be enforced in a manner which targets property housing students. Nothing in this section shall preclude the City from setting priorities in the use of its resources by enforcing this chapter against the events that are the most disruptive or against properties at which disruptive events are held most often or on the basis of other similar legitimate factors.” This addition ensures that students and other Berkeley residents will receive equal treatment.

E. 1. In determining the appropriate remedy, if any, for a public nuisance under this Chapter, the City shall consider factors such as the severity and impact of the nuisance, whether it was an isolated event that is not likely to recur and whether it was preventable. Remedies for public nuisance should be reasonably designed to address the nuisance that the City determines occurred. 2. Nuisance determinations, and remedies for nuisances, applicable to Mini-dorms shall apply only to the unit or units involved in or causing the nuisance, and remedies shall be designed to affect residents of other units as little as feasible. No remedy based on the occurrence of a sexual assault may adversely affect the housing situation of a survivor of sexual assault. 3. No remedy may be imposed on a GLA or Mini-dorm for actions or failure to take actions exclusively within the authority of the landlord or property manager.

F. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to create a monetary remedy against any Responsible Resident.

G. Any resident of the City may bring a private action for injunctive relief to prevent or remedy a public nuisance as defined in this Chapter. No action may be brought under

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 9 of 1b N.S. 8 Page 10 of 10

this subdivision unless and until the prospective plaintiff has given the City and the prospective defendant(s) at least 30 days written notice of the alleged public nuisance and the City has failed to initiate proceedings within that period, or after initiation, has failed to diligently prosecute. Notwithstanding subdivision (F), in any action prosecuted under this Section a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Section 9. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on January 26, 2016, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Arreguin, Capitelli, Droste, Maio, Moore, Wengraf and

Bates. Noes: Worthington.

Absent: Anderson

Ordinance No. 7,455- ITEM 5 ATTACHMENTPage 10 1b N.S. of 8 Chapter 13.42 OPERATING STANDARDS FOR MINI-DORMS AND GROUP LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS

Sections: 13.42.005 Applicability. 13.42.010 Findings and purpose. 13.42.020 Definitions. 13.42.030 Operating standards--Owners, property managers and responsible residents. 13.42.035 Nuisances. 13.42.036 Entertainment events involving service or availability of alcoholic beverages. 13.42.040 Remedies. 13.42.050 Fee. 13.42.060 Severability.

13.42.005 Applicability. A. This Chapter shall not apply to Community Care Facilities or Senior Congregate Housing as defined in Chapter 23F.04. B. 1. A GLA that has adopted operating protocols that the City determines are functionally equivalent to the requirements set forth in this Chapter shall be exempt from this Chapter except as it applies to owners and/or property managers, provided that said protocols are consistently implemented and enforced. 2. Such protocols shall include provisions for monitoring and enforcement by a Monitoring Organization. 3. An exemption under this subdivision shall lapse upon written notice by the City to a GLA: a. of three two violations of Section 13.42.030 or 13.42.036 on different dates at its location during any twelve-month period from September 1st through August 30th, unless those violations were remedied as provided in the adopted protocols; or b. that the adopted protocols, although followed and enforced, are inadequate to ensure compliance with Sections 13.42.030 and 13.42.036. In such cases, the GLA shall be given a reasonable opportunity to propose revised protocols for review by the City. 4. An exemption under this subdivision premised on monitoring and enforcement by a Monitoring Organization shall lapse if the City determines, after written notice to the Monitoring Organization that the required monitoring or enforcement has not occurred or that it has omitted to report noncompliance with the protocols. C. This Chapter shall not apply to any apartment house that is subject to and in compliance with Section 19.40.100, Chapter 17 of the Berkeley Housing Code, section 1701. D. This Chapter shall not apply to hotels as defined in Section 7.36.020.A. E. This Chapter shall not apply to owner-occupied buildings. (Ord. 7455-NS § 2, 2016: Ord. 7226-NS § 1 (part), 2012. Formerly 13.42.070)

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 13.42.010 Findings and purpose. A. The heavy demand for student housing in Berkeley, especially in low density areas near the University of California campus, has resulted in numerous existing single family and multifamily residential buildings being significantly modified by the addition of numerous bedrooms. B. Prior to the enactment of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that regulated the addition of bedrooms in certain zoning districts such modifications were allowed as a matter of right without triggering discretionary review. As a result, there has been a proliferation of buildings that are occupied by a far larger number of persons than was ever contemplated by the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance in those districts. In addition, there are already numerous pre-existing Group Living Accommodations, including but not limited to fraternities and sororities, in these affected areas. C. Because of the number of residents in such buildings and, in many cases, the lack of on-site managers, such buildings tend to impair the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhoods by creating trash and litter, creating excess parking demand, and being the location of numerous loud and unruly parties. D. It is often the case that the loud and unruly parties involve the consumption of large amounts of alcoholic beverages, which often are consumed by individuals under the age of 21 who either reside in such buildings or attend such parties. Consumption of alcohol by minors is harmful to the minors and consumption of large amounts of alcohol by individuals of all ages at these gatherings contributes to the nuisance conditions affecting the surrounding neighborhood. E. Police officers frequently have been required to make calls to a location of a party, in order to disperse uncooperative participants, causing a drain of staffing and resources and, in some cases, leaving other areas of the City with inadequate police protection. F. The manner in which Group Living Accommodations and Mini-dorms operate, including the behavior of guests, is the collective responsibility of those who own and manage them and those who reside in them, and in particular the sponsors of events that result in large numbers of attendees. In some cases City emergency personnel responding to medical emergencies have been denied access to GLAs to provide treatment and/or transport to medical facilities. Therefore it is appropriate that owners and residents bear the consequences of any nuisances that are allowed to occur. G. In areas most affected by the proliferation of such buildings and the resulting density and intensity of use, disturbances that would be considered minor and tolerable in less intensely inhabited areas become much more severe and intolerable because they are no longer occasional, but have become chronic. H. The purpose of this Chapter is to remedy these and other associated problems by adopting and providing for the enforcement of operating standards for such buildings, and by defining these disturbances as a public nuisance in areas that are most affected by them. (Ord. 7455-NS § 3, 2016: Ord. 7337-NS § 1, 2014: Ord. 7226-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

13.42.020 Definitions. The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this Chapter.

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 A. "Mini-dorm" means any building in an R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, or R-3 Zoning District that contains a dwelling unit that is occupied by six or more persons over the age of eighteen years, but is not a Group Living Accommodation as defined in Chapter 23F.04. Permitted and Legal non-conforming Sororities, Fraternities, and Student Co- ops shall not be considered Mini-Dorms, as long as they have a resident manager. B. "Bedroom" means any Habitable Space in a Dwelling Unit or habitable Accessory Structure other than a kitchen or living room that is intended for or capable of being used for sleeping with a door that closes the room off from other common space such as living and kitchen areas that is at least 70 square feet in area, exclusive of closets and other appurtenant space, and meets Building Code standards for egress, light and ventilation. A room identified as a den, library, study, loft, dining room, or other extra room that satisfies this definition will be considered a bedroom for the purposes of applying this requirement. C. "Accessory Structure," "Gross Floor Area," "Dwelling Unit" and "Group Living Accommodation" (or “GLA”) have the same meanings as set forth in Chapter 23F.04. D. “Alcoholic Beverage” shall have the same meaning as Vehicle Code Section 109. E. “Monitoring Organization” shall mean the University of California, the ASUC, the Intrafraternity Council or any other organization that the City determines is capable of providing quarterly monitoring and reporting sufficient to enable the City to determine continued compliance with practices adopted by a GLA under Section 13.42.005.B. F. “Responsible Resident” means a person or persons, or committee, designated pursuant to Section 13.42.030.B. (Ord. 7455-NS § 4, 2016: Ord. 7337 § 2, 2014; Ord. 7226-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

13.42.030 Operating standards--Owners, property managers and responsible residents. A. 1. Any person who owns a GLA or Mini-Dorm shall register with the City of Berkeley as such. Registration shall include contact information for both the owner and any property manager, including the name and contact information for a natural person who can be contacted in the event of an emergency. 2. The owner of any GLA with more than 15 residents, and the owner of more than one parcel that includes a Mini-dorm, shall hire a property manager. The property manager need not be a resident of a GLA or Mini-dorm but must be available and authorized to respond to complaints about the GLA or Mini-dorm at all times. The owner or property manager shall provide all tenants with a copy of this Chapter and Chapter 13.48 at the time they begin their tenancy. For purposes of this subdivision, a person owns a Mini-dorm or GLA if he or she has a majority or controlling interest in a Mini- dorm or GLA. 3. Owners and property managers shall be liable for any violation of this Chapter resulting from a condition over which they have sole control.

Define sole control as an instance in which the property manager/owner is completely and exclusively liable.

B. The residents of each Mini-dorm or GLA shall designate a Responsible Resident, who shall be responsible for:

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 1. ensuring that all refuse and materials to be recycled are properly managed and collected, and that all refuse and recycling containers are returned to their appropriate locations after collection; 2. ensuring that all vehicles at each Mini-dorm or GLA are utilizing off-street parking in approved spaces in compliance with Section 23D.12.080; and 3. establishing a written regular maintenance schedule that details the tasks required to keep the property in compliance with Chapters 12.32 and 12.34, free and clear from accumulations of solid waste, overgrown vegetation, graffiti, and rodent harborage. A copy of the maintenance schedule shall be made available to City staff on request; and 4. responding to all complaints regarding the Mini-dorm or GLA within 24 hours; keeping a log of all complaints, the response to the complaint and the resolution of the complaint; and retaining the complaint log for no less than 24 months. The complaint log shall be made available to City staff on request. The logs shall be made available to Berkeley residents residing within 300 feet of a mini-dorm or GLA within 10 days of a request. Any Berkeley residents residing within 300 feet of a mini-dorm or GLA may submit to the City a written request for a copy of the Responsible Resident’s log and City staff shall within 10 days of receipt of such request ask for a copy of the Responsible Resident’s log on behalf of the requesting resident; and 5. promptly notifying the owner and property manager (if any) of any notices under Chapters 12.70 or 13.48.

Section B items 2-5 should be responsibility of the property manager, residents should not be subject to legal requirements that are for property managers.

The Responsible Resident shall not be responsible for any of the foregoing tasks that are the sole responsibility of the owner or property manager. C. The owner or property manager shall provide notice to all residents within 300 feet of: 1. the existence and location of the Mini-dorm or GLA; 2. the contact information for the Responsible Resident, which shall include at least a telephone number or numbers, or e-mail address or addresses at which the Responsible Resident can be reached at any time; and 3. the name and contact information for the property manager (if any) and the owner and the phone numbers at which they can be reached at any time. Such notice shall be provided at least annually by September 1st, and whenever the identity or contact information for the Responsible Resident, property manager or owner changes. D. For any event subject to Section 13.42.036, the Responsible Resident shall notify at least one of the residents of each confronting or abutting property no less than 48 hours prior to the event and provide a contact number at which a Responsible Resident can be reached during the entire course of the event. Such notification may be in any form reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. (Ord. 7455-NS § 5, 2016: Ord. 7226-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

13.42.035 Nuisances.

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 A. Any occurrence at a Mini-dorm or GLA that constitutes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of a neighborhood, such as excessive noise under Section 13.40.030 or traffic, obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles, public intoxication, the service to or consumption of alcohol by minors, fights, disturbances of the peace, litter or other similar conditions, constitutes a public nuisance. B. It shall be a public nuisance for any resident of a GLA or Mini-dorm where an event is taking place to refuse access to, or interfere with access by, Fire Department personnel responding to an emergency call or investigating a situation. C. Notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 13.48 to the contrary, a public nuisance as defined in this Section shall be subject to the remedies set forth in Section 13.42.040. (Ord. 7455-NS § 6, 2016: Ord. 7337-NS § 3, 2014)

13.42.036 Entertainment events involving service or availability of alcoholic beverages. This Section applies to entertainment events that are open to the public as defined in Section 13.46.030.A.& B that: (1) draw, or can reasonably be expected to draw over 50 attendees; (2) involve the service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages at any Mini-dorm or GLA; and (3) are not limited to the residents of that GLA or Mini-dorm. A. The following actions during events subject to this Section may be deemed a public nuisance: 1. use of or entry upon the roof except for purposes of escaping a fire when entry upon the roof is required for legal egress. For purposes of this paragraph, “roof” does not include decks or balconies, wherever located, that were legally constructed and are in compliance with all applicable safety requirements; 2. service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages in Bedrooms occupied by residents under the age of 21 years; 3. service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages in common areas where they are accessible to persons under the age of 21, unless service or availability is controlled in a manner that does not allow service or availability to persons under 21 years of age; 4. service to or availability of Alcoholic Beverages to persons under the age of 21. B. Events subject to this Section should be kept to a manageable size, with fewer than 100 additional guests (“guests” defined as non-residents or non-members of the organization housed) generally under 200 persons total, and should not be allowed to take place in any part of the public right-of-way. C. Events subject to this Section should comply with the standards set forth in the community noise ordinance end by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and by 1:00 a.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and days preceding national holidays. Regardless of whether such an event ends by those times, no live music may be performed, or recorded music played, after those times. D. The presence of a minor who is under the influence of alcohol at an event subject to this Section shall create a rebuttable presumption that the event is not being conducted in compliance with the provisions of this Section relating to service and availability of Alcoholic Beverages. E. If a resident or guest at a Mini-dorm or GLA is convicted of or enters a plea of no contest to violation of any of Penal Code Sections 220, 243.4, 244, 244.5, 245, 261,

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 261.5, 261.9, 273.5, 286, 288(a), or 289, or any other felony assault, or felony sexual assault, and the crime was committed in an area where an event subject to this Section is taking place, then the Mini-dorm or GLA at which the violation occurred may be deemed a nuisance. Nuisance proceedings under this subdivision based on a report of a sexual assault by a survivor shall only conducted if the survivor of the sexual assault initiates such proceedings with a written complaint to the City and explicitly consents to such proceedings. F. This Section does not apply to regularly scheduled meetings and/or meals involving non-residents if such meetings or meals involve only members or alumni of the entity that owns or operates the Mini-dorm or GLA and their parents or guardians, even if such meetings or meals include the service or availability of Alcoholic Beverages, as long as such service or availability is limited to persons of 21 years of age or more. G. Notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 13.48 to the contrary, a public nuisance as defined in this Section shall be subject to the remedies set forth in Section 13.42.040. (Ord. 7455-NS § 7, 2016)

13.42.040 Remedies. A. This Chapter may be enforced as set forth in Chapters 1.20 and 1.28. B. Violation of any provision of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance subject to abatement under Chapters 1.24, 1.26 and 23B.64. C. In any enforcement action, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; provided that, pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.5, attorneys’ fees shall only be available in an action or proceeding in which the City has elected, at the commencement of such action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees. In no action or proceeding shall an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding. D. In cases where the owner of a Mini-dorm or GLA has been unwilling or unable to control the use of that Mini-dorm or GLA so as to prevent repeated violations of this Chapter, the City may require removal of bedrooms from that Mini-dorm or GLA or require changes in the use of rooms used as bedrooms to their original non-bedroom uses under Chapter 23B.64. E. 1. In determining the appropriate remedy, if any, for a public nuisance under this Chapter, the City shall consider factors such as the severity and impact of the nuisance, whether it was an isolated event that is not likely to recur and whether it was preventable. Remedies for public nuisance should be reasonably designed to address the nuisance that the City determines occurred. 2. Nuisance determinations, and remedies for nuisances, applicable to Mini-dorms shall apply only to the unit or units involved in or causing the nuisance, and remedies shall be designed to affect residents of other units as little as feasible. No remedy based on the occurrence of a sexual assault may adversely affect the housing situation of a survivor of sexual assault. 3. No remedy may be imposed on a GLA or Mini-dorm for actions or failure to take actions exclusively within the authority of the landlord or property manager.

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 F. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to create a monetary remedy against any Responsible Resident. G. Any resident of the City may bring a private action for injunctive relief to prevent or remedy a public nuisance as defined in this Chapter. No action may be brought under this subdivision unless and until the prospective plaintiff has given the City and the prospective defendant(s) at least 30 days’ written notice of the alleged public nuisance and the City has failed to initiate proceedings within that period, or after initiation, has failed to diligently prosecute. Notwithstanding subdivision (F), in any action prosecuted under this Section a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Ord. 7455-NS § 8, 2016: Ord. 7337-NS § 4, 2014: Ord. 7226-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

13.42.050 Fee. The City Council may by resolution adopt fees for the administration and enforcement of this Chapter. (Ord. 7226-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

13.42.060 Severability. If any provision of this Chapter or its application to any situation is held to be invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Chapter are declared to be severable. (Ord. 7226-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 2

Background on Campus Good Neighbor Strategies/Programs

Like many urban universities, UC Berkeley has its share of student/neighbor issues in neighborhoods adjacent to the campus. A good deal of the neighbor complaints on the Southside are related to the impacts of late night events (parties) that involve alcohol and amplified sound and music. In response, the City Council has developed a number of municipal codes and programs that are designed to restrict or limit a variety of “nuisance” behaviors hold tenants, property owners and managers accountable for compliance with community quiet hours. Meanwhile, every year, campus leaders take proactive steps to promote the adoption of good neighbor principles and practices among students, staff and faculty; and work collaboratively with Berkeley PD and other City departments to respond to calls from neighbors in real time.

This background document includes brief descriptions of some of the steps the university undertakes each year to promote good neighbor values and practices among students and those who use campus facilities.

Chancellor’s Advisory Council on Student Neighbor Relations

Convened in 2005, the Advisory Council on Student-Neighbor Relations is dedicated to improving the quality of life in the neighborhoods adjacent to the campus. Focused on facilitating communication, mutual respect and cooperation between Cal students and permanent residents, the Advisory Council’s primary aim is to build good student/neighbor relations.

Since its inception, the Advisory Council has supported good neighbor initiatives, campaigns and programs that respond to the changing needs of Southside residents, including Cal Move Out, Cal Move In, Happy Neighbors, Every Bear Goes Home; and collaborates with health education programs like PartySafe@Cal to engage and serve students and neighbors.

The Advisory Council meets regularly and is convened by Joseph Greenwell, Dean of Students and Chris Treadway, Assistant Chancellor of Government and Community Relations, in partnership with the ASUC External Affairs Vice President and City representatives. During those meetings, the campus and community stakeholders have an opportunity to hear updates of work 1

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 3

conducted in partnership with campus, city and community leaders, and consider new opportunities for collaboration.

PROJECTS & ACTIVITIES

First Eight (F8): is a proactive collaborative approach to address student related risks, significantly reducing neighbor complaints and improving city, community, and university relations. Historically, the first eight weeks of the fall semester tend to be the worst for alcohol misuse and crimes of opportunity. This period of time also has a historically high frequency and risk for emergency medical transports.

This group of campus and city staff and student leaders meet weekly during this time to track data and review incidents from the previous weekend. Then are able to immediately identify and potentially remedy problems for the upcoming weekend (or year). For example, last fall we had a spike in transports during the 4th week, September 11-13th, which wasn't realized until afterwards that it was the weekend of the Mad Decent Block Party at the Greek Theater, an event that is likely to return in fall 2018, which we can better plan for.

These weekly meetings are also an opportunity for all partners to share their unique resources and prevention strategies, as each individual unit is making makes an impact, addressing different elements of alcohol and student safety. The goal of this collaborative group is to track these progresses in real time and promote awareness across the campus and community.

Partners: UC Risk Services (convener), GCR/Happy Neighbors, UCPD, LEAD Center, Center for Student Conduct, Tang, PartySafe@Cal, ASUC Senators, New Student Services, RSSP, Athletics, Student Advocates Office; Berkeley City Police and Fire Departments, City Manager’s Office; Community Berkeley Student Coops, National Interfraternity Council, Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, Alta Bates Hospital

Happy Neighbors: This peer education and outreach program was launched in 2009 in the Parker Piedmont Neighborhood. Phil Bokovoy and

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 3

Karen Hughes, UHS Program Coordinator, worked together to launch pilot phase. Since then, the Happy Neighbors (HN) Program has expanded to 4 Southside neighborhoods, Parker Piedmont, Dwight Hillside, Willard, and LeConte, and has recently begun to partner with the Inter Fraternity Council to work on their settlement agreement with the neighbors. The HN activities are designed to educate students and their neighbors about community expectations, relevant policies and laws, and police and student conduct procedures for possible alcohol, party, and noise-related violations. HN messages are promoted through the use of various media and outreach methods, often in partnership with PartySafe@Cal. To engage with students, HN staff and student health workers meet with students one-on-one. To engage with neighbors, HN attends and sometimes coordinates and facilitates neighborhood meetings, with the support of city and campus staff, to provide resources, tips and Quite Zone signs. Happy Neighbors was originally funded by the Chancellor’s Community Partnership Fund, but is now a program of GCR.

Partners: UC Government and Community Relations (GCR), University Health Services and PartySafe@Cal, the LEAD Center/Greek Life, Center for Student Conduct, Panhellenic Council, IFC; Berkeley City Police Department Southside Safety Patrol, City Manager’s Office, Berkeley Fire; Community neighborhood councils, property managers/owners, students

PartySafe@Cal: is a student-led initiative, under the guidance of Health Promotion at Tang, to improve party culture at Cal by minimizing problems related to alcohol. In addition to educating party goers about minimizing risk, planning to party safely, and early intervention to address intoxication, PartySafe@Cal convenes roundtables and works with student leaders, campus staff and community partners and neighbors to reflect on current strengths and concerns; they provide education through Bear Pact and through social norms workshops, PartySafe@Cal student interns-advocates also provide workshops and consultations for party throwers; and recently supported a bill passed by the ASUC spring of 2015 listing key practices for off campus events:

• Provide plentiful and easily accessible water; • Ensure enough sober hosts and trained alcohol servers who monitor 3

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 3

and intervene for intoxication are present at each event; • Eliminate service of hard alcohol (20% ABV) in common areas; • Take security measures to keep attendance under the maximum occupancy for location.

Partners: UC University Health Services, Health Workers, Hydration Hype Squad, ASUC, Happy Neighbors, UCPD; Berkeley City Police Department, City Manager’s Office; Community Panhellenic Council, Interfraternity Council, Berkeley Student Cooperative

Every Bear Goes Home: Initiated with funding by the Chancellor's Community Partnership Fund in 2014-15, this Berkeley Fire Department led program relies on student hosted dialogues to provide students with honest, hard-hitting, and aggressive presentation on ways to stay safe during their college years. The principal trainers are Berkeley Fire Paramedics.

Partners: Berkeley City: Police and Fire Departments; UC LEAD Fraternity & Sorority Advising & Leadership Development, Risk Management, UC Police Department; Community Panhellenic Council, Interfraternity Council

Cal Move In and Move Out: Developed by the Chancellor's Advisory Council on Student-Neighbor Relations in 2007, this brings together the resources of the campus, the City of Berkeley and the community in an effort to decrease the environmental and social impacts of illegal dumping in near-campus neighborhoods at the start and end of the academic year. Students often do not have the means to, or are unsure of how to properly dispose of unwanted items like mattresses, couches, and small appliances, etc. Unfortunately, many of these items are left curbside, an environmentally harmful practice that we have been trying to eliminate by educating students and providing specialized services. The program combines outreach to students and property owners about responsible disposal and reuse strategies, as well as the deployment of large debris bins in the student-dense neighborhoods near campus, and working with City and community partners to strategically deploy other resources. As part of Cal Move Out 2018, a new student-led, joint effort between the City’s Public Works Department and the Berkeley Student Cooperative is launching this reduce student cyclical waste, supported by the Chancellor’s Community

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 3

Partnership Fund.

Partners: UC GCR, RSSP, UCB BicyCal (bike cooperative), ASUC EAVP, LEAD Center; Berkeley City Zero Waste, Public Works, City Manager’s office; vendors (recycling, reuse, e-waste, etc.); Community neighborhood councils, property managers/owners, business districts, community organizations

Program Interventions Employed in Previous Years

Joint Southside Safety Patrol--was established as joint police patrol by the UCPD and the Berkeley Police Department to improve public safety at night in the city’s Southside neighborhood. The primary focus has been Thursday through Saturday nights between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. The Joint Patrol emphasizes strict enforcement of laws related to alcohol consumption, including underage drinking, use of false identification, public possession of open containers of alcohol, and public drunkenness. Joint Patrol officers target unruly parties and gatherings of 10 or more people in off-campus student rental housing and fraternities. Officers can issue citations when they find violations of any kind; this information has been shared with the campus’s Office of Student Conduct. Students, who received the majority of the public nuisance citations, are promptly contacted by Student Conduct staff. The City can also notify property owners and managers of the citations, since unpaid fines for citations issued to their tenants could result in liens being placed on the owners’ property. A recent change in UCPD’s staff deployment’s strategy, calling for officers to rotate through campus beats, could impact this program.

Indoor Events Roundtable: Monthly meeting of City of Berkeley and UCB staff engaged in alcohol harm-reduction projects and activities and information sharing. The Roundtable was hosted by Berkeley Fire. With a primary focus on parties and other indoor events that include alcohol consumption, the monthly meeting facilitated information sharing and coordination among the partners. The First 8 effort is the current iteration of this effort.

Contact Jen Loy, Assistant Director, Local Government & Community Relations, for information on these programs: [email protected] . 5

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 3

UC Berkeley Crime Prevention & Night Safety Programs

The UCPD employs community policing strategies to prevent crime on and around campus properties. See links below for description of the strategies and services:

• https://ucpd.berkeley.edu/crime-prevention-strategies-and-services • https://ucpd.berkeley.edu/services/presentations-your-group

UCPD and the Parking and Transportation Department offer a comprehensive set of Night Safety Services, including: BearWalk escort, night shuttle buses, and a door-to-door service. BearWalks are available from dusk to 3:00am, night shuttles run on routes from 7:30pm to 3:00am and the door-to-door service is available from 3:00am until 5:30am. These services are free to students, faculty and staff; and can also be used by residents who live in neighborhoods adjacent to the campus. See link below for details.

o https://nightsafety.berkeley.edu/

ITEM 6

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

02/05/2018 To: 4x6 Committee From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Campus National Night Out to Reduce Crime: Recommend the City Council refer to the City Manager

RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council refer to the City Manager to create a Campus National Night Out type event to help reduce crime in the campus area.

BACKGROUND: In recent months, violent crimes such as armed robberies and physical and sexual assaults have shaken the campus community. A spike in such heinous actions is just one reason why creating a campus area National Night Out (NNO) is especially appropriate this year. We have a chance to help reduce crime around the campus by bringing together City and University public safety resources, student groups, UC faculty and staff, neighborhood associations and merchant associations.

All across the country and in Berkeley, annual NNO events occur every August. The Berkeley Police Department, Fire Department, City Manager’s office, and other City services join the community to raise awareness and action about crime prevention.

However, the campus area has historically lacked participation in the NNO events because student, faculty and staff populations are low during August. In order to help reduce crime around the campus community, the City could host a campus specific NNO event at the beginning of University’s 2018 Fall Semester. By having the event at the beginning of the school year, we will encourage crime prevention habits that can be effective for the whole academic year. The ultimate goal is for BPD, UCPD and other city and university departments to host a joint event in a collective effort to reduce crime within and around the University campus.

A previous item was approved by the City Council to refer to the City Manager to create a campus area NNO on November 3rd, 2015.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

ITEM 6a

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

02/05/2018 To: 4x6 Committee Members From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Timely and Cost Effective Installation of Five Street Lights

RECOMMENDATION Recommend the City Council to send a letter to PG&E to expedite the installation of the 5 street lights proposed near the UC Berkeley campus to enhance student, residential, and business safety.

BACKGROUND The UC Berkeley campus community has been dealing with many instances of crime in recent months. Such events have left both students and residents feeling weary of their personal safety. 4 of the 5 delayed street lights are in areas proximate to the UC Berkeley campus: 2506 Dwight Way, 2450 Parker St, 2511 Piedmont Ave, and 2836 Regent St.

Street Lights are crucial for promoting street safety for students and residents. Additional street lights can enhance security and reduce the frequency of crimes in the area.

It would be advantageous for the City of Berkeley, in the best interest of its citizens, and PG&E, in the best interest of its customers, to ensure that these 4 street lights are installed expediently and efficiently. Additionally, another street light that has been delayed, 2070 MLK Jr Way, should be installed as well.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: No negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Attachment: See letter

ITEM 6b Dear PG& E,

The Berkeley City Council respectfully requests that PG& E expedite installations of street lights that are in areas proximate to UC Berkeley Campus in helping students, residents, and businesses with personal safety and crime reduction.

Street Lights provide a number of important benefits. According to the British Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, street lights “promote security in urban areas and increase the quality of life by artificially extending the hours in which it is light so that activity can take place.” Additionally and most critically, street lights improve safety for pedestrians, drivers and riders alike.

The UC Berkeley campus community has been dealing with many instances of crime in recent months. Such events have left both students and residents feeling weary of their personal safety. 4 of the 5 delayed street lights are in areas proximate to the UC Berkeley campus: 2506 Dwight Way, 2450 Parker St, 2511 Piedmont Ave, and 2836 Regent St. Additionally, another street light that has been delayed, 2070 MLK Jr Way, should be installed as well.

Therefore, it would be advantageous for the City of Berkeley, in the best interest of its citizens, and PG&E, in the best interest of its customers, to ensure that these 5 street lights are installed expediently and efficiently.

Respectfully, The Berkeley City Council

ITEM 6b ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 1 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 1 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 1 (2014), and Figure 2 (circa late 1950s) above.

CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARK APPLICATION

“CAMPANILE WAY”

Initiated by Citizen Petition, September, 2017 Final Application submitted December 7, 2017

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 2 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 2 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 3.View of Campanile Way from steps of Sather Campanile, early 1920s. Private collection. Golden Gate is light colored gap between headlands.

INTRODUCTION

This landmark application was prepared as a result of a citizen petition in Fall, 2017, to initiate Campanile Way on the UC Berkeley campus as a City of Berke- ley Landmark. Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance provides that initiation may be done by a simple petition of 50 or more Berkeley residents.

“Campanile Way” is a historic roadway and view corridor on the UC Berkeley campus that dates to the 1870s. It has a threefold level of significance, importance and use:

• it is a primary circulation spine of the campus, lined by nine major academic / administrative buildings, most of them dating to the Beaux Arts / Classical era of campus development;

• it serves as part of the axial framework of the “Classical Core” of the campus, essentially functioning as a necessary designed void / open space between the masses of built structures to enhance those structures, much as civic plazas, squares, and boulevards do for buildings in the urban landscape;

• it serves as one of two historically primary—and the only intact remaining— view corridors from the UC Berkeley campus to the vista of San Francisco Bay

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 3 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 3 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

and the Golden Gate. This view, in both its physical state and its symbolic significance, was a defining characteristic of both the establishment of the campus in the 1850s / 60s and almost all of its physical planning in the century and a half since then.

This document includes the necessary description of the proposed space / features to be designated, as well as the history of how it evolved and was planned.

There are two other policy questions that relate to this Landmark proposal that it seems relevant to consider in the introduction. Although these questions are not necessary to answer in a landmark application—which is about the history and significance of the landmark alone, not plans or proposals for it—they are included here, with answers.

(1) Can a roadway and landscape, not a building, be a City of Berkeley Landmark?

Yes. There is long established precedent nationally, in the state, and locally. In Berkeley there are more than twenty designated COB landmarks, some recent, some designated decades ago, similar in key respects to Campanile Way. Most do not contain buildings but are significant because they contain important landscape and / or roadway features. Some of these have also been added to the National Register of Historic Places. In Berkeley, these include (partial list):

Natural landscape features / rock outcroppings with historic significance: Founders’ Rock; Sutcliff Picnic Rock. Built circulation features that do not include buildings: Sather Gate and Bridge; Hillside Club Street Improvements in the Daley’s Scenic Park Tract; La Loma Steps (pathway with designed steps); Orchard Lane (Panoramic Hill-steps and pathway); Claremont Court Gate and Street Markers. Landscaped open spaces / parks: John Hinkel Park; Berkeley Municipal Rose Garden; Martin Luther King, Jr. Civic Center Park; People’s Park; Buildings or complexes of buildings that also include connecting or associated landscape features: American Baptist Seminary of the West campus (Dwight Way and Hillegass); Faculty Club and Faculty Glade (UC campus); Greenwood Common (central lawn / commons, roadways, surrounded by significant homes); Rose Walk (steps, pathway, and associated houses); La Loma Park His- toric District; Bowles Hall and Charter Hill; Sather Tower and Esplanade; Napoleon Bonaparte Byrne House and Grounds; Landscape Features, UC Berke- ley Campus (six separate features, all botanical). Designed features that are connected to buildings, but not the buildings themselves: People’s Bicentennial Mural.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 4 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 4 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Other culturally / historically significant human-created outdoor spaces without buildings: Berkeley Shellmound.

(2) Is designation of Campanile Way as a City of Berkeley Landmark consistent with current / established University planning policy?

While the judgment of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, not the opinion of the property owner (the University of California in this case), is the determining factor in a possible historic designation as a City of Berkeley Landmark, it is not unreasonable to examine as part of this nomination process whether the owner has plans or policies relevant to the property’s history.

In the instance of Campanile Way the owner—the University of California—does have such plans and policies. As outlined below, these policies / plans are clearly consistent with the proposed landmark designation.

For example, the Landscape Heritage Plan for the Berkeley campus (the current operative policy document for historically significant campus landscape features and spaces) notes the following:

“Based on the cultural and site landscape assessments, the overall treatment strategy recommended for Campanile Way / Sather Road is rehabilitation… The treatment strategy for Campanile Way includes the following steps:

• Retain, protect, and enhance views to the Campanile and the Golden Gate, and maintain existing building heights along the Way. • Take cues from the Thomas Church era construction documents for the eastern end, executing in ways that retain historic vistas. • Enhance and frame the Church balustrade landing detail at the top of Cam- panile Way as a significant design element. • Retain and/or rehabilitate all historically relevant vegetation, and the historic semi-formal foundation plantings, to the original design intent. • Address the partial deterioration of the ground plane caused by vehicular service access and parking. • Protect, repair, and/or replace surviving brick gutters, as function permits; replace in-kind deteriorated elements; and repair the Class of 1940 water fountain.”

(Source: UC Berkeley Landscape Heritage Plan)

As readers will see from this document, these policies are completely in accord with the proposed landmark designation and identification of both significant and non-contributing features of Campanile Way.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 5 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 5 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Other relevant, operative, UC planning policies for Campanile Way include this section of the New Century Plan / 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP).

Policy E4 Campanile Way

• Upgrade paving and lighting along Campanile Way and restore the continuity of the rows of plane trees. Create a forecourt at the south center entrance to VLSB. • Remove South Hall Annex and create a semi-enclosed service court, to replace service vehicle parking on Campanile Way. • Close Campanile Way to private vehicles, except for preauthorized service and delivery trips to California and Durant Halls.

The New Century Plan also specifies, under “Purpose” that a core goal of the plan is that it “preserves and enhances our extraordinary legacy of landscape and architecture”.

Source: http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/ncp/portfolio/areae.html

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 6 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 6 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

LANDMARK DESCRIPTION

Project Address: Campanile Way (no street number), campus of the Universi- ty of California, Berkeley. Buildings and sites interior to the UC campus do not have street addresses /numbers per se. On-campus buildings are generally identified by name, not address.

However, since landmark and zoning applications are only tracked in the City’s databases by street address, City staff have used “2301 Dana Street” as a placeholder for this project; that address is somewhat south of the actual Campanile Way.

Figure 4: “A” at right shows Campanile location. Campanile Way extends from the west facade of the Campanile west along the marked route to the junction of the roadway and Strawberry Creek.

Property Owner Name: Regents of the University of California.

Street Address: the application is for a roadway / scenic corridor, which does not have a formal address. See property description below.

City: Berkeley County: Alameda Zip: 94720.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 7 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 7 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Assessor’s Parcel Number: none. Block and Lot: NA

Tract: University of California campus, primarily on portions of the Simmons Ranch, purchased by the College of California in the 1850s, and donated to the State of California in 1868.

Dimensions: Approximately 1,200 to 1,300 feet long; approximately 100 feet wide. See details in description below.

Is property on the State Historic Resources Inventory? Not by specific name. The property is part of the context of several SHRI properties.

Application for Landmark includes: Landscape or Open Space / Natural His- toric Views and Designed Space.

Historic Name: Center Street Path (informal), replaced since approximately 1915 by Campanile Way.

Commonly Known Name: Campanile Way.

Date of Construction: route demarcated as early as 1873 as a “baseline for buildings” to be constructed on the campus. Formalized as a straight pathway— the Center Street Path—in the final quarter of the 19th century. Further formalized after 1915 as Campanile Way. Alternations / changes circa 1950s/60s.

Architect: Frederick Law Olmsted suggested the campus orientation to the views of the Golden Gate in 1865, forming the context in which Campanile Way would be created in subsequent years. David Farquharson, architect, aligned South Hall (1873), the first building constructed on campus, perpendicular to the baseline that would become Campanile Way.

From approximately 1902 to 1923, John Galen Howard designed and oversaw the transformation of the earlier, largely unimproved, Center Street Path into a formal thoroughfare bordered by Beaux Arts / neo-classical buildings and landscape plantings, all symmetrically placed. These conditions matured through the middle of the 20th century. Thomas Church, landscape architect, designed some alterations to Campanile Way circa 1960, the most significant of these being a small plaza with decorative paving at the top of the Way.

Three nationally known architects, all of whom also served as Supervising Ar- chitect for the UC Berkeley campus, designed buildings that serve to frame Campanile Way. These include John Galen Howard (four buildings); George Kel-

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 8 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 8 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY ham (one building, Valley Life Sciences); Arthur Brown, Jr. (one building, Doe Annex / Bancroft Library).

Original Use: pathway / road to connect center of campus with Center Street and view corridor oriented to the Golden Gate.

Builder: various (the identities of the contractors who constructed roadway improvements have not been researched. It is probable that Campanile Way improvements, from tree plantings to pavings, have been executed over a period of decades by a number of private contractors, in addition to UC grounds and buildings staff.)

Style: Beaux Arts / neoclassical, with some circa 1960 Modern era landscape interventions in a Beaux Arts compatible character.

Original Owners: the Lisjan native people of the East Bay for some 5-6,000 years Before Present, were the original human inhabitants and caretakers of this natural landscape. Sites of Lisjan use are known on the UC Berkeley campus, not far from Campanile Way.

Subsequently, the Spanish Crown assumed ownership of the land by conquest; the King of Spain then granted legal ownership to the family of Luis Peralta in the early 19th century; in the mid-19th century American immigrant Orrin Simmons purchased a portion of the Peralta land-holdings including this site following the California Gold Rush; the College of California purchased the land from Simmons in the 1850s. All of these land exchanges and appropriations took place prior to 1860.

Present Owners: Regents of the University of California, since 1868 con- veyance of the assets of the College of California to the State of California.

Present Use: circulation pathway through the Berkeley campus; primarily pedestrian, but also used by non-motorized vehicles, and service and emergency vehicles. Formal view corridor oriented to views of the Golden Gate (westerly) and the Jane K. Sather Campanile / Charter Hill (easterly).

Current zoning: U.

Adjacent Property Zoning: Not applicable. Surrounded by University campus for some distance in all directions.

Present Condition of Property: Grounds: Fair. The site retains its historic use, historic / defining views, central roadway, and original plantings of an allee of

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 9 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 9 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

London Plane trees. Some of the historic landscape has been altered or de- graded by non-contextual planting, overgrowth of foundation plantings, reversible utilitarian installations (such as delivery vehicle spaces, and cluttered, non-contributing, site furniture.

Has the property’s exterior been altered? Campanile Way underwent some modifications circa 1960 primarily to widen portions of the roadway. Portions of the landscape and hardscape have been altered, particularly in the zone between Wheeler Hall and Doe Library. Original / historic conditions are, however, largely present or restorable.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 10 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 10 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 5: Campanile Way as seen from the terrace immediately west of South Hall Road. showing view of Golden Gate to the west. S. Finacom photo, 2014.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF CAMPANILE WAY

Campanile Way is a pedestrian / service vehicle thoroughfare on the Berkeley campus of the University of California, as well as a historic view corridor and organizing / axial element of campus plans dating back to the development of the Berkeley campus.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 11 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 11 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

The Figure Appendix contains detailed current or recent pictures depicting specific features of Campanile Way.

Physically, Campanile Way, and its immediate environs, occupy a zone approximately 1,200 to 1,300 feet in an east / west direction, and approximately 100 feet wide in a north / south dimension. The roadway width within this zone varies, but was originally approximately 25 feet wide, bordered by planting zones on either side that extended back to the facades of the adjacent buildings.

The roadway descends in elevation less than 50 vertical feet from east to west, at a relatively uniform grade. For context, the base of the Campanile is at an elevation of about 250 feet above sea level according to USGS topographical maps. The western edge of the campus somewhat beyond the western end of Campanile Way is at an elevation of about 200 feet above sea level.

Beginning at its western end, Campanile Way is terminated and anchored by a circa 1908 masonry bridge (hereafter referred to as the 1908 Bridge) over the south branch of Strawberry Creek. This structure, designed by John Galen Howard, replaced an earlier wooden bridge, and, for many years, provided a point of transition between the campus proper and off-campus city streets. Both ends are now entirely contained within the expanded campus, but the bridge continues to serve its original function as a pedestrian and vehicle access point to and from the west end of Campanile Way. The Class of 1908 Bridge is a significant feature in this nomination.

From the 1908 Bridge, Campanile Way proceeds in a slight curve to the north/ northwest between the Valley Life Sciences Building (VLSB, completed 1930) on the north, and a grove of California Live Oaks to the south. The road then ascends at a gentle grade and in a straight line to the east, centered on the Campanile. Eastward of the California Live Oak grove and a lawn area is a parking lot (Dwinelle Parking Lot).

The next uphill section of Campanile Way is flanked on the south by the 1950s Dwinelle Hall, and on the north by a landscaped area east of VLSB. Harmon Way, runs at right angles to Campanile Way and extends north across this landscaped area from the entrance of Dwinelle Hall.

East of Dwinelle Hall a diagonal pathway from the southeast enters Campanile Way, followed by Durant Hall (originally Boalt Hall, circa 1911). A non-contributing modern sunken plaza is located at the west side of Durant Hall.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 12 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 12 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

East of the Harmon Way landscaped area California Hall (circa 1905) sits on a low terrace, symmetrically aligned north of Durant Hall. The massing of the northern end of Durant Hall and the southern end of California Hall correspond. Immediately east of California Hall and Durant Hall is Sather Road, a north / south axial roadway that crosses Campanile Way at right angles. In recent years a number of drought-resistant non-contextual plantings have been made in this vicinity, notably spiky formium shrubs. These detract somewhat from the classical landscaping, but are also minor and reversible.

Immediately east of, and uphill from, Sather Road are sloped hillside landscape zones rising to the massive blocks of Doe Library (circa 1908-11) on the north and Benjamin Ide Wheeler Hall (circa 1917) on the south. Beyond these buildings the eastern end of Campanile Way is flanked by the Doe Annex (circa 1950, informally known as Bancroft Library building) on the north and South Hall (circa 1873), the original building constructed on the campus, on the south.

In recent years a paved service and ADA-useable parking court has been installed north of South Hall, between the Campanile Way roadway and the building face.

Campanile Way terminates in South Hall Drive, a north / south road that borders the landscaped environs of the Jane K. Sather Campanile (circa 1915) on the east. Between the upper end of the Campanile Way roadway and South Hall Road, the former roadway was altered into a level, hardscape, terrace designed by Thomas Church and constructed circa 1960. Most of its eatures remain, including brick stairs, low concrete balustrades, and interlocking aggregate and brick paving.

Campanile Way serves a variety of symbolic and utilitarian functions for the campus and broader community. It is:

1. A primarily pedestrian thoroughfare, providing a direct walking route in an approximate through approximately half of the east / west dimension of the central campus. Each day Campanile Way is traversed by thousands of pedestrians—and many on bicycles—traveling to and from classrooms, of- fices, laboratories, and other parts of the campus;

2. The second most important—and only remaining, uninterrupted—east / west axis through the campus, focused on the views towards the Golden Gate and the Berkeley Hills that defined the Berkeley campus site, and planning ef- forts for it, from its 1860s beginnings;

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 13 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 13 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

3. The only point remaining on the ground level of the campus from which San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate can be clearly seen;

4. A service vehicle corridor for the campus, carrying a steady but light load of delivery vehicles, passenger vehicles for dignitaries and the physically dis- abled, and University maintenance vehicles;

5. A landscape corridor reflecting Beaux Arts landscape planning tenets including symmetrical and axial plantings (largely of evergreen species) utilized as living architectural elements to frame and enhance the adjacent buildings.

6. Hidden from view, an important utility corridor, carrying buried campus steam lines, power lines, and telecommunications conduits and cables.

The landscape of Campanile Way mingles elements of naturalistic / picturesque, 19th century landscaping, formal Beaux Arts classicism of the first half of the 20th century, and Modern era plantings.

The landscape has been somewhat compromised in recent decades by limited care of existing trees, pruning up into taller tree form what were originally intended as lower foundation shrubs, removal of some plantings for pavement, plantings not consistent with the formal character of the Way, and limited funds for maintenance and upkeep. Still, much of the original landscape character—including the all important early plantings of pollarded London Plane trees—remain, or could easily be restored.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 14 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 14 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

HISTORY

The history of the development evolution of Campanile Way can be divided into four general eras, each described under the subheadings below.

Beyond the campus context, the roadway is also one of the earliest thoroughfares in Berkeley, dating to the early 1870s when the community was not yet incorporated, and only a few roads and unimproved paths crossed the natural terrain. The only major roads in Berkeley that date earlier would be the “San Pablo Road” (now San Pablo Avenue), a few streets in West Berkeley, the Shat- tuck Avenue / Adeline street railway alignment, the “Telegraph Road” to Oak- land, and the roadways / streets of the Berkeley Property Tract and College Homestead Tract, south of the campus and north of Dwight Way.

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAMPUS AND CAMPANILE WAY (1860s through approximately 1900):

What we know today as the core of University of California, Berkeley, campus was selected as a site for a new home for the private College of California in the 1850s. The land was purchased from Orrin Simmons. The College of Califor- nia was located in what is now downtown Oakland, and wished to have a future, larger, campus site that was not in the midst of the city but still conve- niently nearby urban services. After an extensive search, farmland in Berkeley fit the bill, and the College began purchasing parcels, primarily concentrated between what is now Hearst Avenue on the north, Oxford Street on the north and (roughly) the line of the southern branch of Strawberry Creek on the south.

On April 1, 1858, the College Trustees voted to make the future Berkeley campus site the official permanent location of their college, although financial constraints would mean the College itself would never move there. Two years later, April 16, 1860, the College Trustees gathered at what would become known as Founders Rock on the still undeveloped campus in order to “conse- crate the site for learning.”

The editor of a San Francisco publication, The Pacific, afterwards editorialized in a much-quoted statement that “There is not such another college site in America, if indeed anywhere in the world. It is the spot above all others we have yet seen or heard of where a man may look into the face of the nineteeth century and realize the glories that are coming on.” The dedication made what is now the Berkeley campus the oldest site continuously dedicated to public higher education in California (the private University of Santa Clara has been on its site slightly longer).

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 15 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 15 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

James Warren, The Pacific editor, would also write of that dedicatory gathering at Founders’ Rock:

“Before them was the Golden Gate in its broad-opening-out into the great Pa- cific. Ships were coming in and going out. Asia seemed near—the islands of the sea looking this way. Many nations a few years hence, as their fleets with the wealth of commerce seek these golden shores, will see the University before they see the metropolis, and their first thought of our greatness and strength will be impressed upon them by the intelligence and mind shaking mind within the walls of the College more than by the frowning batteries of Alcatraz.”

His description, of course, corresponds exactly to what is still seen today from ships entering San Francisco Bay or from the Golden Gate Bridge; the hills of Berkeley, directly across the water from the Golden Gate, with the white shaft of the Campanile visible at their base to demarcate the site of the campus. And, similarly, from one point on the grounds of the campus (Campanile Way) and from many buildings, the same view out towards the Golden Gate that the Trustees saw and celebrated is still present.

The University’s Landscape Heritage Plan (currently in force, with no termination date) echoes Warren’s statements more prosaically:

“The location had an adequate water supply, a mild climate without strong winds, sycamore and bay trees, and spectacular views to San Francisco and the Golden Gate.” (http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/lhp/significance/history.html)

As time proved, the College of California would never move to the Berkeley site. It undertook only two physical improvements on the grounds: the planting of groves of trees (including plantations of pine and eucalyptus on the upper campus); construction of a “waterworks” consisting of a small dammed reser- voir in the mouth of Strawberry Canyon and gravity fed pipes to various parts of the college grounds and the surrounding neighborhood. The waterworks were celebrated with a ‘rural picnic’ on August 24, 1867.

By the time the waterworks were in place, the College had also started to develop plans not only for the campus site but for adjacent property it owned to the south and southeast. The plan was to subdivide the southern areas outside the campus into residential neighborhoods where lots would to sold to help create an instant town next door to the campus and, importantly, help provide income for the College.

In 1864, the Trustees of the College of California asked Frederick Law Olmsted, who was in California helping to manage the Mariposa Mining Estate, to create

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 16 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 16 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY plans for two aspects of their properties. He would also design Oakland’s Moun- tain View Cemetery.

Olmsted had earlier gained recognition as a co-winner of the 1857 competition to design a plan for Central Park in New York City and would become internationally famous in later decades as the “Father of American Landscape Archi- tecture”. His College of California work and Mountain View Cemetery design are recognized by Olmsted scholars as important aspects of his periodic work in the American West.

The two projects commissioned by the College were to lay out a residential district next to the campus site, and to prepare a plan for the campus itself. The residential district was the Berkeley Property Tract, centered on what is today Piedmont Avenue, southeast of the campus.

“In 1866, Olmsted developed a picturesque park-like campus plan with the major east- west axis set on a view of the Golden Gate, modeling it after Alexan- der Davis' and Howard Daniel's Llewellyn Park. His visionary landscape report for the College of California campus is also a significant project within the Olmsted legacy.” (Landscape Heritage Plan, University of California, Berkeley.)

Olmsted did not specifically define the future Campanile Way as a view corridor. Instead, he arranged the campus in a series of westward facing, informal, arcing glades around an axis that lay in a vale to the north of the future Cam- panile Way site.

But it was this plan that established the basic principle—followed by almost every subsequent plan—that campus building should be aligned either parallel, or perpendicular, to the magnificent westward view.

That same year, on May 24, 1866, the campus site was named for George Berkeley, the 17th century Irish Bishop of Cloyne who had come to America to try to establish a new college. Once again, the view of the Golden Gate figured in a seminal campus decision. Frederick Law Billings, the chair of the Trustees, noting the view, was inspired to recall Berkeley’s poem “On the Prospect of Planting Arts and Learning in the Americas”. The name was adopted the same day by the full Board of Trustees.

The College, as noted earlier, did not have the resources to build structures on the campus and relocate there. Less than two years after Olmsted’s plan was adopted and the name was chosen, the Trustees agreed to donate their Berke- ley campus site and other facilities and programs to the State of California to help found the new, public, University of California. The University formally

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 17 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 17 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY came into being with the signing of the Organic Act by the Governor of Califor- nia on March 23, 1868.

The University, which commenced operations in Oakland in 1869, began to plan for an early move to the Berkeley site. A number of designs for site and buildings were considered and San Francisco architect David Farquharson was commissioned to design the first campus building, South Hall. Significantly, the building was sited to sit at an angle to the nearby community street grid, and placed to face on its west the view of the Golden Gate, adjacent to what would become Campanile Way.

“Olmsted aligned the campus axis with the symbolic Golden Gate while utilizing the natural topography to site proposed buildings. The first campus buildings were sited on an upland plain, among trees lining the main fork of Straw- berry Creek. This approach set the campus apart from its surroundings while providing views to the Golden Gate.” (UC Berkeley Landscape Master Plan, page 9).

Within the Olmsted vision for the campus, the orientation to the Bay view and the Golden Gate was fundamental. Olmsted stated in his plan that “I would suggest that at least so much turf should be formed and kept as would be contained in the strip immediately in front of the central College building, in the line of the Golden Gate.” (“The Project of the Improvement of the College Property” by Frederick Law Olmsted, 1866.)

Although Olmsted’s initial assumption was that the “central College building” would lie somewhat to the north of the present day Campanile Way, as the campus developed it soon (by the 1880s) came to mean the first University Li- brary—Bacon Hall—which stood symmetrically at the top of what is now the Campanile Way axis.

When the Campanile was built just west of the Library and completed circa 1915, it became in effect Olmsted’s “central College building” and a turf area and view corridor—Campanile Way—were maintained to the west, consistent with Olmsted’s vision and plans.

Retired Berkeley Campus Planner and historian Harvey Helfand notes in his Oc- tober 18, 2017 letter to the LPC supporting a Campanile Way landmark designation:

“Although little of Olmsted’s plan was executed, many of its principles were adopted, especially his Golden Gate axis, which aligned and organized the Uni- versity of California’s first buildings, including North and South Halls, built

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 18 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 18 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY astride a central westward-reaching walkway which later became known as Campanile Way. At the head of this composition stood Bacon Library, just east of where the Campanile stands today. When John Galen Howard was appointed Supervising Architect at the beginning of the twentieth century, he recognized the natural and symbolic attributes of Olmsted’s axis and adopted it as an organizing principle for his new Beaux-Arts plan: ‘The site in front of the present Library…is a central, high and commanding location…to preserve the main lines and vistas of the general composition…’.”

That “site” is now the artificial plateau on which the Sather Campanile rises. Helfand continues in his letter:

“As Howard’s plan developed, Campanile Way took on greater importance, forming a crossroads with four of his major buildings, Wheeler Hall, Doe Memorial Library, California Hall, and Boalt (now Durant) Hall, and a frontage for those of his successors, including Dwindle Hall and the (Valley) Life Sci- ences Building. At its higher eastern end near the base of the Campanile, generations of students, campus visitors, and Berkeley tourists, have gathered, and continue to gather, for ceremonial and historical occasions and to experience the Golden Gate view that is such an inseparable aspect of the university’s and city’s heritage.”

Berkeley-based architectural historian Michael Corbett expanded on this significance in a September 25, 2017 letter to the City of Berkeley commenting on the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a proposed development at 2190 Shattuck Avenue. Corbett noted:

“With a broader understanding of the significance of Campanile Way that incorporates the meaning of the design, the view of the Golden Gate is part of the design and an essential component of the significant property.”

Corbett further notes:

“The significance of Campanile Way goes beyond its design to the fundamental idea of the meaning of the University of California. Emphasizing the meaning of the design, the definition of Campanile Way incorporates the view toward the Golden Gate. Without the view, the meaning of the resource is fundamen- tally altered.”

A 1873 campus map shows both South Hall as the only building on the site, and, just north of it, a line labeled “baseline for buildings”. This line ran well south of the Olmstedian axial suggestion but exactly parallel to it, and very close to the future line of Campanile Way.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 19 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 19 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

The creation of this axial view corridor, with buildings aligned along it, figures in the earliest Berkeley campus plans and development undertaken by the Uni- versity of California, 40 years before the Campanile itself would start construction.

What was demarcated as the “baseline for buildings” on the 1873 campus map became, in subsequent decades, an arrow straight pathway running up/ down through the campus and aligned with the Golden Gate to the west. This was often referred to as the “Center Street Path” since it connected, just west of the 1908 Bridge, with a pathway that ran down through “The Oaks” to Ox- ford and Center streets and the rail- road terminus in downtown Berkeley.

Figure 6: at right. Detail of 1873 map. South Hall is at right center, “Col- lege of Science”. To the left, running vertically through the map, is a line labeled “Base Line of Buildings” that mir- rors the future Center Street Path, and Campanile Way. Map surveyed by Cleveland Rockwell, U.S. Coast Survey. 1873, re-traced 1882. Private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 20 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 20 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

The straight / linear character and extended length—more than a quarter of a mile—of the Center Street Path is unusual on the early / 19th century campus, because most other campus roads / paths followed curving routes through the natural topography or went only relatively short distances as “desire lines” between points, such as the entrances of two heavily used buildings.

As the 19th century continued along with campus development, the “baseline of buildings” was honored. South and North Halls, both built in the early 1870s, symmetrically flanked the path at its eastern end. Just beyond the eastern termination of the formal roadway the line of the path crossed through a small, circular, area where a tall campus flagpole was erected. The flagpole stood on the site where the Campanile would later rise. If one stood at its base and looked west, the Bay and the Golden Gate were visible beyond the end of the path, above a horizontal line of riparian trees along Strawberry Creek.

In 1881 the University chose to site the most prominent campus building constructed to date, Bacon Hall, behind the flagpole and, again, at the head of the Center Street Path axis and on axis with the Golden Gate. Its tower would have afforded a splendid view of the entrance to San Francisco Bay.

Bacon Hall was a brick edifice, combining library and museum facilities and, with South Hall and North Hall, formed a triangle of the core campus academic buildings around the flagpole. Bacon Hall also had a steep-roofed tower that contained a clock, and a bell that sounded the hours. Thus, just steps from the future Campanile site, but 30 years before it was constructed, the campus had a bell / clock tower centered at the head of this axial view of the Golden Gate.

Figure 7: above, from postcard looking east on Berkeley campus, mailed 1903. Bacon Hall with tower at center, behind white flagpole. North Hall at left, South Hall at right symmetrically flanking the “Center Street Path” visible between the dark, low, trees at center. Private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 21 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 21 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

“Given the spectacular setting of the campus on a gentle west facing slope at the base of the Berkeley Hills, views have always been a defining element of its plans. The primary example is the alignment of the campus’ historic core with the view of the Golden Gate.” (UC Berkeley, Landscape Master Plan, page 12).

“Views out from the campus lead the viewer to the connections beyond the campus. The view from the base of Sather Tower towards the Golden Gate serves to set the campus in its regional context. This breathtaking vista of the bay was one of the primary amenities considered when the site was selected in the 1860s...The view corridor from the foot of Sather Tower, down Campanile Way, defines a primary route of travel through campus and emphasizes the tower’s central place as as a campus landmark and wayfinding device.” (UC Berkeley, Landscape Master Plan, page 13).

Figure 8: view from Berkeley Hills over campus west towards Golden Gate. Triangle of South Hall, Bacon Library, and North Hall at right center. Beyond Bacon Hall angled light colored pathway—Center Street Path—points towards Golden Gate faintly visible as gap in darker hills in the distance beyond San Francisco Bay. Image circa 1890s. From undated postcard, private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 22 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 22 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

BEAUX ARTS DEVELOPMENT, PRIOR TO THE SATHER CAMPANILE (1900 – 1913/15):

The second major era of campus development was the Beaux Arts period that began at the end of the 19th century with the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Archi- tectural Competition.

Named after the premiere school of architectural design in the world at the time, the Ecole de Beaux Arts in Paris, Beaux Arts design emphasized formal arrangements of buildings and adapting the best architectural elements and characteristics of the Classical past (ancient Greece and Rome) along with the European Renaissance, for modern day buildings and spaces.

The winning Hearst Competition plan was submitted by French architect Emile Benard, who, like most contestants, did not have the opportunity to visit the site during the competition. He thus developed his plans without direct personal reference to the views and aligned his buildings and campus courtyards, thoroughfares, and plazas, with the surrounding street grid.

The Regents adopted Bernard’s plan as the competition winner, but within a short time hired the fourth place winner, New York architect John Galen

Figure 9: Early 1920s view down Campanile Way from steps of Campanile Esplanade. Wheeler Hall on left, Doe Library on right. Pathway in center, Golden Gate in distance. Private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 23 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 23 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Howard, as Supervising Campus Architect. Howard would preside as the primary designer—and architect of record of all campus buildings—until the mid-1920s.

“The core of the Berkeley campus by John Galen Howard is considered to be one of the largest, most complete beaux-arts neoclassical ensembles ever executed in permanent materials in the history of American architecture. As of the 1930s, no other campus in the United States appears to have achieved UC Berkeley's combination of beaux-arts neoclassical architecture set primarily within a picturesque landscape.

The beaux-arts neoclassical style ascended in the United States during the last decade of the 19th Century with the work of such architectural firms as McKim, Mead and White. Soon, the beaux-arts neoclassical style eclipsed all others to reach its first apogee as the primary architectural character of Chicago's 1893 World's Columbian Exposition (the "White City"), where Freder- ick Law Olmsted was the landscape architect. Plans for the Washington Mall followed, and many cities determined the style was an appropriate statement of national - and international - status.

Figure 10: view up Campanile Way from Sather Road, early 1920s. Doe Library on left, Wheeler Hall on right. Note low foundation plantings and young Lon- don pane trees. Photographer unknown. Private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 24 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 24 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 11, above. View up Campanile Way from Sather Road, early 1920s. Fig- ure 12, below. View up Campanile Way, early 1920s. Site of Life Sciences Building on left. Note brick gutters along roadway, and sapling London Plane trees planted in parallel rows on either side of Campanile Way. Both images, postcard views, private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 25 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 25 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 13, above, showing late 1920s aerial view, showing neoclassical “Classi- cal Core” and Campanile Way with young London Plane trees extending to left. Figure 14, below, showing ground level view looking east towards Classical Core. Note saplings of London Plane trees along Campanile Way at right. Both images postcards, undated, private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 26 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 26 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

The beaux-arts neoclassical style utilized plans (known as “partis"), architectural form, and detail prototypes from eras where great economic and political power was manifested in design. The Caesars of Rome and the 17th century French monarchs employed classical typologies driven by strong geometry for their public "personas". For American architects and landscape architects in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the beaux-arts neoclassical style provided a style for both building and site design that expressed America's "coming of age" as a great international power. Grand vistas were often a part of these designs, usually taking the axial form of roads, water features, or "tapis verts" (great expanses of lawn). (emphasis added). (Landscape Her- itage Plan, University of California, Berkeley)

Howard’s successive revisions of the Hearst Plan for the campus essentially abandoned the Bernard plan that was aligned with the street grid, for a return to the Olmsted plan of an axial orientation towards the Golden Gate view.

“Howard conceived of the campus as a unified whole...He articulated the site by a series of smaller, dis- crete wholes: solid, block-like architectural masses set off and monumentalized by earthen and stone platforms...The architectural units were then organized symmetrically along either side of several axes which were inter- locked in turn to form a unified grid.” (Loren Partridge, John Galen Howard and the Berkeley Campus, page 19).

Figure 15: right. Detail from John Galen Howard’s 1914 campus plan. Campanile Way runs top to bottom, through the center. Cam- panile is small square at top.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 27 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 27 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 16: left. Sep- tember 6, 1926, aerial photo showing Campanile Way, running top to bottom, at center. Source: 15th Photo Section, Army Air Corps. Private collection.

Howard defined what he called “two cross-axes, each of which is the central line of a great group of buildings.” (ibid). The axes were the “University Axis” running from today’s Mining Circle west to the Oxford edge of campus and the narrower line of the Center Street Path, which Howard would for- malize as Campanile Way.

“...his Plan established the framework of the future campus form. The two main east-west axes were Campanile Way and the central Glade, with a minor north-south axis along Sather Road.”

(UC Berkeley, Landscape Master Plan, page 9).

Of the early buildings designed by Howard four of the most prominent—Califor- nia Hall, Durant Hall, Doe Library, and Wheeler Hall—were constructed forming a hollow square, flanking the Campanile Way axis between 1903 and 1917. This development filled the four corners of the important Campanile Way / Sather Road intersection, and fully defined the eastern / upper half of Campanile Way, at the end of which Howard sited his dominant bell tower which was completed in 1915.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 28 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 28 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Constructed largely between 1913 and 1915 and completed almost exactly a century ago, the Jane K. Sather Campanile replaced the four decade old Uni- versity flagpole and stood directly in front of the Bacon Hall tower, supplanting that lower, older, building as the tallest and most central structure on the campus at the head of the view corridor.

Howard profoundly appreciated the significance of emphasizing the two view corridors to the west, and adjusted his plan to take complete advantage of them. “Taken as a whole...Howard felt that the site itself conformed naturally to the same universal laws of unity, axiality, symmetry and hierarchy that distinguished the architectural ensemble: ‘the vista eastward upon the main axis is closed in wonderful symmetry by the great hill which uplifts its noble front above the groves. But best of all, the view westwards...is one of absolute re- pose, the lines and masses of the landscape in foreground, middle ground, and distance, group and balance exquisitely about the axis, and conduct the eye as by an index to the Golden Gate’.”

“Howard was delighted with the coincidence that ‘the line of natural cleavage of the University grounds tallied precisely with that visual axis’...Like Olmsted before him, he fully understood the symbolic significance of that coincidence...the vision of the campus as a microcosm of the entire nation on axis with the Golden Gate must have risen to his mind. This axial alignment seems to have had almost cosmic significance for Howard.” (Partridge, page 20-21).

Howard had a strong ally in Benjamin Ide Wheeler, the President of the Univer- sity from 1899 to 1919, who had arrived at the conclusion of the Hearst Compe- tition. “Wheeler and Howard were so completely in accord about the profound significance of the Golden Gate.” (Partridge, page 21). It was Howard who prepared the designs but Wheeler who guided, authorized, and obtained public and private funding for the buildings that resulted. Together, their largely over- lapping two-decade tenures and era, saw Campanile Way completely formalized in largely its present form as one of the two primary view corridors of the campus with both practical and symbolic importance.

Howard began developing landscape and grounds designs in conjunction with his building planning. In the first decade or so of his tenure he prepared specific plans that illustrated the layout and landscape of the future Campanile Way in considerable detail.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 29 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 29 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 18, right. Taken around 1930, this photograph shows the upper end of Campanile Way with Doe Library in the center and South Hall Road in the foreground. Note the pollarded plane trees at left, and the low shrubbery foundation plantings. Source, 1931, “The Book of Berkeley”, Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. Private collection.

Howard defined the basic forms for the roadway / view corridor that it retains today;

• An axial corridor between paired building facades approximately 100 feet wide, crossed at intervals and right angles by other formal roadways and pathways; • a central, symmetrically placed, roadway occupying about one quarter of the width of the corridor, up which one can see the Campanile and the hills, and down which one can see the Golden Gate; • flanking parallel rows of London Plane trees, regularly pollarded and pruned to keep a low profile and uniform form; • flanking buildings set back uniform distances from the center line of the roadway, and “stepped down” from west to east so they appear to descend in terraces, in harmony with the natural topography (this feature was twice partially compromised, in the late 1920s with the height of the Valley Life Sci- ences Building that was taller than structures Howard had projected for that site, and again in the 1990s with a two-floor top addition to the north wing of Dwinelle Hall, which brought Dwinelle’s roof to a similar plane with that of Durant Hall to its east), rather than continuing the earlier plan of “stepping” the building heights down the hillside; • between the plane trees and the building facades, low plantings of shrubs and ground covers, and a few taller, columnar, tree plantings up against the building facades and at the corners of the buildings.

Howard made a few changes to the earlier conditions that dated to the 19th century. He slightly shifted the Center Street Path a few feet south of its origi-

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 30 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 30 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY nal alignment so it would precisely conform to his placement of flanking buildings, removed elements of asymmetrical landscape along it (including at least one low oak tree that was growing within his planned roadbed north of Durant Hall), and created a hard, crowned, roadbed edged with shallow gutters of long red bricks, laid on edge.

Figure 19: above. A view of Campanile Way in the late 1930s from Sarther Tower. The Life Sciences Building has been added at upper right. Lawns, pollarded plane trees and low shrubbery line the pathway. Foundation plantings are up against the walls of the adjacent buildings. Source: Robert Sibley, Cali- fornia Pilgrimage, published 1952.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 31 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 31 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

BEAUX ARTS-COMPATIBLE / CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE CON- STRUCTION OF THE SATHER CAMPANILE (1915 to approximately 1960):

Plans, maps, and photographs show the evolution of this landscape from the 1910s to the 1940s, characterized by few changes in the hardscape—the buildings and roadways remain largely the same—and a gradual maturing of the planted landscape.

The completion of the Campanile, as noted, replaced the flagpole and bell / clock tower at the top of Campanile Way with an even more substantial and handsome bell / clock tower. The construction of the Campanile and its immediate environs also brought pollarded London Plane trees to the campus, first planted by Howard out of stock brought to Berkeley from the grounds of the Panama Pacific International Exposition that closed in December, 1915. Nearly three dozen trees were placed in a grid north of the Campanile on what is now the Campanile Esplanade.

At some point in the next few years Howard matched those original plane tree plantings with the London Plane trees lining Campanile Way. They appear in photographs by the early 1920s, perhaps as soon as half a decade after the Es- planade trees were planted.

Howard used John Gregg, the founder of what would become the Department of Landscape Architecture, as a planting consultant for his designs. Howard would create, and illustrate, a landscape effect he would like to achieve—for example, narrow, columnar, evergreen trees at corners of buildings. Gregg would then help translate the design into planting details and appropriate species. Thus, Gregg, an important designer and teacher in his own right, was also probably a contributor to the landscape plan for Campanile Way.

Aside from narrow, tall, conifers planted right up against the building facades and not ending far into the visual corridor of the Way, Howard’s drawings, and numerous early photographs, emphasize that plantings along Campanile Way were kept relatively low, although perhaps more densely clustered than today. The effect to someone walking along the Way would have been low shrubs and lawn or ground cover right adjacent to the gutters, shading back to taller plantings against the buildings. The plane trees would have been the tallest landscape elements in most of the corridor, and because they were kept pruned low and because of the sloping elevation, one could easily see past and over them to the distant view beyond.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 32 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 32 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

By the middle of the century Campanile Way was well established as a landscape and view corridor. In 1952 Robert Sibley, the Executive Manager of the California Alumni Association, would write in a guide to University “lore and laughter”, that “the view down Campanile Way, past California Hall, Boalt, Wheeler and the Library, and on out through the Golden Gate, is listed in Karl Baedecker’s Guide as one of the world’s great vistas.” (Sibley, California Pil- grimage, 1952). Baedecker Guides were the gold standard, throughout the western world at least, for telling travelers what was important to see, and how to get there. Note that Sibley did not write “the view from the top of the Campanile” but, rather “the view down Campanile Way” itself.

As the century proceeded, the tree and shrub plantings matured. Two new buildings were also added to Campanile Way: what is now the Valley Life Sci- ences Building (circa 1930) at the northwestern end of the Way, and the Doe Annex (more commonly known as the Bancroft Library building today) at the northeastern edge.

Both buildings conformed to Howard’s plans and the general character of Cam- panile Way. Both were set back appropriately, and both placed on sites were Howard had designated future buildings. The Life Sciences Building was done by George Kelham in an architectural style somewhat at variance with the tra- ditional Beaux Arts, but was not unharmonious with it. The Doe Annex, designed by Arthur Brown, Jr. was an exercise in what is sometimes called “stripped neoclassical”, having the basic massing and overall design character of a neoclassical building, but with considerably less decorative detail.

In the mid-1950s a third “new” building, Dwinelle Hall, was added west of Du- rant Hall. It was also set back symmetrically to reinforce the edge of Cam- panile Way, and done in a stripped neoclassical style.

All three structures essentially reinforced the frame for the axial corridor.

A fourth change to Campanile Way during this period was the construction of the first— and, to date, the only—memorial along the Way. This was the Class Gift of the Class of 1940, a landscaped area with an ornamental drinking fountain, placed on the south side of the Way, just outside the northeast entrance to Wheeler Hall. The fountain and adjacent hedge fronted a small, hexagonal, enclosure bordered by a low perimeter bench with a white flowering plum tree planted in the center.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 33 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 33 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

The construction of this Class Gift occurred in the early 1940s and the plum tree can be reliably dated to as early as 1950 (Robert Brentano, personal statement to Steven Finacom); each winter the multi-trunked tree spreads a cloud of white blossoms along the Way.

Figure 20, at left. Cover of student orientation guide for 1952-53, showing view from Campanile Observation deck over Campanile Way. Note plane trees, low plantings and lawns.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 34 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 34 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

THOMAS CHURCH / MODERN ERA (1960 to present):

After World War II, the Berkeley campus burgeoned not only with new buildings but with a rapidly growing enrollment and enlarged faculty and staff. The rise of the au- tomobile era also challenged campus ad- ministrators and planners to devise ways to keep cars from literally overrunning the campus, both as moving, and as parked, vehicles.

In the late 1940s students and the Califor- nia Alumni Association prepared a far-rang- ing study called “Students At Berkeley” (1948) which directly confronted many of the growing pains facing the campus, from an inadequate student union and virtually no University run housing, to overflowing parking demand, to a deteriorated landscape that had necessarily become a low priority during the war years.

In the 1950s the first Chancellor at Berke- ley, Clark Kerr, used this planning effort as a basis for a series of initiatives that evolved into the first Long Range Devel- opment Plan (LRDP) prepared for the Berkeley campus, adopted in 1956, revised in 1958, and replaced by a new version by 1962.

Figure 21, at right. Detail of aerial photograph showing Campanile Way from west, late 1950s. News photograph but exact source of unknown, private collection.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 35 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 35 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

The LDRP’s and associated campus development and new administrative and planning policies brought three major changes that affected Campanile Way:

1. Motor vehicle traffic was restricted on several campus roadways, beginning the transition of Campanile Way from a mixed pedestrian / vehicle thoroughfare to the present, largely pedestrian, orientation of today; 2. Buildings constructed in the 1960s intruded into Olmsted’s major axes and Howard’s “Central Glade” north of Dow Library. Evans Hall and Moffitt Library blocked the previously unobstructed views to the west, leaving Campanile Way as the only un-compromised view corridor towards the Golden Gate; 3. Many campus pathways were widened and plazas enlarged or added to ac- commodate the increased foot traffic that came with a much larger student enrollment.

For Campanile Way, this meant some alterations. These were carried out to the design of Thomas Church, who had been appointed the first Consulting Land- scape Architect for the Berkeley campus.

Church was a prominent designer whose lasting impact came in the form of his work on private gardens. “Church’s design approach combined with the local natural environment and economic climate of the 1930s through the 1970s to lead to the development of what became known as the California style. Church designed gardens primarily for the expanding middle class, both in cities and in the rapidly developing suburbs of the Bay Area...Church’s designs were much publicized...” (http://pdf.oac.cdlib.org/pdf/berkeley/ceda/ church.pdf) However, he also did a number of influential designs for institutional and public spaces, including the Berkeley campus.

For Campanile Way, Church proposed, and the campus accepted, two key interventions. One was a modest plaza that would mediate between the roadway and South Hall Road at the eastern / top end of the Way. This plaza was constructed in the early 1960s and carried over elements of Beaux Arts formalism from the Howard era. It is also, today, the flat podium at the top of the sloping road where many visitors and campus pedestrians—including student tour guides—stop to admire, or point out, the view of the Golden Gate to the west.

The second element was widening the roadway itself. A number of the London Plane trees were surrounded by round planters, with the roadway asphalt spilling out of its earlier, constrained, bed and closer to the buildings in somewhat irregular forms. This development had two impacts on Campanile Way. First, it blurred the previously well- defined formal central roadway; second, it created new hardscape spaces that, instead of being used by pedestrians as Church had intended, were appropriated haphazardly for uses such as parking

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 36 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 36 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY and dumpster storage. It is also likely in this period that many of the earlier plantings were removed and replaced with plants popular with mid-century designers, such as pittosporum shrubs.

(Figure 22, at left. Detail from 1956 Long Range Development Plan, showing Thomas Church landscape con- cepts for the campus. Cam- panile Way at center.)

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 37 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 37 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

The Church changes altered, but did not obliterate the Howard / Gregg design character of Campanile Way. And, most importantly, they did not make it im- possible to restore the earlier character.

The pittosporum plantings, however, did have a major unintended impact on Campanile Way that has temporarily compromised understanding of its design and significance.

In the 1980s, the campus police began emphasizing clearing sight lines for crime prevention. This resulted in the installation of more lighting—an ongoing project today— along with a “pruning up” of shrubs and low trees throughout the campus, so people couldn’t hide within the foliage, near pathways. In addition, from the 1970s onwards the campus landscape maintenance budget was repeatedly cut, meaning that formal Beaux Arts landscaping—which could require frequent pruning and shaping of shrubs and hedges—was allowed to grow out beyond the original bounds intended for it. Thus, Campanile Way between Sather Road and South Hall Road is now lined with an irregular set of shrubs grown into trees, with the foliage cut off the lower sections, but, above that level, allowed to grow taller, unchecked.

This condition has resulted in a narrowing of the Golden Gate view, particularly because of three pittosporum trees adjacent to the northwest entrance to Wheeler Hall. The condition is, however, entirely reversible, either by removing or lowering the unintended “tree” canopy.

Sometime in this era—possibly in the 1960s—two redwood trees were also planted south of Doe Library, along Campanile Way. These were not sited symmetrically and their origin appears undocumented. They could have been sim- ply seedlings that were allowed to grow, as California natives in an environmentally conscious era. However they originated, they do not relate to the formal axial character of Campanile Way, are not historically significant features and also, like the shrubs, unintentionally partially obstruct the westward view as seen from the top of the “Way”.

In the past few years the campus has undertaken a somewhat haphazard and incomplete upkeep of Campanile Way. While some interventions, such as the planting of replacement plane trees in various locations and the addition of historically compatible brick gutters, have continued the original Beaux Arts vision, little effort has been made to manage and shape the overgrown landscape, particularly the shrubs grown into trees in the area between Wheeler Hall and Doe Library. In addition, some utilitarian interventions have been made, such as using Campanile Way as part of construction “lay down” areas, and installing service parking adjacent to or along the roadway.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 38 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 38 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 23, above. Graphic from campus Landscape Master Plan, detailing “formal” and “dynamic” views to be preserved within the campus. Campanile Way view corridor is the pair of double arrows at right, pointing downwards towards Downtown Berkeley. Source: Landscape Master Plan.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 39 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 39 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 24, left.

Detail from Landscape Master Plan, showing illustration from New Century Plan / 2020 LRDP. The illustration is labeled with key features including the two primary John Galen Howard axes of the campus “Central Axis” in the Central Glade, at left, and “Cam- panile Axis” at right.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 40 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 40 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 25. Illustration from the UC Berkeley New Century Plan, showing “views and landmarks”. Note that Campanile Way is demarcated as providing a “Major view from / into campus”, with the arrow extending over the campus edge at Ox- ford Street and Downtown Berkeley, towards the Golden Gate.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 41 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 41 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

PROPOSED DESIGNATION FEATURES: PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Period of Significance of the built / physical Campanile Way is suggested as extending from approximately 1905—when California Hall, the first Beaux Arts building, was constructed adjacent to the Way—to approximately 1960 when alterations were made to the road and landscaping by Thomas Church. The major Church-designed alterations are encompassed in the Period of Significance.

The Period of Significance of this specific roadway as a formal view corridor facing both east and west begins circa 1873 when it was designated on campus maps as a “baseline for buildings” and extends to the present.

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF CAMPANILE WAY THAT SHOULD BE PRESERVED:

1. The presence of a central, linear, roadway, slightly crowned in the center, extending from South Hall Road to the 1908 Bridge, approximately 20-25 feet wide and running straight, without deviation from South Hall Road to north of the center of the Valley Life Sciences Building. At that point the road curves slightly south/southwest in order to intersect with the eastern end of the 1908 Bridge. The curve appears, from early photographs, to mark the point where an original native oak grove of the campus began; thus the road was straight, until it passed into the grove and curved. The one exception to the straight, crowned, roadway evident in some early photographs is the crossing of Sather Road, where the Sather Road surface and sidewalks interrupted Campanile Way, but did not rise above the ground plane.

2. The Tilden Football Players Statue and Class of 1911 marble bench, and associated flagstone pathways, adjoining the south side of the western end of Campanile Way and dating to 1900, 1911, and the 1920s respectively. Red brick gutters (both original, and restored) found intermittently along portions of the roadway, particularly portions of the edges near the Valley Life Sci- ences Building. The gutters are significant not only for their composition, but for their location; they exactly define the Howard-era northern edge of Cam- panile Way.

2. London Plane trees, planted in the first quarter of the 20th century and pollarded (trimmed back annually or semiannually to knobby branch ends). These trees form two parallel rows, flanking the original roadway. There were, originally, probably as many as 40 or more trees, but a number were removed for the eastern plaza and at other points along the Way, and some have died and been replaced with younger specimens of the same species.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 42 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 42 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

3. The Class of 1940 memorial, north of the northeast corner of Wheeler Hall. Significant features include a multi-trunked white flowering plum tree dating to circa 1940, a stone drinking fountain with bronze basin, and a hexagonal arrangement of bench seating around the tree, on original concrete piers.

4. The 1908 Bridge, a single arched, reinforced concrete, structure, including original gutters / drains, and wrought iron railings, each containing a six pointed star reflecting the University’s original emblem.

5. Also in this vicinity, at the base of Campanile Way, is a California coastal redwood tree planted in the 1930s as a memorial commemorating an “en- campment” of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) which was held in Berke- ley, and included a large assembly at then Harmon Gymnasium to the south. This tree has subsequently grown upwards into the view corridor. However, it has accrued historical significance of its own and thus should be considered an unintentional, but permanent, feature affecting the Campanile Way corridor.

Other redwoods along Strawberry Creek to the west of the 1908 Bridge also rise into portions of the view corridor. These redwoods were most likely planted during the 1950s or 1960s in the Thomas Church era—Church favored redwood plantings because he felt their height helped add apparent horizontal dimension to the diminishing landscape of an increasingly densified / developed campus.

However, these particular redwoods also affect the original riparian corridor of lower height trees—principally oaks, buckeyes, and bay laurels—that historically characterize Strawberry Creek. Aside from the GAR tree, they could be removed without impacting the historical significance of Campanile Way.

6. Views: a. East, towards Sather Tower and the undeveloped slope of upper Charter Hill, beyond. The undeveloped character of this hillside is an essential feature of the significance since it allows the natural hill to stand as a backdrop to the Campanile, rather than a site for buildings that would visually compete with the view of the tower to those walking east / up Campanile Way. b. Unobstructed to west, from the ground plane of Campanile Way towards San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate (see additional analysis on page 47). c. Unobstructed, south, along Sather Road, towards Sather Gate;

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 43 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 43 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY d. Unobstructed, north, along Sather Road, across the landscape panel of “Sophomore Lawn” between California Hall and Doe Library, to the southern edge of the original “central glade” area north of Doe Library.

7. Original entrance connections via formal pathway at right angles to Cam- panile Way, between the roadway proper and doorways / entrances to pre-1960s buildings; Durant (Boalt) Hall; California Hall; Doe Library; Wheeler Hall; Valley Life Sciences Building. Although in all cases the paving surface and the constructed entry approaches have been altered, so no original materials appear to be present, the presence of these entrances to five major campus buildings, arranged at right angles to the roadway, emphasizes the formal and central character of not only Campanile Way but the Beaux Arts era on campus. Durant and California Halls each have one entrance; Doe Library has two (one near each corner of the building); Wheeler Hall also has two, also near each corner of the building.

8. A general landscape character of; paved central, linear roadway, connected at right angles to formal building entrances / plazas; two rows of pollarded London Plane trees flanking the roadway on either side; low evergreen shrub plantings and low groundcover plantings between the roadway and a zone extending about 20 feet from the adjacent building facades; intermediate “foundation plantings” of somewhat higher shrubs and narrow, columnar, evergreen trees arranged symmetrically close to the facades and at the corners of some of the buildings.

9.The relationship, at the western / lower end of Campanile Way to two flagstone paths (re-set and refurbished in 2014) that date to the 1920s and align with earlier walkways, the Tilden Football Players statue, installed in 1900, and a small marble memorial bench given to the campus about a decade later, south of the Tilden statue. All of these features—statue, bench, flagstone paths, and Campanile Way—are in the same relationship to each other that they were a century ago, and form an important and historic cluster. The Grand Army of the Republic redwood near the Tilden Statue.

CONTRIBUTING FEATURES

These are features that are harmonious with the historic character of Cam- panile Way, but are not necessarily original features.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 44 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 44 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

1. London Plane trees replacing originals that have died and planted in this (21st) century, situated on the southern side of Campanile Way, south of the Valley Life Sciences Building.

2. Yews, or similar, adjacent to the original south entrances and southeast corner of the Valley Life Sciences Building.

4. California live oak, California buckeye, and bay / laurel trees at the west end of Campanile Way, in the vicinity of the 1908 Bridge, as well as Grand Army of the Republic memorial redwood southwest of Tilden Football Stat- ue. Howard, and other designers, left the natural / native riparian landscape of the Strawberry Creek zone in this area intact. There appears to have been no effort, or design intent, to extend the formal landscape of Campanile Way into the immediate creek zone or the oak grove adjacent to it and around the Tilden statue. The informal plantings and native growth in this area are thus contextual and historic, particularly bay laurel trees and a venerable buckeye immediately up and down stream from the bridge that probably pre-date the establishment of the campus.

5. Replacement wooden bench surfaces (21st century) in the Class of 1940 monument. These are not original, but are generally harmonious with the original character and use of the monument area.

6. Cast stone benches at various points along Campanile Way, including north of Durant Hall and north of Dwinelle Hall. These, presumably added in the 20th century, are generally classical in form and harmonious with the design character of Campanile Way.

7. Two classically styled light fixtures flanking the southeast entrance to Doe Library and apparently dating to the circa 1950 construction of the Doe Annex. These are a light colored metal, possibly aluminum, with lanterns on top.

8. Some elements of the plaza designed by Thomas Church at the top of Campanile Way, immediately west of South Hall Road. This plaza incorporates on its western side two sections of low cast-stone railings in “U” shape with classical balusters, a broad brick staircase descending four steps, to the west and slightly wider than the original Campanile Way, two square planter beds, currently containing small specimens of California Live Oaks, a central lawn panel in lozenge shape with beveled corners (currently containing the campus National Register Multiple Listing plaque), and approximately 52 large squares, and approximately 58 small squares, of aggregate paving, bordered by inter- secting lines of red brick and arranged in a 13 x 8 grid (counting the squares

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 45 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 45 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY within the brick borders). Of these features, the overall presence of a rec- tangular plaza, the railings and general arrangement of the plaza and the use of red / pink brick, light cast stone, and light aggregate paving, and use of three planter beds are significant, expressing as they do the fusion of the Beaux Arts campus design with the work of noted landscape architect Thomas Church.

9. Formal north entrance plaza to Dwinelle Hall sympathetically laid out central to the building façade and at right angles to the Campanile Way roadway, to correspond with the older entrances of other buildings on the Way. This is most probably a Thomas Church design, or at least is similar to, and compatible with, his aggregate / brick plaza at the top of Campanile Way.

10. Circular concrete planters created around several of the London Plane trees at points where the original curb lines of Campanile Way were expanded. These are not original to the Beaux Arts landscape design and generally represent points where the asphalt paved area was widened / expanded around the plane tree rows. However, since these circular planters are apparently part of the late 1950s / early 1960s Thomas Church renovations, of Cam- panile Way, they may have contributing significance as a landscape design by Church; this should be further evaluated.

11. Stairs / entrance plaza at center of south façade of Valley Life Sciences Building. The building originally had only corner entrances on the south. The large staircase and entrance doors in the center of the south façade are a 1980s intervention as part of a revision of circulation spaces within the building. The design is not historic, but it was sympathetically done in the context of Campanile Way and is not incompatible with other building entrances, particularly the north west entrance to Wheeler Hall along Campanile Way which has a similar arrangement of a central staircase to main doors, above a hidden ground level / basement entrance accessible by pathway around either side of the staircase.

NON-SIGNIFICANT / NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES:

These are features that are either not historically significant, and/or visually / physically detract from the historically significant features and character of Campanile Way. They could be removed / replaced / altered without affecting the historic significance. In several cases, removal would result in enhancement of the historic character of Campanile Way.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 46 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 46 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

1. Current paving surface of Campanile Way, asphalt, added from the mid-20th century onwards. (by non-significant, in this context, it is meant that the paving could be partially or entirely replaced with new paving / pavers in a historically contextual style, without impact on the historic character of Campanile Way. It is not suggested that the roadway be returned to its original surface of packed earth / gravel).

2. Two coastal redwood trees south of Doe Library and north of the roadway, planted asymmetrically. Other coastal redwoods adjacent to the 1908 Bridge.

3. Pittosporum species and other existing shrub and perennial plantings between Campanile Way and the facades of the adjacent buildings, except inas- much as the use of low foundation plantings of evergreen shrubs is characteristic with the original Howard / Gregg treatment of these spaces

4. One London Plane tree sapling just east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Sather Road and Campanile Way. This was planted in the past three years to replace an original London Plane that died. However, the new tree was situated too far to the south, interrupting the linear arrangement of the allee.

5. The Dwinelle parking lot, south of Campanile Way.

6. Smaller parking areas, formal and informal, along Campanile Way, particularly in the zone between Doe Library and Wheeler Hall were a number of parking spaces for service vehicles and senior campus staff / visiting dignitaries have been carved out in what were originally landscaped areas. (Campus plans stated that these parking spaces are intended to be replaced with a single service court north of / adjacent to South Hall, but when that court—also a non- contributing feature—was constructed, unfortunately some of the “street” parking remained);

7. Utility covers, including access holes and large metal gratings and plates, situated at various points along or adjacent to the roadway.

8. The use of portions of the perimeter of Campanile Way (particularly adjacent to the southwest corner entrance of Wheeler Hall, and west of the southwest emergency exit to Doe Library) for storage of unscreened dumpsters, recycling bins, and similar items.

9. A square, concrete, planter around an oak tree between Campanile Way and the Tilden Football statue. This was constructed at the time of the Valley

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 47 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 47 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Life Sciences Addition in the 1980s, and is inconsistent in setting and design with the historic character of Campanile Way;

10.The service court / loading dock for the Valley Life Sciences Addition adjacent to the 1908 Bridge.

11. The modern sunken plaza west of Durant Hall, added in the 21st century adjacent to a new entry to the building basement level, including a concrete wall that extends northeast to Campanile Way.

Defining Campanile Way View Corridor Impacts Based on Building Heights (supplement to Significant Views, on page 42):

Campanile Way is a hybrid historical resource in that part of its character de- rives from its physical structure—the roadway and associated landscape itself— and part from a historic view shed extending over and far west from the actual physical “Way” to the Golden Gate and the Pacific Ocean beyond.

These two features cannot be separated. Campanile Way is both physical roadway / landscape corridor, and view corridor. The historical and cultural significance of Campanile Way would be compromised, and possibly lost, if buildings were erected in the Way or west of it to a height that would obscure the views of San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate.

Because of this character, a further examination of the nature of the view shed to the west is in order.

The view shed can be conceptualized as a volume of air space beginning at the top of the steps west of the Campanile and extending west to San Francisco Bay, the Golden Gate, and the Pacific Ocean. At its campus apex, the view shed is only a few dozens of feet wide—not much wider than the steps themselves. As it extends to the west it widens to a zone some hundreds of feet wide as it passes beyond the campus. The “bottom” or base of the view shed is the roadway and adjacent landscaping of Campanile Way itself on the campus; beyond the campus, it is the roofs and trees of developed Berkeley which currently visually lie below the horizontal plane of San Francisco Bay.

The “sides” of the view shed are defined on campus by the vertical walls of campus buildings that flank Campanile Way and west of campus by a visual ex- tension of those physical walls.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 48 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 48 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Calculating appropriate heights below the view shed off the UC Berkeley campus:

The edge of the UC Berkeley campus is at Oxford Street, where Downtown Berkeley begins.

To the west of Oxford there are two blocks of primarily privately owned properties then extend west along Allston Way in the view corridor to Milvia Street. Beyond Milvia Street the property is owned by the City of Berkeley (on the north) and by the Berkeley Unified School District (on the south). These public properties extend one block west to Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, making the distance between Oxford Street and MLK, Jr. Way three blocks eat to west.

West of MLK, Jr. Way zoning heights are considerably reduced, extending west to the Bay. The land continues to slope westwards to the Bay across many blocks of developed Berkeley, descending some 200 feet in elevation over a distance of more than two miles.

This area remains part of the historic view shed is of less current concern since buildings erected in it would have to rise well over 100 feet to significantly impact the viewshed, and buildings of that height are generally not allowed by the area’s current zoning.

The area of greatest concern regarding view impacts on the Campanile Way view shed is approximately one block wide and two blocks long, running east to west between Oxford Street and Milvia Street. Here, City of Berkeley zoning height allowances are tall enough for new buildings to extend upwards into, and compromise, the view corridor.

North to south, this zone begins at 2150 Shattuck (the so-called “Skydeck Build- ing” at the southwest corner of Center and Shattuck) and extends south about one block to the middle of the 2200 block of Shattuck, north of Kittridge Street.

The “Skydeck” Building is visible at the northern edge of the Campanile Way view corridor, beyond and above the Valley Life Sciences Building, but is also situated just far enough to the north to avoid having a significant impact on the remaining view corridor.

Properties fronting on the north and south sides of Allston Way between Oxford and Milvia lie primarily, but not necessarily fully, in the view corridor. On the south, for example, the view shed extends partially across the north/south line of the Shattuck Hotel, but not fully to Kittredge Street.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 49 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 49 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

On the western edge of the Downtown portion of the view corridor, the Berke- ley Community Theater on the Berkeley High School campus provides a useful datum point. As viewed from the steps west of the Campanile at the top of Campanile Way, it is prominently visible as a white bar on the landscape, and its flat roof lies approximately just below the western edge of San Francisco Bay.

For the purposes of this landmark application, the height of the Community Theater is estimated to be 80 feet, or about eight floors. (This should be con- firmed by actual measurement).

Approximate elevations of street datum points, overall, based on USGS topographic maps:

Campanile Steps: approximately 250 feet above sea level. Oxford, at campus edge: approximately 200 feet above sea level. Berkeley Community Theatre: approximately 180 feet above sea level. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, at western edge of Berkeley High School: approximately 175 feet above sea level.

Thus, there is a drop in elevation of approximately 75 feet (250 - 175) between the steps of the Campanile and the western edge of the “highrise” building zone in Downtown Berkeley.

About 50 feet of that elevation drop are on the UC Berkeley campus itself, within a zone that is generally not planned or proposed for high-rise development. However, on the campus, if areas north of or at the north end of Edwards Track Stadium / Hellman Tennis Stadium were developed with tall buildings, these would intrude into the view shed immediately below Campanile Way.

Within Downtown Berkeley itself, there is a drop of approximately 25 feet (200 minus 175) between Oxford Street and the western edge of the Downtown at MLK, Jr. Way.

Thus, from the viewpoint of the Campanile steps, a building 100 feet high at MLK, Jr. Way would appear about the same height as a building 75 feet high at Oxford Street.

There is some flexibility in evaluating height impacts since the lower portion of the Bay, visible from Campanile Way, might be slightly intruded upon by a tall

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 50 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 50 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY building rising below the view corridor without major detrimental effect as long as two factors apply:

1. the top of the building is neutrally colored, detailed, and left unlighted in such a way as to blend into the urban landscape and not dramatically stand out on the skyline, or glaringly reflect or project light, as visible from the Campanile steps; 2. the top of the building does not extend to obscure more than about 1/4 of the visible Bay, between the the horizon of the ocean below the Golden Gate Bridge, In this respect, it is of critical importance that enough visible expanse of Bay survive in the view shed below the Golden Gate Bridge so that the bridge and its adjacent headlands are clearly visible as rising above the expanse of the Bay, not “rising” out of the roofs of Downtown Berkeley buildings.

Based on all of these factors, a building of about 80 feet in height on the western edge of Oxford Street in the view corridor would be the maximum height that could be proposed without a significant intrusion into the view shed and impact on the historic view down Campanile Way.

Similarly, a building of about 100 feet on the eastern edge of Martin Luther King, Jr., Way within the view corridor would be the approximate maximum height that could be built without beginning to cause a significant view impact.

Approximately midway between these two points, a building about 90 feet on the west side of Shattuck Avenue within the view corridor would be about the maximum height that could be achieved without beginning to significantly intrude into the view corridor.

All of these numbers should be subject to actual verification and view studies since the numbers here are based on topographic maps and building height estimates, not exact measured figures. However, for the purposes of this application, the existing buildings referenced should be used as the reference points, regardless of their exact height. These estimates assume the height given in planning documents is the visible height of an actual building. The City of Berkeley uses a standard of assuming building “height” is actually to the roof plane, below parapet level. This means that portions of a visible building structure extend well beyond its City-calculated “height”. In Downtown Berkeley, the three high-rises so far proposed are, according to the City, 180 feet “high”, while according to actual measurement and their architects they are about 194 high, including all the structures (penthouses, etc.) above the roof. The estimates in this application are based on actual height, not “zoning height” as the City currently defines it.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 51 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 51 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Significance: Campanile Way is significant in three respects: 1. As one of the earliest designed landscape features of Berkeley (dating to 1873), and as an integral part and connecting landscape / circulation / ornamental element of the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley campus; 2. As a world-famous formal view corridor, both to the west and to the east, oriented on an axis passing through the Golden Gate; 3. As the work of nationally important designers, including John Galen Howard, Lawrence Halprin, and Thomas Church. The Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (Section 3.24.110) lists the following criteria which the commission shall use when considering structures, sites and areas for landmark designation:

1. Architectural merit:

a. Property that is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the region;

b. Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder; c. Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

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

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

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

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 52 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 52 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

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

The following elements of these criteria are relevant to Campanile Way.

1b) Architectural Merit: Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder.

Consistent with National Register criterion C (architecture) the classical core of the UC Berkeley Campus, designed and constructed in accordance with a number of plans particularly the University’s 1914 Master Plan as an example of the Beaux Arts campus architectural style designed by preeminent Supervising Campus Architect John Galen Howard within the period of 1897 through 1924. Campanile Way is significant as a essential and original landscape element and exterior space within the Classical Core and a feature that predates construction of all the Classical Core buildings and guided / shaped their site placement.

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

Consistent with National Register criterion A (events) Campanile Way is associated with the development patterns of the University of California Berkeley campus, the first federal land grant public university in the state of California; beginning with the picturesque framework established in the 1860s by Freder- ick Law Olmsted, overlaid with the dominant classical forms and axes of the Phoebe Hearst Architectural Plan by Benard and John Galen Howard’s master plan of 1914, and interlaced with the modern interventions of Thomas Church in the mid-Twentieth Century.

Additionally, Campanile Way is significant as a gathering point and cherished campus view corridor since the 19th century for multiple generations of Univer- sity of California students, staff, faculty, and visitors.

No day passes without campus users pausing at the top of Campanile Way and looking to the west at the Golden Gate view framed by the “Way”. Campus tours for new students and visitors traditionally visit this site to orient participants to the history and setting of the campus.

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

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 53 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 53 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Consistent with the UC Berkeley Campus Multiple Resource Area listing in the National Register for its association with architecture and events, it is presumed that Campanile Way would be eligible for listing as a City landmark for its architectural merit and cultural value as a historical landscape element within the original core of the permanent campus of the first State University in California, running east-west on axis with the Golden Gate, and along which the buildings are grouped and sited in accordance with the first official plan for the Berkeley campus, the Phoebe Hearst Architectural Plan in the version adopted by the Regents in 1914.

Historic Value: National; State; County; City; Neighborhood.

Architectural Value: National; State; County; City; Neighborhood.

(17) Is the property endangered? Yes, in part. Physical features of Cam- panile Way have been eroded by placement of utilitarian features such as loading zones; some plantings are incomplete and/or overgrown, and have deteriorated. These are reversible conditions.

The incomparable viewshed to the west that occasioned the creation of the Way in the 1870s is endangered by the possible obstruction from poorly planned and sited development in Downtown Berkeley; this is avoidable.

(18) Photographs: Incorporated in text or attached below. Numbered con- secutively as figures. (19)Bibliography: Incorporated by reference to sources in application text. (20)Recorder: Steven Finacom. Organization: (21)Date: Final December 7, 2017.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 54 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 54 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ILLUSTRATION APPENDIX:

Section 1: Additional Historic Images not included in text above.

Figure 26: Photograph from the 1916 Blue and gold yearbook, taken no later than Spring, 1915. It shows in unusual detail the path of Campanile Way, between Doe Library (at right) and the site of Wheeler Hall (left). The slightly crowned, hard-surface, road with slight gutters to either side runs west and downhill towards Strawberry Creek’s riparian corridor, which is faintly visible as lighter colored trees at top center of the photograph.

This photograph would have been taken before Howard cleared miscellaneous 19th century plantings including shrubs and small trees and ivy ground cover from along Campanile Way and formalized plantings of London Plane trees and lawns.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 55 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 55 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 27: This 1935 aerial photo shows Campanile Way at center, after construction of the Life Sciences Building at center left. At bottom is the irregular riparian corridor of Strawberry Creek, which crosses Campanile Way and marks the end of the formal roadway. The riparian corridor predates Cam- panile Way, always formed the western border, and was retained by John Galen Howard since the mature native trees grew low enough to lie below the view of the Golden Gate and Bay. (Clyde Sunderland photograph, private collection).

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 56 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 56 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 28: view shed, showing relationship of lower Campanile Way to Down- town Berkeley and view corridor towards the Golden Gate. The large white building at center is the Berkeley Community Theater. Use it for reference when examining the following images. (S. Finacom photograph, 2014).

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 57 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 57 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 29: close-up view of Downtown Berkeley. Note Community Theater at rear Center. Roof of Dwinelle Hall at lower left, Valley Life Sciences Building at lower right; Campanile Way lies between the two. The view corridor towards the Golden Gate between one half and one block wide as it passes over the Downtown. (S. Finacom photograph, 2014).

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 58 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 58 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 30, above: A composite view from “Google Earth” showing the Down- town from the Campanile Way view corridor, with the Golden Gate in the distance. (Google Earth, 2017). Figure 31, below: detail view down Campanile Way of Golden Gate, from base of Campanile tower. Community Theatre roof is the horizontal white building at lower center. (S. Finacom photograph).

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 59 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 59 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

Figure 32: view looking east, in Downtown Berkeley, up Allston Way towards Shattuck Avenue and the Campanile Way view corridor. Photograph is from steps of Main Post Office. Campanile tower visible center left, to left of flag and above brick wall (2190 Shattuck Avenue). (S. Finacom photograph)

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 60 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 60 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 61 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 61 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 62 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 62 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 63 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 63 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 64 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 64 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 65 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 65 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A - ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 01-04-18 Page 66 of 66

FINAL APPLICATION.12.2017 66 of 66 CAMPANILE WAY

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5.A LPC 01-04-18 L ANDMARKS P RESERVATION C OMMISSION Staff Report

FOR COMMISSION ACTION JANUARY 4, 2018

Campanile Way (UC campus) and View Corridor Landmark Initiation application (#LMIN2017-0006) for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a site on the UC campus and air space within Berkeley.

I. Application Basics

A. Land Use Zoning Designations: • R-5 and R-5H – High Density Residential, Hillside Overlay • C-D/MU – Downtown Commercial/Mixed Use

B. CEQA Determination: pending

C. Parties Involved:

• Initiated by: Petition of Residents

• Application Author: Steven Finacom

• Property Owners: Regents of the University of California c/o Real Estate Services 1111 Franklin Street, #6 Oakland, CA 94607

All others listed in Attachment 1

1947 Center Street, 2nd Fl., Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2a 2301 BANCROFT WAY; CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page 2 of 5 January 4, 2018

II. Landmark application and timeline

On September 7, 2017, Landmarks Preservation Commissioner Steven Finacom submitted a letter accompanied by the signatures of 56 persons identifying themselves as Berkeley residents requesting that the Commission initiate Landmark designation consideration of Campanile Way. This initiation petition was submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO)/Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.120. In his correspondences provided to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) on September 7, 2017, Finacom defined Campanile Way as:

The roadway and landscape features between the facades of the adjacent buildings (including Doe Library, the Library Annex/ Bancroft Library, Wheeler Hall, Durant Hall, California Hall, Dwinelle Hall, and the Valley Life Sciences Building/ Life Sciences Building Addition). It also includes a historic view corridor projecting from and above the Way towards San Francisco Bay, extending to the Golden Gate between. It also includes portions of South Hall Road and Sather Road and various pathways where they cross Campanile Way.

Campanile Way is a path located on the UC Berkeley campus; the property address for the UC campus is 2301 Bancroft Way/2594 Hearst Avenue, APN 057-2042-004-10.

On October 16, 2017 staff sent a letter to the Regents of the University of California, informing them of the initiation petition and anticipated public hearing to occur not less than 70 days after the petition was received, in accordance with LPO/BMC Section 3.24.130. At that time, only the UC campus property was known to be subject of the Landmark petition.

In accordance with LPO/BMC Section 3.24.140, staff mailed and posted notice of the November 2, 2017, LPC hearing on October 23, 2017, to the UC Regents and properties owners and residents within a 300-ft. radius of the site. On November 2, 2017, the LPC opened the hearing on this matter in accordance with the LPO/BMC; however, the item was continued without discussion because no application materials had been submitted or evaluated.

On December 7, 2017, Steven Finacom submitted a Landmark application for consideration; please see Attachment 2 of this report. Upon initial review of the application, staff recognized that the scope of the designation request could potentially affect areas of the city beyond the UC campus. Therefore, on December 22, 2017, staff sent a letter to the property owners within the Landmark application’s “area of greatest concern (page 48 of Attachment 2)”, informing them of the Landmark application and public hearing scheduled for January 4, 2018. The area is identified in Figure 1, below.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2a LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2301 BANCROFT WAY; CAMPANILE WAY January 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5

Figure 1: Four-block area within Downtown

Campanile Way

Downtown

At this time, review of this Landmark application is still underway, and other potentially affected properties may be identified.

On December 22, 2017, staff mailed and posted notices of the January 4, 2018 LPC hearing in accordance with LPO/BMC requirements. Notices were posted on UC campus and within a four-block area of Downtown; notices were mailed to all property owners listed in Attachment 1 of this report as well as to the UC Regents, and to residents and owners within 300-ft. of the UC campus and the four-block area of Downtown.

III. Background – previous denial of Campanile Way

The Campanile way has been the subject of a previous review by the Commission. On April 2, 2015, the Commission voted to deny a similar petition request to designate Campanile Way as a City Landmark after holding a hearing during which 40 persons testified. The decision to deny the request was subsequently appealed to City Council. On June 30, 2015, Council held a hearing on the matter but failed to act on the appeal, thereby upholding the LPC’s decision to deny the designation. The June 30, 2015 City Council staff report is available on the Council’s website, linked here as Agenda Item #26: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2015/06_Jun/City_Council__06-30-2015_- _Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2a 2301 BANCROFT WAY; CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page 4 of 5 January 4, 2018

Once a denial has occurred, the provisions of LPO/BMC Section 3.24.170 prescribe a waiting period of not less than two years before which the same application, or a substantially similar application, can be submitted as a new consideration. In this case, Berkeley residents submitted the current Landmark designation request by petition on September 7, 2017, which is approximately two years and two months after the Council denial of the Campanile Way designation in June 2015.

IV. Pending Landmark application evaluation

The Landmark application for the current consideration arrived on December 7, 2017, and is still under review. At this time, staff has not determined whether the application is complete with respect to the minimum application requirements.

Staff generally requests at least two weeks to determine whether a Landmark application is complete. However, this application arrived less than two weeks in advance of the necessary completion date for this staff report. As result, no information or analysis could be prepared for this meeting, and the following aspects of the City’s review are pending at this time: • Determination of application completeness • Clarification of the scope of the designation • Identification of all properties beyond the UC campus that would be the subject of the designation request • Notification to all potentially affected property owners • Outreach to interested parties and stakeholders • Evaluation of LPO criteria for designation • Determination of compliance with the requirements of CEQA • Analysis of applicability of other State regulations, such as the Housing Accountability Act and density bonus law

Once a complete Landmark application is received, at least four weeks are required to evaluate the proposed historic resource, to arrive at a recommendation for Commission action, and to prepare for the requisite hearing (in accordance with noticing provisions of the LPO/BMC). Until this application is found to be complete, and analysis conducted, a fully informed discussion cannot be held and a future hearing cannot be set.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission open the hearing in accordance with LPO/BMC Section 3.24.130, and then continue the matter without discussion off calendar. The Commission is strongly advised to withhold deliberation until all potentially affected property owners can be identified and then provided notice of this consideration, in accordance with LPO/BMC Section 3.24.140.B.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2a LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2301 BANCROFT WAY; CAMPANILE WAY January 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5

V. Recommendation

In order to allow for processing and evaluating the Landmark application for this consideration, staff recommends that the Commission open the public hearing on this matter in accordance with LPO/BMC Section 3.24.130, and then continue the hearing without discussion to a date yet to be determined.

Attachments: 1. Mailing List of 32 Berkeley Property Owners, compiled December 19, 2017 2. Landmark application, received December 7, 2017 3. Correspondence received

Prepared by: Fatema Crane, Senior Planner, [email protected]; 510-981-7413

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2a ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 Page 1 of 48

Office of the City Manager PUBLIC HEARING June 30, 2015

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Christine Daniel, City Manager Submitted by: Eric Angstadt, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: LPC Appeal: Campanile Way, UC Berkeley

RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt a Resolution affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) decision to decline the Landmark Application (LMIN2014-0005) for Campanile Way, located on the UC Berkeley Campus.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At its November 6, 2014 meeting the LPC reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project. A motion was made (Wagley, Pietras) that the Draft EIR was deficient because the view corridor from the Campanile to the Golden Gate should be considered as a historical resource that is impacted by the project and alternatives should be provided for its preservation (6-1-1-0; Yes: Belser, Brown, Hall, Linvill, Pietras, Wagley No: Schwartz; Abstain: Beil; Absent: None). The motion, along with commissioner and public comments, were submitted as comments addressed in the Response to Comments document.

On November 25, 2014 a Landmark Initiation for Campanile Way roadway and environs was submitted by at least fifty residents of the City. Pursuant to Section 3.24.130 the public hearing was set in January within seventy days of the initiation. Absent an application, the item was continued to February and March, and finally to April 2, 2015 to allow for review of the application submitted at the end of February. After opening the public hearing, the Commission approved a motion to decline the application for City of Berkeley landmark designation of the Campanile Way roadway and environs by a vote of 5-3-1-0 (Yes: Beil, Canavan, Dominguez, Schwartz, Sucyznski Smith; No: Hall, Linvill, Wagley; Abstain: Belser; Absent: None).

On April 22, 2015 an appeal letter of the LPC decision was submitted by the verified application of at least fifty residents aggrieved or affected by the decision (Attachment 2). BMC Section 3.24.190 allows the Council to review any action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in approving or declining an application for City of Berkeley

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/managerITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 LPC Appeal: Campanile Way, UC Berkeley PUBLICPage HEARING 2 of 48 June 30, 2015

landmark designation within 15 days from the mailing of the Notice of Decision. At the May 12, 2015 Council meeting, the Council moved the Information Item to Action and then set the matter for a hearing on June 30, 2015.

BACKGROUND At its meeting of April 2, 2015, the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) considered the landmark application and supporting information. The staff report reviewing the application noted that the property itself is a recognized historical resource under the stewardship of UC Berkeley, and development within the view falls under the Downtown Area Plan policies. Refer to the attached Commission report for further information (Attachment 3). The Commission heard testimony from approximately 30 members of the public in favor of and ten against designating the roadway including unobstructed views west. UC Berkeley Assistant Vice Chancellor for Physical and Environmental Planning, Emily Marthinsen, stated that campus planning documents are not intended to oppose Downtown development projects, that the University treats Campanile Way as an historical urban corridor with continually evolving westward views, and that there are currently no official plans to remove trees within those views.

The Commissioner opening the discussion noted that it is clear from visiting the site that views from the base of the Campanile are already significantly obstructed by trees on the campus. He expressed concern that the landmark application was submitted in reaction to a high-rise project proposed along Allston Way, stating further that the project as originally proposed would only enter into the view from the northern side of the Campanile steps, and that the project applicant has been working to modify the design in response to concerns about potential changes to that view. The Commissioner also noted that the landmark designation of the Rose Garden includes reference to sweeping views that have been encroached on over the years due to changes on private property. Several Commissioners noted that Campanile Way should be landmarked because of its importance to the community. Still others stated that while Campanile Way itself is significant, views west from Campanile Way to the Golden Gate have already changed over time, and that the definition of the views in the landmark application as “features to be preserved” as well as the implications of that definition were not clear.

The Commission then voted to decline the application for City of Berkeley landmark designation of the Campanile Way roadway and environs by a vote of 5-3-1-0 (Yes: Beil, Canavan, Dominguez, Schwartz, Sucyznski Smith; No: Hall, Linvill, Wagley; Abstain: Belser; Absent: None).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The Landmarks Preservation Commission decision supports Downtown Area Plan goals to encourage downtown development with high intensities close to transit.

Page 2 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 LPC Appeal: Campanile Way, UC Berkeley PUBLICPage HEARING 3 of 48 June 30, 2015

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The issues raised in the appeal, and staff’s responses, are as follows. For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are not re-stated in their entirety; please refer to the attached appeal letter for full text.

Issue 1: Current Historical Resource Status

The appellants contend that Campanile Way is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is therefore not a currently designated historical resource under this category.

Response 1: The staff report stated that The UC Berkeley Campus was listed on the National Register as a Multiple Resource Area in 1982, and Campanile Way and Esplanade were included within the Campus as a Group of Buildings and Their Landscaped Settings: Sather Tower and the Esplanade; South Hall; Wheeler hall; Durant Hall; Doe Memorial Library; and California Hall. The description for this group (NRHP Nomination Form, Continuation Sheet; Item Number 7; Page 7) includes this language:

“The original campus nucleus is definable as a district bounded on the east by the roadway running along the eastern edge of the Sather Gate Esplanade, on the north by University Drive, on the south by Sather Gate and Bridge and the roadway leading eastward by Wheeler, South Hall, and along the southern edge of the Esplanade. Campanile Way bisects the district … All the buildings are sited on graded earth platforms so that they rest on one level even though the site slopes downward from east to west.”

Further on in the nomination (Item Number 7; Page 12) the Esplanade is described:

“The Tower is set on a raised podium with Classical balustrades around the corners called the Esplanade. It is edged on 3 sides with hedges, extends north, and has 3 flights of steps on its raised sides.”

Because Campanile Way is part of the specific site, called out in the description of the Campanile Way and Esplanade Group of Buildings and Their Landscaped Setting as bisecting the district and sloping downward from east to west, it is logical for the Commission to conclude that Campanile Way is included within the 1982 National Register listing of The UC Berkeley Campus. Because the flight of steps is included in the description of the Esplanade, the steps leading to Campanile Way are also included in the listing.

Page 3 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 LPC Appeal: Campanile Way, UC Berkeley PUBLICPage HEARING 4 of 48 June 30, 2015

Campanile Way is located on the UC Berkeley Campus, and although the University is constitutionally exempt from local regulations when using its property for educational purposes, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), both historical resources which have been listed on the National Register and those which have been found eligible for listing are considered significant in reviewing projects. The UC Berkeley Landscape Heritage Plan found that apart from its architectural and academic legacy, the Classical Core’s cultural landscape appears eligible for the National Register under all three National Register Criterion.

Issue 2: Newly Appointed Commissioners

The appellants contend that the two newly appointed Landmarks Commissioners voting in the affirmative were not necessarily familiar with the record of previous hearings and discussions on the application.

Response 2: The staff report and materials provided to the new Commissioners included a full chronology and complete record of the landmark initiation and application process for the property. It is incumbent upon the Commissioners to review the record prior to considering and voting on the merits of a landmark application.

Issue 3: Discussion Deviated From Established Procedure

Stating that Commissioners are not supposed to consider potential project impacts on historic resources when examining landmark applications, the appellants contend that Commissioners who voted in the affirmative to decline the application made discussion of the 2211 Harold Way project the centerpiece of their statements, counter to established procedures.

Response 3: Commission discussion was centered on weighing the merits of the landmark application; including a description of the particular features that should be preserved. While the majority of the features proposed to be preserved, such as the roadway, gutters, statue, plane trees, class memorial, and bridge, are located on the site; one character-defining feature: the unobstructed views west from the ground plan of Campanile Way towards San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate; is not located on the site. The Commission noted that the specific location of this view feature was not clearly defined in the application, but would clearly extend out over Downtown Berkeley where the Downtown Area Plan goals and policies plan for infill high-rise housing.

Issue 4: Commissioners Asserted Facts Not Included In Vote

Page 4 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 LPC Appeal: Campanile Way, UC Berkeley PUBLICPage HEARING 5 of 48 June 30, 2015

The appellants contend that Commissioners’ statements that they did not agree that the 2211 Harold Way project would intrude into the views west from Campanile Way contradicted the Draft EIR analysis for that project. The appellants further contend that these statements contradict a previous motion the LPC made while commenting on the Draft EIR, which recommended the view be considered as a historic resource.

Response 4: Commissioners’ statements focused on the merits of designating Campanile Way in order to preserve views west, while they observed from the site that Campus trees already intrude into the views. The November LPC motion was a comment on the Draft EIR for the project, recommending the view west be considered as a historic resource and project alternatives to lessen view impacts be provided. In the April decision, the Commission considered the merits of the City landmark application for Campanile Way, and declined the application, based on the entirety of the record, including the Commission’s recognition of its documented status as a historic resource within UC Berkeley planning documents, and the vague definition of unobstructed views west in the landmark application as features to be preserved.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.B, the Council may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or modify any decision, determination or requirement of the Commission, and may make decisions or determinations such as the facts warrant. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.C, the Council must decide the appeal within thirty (30) days from the date that the public hearing on the appeal is opened (not including Council recess). If the Council is unable to act on such appeal within such time, the decision of the Commission shall be automatically affirmed and the appeal shall be deemed denied.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Additional staff time would be required to prepare the necessary reports.

CONTACT PERSON Eric Angstadt, Director of Planning and Development, (510) 981-7401 Sally Zarnowitz, Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, (510) 981-7429

Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Appeal Letter 3. LPC Staff Report 4. Index 5. Administrative Record 6. Public Hearing Notice

Page 5 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 Page 6 of 48

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S

AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DISAPPROVE LANDMARK APPLICATION LMIN2014-0005 TO DESIGNATE CAMPANILE WAY, LOCATED ON THE UC BERKELEY CAMPUS, AS A CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARK

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, the Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project, including the Historic Resources Technical Report; and

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2014, a Landmark Initiation for the Campanile Way roadway and environs was submitted by at least fifty residents of the City; and

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Landmarks Preservation Commission opened a public hearing pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.130 and continued the item to the February and then March meetings due to the absence of a complete application; and

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, a complete Landmark Designation Application was submitted to the City; and

WHEREAS, on March 5, 2015, the Landmarks Preservation Commission reopened the public hearing and continued the item to the April meeting in order to allow consideration; and

WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing and disapproved the landmark application to designate the property as a City of Berkeley Landmark; and

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2015, the City issued a Notice of Decision regarding the disapproval of the designation; and

WHEREAS, on April 22, 2015, at least fifty residents of the City submitted an appeal letter by Steven Finacom and filed an appeal of the Commission decision with the City Clerk; and

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the City Council set the item for public hearing on June 30, 2015; and

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2015, the Council considered the record of the proceedings before the Commission, the staff report, and correspondence presented to the Council.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby affirms the decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to disapprove Landmark Application LMIN2014-0005.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 1 of7 of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 2 of8 of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 3 of9 of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 4 10 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 5 11 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 6 12 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 7 13 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 8 14 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 9 15 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 10 16 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 11 17 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 12 18 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 13 19 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 14 20 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 15 21 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 16 22 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 17 23 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 18 24 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 19 25 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 20 26 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 21 27 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 22 28 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 23 29 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 24 30 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 25 31 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 26 32 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 2 - AppealATTACHMENT Lette 2r LPC 11-02-17 PagePage 27 33 of of 27 48

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 L ANDMARKSPagePage 1 34 of of 11 48 P RESERVATION C OMMISSION Staff Report

FOR COMMISSION ACTION APRIL 2, 2015 Campanile Way, UC Berkeley Campus Consideration of City of Berkeley, Landmark designation

I. Application Basics

A. Land Use Designation: General Plan: Institutional

B. CEQA Determination: The designation qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15061 of the Public Resources Code, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

C. Parties Involved:

Designation Initiation: Application of Residents

Property Owner: Regents of the University of California 1111 Franklin Street, FL 6 Oakland, CA 94607

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPagePage COMMISSION 2 35 of of 11 48 Page 2 of 11 April 2, 2015

Figure 1: Campanile Way and Surrounding Landmarks

Figure 2: Campanile Way, the UC Berkeley Campus, and Surroundings

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION PageCAMPANILEPage 3 36 of of 11 48WAY April 2, 2015 Page 3 of 11

I. Background

At the November 6, 2014 LPC meeting the LPC reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project, including the Historic Resources Technical Report (HRTR) http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _ZAB/Draft%20EIR_Appendix_part3.pdf .

During the public comment period on the Draft EIR, community members raised concerns about potential impacts of the high-rise project to views from Campanile Way. The DEIR included the consideration of potential impacts to the views from Campanile Way under Cultural Resources. The Draft EIR identifies Campanile Way as a contributor to the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley Campus and therefore as a historical resource whose views are character-defining features, finding that the project would introduce new construction into the view, but not destroy it; in particular the formal view, from the center of the base of the Campanile, over the City below. As a result, the analysis found that impacts would be less than significant, and as such no mitigation measures were identified (CR-3).

During the Commission discussion on the Draft EIR, including potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid those impacts, a community member suggested the Commission declare the view itself a historical resource, separate from Campanile Way and the Campus. A motion was made (Wagley, Pietras) that the Draft EIR was deficient because the view corridor from the Campanile to the Golden Gate should be considered a historical resource that is impacted by the project and alternatives should be provided for its preservation (6-1-1-0; Nay: Schwartz, Abstain: Beil). The motion, along with commissioner and public comments, were submitted as comments to be addressed in the Response to Comments document.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPagePage COMMISSION 4 37 of of 11 48 Page 4 of 11 April 2, 2015

Table 1: Project Chronology

Date Action November 25,2014 Landmark Initiation Application Submitted by at Least Fifty Residents of the City December 10, 2014 Property Owner Notice of Application to Initiate Landmark Designation December 29, 2014 Public Notice: LPC Public Hearing on January 8, 2015 January 8, 2015 LPC Opens Public Hearing January 8, 2015 LPC Continues Public Hearing to February 5, 2015 Meeting February 5, 2015 LPC Continues Public Hearing to March 5, 2015 Meeting February 26, 2015 Landmark Application Resubmitted March 5, 2015 LPC Opens Public Hearing and Continues Item to April 2, 2015 Meeting

II. Property Description

The landmark application describes the property as follows. Campanile Way and its immediate environs, occupy a zone approximately 1,200 to 1,300 feet in an east / west direction, and approximately 100 feet wide in a north / south dimension. The roadway width within this zone varies, but was originally approximately 25 feet wide, bordered by planting zones on either side that extended back to the facades of the adjacent buildings. The roadway descends in elevation approximately 100 feet from east to west, at a relatively uniform grade. For context, the base of the Campanile is at an elevation of about 325 feet above sea level. Beginning at its western end, Campanile Way is terminated and anchored by a circa 1908 masonry bridge over the south branch of Strawberry Creek. From the 1908 Bridge, Campanile Way proceeds in a slight curve to the north/northwest between the Valley Life Sciences Building (VLSB, completed 1930) on the north, and a grove of California Live Oaks to the south. The road then ascends at a gentle grade and in a straight line to the east, centered on the Campanile. Eastward of the California Live Oak grove and a lawn area is a parking lot. The next uphill section is flanked on the south by Dwinelle Hall (c. 1950s), and on the north by a landscaped area east of VLSB. Harmon Way, runs at right angles to Campanile Way and extends north across this landscaped area from the entrance of Dwinelle Hall. East of Dwinelle Hall a diagonal pathway from the southeast enters Campanile Way, followed by Durant Hall (originally Boalt Hall, c. 1911). A non-contributing modern sunken plaza is located at the west side of Durant Hall. East of the Harmon Way landscaped area California Hall (c. 1905) sits on a low terrace, symmetrically aligned north of Durant Hall. The massing of the northern end of Durant Hall and the southern end of California Hall correspond. Immediately east of California Hall and Durant Hall is Sather Road, a north / south axial roadway that crosses Campanile Way at right angles. Immediately east of, and uphill from, Sather Road are sloped hillside landscape zones rising to the massive blocks of Doe Library (c. 1908-11) on the north and Benjamin Ide Wheeler Hall (c. 1917) on the south. Beyond these buildings the eastern end of Campanile Way is flanked by the Doe Annex (c. 1950, informally known as Bancroft Library building) on the north and South Hall (c. 1873), the original building constructed on the campus, on the south.

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION PageCAMPANILEPage 5 38 of of 11 48WAY April 2, 2015 Page 5 of 11

III. Existing Designations

(1982) National Register of Historic Places http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/nrhp/text/64000062.PDF The UC Berkeley Campus was listed on the National Register as a Multiple Resource Area in 1982, and includes Campanile Way and the Esplanade, located on the central campus. “By their location, orientation toward major and minor axes, and Neo-Classic architectural style, they define the formal, turn-of-the-century concept of the University.” The nomination breaks the resources down into two main types: a. Individual Buildings or Structures, and b. Buildings or Groups of Buildings and Their Landscaped Settings. Campanile Way and the Esplanade are included under the second category as one of four such groups, with Sather Tower and the Esplanade, South Hall, Wheeler Hall, Durant Hall, Doe Memorial Library, and California Hall contributing to the group. Found significant for their associations with architecture and events, this group of buildings, “together with the landscaped setting defined by the district boundaries, comprises the original core of the permanent campus of the first State University in California. The buildings are grouped and sited in accordance with the first official plan for the Berkeley campus, the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Architectural Plan, adopted by the Regents in 1914. … Campanile Way, running east-west on axis with the Golden Gate, has symbolized its link with what was then the country’s principal western gateway. Two minor north-south axes further define the grouping of the buildings, create vistas, and provide major circulation paths for the campus as a whole. The lower axis continues through Sather Gate to Sproul Plaza and Telegraph Avenue, the campus’ main public gateway on the south side and an historically famous intersection of ‘town and gown’. On the eastern edge of the district, the Esplanade of Sather Tower is the most important formally designed and landscaped space on the campus.”

(2004) Landscape Heritage Plan, University of California Berkeley http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/lhp/index_flash.html The UC Berkeley 2004 Landscape Heritage Plan (LHP) is referenced both in the Landmark Application and the Historic Resources Technical Report (HRTR) for the 2211 Harold Way Mixed-use Project Draft EIR. The LHP identifies Campanile Way as a contributing element to the Classical Core of the UC Berkeley Campus historic designed landscape, as a major pedestrian access in the heart of the Classical Core and a strong east-west visual axis, connecting the tower with the Golden Gate.

Section 2 of the LHP details the significance of the Classical Core’s cultural landscape, its context within the evolution of American campus design, and its historical chronology; in order to provide a foundation for making decisions regarding the restoration, rehabilitation, and enhancement of the Core’s sensitive landscape. Regarding National Register of Historic Places criteria, this section states that: under Criterion A (Events), UC Berkeley demonstrates national significance as the first federal land grant public university in the state of California; the first Agricultural Experiment Station in the state of California; and for its early collection and study of exotic botanical plant specimens; under Criterion B (People), UC Berkeley has a distinguished list of master landscape architects and architects whose collective work has defined the campus: Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.; William Hammond Hall; John Galen Howard; John W. Gregg; Lawrence Halprin;

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPagePage COMMISSION 6 39 of of 11 48 Page 6 of 11 April 2, 2015

Garret Eckbo; Robert N. Royston, and Thomas D. Church; and under Criterion C (Architecture), the classical core retains a layered collage of three significant internationally recognized landscape design movements: the picturesque era (approximately from the 1820s); the beaux-arts neoclassical era (approximately from the1897-1899 Phoebe Hearst Competition) ; and the modern era (approximately from the 1929 Depression to the 1970s).

(2005) UC Berkeley 2020 Long Range Development Plan http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/LRDP_final/section_9.3.pdf The UC Berkeley 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) approved by the Regents of the University in 2005, guides UC Berkeley staff in managing campus stewardship and development programs (LRDP EIR Vol. 1 page 1-1). The LRDP includes the objective “Maintain and enhance the image and experience of the campus, and preserve our historic legacy of landscape and architecture.” In part to accomplish that end, the 2020 LRDP includes design guidelines for the Campus Park, within which Campanile Way is designated a “View & openspace preservation zone” (page 64). Campanile Way is an exterior space with developed edges, and both minimum and maximum setbacks are defined on either side in order to protect the landscape element; and to reinforce the continuity of its spatial enclosure.

Although the University is constitutionally exempt from local regulations when using its property for educational purposes, projects are evaluated for consistency with local plans and policies. In accordance with CEQA, historical resources which have been locally designated but are not on the California or National registers are considered Secondary Historical Resources, and are presumed significant unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise.

IV. Analysis

Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Designation Criteria To designate a property as a landmark, the LPC must find that the property meets one or more of the criteria delineated in Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) Section 3.24.110. In order to analyze potential findings the application needs to include: the location and boundaries of the landmark (legal description); and accompanying data required by the commission, including the characteristics which justify its designation and the particular features that should be preserved.

The Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (Section 3.24.110) lists the following criteria which the commission shall use when considering structures, sites and areas for landmark designation:

1. Architectural merit: a. Property that is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the region; b. Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder;

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION PageCAMPANILEPage 7 40 of of 11 48WAY April 2, 2015 Page 7 of 11

c. Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

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

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

4. Historic value: Preservation and enhancement of structures, sites and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States.

History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious or military;

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

The application is evaluated pursuant to the relevant Ordinance criteria below:

1b) Architectural Merit: Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder.

Consistent with National Register criterion C (architecture) the classical core of the UC Berkeley Campus, designed and constructed in accordance with the 1914 Master Plan as an example of the Beaux Arts campus architectural style designed by preeminent Supervising Campus Architect John Galen Howard within the period of 1897 through 1924. Campanile Way is significant as a contributing landscape element and exterior space within the classical core.

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

Consistent with National Register criterion A (events) Campanile Way is associated with the development patterns of the University of California Berkeley campus, the first federal land grant public university in the state of California; beginning with the picturesque framework established in the 1870s by Frederick law Olmsted, overlaid with the dominant classical forms and axes of the Phoebe Hearst Architectural Plan by Benard and John Galen Howard’s master plan of 1914, and interlaced with the modern interventions of Thomas Church in the mid-20th century.

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

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPagePage COMMISSION 8 41 of of 11 48 Page 8 of 11 April 2, 2015

Consistent with the UC Berkeley Campus Multiple Resource Area listing in the National Register for its association with architecture and events, it is presumed that Campanile Way would be eligible for listing as a City landmark for its architectural merit and cultural value as a historical landscape element within the original core of the permanent campus of the first State University in California, running east-west on axis with the Golden Gate, and along which the buildings are grouped and sited in accordance with the first official plan for the Berkeley campus, the Phoebe Hearst Architectural Plan, adopted by the Regents in 1914.

Character-defining Features Consistent with Section 3.24.100 of the Landmarks Ordinance, the Landmark Application identifies the following significant features of Campanile Way that should be preserved:

1. Roadway. The presence of a central, linear, roadway, slightly crowned in the center, extending from South Hall Road to the 1908 Bridge, approximately 20- 25 feet wide and running straight, without deviation from South Hall Road to north of the center of the Valley Life Sciences Building. At that point the road curves slightly south/southwest in order to intersect with the eastern end of the 1908 Bridge. The curve appears, from early photographs, to mark the point where an original native oak grove of the campus began; thus the road was straight, until it passed into the grove and curved. The one exception to the straight, crowned, roadway evident in some early photographs is the crossing of Sather Road, where the Sather Road surface and sidewalks interrupted Campanile Way, but did not rise above the ground plane. 2. Statue. The Tilden Football Players Statue and Class of 1911 marble bench, and associated flagstone pathways, adjoining the south side of the western end of Campanile Way and dating to 1900, 1911, and the 1920s respectively. 3. Gutters. Red brick gutters (both original, and restored) found intermittently along portions of the roadway, particularly portions of the edges near the Valley Life Sciences Building. The gutters are significant not only for their composition, but for their location; they exactly define the Howard-era northern edge of Campanile Way. 4. Plane trees. London Plane trees, planted in the first quarter of the 20th century and pollarded (trimmed back annually or semiannually to knobby branch ends). These trees form two parallel rows, flanking the original roadway. There were, originally, probably as many as 40 or more trees, but a number were removed for the eastern plaza and at other points along the Way, and some have died and been replaced with younger specimens of the same species. 5. Class memorial. The Class of 1940 memorial, north of the northeast corner of Wheeler Hall. Significant features include a multi-trunked white flowering plum tree dating to circa 1940, a stone drinking fountain with bronze basin, and a hexagonal arrangement of bench seating around the tree, on original concrete piers. 6. Bridge. The 1908 Bridge, a single arched, reinforced concrete, structure, including original gutters / drains, and wrought iron railings, each containing a six pointed star reflecting the University’s original emblem. 7. Views. ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION PageCAMPANILEPage 9 42 of of 11 48WAY April 2, 2015 Page 9 of 11

o East, towards Sather Tower and the undeveloped slope of upper Charter Hill, beyond. The undeveloped character of this hillside is an essential feature of the significance since it allows the natural hill to stand as a backdrop to the Campanile, rather than a site for buildings that would visually compete with the view of the tower to those walking east / up Campanile Way. o (Unobstructed), west, from the ground plane of Campanile Way towards San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate; o (Unobstructed), south, along Sather Road, towards Sather Gate; o (Unobstructed), north, along Sather Road, across the landscape panel of “Sophomore Lawn” between California Hall and Doe Library, to the southern edge of the original “central glade” area north of Doe Library. 8. Entrance connections. Original entrance connections via formal pathway at right angles to Campanile Way, between the roadway proper and doorways / entrances to pre-1960s buildings; Durant (Boalt) Hall; California Hall; Doe Library; Wheeler Hall; Valley Life Sciences Building. Although in all cases the paving surface and the constructed entry approaches have been altered, so no original materials appear to be present, the presence of these entrances to five major campus buildings, arranged at right angles to the roadway, emphasizes the formal and central character of not only Campanile Way but the Beaux Arts era on campus. Durant and California Halls each have one entrance; Doe Library has two (one near each corner of the building); Wheeler Hall also has two, also near each corner of the building. 9. Landscaping. A general landscape character of: paved central, linear roadway, connected at right angles to formal building entrances / plazas; two rows of pollarded London Plane trees flanking the roadway on either side; low evergreen shrub plantings and low groundcover plantings between the roadway and a zone extending about 20 feet from the adjacent building facades; intermediate “foundation plantings” of somewhat higher shrubs and narrow, columnar, evergreen trees arranged symmetrically close to the facades and at the corners of some of the buildings. 10. Western end. The relationship, at the western / lower end of Campanile Way to two flagstone paths (re-set and refurbished in 2014) that date to the 1920s and align with earlier walkways, the Tilden Football Players statue, installed in 1900, and a small marble memorial bench given to the campus about a decade later, south of the Tilden statue. All of these features—statue, bench, flagstone paths, and Campanile Way—are in the same relationship to each other that they were a century ago, and form an important and historic cluster.

3.24.180 Landmarks, Recording Required The Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (Section 3.24.180) states that when a landmark has been designated, the commission shall cause a copy of the designation to be recorded on the legal description for the property in the Office of the County Recorder. A view corridor is a line of sight (height, width, and distance) of an observer looking toward an object as seen from a route that directs the viewer’s attention. The landmark designation would be linked to the route with the majority of the character-defining features located on the campus, including views south, north, and east from the route. The University is responsible for the preservation of Campanile Way and is exempt from

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPagePage COMMISSION10 43 of of 11 48 Page 10 of 11 April 2, 2015

local land use regulations, yet considers impacts to historical resources on or eligible for the California and National registers under CEQA. The line of sight for multiple views west, however, falls out over the City of Berkeley down below.

Campus Plan Topography. The landmark application notes that because Benard’s winning scheme was developed without direct personal reference, he aligned the main axis for the campus with University Avenue and the City street grid, while John Galen Howard’s successive revisions returned to the alignment of the axis with views of the Bay. In addition to this analysis, the Commission may want to consider the fact that the unique topography of the campus site was also a key factor in the axis. The guidelines for the competition were specifically amended to request competitors to “respect the general topography of the grounds and to follow it as closely as possible…”(John Galen Howard and the University of California) Because Benard’s scheme did not address the amended guidelines, it would have resulted in extensive grading of the natural site. Both architects were schooled in the Beaux Arts planning principles of the day, but Howard was able to revise the Plan in a manner that met the programmatic and budgetary needs of the University. “To retain the effect of Benard’s plan, Howard proposed a new axis that called for a much smaller expenditure of money and less risk to the natural beauties of the site. The new line, which corresponded to natural drainage and emphasized the view to the Golden Gate, extended from Center Street past the northern edge of the eucalyptus grove and up through the gully that divided North and South Halls and eastward to the great hill above Ben Weed’s amphitheatre. This line, Howard noted, had ‘the advantage of preserving the entire middle portion of the grounds at approximately their present grade.’” In plan, this line ran from Sather Tower out to the west, while in section the topography was utilized to construct buildings on terraces stepping along an exterior space with a developed edge.

Campus Plan and City Grid. Due to the shift in the alignment of the Classical Core from that of the City grid below, the line of sight spans out over multiple private parcels beyond the campus, rather than over an open public right-of-way. Because of this relationship, both the formal view on-axis from Sather Tower and the dynamic views to be had as one moves north-south along Sather Road and east-west along Campanile Way have changed along with the development of the City. The c.1950 Berkeley Community Theater located on the Berkeley High School campus punctuated these views, as did Campus development such as the c.1988 addition to the Valley Life Sciences Building. Given the evolving nature of these views the term unobstructed proposed in the application may be problematic in describing these features.

Campus Plan and Downtown Height Restrictions. The Downtown Area Plan (DAP) incorporates considerations for height in the Downtown Core Area by limiting the number (three) and height (180’ consistent with the historic Chamber of Commerce building) of high-rise buildings allowed. The DAP also includes policies and design guidelines to avoid completely blocking vistas. The vistas studied in the DAP EIR were from prominent outlooks such as the top of the Campanile, which at an approximate elevation of 632 feet, is well above the established height limits in the Downtown Area Core. More specifically restrictive view corridors are most commonly regulated within public parklands; or with zoning overlays on private property fronting malls to maintain views of public monuments and/or buildings. ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b Attachment 3 - LPC ATTACHMENTStaff Report 2 LPC 11-02-17 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION PageCAMPANILEPage 11 44 of of 11 48WAY April 2, 2015 Page 11 of 11

V. Recommendation

Recognize the significance of Campanile Way as a currently designated historical resource contributing to the significance of the UC Berkeley Campus and decline to individually designate the property as a City Landmark.

Attachments:

1. Findings a. For Approval b. For Denial 2. Landmark Application 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. Correspondence

Preservation Planner: Sally Zarnowitz, AIA, LEED AP, Principal Planner (510) 981-7410

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 AttachmentLPC 4 -11-02-17 Index Page 45 of 48 INDEX TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD CAMPANILE WAY - UC Berkeley Campus Landmark Initiation Application Prepared: May 21, 2015

# of DOCUMENT DATE PAGE pages

A STAFF REPORTS

1 LPC Materials: Staff Report 1/8/2015 0 2

2 LPC Materials: Request from Carrie Olson to continue meeting to March 2/5/2015 2 1

3 LPC Materials: Staff Report 3/5/2015 3 50 4 LPC Materials: Staff Report, Attachments, Supplemental Items, Speaker Cards, and Late Items 4/2/2015 53 251 5 City Council: Information Report for LPC-NOD 5/12/2015 304 32

B CAPTIONER'S RECORD or minutes of all hearings

6 LPC minutes 1/8/2015 304 1

7 LPC minutes 2/5/2015 305 1

8 LPC minutes 3/5/2015 306 1

9 LPC minutes 4/2/2015 307 1

10 City Council minutes 5/12/2015 308 1

C REMAINDER OF ADMIN RECORD

11 Landmark Initiation Application 11/25/2014 308 15

12 Background Information: National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form 11/25/2014 323 58

13 Letter to property owner from planner 12/10/2014 381 1

14 LPC public hearing notice for January 8, 2015 meeting 12/29/2014 382 1

15 Resubmittal: property description 1/12/2015 383 1

16 Resubmittal: revised landmark application 2/27/2015 384 23

17 LPC public hearing notice for April 2, 2015 meeting 3/25/2015 407 1

18 LPC Notice of Decision 4/7/2015 408 7

19 Appeal of LPC decision 4/22/2015 415 27

20 Letter from City Clerk 5/19/2015 442 2

1 of 1 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b G:\LANDUSE\Boards and Commissions\Council\CheckOuts\Camp Way Appeal\Admin Record\Index to Admin Record_Campanile Way.xlsx ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 PageAttachment 46 of 48 5

Administrative Record LPC Appeal: Campanile Way

Attachment 5 to this report, LPC Appeal: Campanile Way is on file and available for review at the City Clerk Department, or can be accessed from the City Council Website. Copies of the attachment are available upon request.

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

or from:

The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Web site http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 Page 47 of 48 Attachment 6

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING-BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2134 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY CAMPANILE WAY LANDMARK DESIGNATION DISAPPROVAL APPEAL

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on JUNE 30, 2015 at 7:00PM a public hearing will be conducted to consider an appeal of the Landmarks Preservation Commission decision to decline (disapprove) Landmark Initiation #2014- 0005, to designate Campanile Way on the UC Berkeley Campus as a City of Berkeley Landmark.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of June 18, 2015.

For further information, please contact Sally Zarnowitz, Principal Planner in the Department of Planning and Development, at 510-981-7410.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

______Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Mailed by: June 16, 2015

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council 5) an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence

ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-02-17 LPC Appeal: Campanile Way, UC Berkeley PUBLICPage HEARING 48 of 48 June 30, 2015 delivered to the City of Berkley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Page 7 ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 2b ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 3