1

Crane, Fatema

From: Wxbyrne <wxbyrne@aol.com>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:59 PMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: Regarding Campanile Way Landmark Application

Dear Landmarks Preservation Commission -- We write you in support of the application to designate Campanile Way, and its historic view of the Golden Gate, as a City of Berkeley Landmark. This beautiful and dramatic view has been enjoyed by students, community members and visitors since the 1800's. Part of the magic of Berkeley, and the greater Bay Area, is our location near the Bay. You can't enjoy it if you can't see it. We ask you to preserve this wonderful view. Please include this in the LPC agenda packet for the public hearing on the Campanile Way landmark application. Sincerely, Warren & Lorna Byrne 23 Panoramic Way Berkeley 94704

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Mark Harpainter <harpainter@lmi.net>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 6:45 PMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: Campanile Way Landmark Application

Dear Ms. Crane,  I would like to voice my support in favor of approving a landmark designation for Campanile Way and preserving the unique historic view of the Golden Gate. Please include my email in the Landmark Preservation Commission agenda packet for the public hearing for the application.  Thank you Mark Harpainter 

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Virginia Jansen <goth@ucsc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:06 PMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: re: Campanile Way Landmark application (ignore first letter)

Dear Ms. Crane, Please ignore my first letter. I forgot to include requesting that the letter be put into the LPC agenda packet for the public hearing on the Campanile Way landmark application. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you. Virginia Jansen, FSA Professor Emerita of History of Art & Visual Culture University of California, Santa Cruz goth@ucsc.edu letter follows below: ------------------------------- Landmarks Preservation Commission Fatema Crane, Secretary Land Use Planning Division 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704

support for the application to designate Campanile Way a City of Berkeley Landmark

Dear Landmarks Preservation Commission: As a former student at UC Berkeley, an architectural historian, and teacher of courses on campus planning and architecture, I strongly support the application to designate Campanile Way as well as its view of the Golden Gate a City of Berkeley Landmark. The Berkeley campus, as is very well known throughout the United States, was designed in the 1860s by one of the most famous landscape architects of our country, Frederick Law Olmsted. He meant the campus to focus on the view west through the Golden Gate. This selection is not simply an aesthetic decision, but was central to the meaning in creating a university on the West Coast. It is intrinsic to the greatness of the University of California as an institution of learning for California. I understand that there is a proposal for a high-rise building that as currently designed would substantially block this view. Such destruction of a significant view of national importance must not allowed to happen. One step is to preserve the viewshed and Campanile Way, which allows it. Please ensure that this action happens before this monument to the "way west" and all the meaning that this phrase connotes for our national psyche is destroyed — gone forever. History will thank you for your enlightened move. Please include this letter in the LPC agenda packet for the public hearing on the Campanile Way landmark application. Thank you. Very truly yours, Virginia Jansen, FSA Professor Emerita of History of Art & Visual Culture University of California, Santa Cruz goth@ucsc.edu

2

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Donna Oliver <oliverdb-ieor@berkeley.edu>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:06 AMTo: Crane, FatemaCc: DonnaSubject: Campanile Way Landmark Application

Dear Landmarks Preservation Commission, I am writing to support the application to designate Campanile Way a City of Berkeley Landmark. The view of the Golden Gate from the campus is one that should be cherished and preserved for generations to come. UCB architects had the foresight to include that beautiful view in their original plans for the campus. Please let the city of Berkeley be as thoughtful as they. Please include my letter in the LPC agenda packet for the public hearing on the Campanile Way landmark application. Thank you. Sincerely, Donna B. Oliver

Harvey Helfand 1057 Curtis Street • Albany, California 94706 510-524-6003 • helfandphotography@att.net

18 October 2017 Landmarks Preservation Commission Fatema Crane, Secretary Land Use Planning Division City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, California 94704 Re: Campanile Way Landmark Application One of the nation’s best examples of American Beaux-Arts planning exists on the campus of the University of California in the heart of Berkeley. This early 20th century plan exemplifies the principles of that movement, with its ensemble of buildings and open spaces organized geometrically and axially and with careful alignment to natural features, vistas, and focal points that extend beyond the campus grounds. The major organizing influence in this layout is its principal westward orientation to the Golden Gate. This connection to the Golden Gate, in fact, dates to the 19th century origins of the university when the Berkeley site was selected for the university’s predecessor institution, the College of California. A gathering of the College Trustees on the site in 1860 inspired this observation:

“Before them was the Golden Gate in its broad-opening-out into the great Pacific. Ships were coming in and going out. Asia seemed near—the islands of the sea looking this way.” (James H. Warren, editor, The Pacific, as quoted in Origin and Development of the University of California, by William Warren Ferrier, 1930, p. 213.)

This orientation is of fundamental importance not only physically and visually, but also symbolically and culturally, as was proclaimed in 1858:

“In full view, towards the ocean . . . the Golden Gate lies lapped in the glorious light that gave it its prophetic name. And the last glance of the future student of California as he leaves his native shore—his first returning glance as he welcomes home—shall fall on the spires of his own Alma Mater.” (Oration at fourth anniversary of College of California by attorney John B. Felton in 1858, in A History of the College of California, by Samuel Hopkins Willey, 1887, p. 252.)

And at the dedication of the site in 1866, this westward draw of the Golden Gate inspired the naming of the city when Trustee Frederick Billings evoked this passage by George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne:

2

"Westward the course of empire takes its way; The first four acts already past, A fifth shall close the drama of the day; Time's noblest offspring is the last." (as quoted in Origin and Development of the University of California, by William Warren Ferrier, 1930, p. 244.)

That same year the axial alignment to the Golden Gate was formalized by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, as described his plan for the college:

“ . . . 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 for the Improvement of the College Property” by Frederick Law Olmsted, 1866, in A History of the College of California, by Samuel Hopkins Willey, 1887. p. 354.)

Although little of Olmsted’s plan was executed, many of its principles were adopted, especially his Golden Gate axis, which aligned and organized the University of California’s first buildings, including North and South Halls, built 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 . . .” (“The Architectural Plans for the Greater University of California,” John Galen Howard, in the University Chronicle, January 1903, p. 288.)

Reinforcing this Golden Gate axis that would later terminate at the base of his great tower, Howard created a major parallel axis, establishing a central series of open spaces onto which many of his major buildings would face:

“But best of all, the view westward from the summit is one of absolute repose. 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.” (“The Architectural Plans for the Greater University of California,” John Galen Howard, in the University Chronicle, January 1903, p. 282.)

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 Dwinelle Hall and the (Valley) Life Sciences 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:

“The boundless waste of the Pacific cloven by the axis of the University and brought into the system of its actual architectural composition! What vast

3

horizons open to the mind’s eye beyond that wondrous passage to the sea!” (“The Architectural Plans for the Greater University of California,” John Galen Howard, in the University Chronicle, January 1903, p. 282-3.)

This axis, still evident from Campanile Way, is as important a part of Howard’s historic Beaux-Arts plan as are his individual classical buildings that are significant in their own architectural merits. For the strength of Beaux-Arts plans is in the comprehensive grouping–the organizing ensemble–that creates order, balance, and clarity in the relationships among buildings, open spaces, and vistas. This concept of the whole being greater than its parts is just as relevant as the present-day approach to “urban design.” Too often though, we see that planning and architectural practice either overlook or ignore this broader, holistic approach to the environmental context. Now, in 2017, an 18-story high-rise building is proposed for a site at 2190 Shattuck Avenue in Downtown Berkeley that, if built, would obliterate the historic axial view of the Golden Gate from Campanile Way. It is difficult to comprehend how the city’s planners could have designated such development for this site without taking into account this significant view corridor. It is equally puzzling why architectural professionals, who should be cognitive of urban-design issues, have not opposed such inappropriate building placement. While the University of California, Berkeley campus has developed over the years far beyond the Beaux-Arts plan of John Galen Howard, it is significant that many elements of Howard’s plan have survived. More than twenty buildings and ten open-space features of his ensemble remain intact to form a national Beaux-Arts treasure. Among the significant features of this extant ensemble are Campanile Way and its axial view of the Golden Gate. This vista is a significant embodiment of Berkeley’s cultural and historic heritage that must not be lost. For these reasons, I ask that you make every effort to protect this cultural and historic feature with the stewardship it calls for. And I urge the designation of Campanile Way and its historic view of the Golden Gate as a City of Berkeley Landmark. Sincerely, Harvey Helfand Campus Planner, UC Berkeley, 1978-93 Architect Author, University of California, Berkeley: The Campus Guide (Princeton Architectural Press, 2002) Attachments: Views of Campanile Way (1) Existing and (2) w/Project (from DEIR 2190 Shattuck) 1057 Curtis Street Albany, California 94706 510-524-6003 helfandphotography@att.net

4

Figure 1: Campanile Way Existing (DEIR 2190 Shattuck)

5

Figure 2: Campanile Way w/Project (DEIR 2190 Shattuck)

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Nadesan PERMAUL <permaul@berkeley.edu>Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 4:31 PMTo: Crane, FatemaCc: dantham@urcad.org; Steven Finacom; Nancy Lubich MCKINNEY; PMPHelena A. WEISS-

DUMAN; William E. BENEMANN; DAVID J DUER; Lila BLANCO; wroberts1939; lynn nakada;Patricia A. Pelfrey; Phillip Litts; Catherine Dinnean; peter van houten; Maya Goehring-Harris; Andrea Lanzafame CAMPOS; Susan WOODWARD; Steve MENDOZA; permaul; Harvey Helfand; Carroll Brentano; Brad Barber; Kathryn M. NEAL; John A. DOUGLASS; Zachary I Bleemer; Ira Jacknis; Kiran Permaul

Subject: Protecting the View from UC Berkeley Campanile to the SF Bay

I am writing to you and your office to please reconsider any planning decisions that would erode the historic view from the West face of the Sather Tower on the Berkeley campus towards the San Francisco Bay, and the Golden Gate. I spoke to this issue as a faculty member last year with regard to construction of a hotel tower that would diminish this view, and I write to you to express my strong opposition to any further attempts to do so. Thousands of visitors come to the campus annually and most go to the West steps to the Sather Tower esplanade and stand to view the magnificent view that John Galen Howard planned and executed. For decades, over 100 years, that view has remained through the wise partnership between City planners and the campus. Whether the campus planning office supports this view or not is irrelevant. Student, faculty and staff, rather than administrators who have other considerations, care for this view and so do the many who visit the Berkeley campus. I have been at Berkeley for 50 years, and regularly visit the West steps and the view from the base of the Campanile, much less from the top of the tower. I often take visiting school children on tours which always stop there, and my department--Political Science holds its graduation reception on the Esplanade and I have posed with students taking photos at that spot. Please do not destroy what generations of people have wisely preserved. Dr. Nadesan Permau -- Dr. Nadesan Permaul Adjunct Faculty in Rhetoric and Political Science, U.C. Berkeley Academic Sponsor for Rhetoric 98/198- History, Spirit & Traditions at Cal Decal Class Retired Director of the Associated Students of the University of California Room 7412 Dwinelle Hall Office Hours, Fall Semester 2017--Wed from 1:00-2:00 p.m., Fri from 10 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Web Page: nadesanpermaul.com/

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Lisa Bruce <lisa@lisabruce.com>Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 10:15 AMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: Regarding Campanile Way Landmark Application

Dear Fatema Crane,  Kindly include my below correspondence in the LPC agenda packet for the public hearing on the Campanile Way landmark application.  Thank you,  Lisa Bruce   Dear Landmarks Preservation Commission,  It’s imperative that you designate Campanile Way a landmark to preserve this historic and world appreciated view of the Bay and Golden Gate.  Berkeley would not be what it is today without this very special, and now rare, view.  Don’t let the views that uplift souls be obliterated.  This view is not merely attractive but an essential part of maintaining the spirit of the layout of the campus and our early Berkeley citizens who understand the importance of things more important than financial deals.    Thank you, Lisa Bruce   

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Sandra Innes <svinnes@sbcglobal.net>Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 4:41 PMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: Regarding Campanile Way Landmark Application

Not only do I support the application to designate Campanile Way, including the historic view of the Golden Gate, a City of Berkeley Landmark, but also object to any tampering with Olmsted's plans to feature the Golden Gate view in his design of the UC Campus.  One can only observe the wreckage of the San Francisco skyline to know how careful we must be to preserve our iconic views from the East side of the Bay.  We do not need this lovely vista interrupted by yet another boxy monstrosity.  The Campanile Way view is recognized nationwide.  When I came to California in the late 1960's, one of my first stops was the Campanile and its stunning view.  It is my hope that this view can be preserved for future generations. To do anything else would be an abuse of public trust.   Please include my letter in the LPC Agenda Packet for the public hearing on the Campanile Way landmark application.  Thank you,  Sandra Innes 2 Clipper Hill Oakland 

1

Crane, Fatema

From: GRSeligson <sixchx@att.net>Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 7:18 AMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: Campanile Way Landmark Application

Dear Sir/Madam: As a long time East Bay resident (born in Alameda in 1941, parents lived in Berkeley from 1960 to 1997) and UC graduate (1963) I strongly urge that the Campanile Way be designed a Historic Landmark. The view corridor was an integral part of Olmsted’s visionary design for the campus in the 1860s and should continue to be protected in perpetuity. During my time at Cal I often appreciated the marvelous view from the upper part of the Way. Having buildings block all or part of the view would be extremely intrusive and deprive future generations of the impressive view of Golden Gate Bridge, certainly one of the area’s most impressive landmarks. Berkeley has done an exceptional service with the many historical building designations; in my opinion views of the greater Bay Area from the Campanile Way are just as historic and should be “preserved” for future generations. Gordon Seligson 6 Clipper Hill, Oakland

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Charlene Woodcock <charlene@woodynet.net>Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 10:41 AMTo: Crane, FatemaCc: Arreguin, Jesse L.; Wengraf, Susan; Harrison, Kate; Davila, Cheryl; Bartlett, Ben;

Worthington, Kriss; Maio, Linda; Droste, LoriSubject: Please landmark Campanile Way and its historic vista to the west

TO: Members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission

I write in strong support of the proposal to landmark Campanile Way on the UC Berkeley campus. The orientation of the campus design towards the Golden Gate and the intentionally planned view of the Golden Gate from Campanile Way should be honored and preserved. Campanile Way and its iconic view to the Bay deserve landmark protection. Many of us also highly value the view of campus from West Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay. The UC Berkeley campus is the heart of our city, its cultural and economic engine, and one of the greatest public universities in the world. It is simply unacceptable that any private, for-profit developer should be permitted to plan a building so large and out of keeping with its historical built environment as to disrupt the architecture and landscape design of our University of California campus. High rise buildings planned for our historic downtown that would block the view of the Bay from Campanile Way do not serve the interests of the residents of Berkeley or the faculty and students of the university. All those who have attended UC Berkeley and many Berkeley residents, as well as visitors from around the world, value what Sally Woodbridge, in her book on campus architect John Galen Howard, calls “the celebrated campus axis to the Golden Gate," designed more than a century ago. It seems clearly to be the responsibility of the Landmarks Preservation Committee to respect the design of the campus of California’s first public university and to landmark and protect the design’s intention to provide a view from Campanile Way to the San Francisco Bay. The voters of Berkeley voted for responsible development, focused on our urgent need for housing affordable to our lower income residents and for families. Buildings intended by their developers to rent at market rates, that would obstruct the Campanile Way views, do not serve that need. Thank you. Charlene M. Woodcock 2355 Virginia Street Berkeley 94709

January 3, 2018

Landmarks Preservation Commission Fatema Crane, Secretary Planning & Development

Dear Comissioners,

As a longtime resident and native of Berkeley, I urge you to landmark historically significant Campanile Way. Its iconic view of the San Francisco Bay and Golden Gate Bridge has for all this time been part of the campusʼs and cityʼs history. It would be a cruel waste and shame to lose this vital landmark of our history now. There are other sites within the Downtown Core where an 18-story building could be constructed, but there is only one astonishing axis at which the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge can be viewed from Campanile Way itself. The campusʼs first buildings were meaningfully constructed around this axis.

Last, thousands of people – students, employees, visitors, tourists - enjoy this vista today, and it is to be hoped they donʼt return one year to find it destroyed.

Land Use PlanningReceived

January 4, 2018

As with other vital landmarks, once itʼs gone, itʼs gone for good. Please landmark our Campanile Way, and do it as soon as is possible, so that building is not allowed to begin before this can happen. Thank you very much for your attention to these points. Sincerely, Laurie Chastain

Land Use PlanningReceived

January 4, 2018

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Tree Fitzpatrick <tree.fitzpatrick@gmail.com>Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 3:20 PMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: Letter for LPC Feb meeting packet

From: Tree Fitzpatrick <tree.fitzpatrick@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:19 AM Subject: city staff should not meddle with LPC legal mandates: for Feb LPC hearing To: fcrane@cityofberkeley.info

The municipal code that gives the LPC power to designate landmark status does not require the LPC or city staff to bend over backwards to accomodate property owners for any reason. Landmark status is not about accommodating developers, influencing land values. I know politicians like developer money when they run for election, or re-election, but follow the law.

If public notice of a meeting is given, the city staff should not give special consideration to landowners who might possibly, in any way, see their property value affected by a decision. This is giving property owners special treatment. Public notice is sufficient. It is the duty of citizens, even property owners whose fees pay for many staffers' jobs, to pay attention to hearing agendas and show up when their interests are affected. The city manager and staff is using this idea that some property owners are entitled to special treatment too much deference. Public notice is all that is required. The city of Berkeley does not personally notice me about anything and it has no duty to personally notice property owners whose land might be affected when LPC does the right thing and designates the view of the Golden Gate from the Campanile as a landmark. Land owners and especially would-be developers spend a fortune angling for build permits. Their paid fixers can pay attention to publicly noticed hearings. Staffers like Fatema Crane and Dee Ridley-Williams really should keep in mind they serve Berkeley law, Berkeley citizens and not developers who pay fees above citizens. Geez.

Dee Ridley-Williams seems to be bending over backwards to please property owners and seems to have forgotten her duty is to follow the law and serve the citizenry. She is not beholding at a higher level to prospective developers.. The law empowers the LPC to designate landmark status with simple public notice. Dee, it is not your job to kiss up to property owners and hand hold them to pay attention to public hearings. when the city manager and other staff coddles land owners above the will of the people, the city manager and her staff are negligent in their duty to follow the law. The law does not require the city manager and other city staff to tap dance for some kind of privilege class of property owners. The LPC landmark designation is not, nor should it be, related to value. The landmark designation is unrelated to property value; a landmark designation is about history, culture, identity. The landmark laws in Berkeley are not set up to entitled some property owners to special notice provisions.

If I miss a public hearing notice, Dee does not seek me out to be sure I know. FYI, Dee, if you offer such private, special meeting notice service, I would like you to personally notify me of any and all public hearings in Berkeley related to real estate, land use. transit, homelessness and landmarking. Thx.

2

Last night, Fatima, the lead city staffer for the LPC, said landowners could sue us. She did acknowledge she is not a lawyer and what she said made that very clear. Speculating, without any credentials, about the law is usually considered the unlicensed practice of law. When I discuss CA law, I always disclose that I am not licensed in this state. But city staff should know that municipalities are generally protected from lawsuits except in instances of personal injury liability for negligently maintained public spaces. Berkeley is not liable for following the law related to the LPC, which allows the LPC do what it is legally empowered to do.

And Dee and her staff are NOT under any duty to mollycoddle landowners with delaying tactics related to designating the Golden Gate view as a historical landmark. Geez, folks, you all get paid enough to know the law . . . and you should be ashamed for projecting legal fears where none exist.

Public notice is all that is required. The city has no duty to give special notice of public hearings to landowners. Such landowners should be taking responsibility for their own needs and tracking public hearings that might affect them.

Otherwise, maybe Dee could start personally noticing me for every city public hearing because as a resident of Berkeley, all public hearings might affect me. Geez, Dee, get a grip. Sincerely, Tree Fitzpatrick MS MS JD

2105 Cactus Court #2 Walnut Creek, CA 94595

January 5, 2018 Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commissioners Land Use Planning Division 1947 Center Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Attention: Fatema Crane, Secretary Dear Commissioners, RE: Campanile Way Landmark Application I am so happy to have this opportunity to address you all, and to be part of the Berkeley landmarking of the Campanile Way. I know you would agree that what is the tower without the walkway and what is the walkway without the tower. The Tower and Esplanade were designated a Berkeley Landmark in 1991. As you know, together with other buildings they constitute the classic core of the University of California Berkeley’s campus. In addition to being a city landmark they are #946 of the State of California Historic Landmarks. On top of that in 1982 they were listed on the National Register of Historic places. It is a pleasure to be part of now landmarking the walkway, now called “Campanile Way”, which leads east and west with vistas of the San Francisco bay to the west and the view of the Sather Tower to the east. The architects of the University’s campus designed the structures, paths and esplanade as a whole with intent. North Hall and South Hall were positioned exactly to flank the pathway, enabling the pathway between them to underline the majesty of the view westward to the Golden Gate. Today we are stewards of those who came before us and it is a great pleasure to be given the chance to be part of the history and future of these iconic monuments that have been handed down to us. Those who will come after us will be able to stand at the heart of the University’s campus and rejoice in a shared moment of excitement as they gaze towards the Golden Gate and the San Francisco Bay. Last time I came before you it was to landmark the Gates designed by John Galen Howard at Claremont Court, and your commission was most important in helping us obtain landmark status for Oakland’s Claremont Hotel. You truly have an important mission. Landmarks like the University’s Campanile and Oakland’s Claremont Hotel

are truly marks upon the land and as we look to them and from them it is clearly significant that their importance is that they can be seen in their glory from a far and that the world can be seen from them. Should a structure be built in front of them or in any way remove the significance of their appearance the Landmark itself would be degraded. And that we would not want to do under our watch. It is with the greatest pleasure that I endorse and support this wonderful landmark application. Yours sincerely, Wendy P. Markel 2105 Cactus Court #2,Walnut Creek,CA 94595 w.markel@comcast.net 510 205 9266

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Priscilla Birge <pbirge@comcast.net>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:50 PMTo: Crane, FatemaSubject: Campanile Way application project

  I am writing to say that I strongly support the Campanile Way application project.  Many thanks.  Priscilla Birge 

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Tree Fitzpatrick <tree.fitzpatrick@gmail.com>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:56 PMTo: Fred Dodsworth; Crane, FatemaCc: Donald Goldmacher; Charlene Woodcock; Arreguin, Jesse L.; Maio, Linda; Davila, Cheryl;

Hahn, Sophie; Harrison, Kate; Bartlett, Ben; Droste, Lori; Worthington, Kriss; Wengraf, Susan; Manager, C; sustainable-berkeley-coalition@googlegroups.com; Ted Mundorff

Subject: getting city staff to work for citizens and LPC -- staff has tried to stop the petition for landmark the golden gate view

Ms. Crane: please be sure to copy every member of the LPC with this email. That's your job and my right, yes?! I am glad to see some of my fellow Berkeley citizens denouncing the choices of our city manager, mayor and many council members for seeming to see their jobs as tap dancing for real estate developers while completely abrogating their public duty to serve Berkeley residents first and foremost.

A particularly egregious example of our city manager, Dee Ridley Williams (sp?) imposing her will and vision on the city, when it is merely her job to execute the people's will and the people's laws, she stalled on allowing the LPC to designate the view of the Golden Gate from the Campanile as a historic landmark.

For those not at the last LPC meeting, and few citizens were there, people might not know that Dee pretty much unilaterally made up a law. She delayed a vote on the petition to landmark the world-renown view, because she had to give special notice to some landowners. The law requires meetings be noticed and no law requires that landowners deemed important by our city manager should get custom, special notice. IT is not up to her to grant special notice rights to landlords. The hearing was publicly noticed and no law gives Dee the obligation to personally 'warn' any possibly affected landowners about a public hearing. That meeting was publicly noticed, Dee, and that was all you had to do. You don't have special duties for developers and to pretend you do amounts to you making up laws for developers. Developers all have local fixers, and cosy relationships with your staff. If I can find out about public hearings in Berkeley, so can rich developers, eh?

If I don't get to a public hearing because I wasn't paying attention to the public notice, then I am out of luck - and that's how public notice works for all. Dee, you have no right and breach your duty when you delay publicly noticed decisions to give special favor to some landlowners. Landowners can track public notice just like everyone else, eh? Now, the FEIR for that Walgreens highrise is out, making the issue of landmarking the Golden Gate view even more pressing. Our city manager has added her own special touch of added pressure on the permitting for the Walgreens high rise and Dee just made up her imaginary duty to 'inform landowners".

As the city gets to the stage of permitting that building, and if Dee had followed the law without making up a special exception for landowners she imagined would care (she reps us, not them!!!!), the view is not protected - thanks for shenanigans by Dee and her staff. Shame on her and that staff. You serve residents, not developers.

Folks, if Dee had not made up her imagined duty to give landowners special treatment, the view would be landmarked now.

Carrie Olson, who has sat on LPC about 20 years total (and Kriss Worthington booted her off with a student replacement, a student who ignores the meetings and focusses only on his texting on his smartphone . . Carrie found out when Kriss's new student apopointee showed up, not bothering to give Ms. Olson even minimal respect. What, was Kriss cowardly about calling her tok tell her he had replaced her with a student seeking to

2

build his resume but with no interest in landmark preservation, at least the kid has not evinced any such interest so far. Carrie Olson was at the hearing where staff would not let the LPC vote on the petition to landmark an iconic view known and revered the world over. Carrie said, in her public comments, that the LPC has never voted based on economic interests, that it decides solely on historical importance. She also said that staff does not decide what the LPC can and cannot do. Sadly, the LPC deferred to staffer Fateema and acted like they could only do what Fateema would 'let' them do.

If not for Dee and Fateema's overreaching and illegal law-imagining, the view would now be landmarked.

Landmark status should be factored into any discussions of the highways at the Walgreens spot. thanks for Dee's internecine, even machiavellian machinations (with Fateema sorta acting in charge instead of the LPC Chair being in charge, Steve Finacom) Sincerely, Tree Fitzpatrick JD

1

Crane, Fatema

From: Tree Fitzpatrick <tree.fitzpatrick@gmail.com>Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:29 PMTo: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB); Kate Harrison; Margots999 via Sustainable Berkeley

Coalition; Arreguin, Jesse L.; Manager, C; Crane, FatemaSubject: ZAB: delay the Walgreens highrise vote because city manager made up special treatment for

landowners . . .

To ZAB staff: please be sure to distribute copies of this email, on hard copy, to every member of the Zoning Board. It's your job and my right. Thanks!

LPC staff (Ms. Fatema Crane is, I think, the relevant staffer), please distribute hard copies of this email to every member of the LPC, which I believe is part of your job as LPC staffer and my right as a citizen of Berkeley. Thanks. Our city manager deliberately prevented allowing the LPC to vote on a proposal to landmark the view of the Golden Gate from the Campanile. She asserted a nonexistent special right to special notice of the LPC hearings. Landowners have the same duty as everyone else in Berkeley: it is not up to the city manager to invent special exceptions for anyone. Her duty is to post public notice and it is up to any and all interested parties to track those public hearings they care about.

Because of Dee's shameful municipal-code-ignoring behavior, the LPC did not vote on the request to landmark the Golden Gate view from the Campanile. And now the ZAB faces a final FEIR to approve or disapprove at its next meeting.

I hope Ms. Ridley Williams (sp?) will give all residents of Berkeley the same kind of special consideration she awarded property owners last week when she forbid the LPC from voting on the historic view of the Golden Gate from the Campanile Way.

Ms. Ridley, I request that you remove the FEIR vote at ZAB this week until after the LPC has had a chance to fairly hold a hearing and vote on the historic landmark status of the Golden Gate view from the Campanile. This is a fair way to compensate Berkeley residents for your unauthorized, even unlawful, invention of special rights of notice for property owners.

Please delay the ZAB vote on the Walgreens high rise until the LPC has had a fill, legal and fair chance to hold a hearing on this historic (historic to the whole country, btw!!!) . . and to vote without Dee and her LPC staffer Fateema blocking the LPC's legal duty to take action and vote.

As Ms. Olson, who was on LPC for 20 years, noted in her public comments at the last LPC meeting, the LPC does not have any legal mandate to let the staff tell them what to do. She read the relevant clauses from Berkeley's Municipal Code and it is clear that the LPC does not weigh property values, property owner interests and the LPC certainly owes no fealty to staffers like Dee trying to make up laws to protect the rich developers at the expense of, um, Berkeley citizens. ZAB staff, in spite of being read the actual and relevant clauses from our municipal code, insisted ZAB could not vote on the petition to landmark this historic view. I am still a bit surprised the LPC commission kow-towed to the staff after Ms. Olson read them the relevant law.

I insist the FEIR vote on the Walgreens high rise be delayed until LPC has had yet another publicly noticed hearing -- no special exceptions for anyone, please. Public notice is public notice and it is disgraceful that Dee keeps getting away with her manipulative stunts to curry favor with the monied developers. Dee, you manage, you do not order policy and just make stuff up to suit your agenda!

2

ZAB members: you can help undo an injustice, which is the special treatment given to 'landowners' in relation to the LPC petition to designate the view from the campanile as historic (geez, the whole country sees that view as iconic. . who is Dee to suggest otherwise, and is the city manager supposed to advocate? I thought the city manager implemented the policy set by council but our cutrrent manager so often seems to make up policy and then implement her own policy, which is not how Berkeley is supposed to be managed. ZAB: please delay your vote on the EIR for the Walgreens high rise, which will obliterate any view of the Golden Gate* from the Campanile, until the LPC has had a fair, just chance to do their job and vote without meddling from the city manager juking the set up.

Thanks for reading.

KRISTINA D. LAWSONPARTNERDIRECT DIAL (925) 746-8474DIRECT FAX (925) 746-8490E-MAIL klawson@hansonbridgett.com

February 1, 2018

VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Chair Steven Finacom andMembers of the Landmarks Preservation Commissionc/o Fatema Crane, Senior PlannerLand Use Planning Department1947 Center St., 2nd FloorBerkeley, CA 94704

HansonBridgett

Re: February 1, 2018 Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting; Agenda Item No.5A; 2301 Bancroft Way, Landmark or Structure of Merit (LMIN#2017-0006)designation for Campanile Way

Dear Chair Finacom and Members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission:

Our firm represents Mill Creek Residential, the proposed developer of the propertylocated at 2190 Shattuck Avenue in Downtown Berkeley. 2190 Shattuck Avenue is locatedimmediately adjacent to the Downtown Berkeley BART station, and is proposed fora high-density, transit oriented residential and commercial mixed-use project ("Project"). The Project —which is contemplated by the City's voter-ratified Downtown Area Plan ("DAP"), and subject toenvironmental review streamlining procedures —has already been under review by the City andits consultants for more than two years.

Importantly, the Project itself is not within the jurisdiction of your Commission as it doesnot propose to demolish or alter a City landmark. However, as Chair Finacom and variouspublic commenters made clear to this Commission on January 4, 2018 and to the ZoningAdjustments Board ("ZAB") on January 25, 2018, one of the purposes of the above-referencedlandmarking application is to restrict or otherwise affect the proposed Project. Just last week, aformal attempt was made to delay consideration by the ZAB of the Project's environmentalreview documentation on the grounds that the landmarking application was pending.

Given that the pending landmarking proposal appears to be intended to impact theProject, on behalf of our clients we have reviewed the final application materials to designateCampanile Way and the associated view corridor as a local landmark (the "Application") as wellas the staff report dated January 4, 2018 prepared for this item ("Staff Report"). We have alsoreviewed the entire history of the proposed Campanile Way landmarking, which dates back to2014 when a similar application was filed in an attempt to restrict and derail another transitoriented residential project proposed to be located within the boundaries of the City's DAP. Wenote that the Staff Report indicates that staff has not yet had sufficient time to process andanalyze the landmarking application and has not determined whether the application iscomplete. And, perhaps more importantly, given the unprecedented nature of the proposal to

Hanson Bridgett LLP1676 N. California Blvd., Suite 620, Walnut Creek, CA 94596

14087837.5

Chair Steven Finacom and Members of the Landmarks Preservation CommissionFebruary 1, 2018Page 2

landmark the air over Berkeley, staff has indicated that it does not know whether it has properlynoticed all affected parties.

For these reasons, and for those set forth below and as may be presented at thehearing, we strongly oppose any proposal to landmark air space over the City of Berkeley.Simply put, this Commission has no legal authority to designate the westward view fromCampanile Way (the "View")—or any view—as a landmark.

1. Commissioner Steven Finacom and Commissioner Becky O'Malley areDisqualified From Considering and Voting on the Application Because They Are ActuallyBiased

As an initial matter, Chair Finacom submitted the petition for the Landmark Initiation, andas the proponent for the proposed landmarking is necessarily and actually biased. A decisionmaker is disqualified from participating in aquasi-judicial proceeding where he hasdemonstrated an "unacceptable probability of actual bias" or prejudgment of adjudicative facts.(Woody's Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022 ["you cannotbe the judge in your own case"].). Similarly, Commissioner Becky O'Malley has been outspokenregarding her opinion on the pending application, including publishing her opinion in theBerkeley Daily Planet. Fundamentally, a fair hearing requires neutral and unbiased decisionmakers. It is well-established that a commissioner of a public agency cannot, in his or heradjudicatory capacity, make decisions on matters in which there is bias or other conflict thatwould prevent the decision maker from remaining neutral on a matter.

In Woody's, Inc., the court held that the city councilmember in question violated theprinciple that one cannot be a judge in one's own case, by voicing strong opposition to theapplicant's proposed project and then appealing the planning commission's approval of theproject to the very body on which he sits, where he ultimately convinced his fellowcouncilmembers to vote with him against the application. (233 Cal.App. 4th at 1016.) The courtconcluded that the applicant established an unacceptable probability of actual bias on thecouncilmember's part based on several facts. His notice of appeal showed he was stronglyopposed to the approval of the project, he was the one to propose the motion that the planningcommission decision be overturned, and his speech to the council, given at the appeal hearing,had been written out beforehand, "wholly belying his own self-serving comment at the hearingthat'I have no bias in this situation."' (Id. at 1023.) As the court explained, he should not havebeen part of the body hearing the appeal.

As stated in the Staff Report prepared for the January 4, 2018, the City denied asubstantially similar application to designate Campanile Way as a landmark in 2015. Thatapplication was initiated by petition on November 24, 2014 and submitted February 26, 2015.On April 2, 2015, the Commission denied the application, and now-Commissioner Finacomappealed the decision to deny the application to the City Council, On June 30, 2015, the CityCouncil held an appeal hearing but failed to act on the appeal, thereby upholding thecommission's denial. (Staff Report, p. 3.) Pursuant to Section 3.24.170 of the BerkeleyMunicipal Code, there is a two-year waiting period before a landmark designation applicationthat is the same or substantially the same as a prior application that has been disapproved bythe LPC, or the City Council on appeal, may be submitted.

2

Chair Steven Finacom and Members of the Landmarks Preservation CommissionFebruary 1, 2018Page 3

With respect to Commissioner Finacom, there is clear evidence of actual bias basedsolely on the fact that he is the named applicant on the Landmarks Application form andsignatory of the letter transmitting the petition initiating the landmarking process. While he is notthe named author of the substantive Application materials, he clearly contributed to itspreparation and is credited for numerous photographs contained therein. The fact that ChairFinacom appealed the LPC's denial of a substantially similar application in 2015, supports afinding of far more than an unacceptable probability of actual bias. With respect toCommissioner O'Malley, her public comments during other proceedings and her Berkeley DailyPlanet publications expressing her opposition to the Project and her preference to approve thelandmarking application demonstrate actual bias.

The proposed application must be considered during a fair hearing, and a fair hearingcannot be assured if participating members of the Commission are demonstrably biased.

2. The City has no authority to landmark the View, or any view.

Under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance ("Ordinance"), which is intended toprotect historical "structures, sites and areas" from being unnecessarily destroyed or impaired, aview or air space cannot be designated as a landmark.

First, the Ordinance applies only to historical resources that can be preserved, and assuch the Ordinance does not apply here. The view that is described in the Application (the"View") cannot be preserved in its original or historic state as it has changed significantly overtime since its "inception" in the 1860s when Campanile Way was first constructed, as evidencedin the Application. As also shown in the Application, due to inevitable population growth andurban development, the View will continue to change and cannot be preserved in manneranticipated by the Application.

Second, a view or air space cannot be particularly described for purposes of a landmarkdesignation. Section 3.24.100 of the Ordinance requires that each designated landmark includea description of the characteristics which justify its designation and a description of the particularfeatures that should be preserved, and "shall include the location and boundaries of thelandmark site, historic district or structure of merit site." Further, a precise description is anecessary prerequisite to providing adequate notice of hearing relating to the application forlandmark designation, making requisite findings, evaluating the proposed resource pursuant tothe criteria set forth in the Ordinance, and recording a copy of the designation on the property,all as required by the Ordinance. (BMC Secs. 3.24.140, 3.24.110, and 3.24.180.) TheApplication does not provide a legal description of the View proposed to be landmarked butrather states, "[T]he view shed can be conceptualized as a volume of air space beginning at thetop of the steps west of the Campanile and extending west to San Francisco Bay, the GoldenGate, and the Pacific Ocean." (Application, p. 47.) Therefore, without the ability to identify wherethe location of the View begins and ends using metes and bounds or otherwise,, the View cannotbe adequately described for purposes of a landmark designation.

Third, the criteria for designating and regulating landmarks established in Section3.24.180 of the Ordinance cannot be applied to a view. When a landmark has been designated,a copy of the designation is to be recorded on the legal description for the property in the Officeof the County Recorder. The designation cannot be recorded on the View, the boundaries ofwhich are described as spanning across downtown Berkeley and the Bay to San Francisco and

K3

Chair Steven Finacom and Members of the Landmarks Preservation CommissionFebruary 1, 2018Page 4

perhaps extending across the Pacific Ocean. Further, approval of the Landmarks PreservationCommission is required for any construction, alteration, or demolition "to be carried out on adesignated landmark" for which a City permit is required. Under a literal interpretation of fheOrdinance, if the View is designated as a historical landmark, any work requiring a City permitthat is visible from Campanile Way within the View will require LPC approval.

3. The Downtown Area Plan does not contemplate the protection orpreservation of the view as a potential historic resource.

The Historic Preservation and Urban Design chapter of the DAP contains a strategicstatement for historic preservation and new development downtown, and establishes specificgoals and policies. (See DAP, p. HD-1.) The extensive discussion relating to historicpreservation describes the relevant surveys and lists of historic resources that have beenconducted for Downtown, as well as the University's role in supporting the plan's objectives.(Id., p. HD-5.) Significantly, the plan takes into account potential development opportunity sitesthat are located within the view corridor proposed for designation as a landmark but does notindicate the potential significance of the View as a historical resource. (See id., Fig. HD-3.).

The plan also takes into account potential development opportunity sites that are locatedwithin the view corridor proposed for designation as a landmark, but does not indicate thepotential significance of the View as a historical resource (See DAP, Fig.. HD-3) Accordingly,any decision to landmark the View would be inconsistent with the DAP.

4. The City's General Plan does not contemplate historic preservation as ameans of view protection.

The General Plan Urban Design and Preservation Element establishes policies for viewprotection that are separate and apart from historic preservation programs. General Plan PolicyUD-31 provides that construction "should avoid blocking significant views, especially onestoward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile, Golden GateBridge, and Alcatraz Island. Whenever possible, new buildings should enhance a vista orpunctuate or clarify the urban pattern." The implementing action is "In appropriate cases wherea project could have significant impact on views or access to sunlight, require evaluation ofthose potential impacts." (Urban Design and Preservation Element (April 23, 2001.) There is nobasis to evaluate the impacts as potentially impacting the view as a historical resource.Accordingly, any decision to landmark the View would be inconsistent with the City's adoptedGeneral Plan.

5. Intangible resources such as views not eligible to be listed on the state andfederal equivalents to the City's List of Designated Landmarks.

There is no relevant precedent for view or air space landmarking. Under the CaliforniaPublic Resource Code, intangible resources are not eligible for listing in the California Registerof Historical Resources. Section 5020.1 Q) defines "historic resource" to include any object,building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically orarchaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,economic, agricultural, education, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Theimplementing regulations state that only resources which meet certain criteria may be listed inor formally determined eligible for listing in the California Register and prescribes the types of

4

Chair Steven Finacom and Members of the Landmarks Preservation CommissionFebruary 1, 2018Page 5

historical resources that may be listed to include five tangible types of property: buildings, sites,structures, objects, and historic districts. (14 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 4852).

Similarly, there is no supporting evidence permitting an intangible resource to be listed inthe National Register of Historic Places. The Federal Guidelines promulgated under theNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provide that the Act authorizes the Secretary of theInterior to expand and maintain a National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, andobjects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.However, the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting TraditionalCultural Properties expressly excludes intangible resources by stating that "it should be clearlyrecognized at the outset that the National Register does not include intangible resourcesthemselves. The entity evaluated must be a tangible property--that is, a district, site, building,structure, or object." Like the City's Ordinance, neither the federal nor state historicpreservation regulations allow landmarking of a view or air space.

In conclusion, the City's plans, policies and ordinances neither contemplate norauthorize the designation of air or a "view corridor" as a local landmark. In addition to the lack oflegal authority to do so, as a practical matter, the requirements of the Landmarks PreservationOrdinance cannot be applied to the View. We request the Landmarks Preservation Commissionto formally reject the pending landmarking application.

Very truly yours,

~~Kristina D. Lawson

KDL

cc: Honorable Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Members of the Berkeley City CouncilFatema Crane, Landmarks Commission SecretaryFarimah Brown, City Attorney

5

Harvey Helfand 1057 Curtis Street • Albany, California 94706 510-524-6003 • helfandphotography@att.net

27 March 2018

Members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, California 94704

Re: Campanile Way Landmark Application

I am writing again as an expert on the planning and architectural history of the Berkeley Campus of the University of California to emphasize my points previously made for the preservation of the view corridor from Campanile Way to the Golden Gate. My expertise draws from fifteen years as Campus Planner at Berkeley from 1978 to 1993, during which time I managed the preparation of a new Long Range Development Plan. I later conducted extensive research on the history of the campus that culminated in the publication of my book, University of California, Berkeley: The Campus Guide (Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), an authoritative work that is still regularly referred to by campus librarians and researchers today.

I hope that this letter will convince you that the preservation of the view corridor from Campanile Way to the Golden Gate is not only a significant historic issue, but also a physical exemplification of the democratic principle of the Common Good.

One of the nation’s best examples of American Beaux-Arts planning exists on the campus of the University of California in the heart of Berkeley. This early 20th century plan exemplifies the principles of that movement, with its ensemble of buildings and open spaces organized geometrically and axially and with careful alignment to natural features, vistas, and focal points that extend beyond the campus grounds. The major organizing influence in this layout is its principal westward orientation to the Golden Gate.

This connection to the Golden Gate, in fact, dates to the 19th century origins of the university when the Berkeley site was selected for the university’s predecessor institution, the College of California. A gathering of the College Trustees on the site in 1860 inspired this observation:

“Before them was the Golden Gate in its broad-opening-out into the great Pacific. Ships were coming in and going out. Asia seemed near—the islands of the sea looking this way.” (James H. Warren, editor, The Pacific, as quoted in Origin and Development of the Universityof California, by William Warren Ferrier, 1930, p. 213.)

Land Use PlanningReceived

March 27, 2018

2

This orientation is of fundamental importance not only physically and visually, but also symbolically and culturally, as was proclaimed in 1858:

“In full view, towards the ocean . . . the Golden Gate lies lapped in the glorious light that gave it its prophetic name. And the last glance of the future student of California as he leaves his native shore—his first returning glance as he welcomes home—shall fall on the spires of his own Alma Mater.” (Oration at fourth anniversary of College of California by attorney John B. Felton in 1858, in A History of the College of California, by Samuel Hopkins Willey, 1887, p. 252.)

And at the dedication of the site in 1866, this westward draw of the Golden Gate inspired the naming of the city when Trustee Frederick Billings evoked this passage by George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne:

"Westward the course of empire takes its way; The first four acts already past, A fifth shall close the drama of the day; Time's noblest offspring is the last." (as quoted in Origin and Development of the University of California, by William Warren Ferrier, 1930, p. 244.)

That same year the axial alignment to the Golden Gate was formalized by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, as described his plan for the college:

“ . . . 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 for the Improvement of the College Property” by Frederick Law Olmsted, 1866, in A History of the College of California, by Samuel Hopkins Willey, 1887. p. 354.)

Although little of Olmsted’s plan was executed, many of its principles were adopted, especially his Golden Gate axis, which aligned and organized the University of California’s first buildings, including North and South Halls, built 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 . . .” (“The Architectural Plans for the Greater University of California,” John Galen Howard, in the University Chronicle, January 1903, p. 288.)

Reinforcing this Golden Gate axis that would later terminate at the base of his great tower, Howard created a major parallel axis, establishing a central series of open spaces onto which many of his major buildings would face:

“But best of all, the view westward from the summit is one of absolute repose. 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

3

an index to the Golden Gate.” (“The Architectural Plans for the Greater University of California,” John Galen Howard, in the University Chronicle, January 1903, p. 282.)

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 Dwinelle Hall and the (Valley) Life Sciences 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:

“The boundless waste of the Pacific cloven by the axis of the University and brought into the system of its actual architectural composition! What vast horizons open to the mind’s eye beyond that wondrous passage to the sea!” (“The Architectural Plans for the Greater University of California,” John Galen Howard, in the University Chronicle, January 1903, p. 282-3.)

This axis, still evident from Campanile Way, is as important a part of Howard’s historic Beaux-Arts plan as are his individual classical buildings that are significant in their own architectural merits. For the strength of Beaux-Arts plans is in the comprehensive grouping–the organizing ensemble–that creates order, balance, and clarity in the relationships among buildings, open spaces, and vistas. This concept of the whole being greater than its parts is just as relevant as the present-day approach to “urban design.” Too often though, we see that planning and architectural practice either overlook or ignore this broader, holistic approach to the environmental context. Now, in 2018, an 18-story high-rise building is proposed for a site at 2190 Shattuck Avenue in Downtown Berkeley that, if built, would obliterate the historic axial view of the Golden Gate from Campanile Way. It is difficult to comprehend how the city’s planners could have designated such development for this site without taking into account this significant view corridor. It is equally puzzling why architectural professionals, who should be cognitive of urban-design issues, have not opposed such inappropriate building placement. While the University of California, Berkeley campus has developed over the years far beyond the Beaux-Arts plan of John Galen Howard, it is significant that many elements of Howard’s plan have survived. More than twenty buildings and ten open-space features of his ensemble remain intact to form a national Beaux-Arts treasure. Among the significant features of this extant ensemble are Campanile Way and its axial view of the Golden Gate. This vista is a significant embodiment of Berkeley’s cultural and historic heritage that must not be lost. For these reasons, I ask that you make every effort to protect this cultural and historic feature with the stewardship it calls for. And I urge the designation of Campanile Way and its historic view of the Golden Gate as a City of Berkeley Landmark.

4

Sincerely, Harvey Helfand Campus Planner, UC Berkeley, 1978-93 Architect Author, University of California, Berkeley: The Campus Guide (Princeton Architectural Press, 2002) 1057 Curtis Street Albany, California 94706 510-524-6003 helfandphotography@att.net