Please see EQR’s response to the items deemed incomplete by City of Berkeley Planning Staff in the application letter dated 3/1/2011. We have responded to the items below in blue text and with the associated attachments. We believe that based on this response, the application can be deemed complete and any remaining items can be modified with staff outside of the application process.
Dear Applicant:
On November 22, 2010, the City received an application involving the construction of 203 dwelling units, three live/work units and 20,000 square feet of rehabilitated commercial space (10,000 square feet of food service and 10,000 square feet of retail).
This application was deemed incomplete on December 21, 2010. On February 16, 2011, the City received new plans and application materials. After reviewing the new submittal, your application remains incomplete for the reasons stated below:
1. Fees. Your application was accompanied with a payment of fees to cover Design, Landmarks and Zoning Adjustments Review ($15,156). However, after reviewing your application, your project requires payment of $6,610.00 of additional fees to be considered complete (please submit a check payable to the City of Berkeley). The fees will be billed against this amount on an hourly rate of $180/hour; additional fees will be assessed as we exhaust this deposit. We have not received this payment. The check was sent in error to City of Berkeley Finance. The City of Berkeley Planning department now has the
$6,610.
2. Applicant Statement. A revised applicant statement will be needed provide the following information:
• The number, type, location (per floor) and size of each affordable unit. Also, provide a reduced set of floor plans to designate the location of each affordable unit. State Density Bonus Law and the Zoning Ordinance do not provide a mechanism to vary development standards as you have requested via payment of a fee.
Please refer to #5 and #6 below for further comment.
• A statement that details project benefits in relation to the purposes and findings in the C-1 District (See 23E.36.020 & 23E.36.090). Despite being mentioned in your letter, we have not received this statement. The C-1statement (#1) is attached to this response along with a statement addressing the DAP Consistency and Variances requested (#1a). See email attachments labeled #1 and #1a.
• Rental status (occupancy, rents) of the residential units within 1922 and 1930 Walnut Avenue. Thank you for providing information regarding the status of these dwellings. In addition to the review and approval required by 23C.08.010 and 23C.08.020, the elimination of the dwelling units is subject to review and approval of a Use Permit per 23C.08.030.E and 23C.08.030.F. Please include within your revised applicant statement a request for this Use Permit and a description of how you comply with these sections. We are requesting a use permit. Per 23C.08.030.E, the proposed changes would not result in a
reduction of housing supply essential to the well-being or housing needs of the City or of persons residing in the neighborhood in the vicinity of the
#2a) which confirms that there is no historic context for these two structures.
See the email attachment labeled #2.
3. Usable Open Space. Please note that at least 40% of the usable open space that is provided must be landscaped (23D.04.050.F). Please note within your plans the square footage of the planters, and provide the total square footage to be planted. Your revised submittal provides the percentage of usable open space to be landscaped, and notes that overall the percentage will be less than the minimum requirement of 40%. Please revise your plans to provide 40% landscaped or apply for a Variance. The revisions are attached to this response. See email attachments labeled #3, #3a, & #3b,
4. Tabular Data. Please provide tabular information, per floor of all uses by tenant/dwelling unit (tabular information for dwelling units to include unit #, # of bedrooms & baths, floor location and square footage). Thank you for providing this information within the plans.
Please submit this data in a spreadsheet as an electronic file. The tabular data is attached to this response in excel version. See email attachment labeled #4 & 4a.
5. Density Bonus. Please clarify the affordability of the qualifying units, per State Density Bonus Law (Cal Gov’t Code 65915). Your applicant statement notes that 11% of the base project units would be affordable to households at 60% AMI, and thus allow a density bonus of 35%. However, per 65915(f), to obtain a 35% bonus, the units would need to be for households at 50% AMI. Alternatively, you may continue the level of affordability, but increase the total number of affordable units to 20% of the base project units, to obtain a 35% bonus. In addition, please provide in a table, a breakdown of the base project and bonus units to show the floor and location. Please note that a density bonus cannot be granted unless the affordable units are provided within the project. If you do not wish to provide the units within the project, please state so, and provide a revised applicant statement to detail how the Variance findings can be made. Please see the attached letter addressed to Dan Marks in regards to this issue. See email attachment labeled
#5.
6. Density Bonus Concession. For each incentive/concession being requested,
demonstrate how it would be necessary to provide for the affordable housing costs or for the rents for the targeted affordable units. In addition, for projects requesting incentives or concessions that would exceed the hypothetical maximum building envelope, the applicant shall provide a financial pro forma statement, as directed by staff, demonstrating that the requested incentive/concessions are necessary to cover the cost of the affordable units.
Finally, submit a deposit to cover staff’s time to complete this work ($1000.00). Please note that a density bonus concession cannot be granted unless the affordable units are provided within the project. If you do not wish to provide the units within the project, please state so, and provide a revised applicant statement to detail how the Variance findings can be made. Please see the attached letter addressed to Dan Marks in regards to this issue. See email attachment labeled #5. The check was sent in error to City of Berkeley Finance. The City of Berkeley Planning department now has the
$1,000.
7. Live/work Units. Adequate and clearly defined working space shall be no less than sixty percent (60%) of the Gross Floor Area of the Live/Work Unit. If the workspace is less than sixty percent (60%), the unit shall be considered to be a dwelling unit and be subject to all
requirements applicable to dwelling units. Please revise your plans to comply with the City’s floor area minimum, and provide a description of the specific activity that each live/work resident will engage in and how the units are specially designed to support that use. The plans do not provide a square footage breakdown to note the % of floor area to be reserved for living or working activities. Please revise this plan to do so. In addition, your applicant statement does not provide a description of the specific activity that each live/work resident will engage in and how the units are specially designed to support that use.
New Comment: The floor area ratio of work and living space is not compliant with the building code (2010 CBC Section 419.1.1 Live/Work Units). Please revise your plan to comply with both the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code. The building code say a live/work space can have a maximum of 50% work area, and the Berkeley zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 60% work area. We are attaching plan revisions that are compliant with the Building Code. See email attachment #6.
8. Parking. To proceed with only 50 parking spaces, your project will require a parking waiver (as allowed by 23E.36.070.D). You may revise your project to provide the
minimum number of parking spaces (we estimate that your proposed project would be roughly 100 spaces short of the minimum), or you may request a use permit within your revised applicant statement. If you choose to apply for the use permit to waive the spaces, please provide a basis for this waiver per the findings within Section 23E.36.090.C. The initial applicant statement outlines our methodology in determining the number of parking spaces required. Beginning on Page 7 and extending to Page 8,there is a discussion of how the project exceeds the City’s parking requirement because of the intensity of existing legal non-conforming uses.
The project has 5 more parking spaces than the ordinance requires. See email attachment #7.
Your application will be on hold pending the submittal of the requested materials. Based on your response to this letter, additional application fees may be required (for example,
additional use permits or new Variance fees may apply). Please call me at (510) 981-7414, if you have any questions. Thank you.
Attachments:
• #1 – C1 STATEMENT
• #1A – ACHESON COMMONS DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN CONSISTENCY VARIANCE FINDINGS
• #2 – HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
• #3 – SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN
• #3A – ACE BUILDING
• #3B – MCFARLAND BUILDING
• #4 – TABULAR DATA
• #4A – ACHESON COMMONS SF AND UNIT COUNT
• #5 – MARCH 7 LETTER TO DAN MARKS
• #6 – CA2.1 GROUND FLOOR
• #7 – PARKING AND OPEN SPACE
Section 23E.36.020 Purposes
The purposes of the General Commercial (C-1) Districts are to:
A. Implement the General Plan's designations for Avenue Commercial areas;
The General Plan Land Use designation for Acheson Commons is “Downtown”
and is not “Avenue Commercial.” This anomaly exists because the project site, though zoned C-1, is in the core of the Downtown and is a part of current and former Downtown area planning efforts. There are no residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project site, which is primarily what the Avenue Commercial general plan designation is designed to balance. As such, it is more appropriate to analyze the project consistent with the Downtown general plan designation.
However, the project is consistent with the policy standards of both the Downtown and Avenue Commercial general plan designations.
General Plan Land Use Policy LU-27, Avenue Commercial Areas, Actions A.
through H.
Acheson Commons proposes a strong architectural program. The project will restore existing historic facades and provide a new infill building program that will complement the historic nature of the existing setting including Ace Hardware and the Acheson Physicians Building. The architectural program creates exciting and inviting retail and commercial service space at the ground floor level with safe, well lit sidewalks and improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Street and pedestrian improvements, including trees, bus facilities and street furniture are proposed to be implemented consistent with the Downtown Area Plan
standards, which are not a requirement of the project currently.
General Plan Land Use Policy LU-17, A., C., and D.
Acheson Commons’ proposed heights are consistent with the Downtown Plan that was recently approved by Berkeley voters by an overwhelming 64%. The plan calls for increased heights in the core of the downtown, and 75’ heights in other areas. The proposed project is consistent with those heights (six stories) and proposes significant public and community benefits in an area of downtown that is underutilized and neglected. The project is also mixed-use project with high density residential proposed over ground floor retail. Numerous office uses exist in the immediate vicinity and the University of California is under construction
across Berkeley Way to the north. That project will generate significant additional
new employment space that will complement Acheson Commons’ housing density.
B. Provide locations for a wide variety of activities along thoroughfares;
Acheson Commons will provide a strong mix of uses consistent with Zoning and General Plan requirements. Ground floor retail spaces that have been allowed to decay over the last two decades will be rehabilitated. New retail spaces will be well lit and inviting. They will contribute to both daytime and night timer activities. Future food service uses will be able to place tables and chairs on the new sidewalks that will be constructed consistent with the Downtown Area Plan’s Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan. In addition, the project will provide more than 200 new dwelling units. This will result in significant new residents in the immediate vicinity that will patronize new businesses.
C. Encourage development in underutilized neighborhood and community shopping areas; and
The project site is completely underutilized. Much of it is currently vacant.
Acheson Commons will create new and revitalized retail spaces and 203 new dwelling units in the core of the downtown. The new residents will patronize both existing and future businesses and will create new demand for retail and services that does not exist today. Refurbished retail spaces will attract higher end retail shops that will both enhance existing retail and create a new and exciting “retail cluster”. The revitalized retail and new residents will provide the City with new business attraction and increased sales tax revenues, property tax revenues, and business license revenues.
D. Promote development compatible with adjacent commercial and residential areas.
Acheson Commons is located in the core of Downtown Berkeley. There are no residential neighborhoods adjacent to the site. The proposed project is consistent in both height and massing with other mixed-use and commercial buildings adjacent and confronting the project. The proposed mix of uses reflects and complements the uses that already exist in the surrounding area.
E. Implement permitted use regulations and building development
standards for the University Avenue Strategic Plan Overlay area, as stated in the University Avenue Strategic Plan Goals, to:
1. Increase public safety for residents, merchants, and customers.
4. Encourage more pedestrian-oriented development and an appropriate mix of uses to improve neighborhood identity.
5. Enhance University Avenue as a gateway to the City, a series of neighborhoods, and the downtown.
6. Coordinate and enhance public transit systems, pedestrian access, and bicycle circulation.
7. Encourage a concentration of commercial activity at the
designated nodes. (Ord. 6830-NS § 2 (part), 2004: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)
Purpose E is not applicable to Acheson Commons. The proposed project is NOT within the University Avenue Strategic Plan Overlay Area.
Other Required Findings
The other required finding for Acheson Commons from Section 23E.36.090 is relevant to the use permit requested under Section 23E.070.D. That finding was provided in the original applicant statement as follows:
23E.36.090.C for 23E.36.070.D to allow reduced open space (40,600 s.f. required, 15,982 proposed)
For any Use Permit under Section 23E.36.070.D or E, the proposed use or structure must satisfy at least one of the following general purposes:
1. To encourage use of the ground floor for commercial purposes where appropriate.
2. To encourage utilization of public transit and existing off-street parking facilities in the area of the proposed building.
3. To facilitate the construction of residential or tourist hotel uses where appropriate.
4. To permit consistency with the building setbacks existing in the immediate area where a residential building setback would not serve a useful
purpose.
The proposed project satisfies findings 1, 2, and 3, above. The project will rehabilitate and reuse existing ground floor commercial space in the heart of Downtown Berkeley. The site is one block from the Berkeley BART station and does not provide excessive parking facilities so residents will use public
transportation. The project proposes to construct 203 new residential dwelling units where 8 currently exist.
The reduced open space is warranted for two additional reasons. First, the project will include several well designed on site open spaces that will provide opportunities for tenants' use. Secondly, the project site is only one block from the City’s largest open space feature, the University of California at Berkeley. The UC campus offers a plethora of open space opportunities for passive and active recreation. More open space could be provided on site, there are ample
opportunities for the additional space. However, it is not necessary to provide that level of open space in this urban setting, so close to such an immense open space resource on the UC campus. If the City of Berkeley, through the
entitlement process, requires more open space then it could be provided on site on other roof top areas.
Variance Findings March, 2011
Introduction
On February 1, 2011, City Planning staff requested that Equity Residential describe in writing how the proposed Acheson Commons project, “complies with the Downtown Plan and the Streetscape and Open Space Improvement Plan.” In addition, staff
requested that we “present a revised applicant
statement to address the density bonus and variances.”
The following document provides an analysis of how the project
is consistent with the Downtown Area Plan (DAP), the Streets and Open
Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP), and the Climate Action Plan (CAP). This document also provides findings that are necessary to approve the proposed project variances.
The variances are only necessary because the underlying zoning of Acheson Commons is still C-1 (General Commercial) even though the project is consistent with the
standards of the draft DAP.
It should be noted the neither the DAP nor the SOSIP is adopted now and therefore the project is not required to be consistent with them. However, the combination of
Berkeley’s vision as expressed by the DAP, coupled with the resources that will be committed to Acheson Commons will achieve an important part of the DAP’s implementation now, rather than later.
There is not currently a “draft” of the DAP. Rather, this analysis relies on two documents that likely form the basis of the DAP. They include the City Council’s rescinded 2010 draft of the DAP and the ballot language from Measure R, adopted by Berkeley voters last year. The SOSIP analysis relies on the draft document adopted by the SOSIP
subcommittee on September 30, 2011.
Downtown Area Plan Consistency
There are many, many elements of the proposed Downtown Area Plan that Acheson Commons meets or exceeds. Only the most significant elements are included in this
Equity Residential - Acheson Commons Plan Consistency/Variance Findings March, 2011 Page 2 of 9
discussion. Acheson Commons is consistent with the all of the major aspects of the Downtown Area Plan, whether one uses the City Council’s 2009 rescinded draft or the voter approved Measure R. The project’s height is 75’, which is consistent with Measure R and below the Council’s draft (85’). Consistent with both plans, the project preserves and rehabilitates existing historic resources, implements the draft Streetscape and Open Space Improvement Plan (see below), provides a strong mix and density of residential rental housing (8% of Berkeley’s current RHNA), establishes a gateway for the north end of the Downtown, implements green building features, and provides a
significant contribution to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. The proposed project does not request to take advantage of Measure R’s Green Pathway because, unfortunately, the City of Berkeley has not had the opportunity to implement the process changes that would guarantee the delivery of entitlements within 270 days. In fact, as of this writing, the project has been at the City for over 120 days.
Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan Consistency
Acheson Commons proposes to implement the draft Downtown Area Plan’s proposed Streets and Open Improvement Plan (SOSIPs) even though they are not a requirement currently. The Downtown Area Plan has been in process for nearly six years. In 2010 the voters of Berkeley overwhelmingly approved the major components of the Downtown Area Plan. It is anticipated that the City Council will formally adopt policy and
implementation legislation later in 2011.
SOSIP provides guidelines and preferred design configurations for Acheson Commons’
streetscape improvements. The SOSIPs proposed design for the Acheson Commons blocks are shown below, followed by the street and landscape improvement plan proposed by Equity Residential for Acheson Commons. The proposed project’s
streetscape improvements are nearly identical to the SOSIP recommendation, as shown in the diagrams below.
SOSIPs Diagram Acheson Commons Proposed
Streetscape
before
after
The draft SOSIPS plan (and the DAP) specifically addresses the east end of University Avenue as it relates to Acheson Commons. The Plans envision University Avenue and Shattuck Avenue as a new “gateway” to the University and to the Downtown by reducing travel lanes, widening sidewalks (including outdoor dining or
retail/informational kiosks), increased trees and landscaping, installation of green infrastructure, and providing diagonal parking to increase the on-street supply. The ideas embodied by the Plans would create a strong pedestrian oriented streetscape environment that enhances retail, residential, and visitor experiences.
Equity Residential is excited by Berkeley’s vision, and has incorporated all of the SOSIPs streetscape elements into the Acheson Commons design. Plan sheets L1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 6.1 provide details relevant to the design features. The plans include eliminating one west bound travel lane and replacing it with a net increase in on-street parking spaces and the installation of sidewalk and landscape bulb-outs. The new parking strips feature appropriate landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting, and permeable pavers for rain water retention and percolation. The new widened sidewalks at the bulb out areas increase from the current nine feet to more than 20 feet in width. These expanded areas are proposed to include sidewalk café
seating, public benches, and a kiosk at the University/Walnut corner.
Climate Action Plan Consistency
Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)was adopted in 2010 and serves as the umbrella for how Berkeley is to reduce its carbon footprint and implement Measure G, adopted by Berkeley voters
overwhelmingly (81%) in 2008. Acheson Commons is specifically consistent with the first three and most important/effective goals of the CAP by placing 203 dwelling units in the heart of Berkeley’s downtown transit and employment hub. The project furthers Berkeley’s climate action goals by placing well designed density near excellent transit and employment (significantly reducing VMT and GHG), preserving existing buildings (and their
embedded energy), and implementing SOSIPs and
enhanced streetscape and bicycle facilities. The following are the CAP’s first three goals:
1. Goal: Increase density along transit corridors
Equity Residential - Acheson Commons Plan Consistency/Variance Findings March, 2011 Page 4 of 9
As has been mentioned, an essential component of reducing
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions in Berkeley and in the region is to direct new development to locations that are close to transit and have retail and other services within walking distance (such as the Downtown).
2. Goal: Increase and enhance urban green and open space, including local food production, to improve the health and quality of life for
residents, protect biodiversity, conserve natural resources, and foster walking and cycling
Green and open spaces are essential components of Berkeley’s livability, public health and ecological sustainability. Safe and inviting public parks, vibrant community gardens, and high-quality street design help to foster physical activity (and low-carbon mobility) such as walking and cycling.
Well-designed open spaces can also serve as parts of an advanced and integrated storm water system that promotes storm water quality and reduces downstream flooding. Utilizing natural systems to manage water resources also has the potential to reduce the need for more energy and carbon intensive storm water infrastructure projects. Further, Berkeley’s parks, gardens and streetscapes can be designed to conserve shrinking water resources by utilizing drought-resistant plants and water-efficient irrigation techniques.
3. Goal: Manage parking more effectively to minimize driving demand and to encourage and support alternatives to driving
Findings for Variances
The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance requires four findings be made in order to approve a variance. The findings and Equity Residential’s response are included below.
Section 23B.44.030 Findings for Issuance and Denial
A. After the Board has conducted a public hearing, it shall act on the application. The Board may approve a Variance application, either as submitted or modified, only if it makes all of the following findings:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same District;
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the subject property's owner;
3. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or the
construction of a building, structure or addition thereof, to be approved will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said
neighborhood; and that the granting of the Variance will promote the municipal health, welfare and safety and benefit the City as a whole;
4. Any other variance findings required by the Section of the Ordinance applicable to that particular Variance.
Equity Residential has appreciated the opportunity to become familiar with Berkeley’s vision for its Downtown. Equity Residential continues to work with the community to insure that Acheson Commons reflects our commitment to helping to achieve the goals of the Downtown Area Plan around the project site, and beyond. Acheson Commons proposes a substantial commitment to Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund, implementation of the Downtown Area Plan’s Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan, preservation and rehabilitation of important historic resources, greenhouse gas reduction, job and revenue creation and other proposed community benefits (please see attached). This letter is an amendment to the Applicant’s Statement and should serve as the basis for the findings necessary to approve the project so that it is consistent with the voter- approved Measure R.
First and foremost, neither the current level of development nor that allowed under the C-1 zoning designation provides for Equity Residential’s “preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.” The existing historic resource structures are badly
dilapidated and in need of significant repair, rehabilitation, and structural strengthening to bring them consistent with the City of Berkeley Landmarks Ordinance. This
rehabilitation and repair cannot be accomplished with the returns that would be provided by either re-tenanting the existing retail and office spaces, or by the potential marginal returns development intensity allowed by C-1 development standards. The cost of construction for two residential stories in the Downtown does not pay for itself at a site such as this, let alone provide additional benefit to help support the historic rehabilitation.
Equity Residential - Acheson Commons Plan Consistency/Variance Findings March, 2011 Page 6 of 9
University Avenue Shattuck Avenue
The level of community benefit required by the City, envisioned by the DAP and
Measure R, and proposed by Acheson Commons cannot be feasibly financed with the level of land use intensity allowed by the current Zoning Ordinance development standards. The total additional cash benefit, in the form of the offer for the Housing Trust Fund, implementation of the SOSIPs, green development features and historic
rehabilitation equates to more than $7,374,000 (see Acheson Commons Community Benefits and Project Amenities list at the end of this document). In order to achieve the Community's vision for the heart of the Downtown, variances from the existing zoning requirements are necessary. The proposed variances will allow for a feasible level of development and use while remaining well within the voter adopted Measure R and draft Downtown Area Plan standards.
Equity Residential is offering the City of Berkeley $1,624,000 for the Housing Trust Fund.
The offer includes that the money must be used for below market rate housing within the proposed DAP boundary. Equity Residential’s offer allows Berkeley to fund high quality service-enriched below market rate housing in the downtown while still providing feasibility for a project that, when built, will help Berkeley realize even more of its
downtown goals. The Housing Trust Fund monies are able to be leveraged at up to 4:1 levels when used for projects developed by non-profit housing providers seeking state and federal financing. So the leveraged value of Equity Residential’s offer is more than
$4,000,000.
As recommended in the DAP, Equity Residential has chosen to offer a financial commitment to the Housing Trust Fund in-lieu of providing below market rate units on the project site. However, providing those units qualified the project for a 35% density bonus under the state law. The proposed level of on-site below market rate units
justified the development envelope that is currently proposed pursuant to density bonus law. The proposed project variances remain justified by the level of community benefit anticipated by Measure R and unique circumstances embodied by the proposed project’s site. The references to density bonus in the initial project Applicant’s Statement no longer pertain.
In addition to the lack of financial feasibility presented by C-1 zoning standards, the project is also challenged by circumstances that are unique to this site in the heart of
the downtown. These include both the number of significant historic resources and the level of rehabilitation and restoration.
The proposed project will rehabilitate and revitalize four important and very prominent historic resources, and two potential historic resources, on just over one acre of land at the intersection of two of Berkeley’s most prominent and historic avenues (Shattuck and University). The proposed project will not only rehabilitate and revitalize the designated structures, but will also retain the entire street front wall (with the exception of
Bachenheimer) of historic buildings along University Avenue between Walnut and Shattuck Avenues. The project site’s location currently supports designated historic resources at the following:
• 1987 Shattuck Avenue (former MacFarlane’s/US Realty Co)
• 2125 and 2131 University Avenue (Acheson Physician’s Building)
• 2145 University Avenue (Sill’s Grocery & Hardware Company/Montgomery Ward)
In addition, the project site is bifurcated by a new infill building. The split site
development creates significant additional cost and logistical burdens and the need to accommodate two different staging areas, one of which is at one of the Downtown’s busiest intersections. Specifically, the construction site will require a larger staging area that will not be able to be contained completely on-site. Material and workers will be required to move and construct “around” the existing Bachenheimer building.
The non-detriment finding is easily made for Acheson Commons based on its very high level of project amenity and community benefit. In addition, no significant negative impacts will occur as a result of the project including traffic and parking (study separately submitted), historic resources (study separately submitted) or land use (project consistency with proposed Downtown Area Plan).
Equity Residential - Acheson Commons Plan Consistency/Variance Findings March, 2011 Page 8 of 9
Acheson Commons - in the Heart of Berkeley
Acheson Commons is an exciting new project that will transform the heart of Downtown Berkeley. Acheson Commons will reinvigorate and restore several important Berkeley landmarks, while creating new residential and retail destinations just steps from the Arts District, BART and the Cal campus. Acheson
Commons is a green and sustainable development, rehabilitating existing historic resources and placing well designed urban housing next to excellent transit, education, employment and, retail opportunities.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS of ACHESON COMMONS
(203 Transit-oriented Dwelling Units Compared to Single-Family)
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
@558,000 lbs CO2/year reduction
Energy (BTU) 1,421,000,000,000 BTU/year saved
Project Amenities and Community Benefits
• Proposed $70 million dollar investment in Downtown Berkeley that will be an attractor for additional downtown investment
• Sustainable Design - Retains and restores existing historic resources at an additional project cost of $5,000,000
• Provides $1,624,000 ($8,000 per unit) for the City of Berkeley Housing Trust Fund
• Significant and permanent increase in property and retail tax revenues generated for Berkeley (property tax alone will increase from $515,000 to
$1,163,555 per year
• Beautiful new sidewalk and streetscape design and amenities consistent with new Downtown Area Plan at an additional cost of @ $750,000
• 203 transit-oriented and sustainable infill housing units - well designed density in the heart of Downtown Berkeley’s existing transit infrastructure saves more than 2,000,000 vehicle miles and almost 1,500 barrels of oil per year
• 350 or more new residents that will contribute to a more welcoming downtown and patronize existing commercial businesses
• New northern gateway for the downtown area. Architectural design complements and reinforces Berkeley’s historic urban fabric
• Provides more than 8% of Berkeley’s total Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the current reporting period
• New/rehabilitated ground floor retail shops
• Strong pedestrian activity nodes and connections
• New jobs and employment opportunities - 100+ well paying construction jobs for nearly two years of build out + new retail and property management jobs
• Permanent employment opportunities in more active retail spaces and residential property management and maintenance
• No adjacent residential neighborhoods
• No traffic impacts, exceeds City of Berkeley parking requirements Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT)
@2,030,000 miles/year = 81,200 gallons of gas = 1,476 barrels of oil per year saved
December 22, 2010
University-Shattuck, Berkeley Historic Resource Evaluation
Introduction
This report has been requested for the purpose of confirming the extent of historic and potentially historic resources amongst a grouping of properties on a single block bound by University and Shattuck Avenues, Walnut Street, and Berkeley Way in downtown Berkeley. This effort has been requested in the context of a proposed project that would add new construction to seven of the eight subject parcels.
Addresses (and common names) of the subject parcels include:
1987 Shattuck Avenue (El Sombrero Taqueria) 2111 University Avenue (El Sombrero Taqueria) 2125 & 2131 University
(Crepes-A-Go-Go &
Acheson Physicians Bldg.) 2145 University Avenue
(Berkeley Hardware) 1900 Walnut Street
(parking lot) 1930 Walnut Street
(residence)
1922 Walnut Street (residence)
0 Berkeley Way (parking lot)
Under one ownership, these eight parcels amount to approximately two-thirds of the area of their block. Those on Shattuck and University are 1-story commercial buildings except 2125 University, which is 4-stories. At the corner of Shattuck and University, 1987 Shattuck Ave. houses a number of individual stores and storefronts along each frontage. The other three University Ave. properties align along the frontage of that block, though with a separately owned, mid-block parcel standing between 2111 and 2125 University. At the east end of this block, 2145 University is another corner building at University and Walnut. 1900 Walnut and 0 Berkeley Way (the address given on the zon- ing information map) are contiguous, open parking lots that wrap around two, 2-story residential
PRESERVATION
A R C H I T E C T U R E446 17th Street #302 Oakland 94612 510 418 0285 [email protected]
A B
C
D
E
F G H
A
University Avenue
Berkeley Way
Shattuck
Avenue
Walnut
Street
B
C
D E F G H
Fig.1–Northeast Corner, University at Shattuck, Downtown Berkeley (north is up)
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P2
Non-subject properties on this block include the aforementioned mid-block structure at 2119 University, which is a new building with 3-stories of apartments over a commercial base. Another, 2108 Shattuck, at the southeast corner of Shattuck Ave. and Berkeley Way, is a single-story commer- cial building which houses a number of retail stores and shops, along with an attached, 2-story com- mercial structure located at its rear, inside corner. And 2120 Berkeley Way is a 2-story warehouse-like structure standing mid-block on Berkeley Way.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), bona fide (i.e., formally recognized) historic resources are integral to California’s environment. CEQA requires that, in relation to proposed proj- ects requesting regulatory permission, historic resources be identified, and potential impacts thereon also be identified as well as measured to determine whether or not a proposed project will have a detrimental affect thereon. Under CEQA, historic resources are those that:
• Are listed on or formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR), and which are therefore also listed on the California Register (CR).
• Are formally designated as historic resources by local jurisdictions.
• Have been formally surveyed and, as a result, are listed on the State of California Historic Resources Inventory (SHRI) with an assigned significance rating of 1 through 5.1
In addition to CEQA, under the City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), actions that will affect designated and nominated Landmarks and Structures of Merit (which constitute for- mally designated local historic resources) are required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC).
The following addresses the identification of historic and potentially historic resources.
Evaluation Summary
Seven individual structures – in one instance there are two individual structures on one parcel (2125
& 2131 University) – occupy the eight subject parcels. Six of the individual structures were previous- ly identified as historic structures; three as City of Berkeley Landmarks and as listed on the SHRI (1987 Shattuck Ave., 2131 & 2145 University Ave. , and three others are listed on the SHRI (2131 University Ave., 1922 & 1930 Walnut Street). One subject structure (2125 University) was not previ- ously recorded, and another (2111 University) not previously evaluated. And two of the lots are open parking lots (1900 Walnut & 0 Berkeley Way).
This evaluation examines each of the subject structures and, as detailed herein, concludes that the historical, material and physical evidence supports the historic resource finding for four of the seven structures: 1987 Shattuck Ave.; and 2125, 2131 & 2145 University Ave.
1. Ratings are assigned to resources based on their historic resource evaluation record. Formal status codes are assigned and/or confirmed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. The several status codes are: 1) Listed in the NR or CR; 2) Determined eligible for the NR or CR; 3) Appears eligible for the NR or CR through survey evaluation; 4) Appears eligible for the NR or CR through other evaluation; 5) Recognized as historically significant by local government; 6) Not eligible;
and 7) Not evaluated.
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P3
Additionally, this effort evaluates 2111 University Avenue, which had not previously been evaluated, and concludes that the historical evidence supports an historic resource finding.
This evaluation also finds that in the case of two properties – 1922 & 1930 Walnut Street – the evi- dence fails to support an historic resource finding.
Historic Context
Historic resources are, occasionally, individual properties that independently merit significance.
Mostly, resources are determined to be historic because they are part of a meaningful historic con- text. Thus, for the purposes of identifying resources for listing on the NR and CR, an historic con- text specific to the subject resources is first established. Historic contexts are “patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning within history is made clear.” (National Register Bulletin 15, p7)
If it can be determined that a property fits an historic context, and if that property also has a basis for a finding of significance (per NR and CR criteria, if it is associated with an historical event or persons, or is notable as a work of design, etc.), then there is a logical basis for a determination of historical significance.
Based on publications and records about Berkeley’s history, including records for several of the resources under study, the historic context for this block and its parcels is the development of Berkeley’s early 20th century downtown, to which this block is central, standing at one of the four corners at the crossing of its primary avenues, Shattuck and University.
The City of Berkeley was founded and established in the mid-to-late 1800s. During this period, a downtown emerged in its present vicinity and largely in association with the railway. The 19th centu- ry downtown was populated with wood framed structures, of which almost none remain.
Downtown Berkeley was re-established during the period of 1900-1930, when the City’s 20th century civic and urban qualities took root in the form of a “classical” downtown, meaning one predicated on Beaux-Arts and City Beautiful urban design movements.
The following citations about Berkeley’s history summarize the downtown context:
“Berkeley’s downtown is a concentrated district containing commercial and business areas, the Civic Center, Berkeley’s only high school, the main entrance to the University of California, and the hub of public transporta- tion.” (Cerny, Berkeley Landmarks, p88)
“In the early 1900s Berkeley experienced a dramatic increase in population…. The economic growth stimulated by the increased population and the expanding University directly supported the rebuilding of Berkeley’s downtown between 1901 and 1916. Nineteenth century wood-frame commercial buildings were replaced with stately and impressive masonry buildings, most often designed by the leading architects of the day.” (Cerny, Berkeley Landmarks, p86)
And from the landmark record for 2145 University: “The Acheson Family…participated in establishing a
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P4
Historical Associations
This last citation identifies the Achesons, a family who were early property owners on the subject block, which then stood at the terminus of the Northern Railway. In 1874, John Acheson (1840-1881) acquired the property at the northeast corner of Shattuck and University Avenues from Henry Durant, and where Acheson constructed and began operating a hotel in 1876. The City of Berkeley was incorporated in 1878. Acheson passed away in 1881, leaving the Terminus Hotel to his wife Lelita, who acquired additional land, expanded, and changed its name to the Acheson Hotel in the mid- 1880s. Following the loss of the Acheson Hotel to fire in 1896, the structure was rebuilt. That hotel was removed in 1925, when the current commercial building at 1987 Shattuck was erected.
During this period, Lelita and her sons, William and Albert, acquired other parcels across the south- ern front of this block (and which were even then separated by the property corresponding to 2119 University). In 1908, the Achesons erected the Acheson Physicians Building at 2131 University, where a 2-story dwelling previously stood on the western half of this relatively large site. In 1911, the cur- rent store building at 2111 University was erected for and on a property of Lelita Acheson, which then housed a 1-story, c1900 commercial building that directly adjoined the Acheson Hotel. In 1915, the Achesons erected the Sill’s Grocery and Hardware Store at the corner of University and Walnut, replacing a pair of dwellings, one of which was then moved, according to a building permit, to the northwest corner of Cedar and Spruce (if so, that relocated structure would have subsequently burned in the 1923 Berkeley Fire). Finally, in 1921, the small retail building at 2125 University was added to the west side of the Acheson Physicians Building.
Thus, with the exception of the separately owned mid-block parcel, the Achesons owned and were responsible for the development of the early-20th century commercial frontage along this block of University and around the corner to the middle of the block on Shattuck and Walnut. Their early- 20th century activities in the historic context of downtown Berkeley render the Achesons persons of historical and cultural importance to the City of Berkeley.
Fig.2–Northeast Corner, University at Shattuck (Shattuck Ave. at left, University Ave. at right)
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P5
Evaluation
Three of the structures on this block are designated City of Berkeley Landmarks (CBL) – the former MacFarlane’s store at the corner of Shattuck and University (1987 Shattuck Ave., El Sombrero
Taqueria, etc.), the Acheson Physicians Building that stands approximately mid-block on University (2131 University Ave.), and the former Sill’s Grocery and Hardware Company building at the corner of University and Walnut (2145 University Ave., Berkeley Hardware). Each of these properties are also listed on the SHRI with an assigned NR status of 3S (“Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation”). Though none are listed on the NR or CR, their specific iden- tification as NR eligible define them as historic resources under CEQA.
Two of these three buildings (MacFarlane’s and Acheson) were initiated for landmarking in 1982. The Acheson Physicians Building was landmarked by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) in January 1983. Following an appeal process that took more than a year to resolve, that CBL status was sustained. At the same LPC hearing in early January 1983, the former MacFarlane’s store build- ing at 1987 University was denied landmark status, but was granted the lesser Structure of Merit sta- tus. In 1986, a landmark application for that building was reinitiated, and the CBL status was granted in September 1986. 2145 University Ave. was designated a CBL in June 2004.
The following reiterates statements included in the CBL records for each of these three buildings:
1987 Shattuck: “…in recognition of its location at the historic intersection of University and Shattuck Avenue, and in that it contributes prominently to the integrity of early downtown Berkeley…”.
2131 University: “…represents a special period of downtown Berkeley History, as a keystone of the whole classi- cal development of downtown Berkeley, and captures that period of development between 1903 and 1910…”.
2145 University: “…an important contributing structure for the historic context of downtown Berkeley. Its tradi- tional features are reflected in surrounding buildings of the same era that together define one of the few remaining classic downtowns in California.”
Records for each of the landmarks also identify their defining characteristics, as follows.
1987 Shattuck Avenue (fig.3)
MacFarlane’s/U.S. Realty Co. Building; Earle Bertz, Arch., 1925
The SHRI record for 1987 Shattuck summarizes the essential details of this structure, and which is recognized as the exterior walls and features, including:
• Parapet with a 2 foot high ornamental balustrade and closely spaced corbels, all of sheet metal;
• Band of arcaded windows with lathed wood mullions.
The HRI record makes no mention of its storefronts, except to note that there are five along
Shattuck – including the corner store – and two along University. Of these, the northernmost four on Shattuck are partially intact, with metal (steel or bronze) framed storefront windows above a mar- ble clad bulkhead, ceramic tile floors at entry landings, and at least several wood and glass panel entry doors. The large corner storefront is not intact, and the two storefronts on University have
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P6
Those original features are in evidence today, though what is also in evidence is the modesty and diminished condition of these façade treatments relative to their context and setting.
Despite this modesty, given this corner building’s fit to the historic context and its direct association to the Achesons, 1987 Shattuck Ave. is appropriately identified as an historic resource.
2131 University Avenue (fig.4)
Acheson Physicians Building; George L. Mohr, Arch., 1908
Per the SHRI, identified characteristics of the Acheson Physicians Building include:
• 4-story brick structure in 3 vertical parts
• 4 stores at ground story
• Central, arched main entrance, with terra cotta trim, and colored tiles in the pavement
• Small windows corresponding to office areas, with splayed lintels above each
• Cornice, sheet metal
• 6 pilasters across the across the lower story, each with Ionic capitals.
The original central entrance way appears to be intact except for the entry doors. The lobby within also appears to be largely intact. At the storefronts, the original wood sash clerestory windows are intact, and three of the four storefronts appear intact, including metal framed storefront windows with ceramic tile bulkheads below, ceramic tile paving at entry ways, and wood entry doors. The westernmost storefront is no longer intact.
The extant historical record for 2131 University generally analyzes and summarizes a basis for histori- cal significance. Moreover, with age, the significance of larger-scale, early-20th century downtown structures has only increased. So, based on its fit within the historic context, its direct association to the Achesons, and its architecture, the identified historic resource status of 2131 University is also a logical and appropriate conclusion.
2145 University Avenue (fig.4)
Sill’s Grocery & Hardware Company/Montgomery Wards; James Plachek, Arch., 1915
As this CBL record is by far the most recent (2004), it is the most developed, summarizing overall characteristics and, helpfully, identifying “particular features to be preserved…”:
• The assumed clerestory windows
• Tan pressed brick on the exterior
• Metal cornice on east and south facades
• Parapet on south façade with an oval plaque embellished with a terra cotta garland
• Red and green tiles below the cornice
• The central store entry
• The store display windows
• The interior wide stairway with a balustrade of a cast iron design that leads to a mezzanine The last feature identified in the landmark record is an interior element, which does not seem appro- priate, as this is not a publicly owned property and as privately owned interiors are typically exclud- ed from local historic resource designation – unless of extra-importance, which this interior stair is not. This interior feature is modest and, in fact, in the record, it is specifically identified as not being original to the building. Nonetheless, altogether, given its fit to the historic context, a direct associa- tion to the Achesons, the architectural quality of its street-facing facades, and its architect, 2145 University is appropriately identified as an historic resource.
Other Resources
No other structures on this block have been designated or initiated as Berkeley Landmarks or Structures of Merit, nor are any of these properties associated with an existing or potential historic district. Three other subject properties are listed on the SHRI:
• Two brown-shingle houses on Walnut St. at the corner of Berkeley Way (1922 and 1930 Walnut Street);
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P7
Fig.4–2131 University Avenue (at left) and 2145 University Avenue (at right)
In the SHRI, each of these properties are likewise assigned a NR rating of 3S (“Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation”).
The historic resource surveys that formed the basis of all six of these listings in the SHRI are dated 1978-79. In the case of these latter three properties, it appears that no further historical research or recordation has been undertaken since the 1978 survey.
1922 and 1930 Walnut Street (fig.5) No arch. (per original permit), 1905 One historic resources inventory record was utilized for both these res- idential structures, and also included a third brown shingle structure that stands directly across the street (1925 Walnut St.). Therein, statements sum- marizing their character include:
“These three brown shingle structures represent the last vestiges of
Berkeley’s residential character in the downtown environment.” Adding: “All three buildings are characteristic of the brown shingle style…”.
In 1994, the City of Berkeley adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, which includes the listing of forty-nine landmarks in the downtown, and added another list labeled “significant buildings.” In the landmark category, there were no residences listed. In the latter category there were six houses list- ed, three on Kittredge St., and these three residences on Walnut. Though listed as “significant,” that listing does not appear to have been based on any formal survey or specific evaluation (there are no specific City planning or landmarks files for these properties), and does not constitute the designa- tion of an historic resource.
In the duration of time since these residences were evaluated, the number of resources and the his- toric context for downtown Berkeley has developed considerably. To date, approximately sixty-five downtown properties have been made Landmarks. Despite that quantity and the breadth across the downtown, no residences have been made landmarks in the Downtown Berkeley.
The wood frame and brown shingle residences on Walnut Street do not fit in the requisite historic context of downtown Berkeley. There are in fact almost no other residences in the downtown, and none of the brown-shingled style. This is due to the reality that there are few residences in down- town, and which is so because residences are out of context downtown. With respect to potential historical associations, though 1922 and 1930 Walnut have been under Acheson ownership, these resi- dential properties were not erected for or by the Achesons, but were acquired by the Achesons in mid-century. Thus, these residences do not have a direct association to the Achesons.
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P8
Fig.5–1922 Walnut St. (at right) and 1930 Walnut St. (at left)
Otherwise, amongst the distinctive residences and residential-like structures amidst Berkeley’s residen- tial neighborhoods, including those associated with the University, shingled wood-frame structures of the period of the late-19th and 20th centuries have their own historic context in Berkeley. In every residential neighborhood stand examples of distinctive wood-frame and wood-shingled structures from the late-1900s through the entire range of the 20th century. In relation to these numerous examples, the subject shingled residences on Walnut St. do not embody distinction and simply do not compare as architectural examples. This is due not to any lack of architectural characteristics, but for the absence of an historic context. This point is presently all the more clear with the removal of the massive building on the adjacent block, exposing these plain and out-of-place shin- gled residences. These structures are also without an association to an original architect.
Altogether, the brown shingled residences at 1922 and 1930 Walnut do not meet historic resources criteria for eligibility to the NR or CR.
2125 University Avenue (fig.7) James Plachek, Arch., 1921
The name given on the 1978 HRI form for this property is the “Plachek addition to the Acheson Building.” This building amounts to a single-story store building with a small architectural front and a correspondingly small, triangularly planned interior space. It is a diminutive structure. Its urban and architectural qualities are limited. Yet it is identified as an early “addition” to the notable Acheson Building and was designed by the notable architect James Plachek. Though these characteristics aren’t currently obvious, in their downtown context, such relationships combine to warrant a sense of his- torical significance.
On the other hand, a large proportion (2-thirds) of its originally dignified façade, including its store- front, is absent, and the remaining portion is diminished behind layers of paint and signage. Still, the present structure directly relates both to the historic context of downtown Berkeley and to the Acheson association. Enough of the façade is intact to say that it also has a modicum of integrity, so the structure at 2125 University maintains its purported historical significance.
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P9
Fig.6–2111 University Ave. Fig.7–2125 University Ave.
One additional property, 2111 University Avenue, stands directly to the east of the building at the corner of University and Shattuck (1987 Shattuck). 2111 University is a small, single-story, brick-front- ed and flat-roofed commercial building with side-by-side storefronts. This building was also surveyed in 1978, but was not recorded for the purposes of the SHRI. Its 1978 record describes details – mor- tar, terra cotta capitals, dentils, egg and dart, brackets, green and white mosaic tiles inlaid in doorway – yet without making an overall case for architectural importance. As such, the record accurately reflects the basic character of this store building.
As an individual structure, 2111 University does not have sufficient architectural character or associa- tion to warrant a finding of significance. Nor is its original architect/builder noteworthy. Yet, again, the building fits into the historic context of downtown Berkeley, as it is a commercial, storefront building of the period between 1900 and 1930. It was also constructed for the Achesons, so likewise has an association to persons directly linked with this block and with other historic structures there- on. The architectural and material integrity of its façade and storefronts is somewhat greater than that of 2125 University. Consequently, this structure appears to meet requisite historic resource cri- teria.
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY HR EVAL–12/22/2010–P10
February 22, 2011 (DRAFT - via email) University-Shattuck, Berkeley
Project Evaluation
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to review the proposed project (Acheson Commons, 54 drawing sheets, dated 11.08.2010, by Kirk E. Peterson & Associated Architects), looking not at the design per se, but at any potential affects that the design may cause on the identified historic resources.
This project evaluation addresses potential affects by reviewing the project relative to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The proposed project encompasses eight individual parcels on which stand seven individual structures – in one instance there are two individual structures on one parcel (2125 & 2131 University).
A previous evaluation (University-Shattuck Historic Resource Evaluation, dated 12.22.2010, by this author) examined each of the subject structures and concluded that the evidence supports an his- toric resource finding for five of the seven structures: 1987 Shattuck Ave.; 2111, 2125, 2131 & 2145 University Ave.
Of the five identified historic structures, the character defining features of two consist of exterior facades that face their respective public ways: one of which, the corner building at 1987 Shattuck Ave., has two such facades, and the other at 2111 University Ave. has a single façade. The roof, other exterior walls, general building structure, and interior spaces and materials of these two structures are not character defining. The same is true of a third structure (2125 University Ave.), although that structure is an addition to the one historic resource that consists of an entire, multi-floor (the Acheson Physicians Building [APB] at 2131 University Ave.). The fifth resource (Berkeley Hardware, 2145 University Ave.) is a single-story, corner building with two character defining facades.
In addition to their individually identified exterior features, the historic resources have each been identified for their importance to their overall urban setting, again reinforcing their individual, exteri- or architectural treatments.
Evaluation
The proposed project respects these categories of identification, retaining front, exterior walls for each structure, retaining the overall building in the case of the largest and relatively most important structure (APB, 2131 University), and retaining all exterior walls of the corner building at 2145 University. Consequently, their identified, individual contributions to the urban setting are also retained.
PRESERVATION
A R C H I T E C T U R E446 17th Street #302 Oakland 94612 510 418 0285 [email protected]
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY PROJECT EVAL–02/22/2011–P2
rials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced….
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property….
The one exception to this conclusion is that the present interior stair at the Berkeley Hardware building is not proposed for retention. Although it is arguable that this interior feature deserved identification as part of the historic resource, there was no such discussion at the time of its recor- dation, so the mezzanine stair is identified in the historic resource record as a character defining interior feature. However, its loss would be considered a minimal affect.
The project proposes large new additions to three of the historic structures. The architecture of the new constructions that face the public ways is “historicist” in character – i.e., the design employs tra- ditional forms, massing, and details, including ornamental cornices, arches, lintels, brackets, divided lite windows, and parapets. The façade designs appear to have been derived from the extant forms and details of the existing, historic structures.
The use of traditional building forms and details is sometimes considered to be “false historicism,”
the argument being that the old and the new may be confused. In this case, the designs for the new additions employ methods that distinguish the new from the old, including step backs.
Additionally, the new construction is not limited to the public-facing facades, and other exterior areas of the buildings that are clearly contemporary are visible. Moreover, in the realized work, new materials will be distinguishable from the original. So, there is no basis for concluding that the proj- ect will create any false historicism. Thus, the project also conforms to Standard 3:
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that cre- ate a false sense of historical development,…, will not be undertaken.
With respect to new construction, Standard 9 poses several substantive measures, including the essential need for differentiation between old and new, on the one hand, and compatibility of the new to the old on the other. These measures are the most qualitative of the Standards, since there are no definitions of how much differentiation or how much compatibility is needed to satisfy this requirement. The goal is to incorporate measures of both based on the project and its context. This Standard also broadly states that new additions and related new construction are to protect the integrity of the resource, and which is where the concept of integrity is introduced into the evalua- tion equation.
Historic integrity is defined as the “unimpaired ability of a property to convey its historical signifi- cance.” (NR Bulletin 15, Glossary, p53)
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY PROJECT EVAL–02/22/2011–P3
Whereas effective retention of what has been identified as historically significant can be affirmed, and which complies with the bulk of the Standards, the more detailed issues addressed under Standard 9 are less easily affirmed.
Underlying the concepts of differentiation and compatibility are the principle that additions and related new construction need to respect the historic. This is often interpreted as directing that additions and new construction defer to the subject historic resources. What is new should be empirically understood as new, thereby reinforcing the presence of the historic. And compatibility is not meant to suggest mimicry, but rather a formal and material relationship between old and new that reinforces the former.
The character of this grouping of historic resources is not unified. They are each unique architec- tural resources that are conjoined on a single block. To respect them is to sustain and reinforce their individual characters.
Several of these historic resources are modest, and which, admittedly, adds difficulty to the prospect of achieving deference.
One general aspect that the resources have in common is that they all have early 20th century forms and features. They are each ornamented with period details, including strong cornice lines.
Though, again, there is no formal relationship between any of their facades, and all but the APB are one-story.
The proposed project adds new, multi-story structures atop and behind each of the existing, single- story resources, and thus appear to be three additions separated by the APB and by the recent mid- block structure. Each addition is designed to specifically relate to the historic structure it sits atop, and each does so with degrees of differentiation. Thus, the proposal appears to multiply the number of structures on the block. Moreover, each addition has a design that embodies some of the period, architectural forms and details of its respective historic structure. Each new addition also has vary- ing rooflines, apparently in proportion to each historic structure, and with strong upper cornice lines.
Individually, the additions appear to meet the requirement to be compatible with yet different from their respective historic structures. This is accomplished via setbacks and material differentiation.
However, as the project documentation presents, these are not individual projects, but one large proj- ect. One overall interpretation of the proposed additions is that they do not reinforce but instead compete with the historic structures. Under this interpretation, there may be too much compatibili- ty, on a building-by-building basis, yet at the same time too much differentiation across the whole.
The specific issue is that of integrity. To meet the Standards, the project must avoid destroying any important aspect of integrity of the historic structures. My interpretation is that the project dimin- ishes the integrity of design of the lesser historic structures. Design is, in this case, the primary aspect of integrity.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiat-
UNIVERSITY/SHATTUCK, BERKELEY PROJECT EVAL–02/22/2011–P4
potential threat appears to be overcome by the proposed project, which employs setbacks and step- backs, formal and material differentiation in order to mitigate the affects of large scale additions.
On the other hand, each of the historic buildings are unique, yet they are diminished within a grouping of unique facades that includes a wide range of new, large scale, historicist architectural treatments.
To mitigate this potential affect, the scheme might employ more uniformity and less specific interpre- tation of distinctive features in the additions, to make clear that the historic structures and their details are the original.
