5 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION & URBAN DESIGN ... 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 Historic Preservation & Urban Design HD-3 − New construction, renovation, and reuse can help revitalize

& URBAN DESIGN5 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Historic Preservation & Urban Design

HD-1

5. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND URBAN DESIGN

STRATEGIC STATEMENT

Berkeley has one of the few examples in Cali-fornia of a substantially intact pre-World War II downtown of its size. Sections of Downtown remain much as they were in the 1920s and 1930s. Our Downtown has an exemplary and vital heritage of historic buildings in a wide vari-ety of architectural styles and scales. The scale, massing, and visual character of many historic buildings remain. Downtown buildings also re-late to streets in traditional ways, with commer-cial ground fl oors fronting directly onto the public sidewalk and thereby maintaining continuous in-timate pedestrian scale, in contrast to deep set-backs found in suburban settings.

While Downtown’s historic assets are signifi-cant, Downtown is an incomplete and unfi nished cityscape. It has many underused and nonde-script properties, and it needs many public im-provements. New development can bring many benefits, including new residents, affordable housing, environmental sustainability, and a re-newed sense of vitality.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND NEW DE-VELOPMENT

Policies of the Downtown Area Plan seek to har-monize and balance the twin goals of preserving

and enhancing historic resources, and encour-aging new and complementary development. It is fundamental to this Plan that, with appropriate design guidelines and regulations, both goals can be achieved and complement each other. The character of new development must be con-sidered through the lens of good urban design and consideration for Downtown’s historic set-tings. Context – geographic and cultural – pres-ents critical design considerations that help lead to projects that fi t the place. In addition, through continued care and investment, historic build-ings and good urban design will continue to con-tribute continuity and character to Downtown’s changing yet principled cityscape.

Preservation planning and the continued utiliza-tion of historic resources are critical in the fol-lowing ways:

− Preservation helps retain a community’s distinct character and sense of place, and creates a tie with the past that es-tablishes community and builds roots. The tangible presence of historic build-ings and places speaks of other times and people and enables us to chart paths to the present and future.

− Berkeley can capitalize on Downtown’s potential for cultural tourism by celebrat-ing its historic character through civic improvements and ongoing programs and activities.

− Conserving existing buildings can be part of a “green” strategy, as preserva-tion and rehabilitation use fewer natural resources and less “embodied” energy than new construction, and keep demo-lition waste out of landfi lls.

Facing Page: Downtown features taller buildings, including the Wells Fargo Building built in 1925 (at left), and may include new buildings of similar height or somewhat greater height in the case of hotels (at right). Images courtesy BAHA (left) and Cambridge Seven Associates (right).

4031

4032

4033

4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047

4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053 4054 4055

4056 4057

4058 4059

4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065 4066 4067 4068 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074

4075 4076 4077

4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085

4086 4087 4088 4089 4090

4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096

HD-2 Historic Preservation & Urban Design

− Studies show that historic preservation is good for the economy and for prop-erty values.

− Older buildings tend to offer distinctive retail spaces with special facade char-acter, taller ceiling heights, and deeper retail space.

− Older buildings provide much of Berke-ley’s most affordable and most family-friendly housing.

Appropriate new development and urban design policies also offer critical benefi ts:

− New construction can fi ll the gaps within our historic Downtown, heal the scars posed by unsightly properties, and strengthen and help energize the cityscape.

− New construction, and the renovation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, can provide needed new housing.

− New construction, renovation, and adap-tive reuse can embody and exemplify new ideas such as energy-saving designs or innovative construction techniques.

− New construction, renovation, and adap-tive reuse give needed scope for the ex-ercise of design talents and creativity.

Figure HD-1: Berkeley Station looking southwest in 1910. Image courtesy of BAHA.

4097 4098 4099

4100 4101 4102 4103

4104 4105 4106

4107 4108

4109 4110 4111 4112

4113 4114 4115

4116 4117 4118 4119

4120 4121 4122


HD-3

− New construction, renovation, and reuse can help revitalize Downtown’s econo-my by bringing people who will support local shops and cultural uses.

− Street and open space improvements can enhance Downtown, by comple-menting the best aspects of its present character and by offering public places for our enjoyment.

− Through fees and taxes that it gener-ates, new development can support pub-lic street and open space improvements and help to fi nance affordable housing.

DOWNTOWN’S HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

In the mid-19th century Francis Kittredge Shat-tuck and George Blake acquired large landhold-ings, fl anking today’s Shattuck Avenue, that would include most of the 2011 Downtown plan area. Downtown’s early development was stimulated es-pecially by the opening of a railroad branch line in 1876 to stations that were located at Dwight Way and at what is now known as Berkeley Square. Shattuck Avenue’s unusual width accommodated the train tracks in addition to horses, carriages, and pedestrians. The City of Berkeley was incor-porated in 1878, by which time most of Down-town’s street pattern had been established.

Figure HD-2: Shattuck Avenue looking north circa 1940. Image courtesy of BAHA.

4123 4124 4125 4126

4127 4128 4129 4130 4131

4132 4133 4134 4135

4136

4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 4147 4148 4149


N

FIGURE HD-3: Historic Resources, NoteworthyBuildings and PotentialDevelopmentOpportunity Sites

Dw

ight

Way

Has

te S

treet

Cha

nnin

g W

ay

Dur

ant A

venu

eBanc

roft

Way

Kittr

edge

Stre

et

Alls

ton

Way

Cen

ter S

treet

Berk

eley

Way

Milvia Street

Henry Street

Bonita Avenue

MLK Jr. Way

Milvia Street

Shattuck Avenue

Fulton Street

Uni

vers

ity A

venu

e

Addi

son

Stre

et

Walnut Street

Hea

rst A

venu

eOther Building called Contributing or Significant by BAHA Report,1990 Downtown Plan, LPC List, or Design Guidelines

Designated Landmark or Structure of MeritSignificant per both 1993 LPC List and1994 Design Guidelines Development Opportunity Site apparently

containing no Historic ResourceBuilding on SHRICivic Center Historic District andBerkeley High School Campus

Oxford Street

Revised March 25, 2009. While the map is generally accurate, corrections will be made and the status of any individual parcel should be verified. For site-specific information see the DAP Reconnaisance Survey Matrix.

Development Opportunity Site(indicated by heavy outline around site)


HD-5

In the 20th century’s fi rst three decades, dra-matic growth and rebuilding were stimulated by electric rail service, which linked Berkeley to Oakland and (by ferryboats) San Francisco; by resettlement of San Franciscans to the East Bay after the 1906 earthquake and fi re; and by growth of the University. There was much less development during the Great Depression, al-though some of Downtown’s fi nest historic build-ings such as the Public Library and the Kress building date from the 1930s.

Downtown Berkeley escaped the wholesale re-development that scarred many California cities during the 1960s and 1970s. Some demolition and new construction did occur along Shattuck during the BART construction era, from about 1966 to 1973, when two early-1900s large struc-tures at Shattuck and Center were torn down and replaced by the present high-rise Great Western building and suburban-style Bank of America building. But recent development has occurred mainly on side streets east and west of Shattuck, or on Shattuck’s lower portion south of Durant. The scale, massing, and visual char-acter of most of Shattuck’s own frontages – and many other parts of the plan area – remain much as they were in the 1920s or 1930s. Downtown’s character is largely due to the fact that so many of its buildings were constructed between 1900 and 1941 and so many of them have basically retained their historic appearance. They also relate to the street in traditional urban ways in keeping with the character of their time.

PRESERVATION CONTROLS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Partially in response to the demolition of some important historic buildings in Downtown, the City adopted the Landmarks Preservation Ordi-nance (LPO) in 1974. This ordinance authorizes the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)

to designate properties as Landmarks, Struc-tures of Merit, or Historic Districts and gives it regulatory power over the properties it desig-nates. Many properties within the expanded Downtown plan area have been designated as Landmarks or Structures of Merit.

Nine properties (all of them also City-designat-ed Landmarks) have gone through the separate process to be individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The City has under the LPO designated the Civic Center Historic District, which is also listed on the National Register. The high school’s campus constitutes the Berkeley High School Historic Dis-trict, which is on the National Register but has not been designated as a district under the LPO.

In 1994 the Planning Commission adopted “Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines.” This document has continued to provide valuable guidance on diverse aspects of both alterations and new construction.

SURVEYS AND LISTS

Several surveys of historic resources have been conducted for Downtown.

In 1977–1979 the Berkeley Architectural Heri-tage Association (BAHA) in conjunction with the City, with grants from the State Offi ce of Historic Preservation and the San Francisco Foundation, did a well-regarded, representative but not ex-haustive survey and documentation of historic resources in Berkeley. It gathered signifi cant in-formation on many Downtown buildings.

In 1987 BAHA assembled available information on Downtown historic resources into a report en-titled “Historic Survey of Downtown.” The report

4150 4151 4152 4153 4154 4155 4156 4157 4158 4159 4160

4161 4162 4163 4164 4165 4166 4167 4168 4169 4170 4171 4172 4173 4174 4175 4176 4177 4178 4179 4180 4181 4182

4183 4184

4185 4186 4187 4188 4189

4190 4191 4192 4193 4194 4195

4196 4197 4198 4199

4200 4201 4202 4203 4204 4205

4206 4207 4208 4209 4210

4211

4212 4213

4214 4215 4216 4217 4218 4219 4220 4221

4222 4223 4224


included maps, one of which showed properties it classifi ed as:

− “City Landmarks” (and in some cases also “National Register”),

− “Included on State Inventory [but not landmarked],” or

− “Contributing.”

“Contributing” properties were defi ned in BAHA’s 1987 report as “Properties [that] could be con-sidered contributing to the existing fabric of downtown by virtue of age, scale, height, mass-ing, materials.”

The 1990 Downtown Plan referenced BAHA’s “Historic Survey of Downtown” report, and in-cluded a map with three resource categories:

− “Landmark Building – City and/or Na-tional Register,”

− “Signifi cant Structure (BAHA),” or

− “Contributing Structure (BAHA).”

In 1993 the Landmarks Preservation Commis-sion adopted a list entitled “Historically Sig-nifi cant Buildings in the Downtown” that “have been either offi cially designated City of Berkeley Landmarks or appear to be eligible for designa-tion, based on preliminary research...because of their cultural, architectural or historic contribution to the city, state or nation.”

The 1994 Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines contains lists of “Landmark Buildings” and “Sig-nifi cant Buildings,” and a map depicting these.

In 2006, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) was selected by the City to evaluate and ad-vise regarding historic resources in the ex-panded Downtown Area. ARG produced a set of “Context Statements,” organized by historic themes such as “Transportation,” “Commercial Architecture,” “Residential Development,” and “Health and Medicine.” ARG also conducted a “Reconnaissance Survey” involving roughly 500 structures within the Downtown Area, as well as about 100 located just outside its boundaries. ARG provided a preliminary evaluation of the in-tegrity of potential historic resources.

SUMMARY MAP

Figure HD-3, “Historic Resources, Noteworthy Buildings and Potential Development Opportu-nity Sites,” provides a partial summary of the overall situation as of March 2009. It indicates the following classes of individual properties:

− “Designated Landmark or Structure of Merit.” This includes the properties so designated by March 2009.

− “Signifi cant per BOTH 1993 LPC List and 1994 Design Guidelines.” These are properties (other than those that have been designated as Landmarks or Structures of Merit) that were included in the 1993 LPC list of signifi cant buildings as well as in the 1994 Design Guide-lines’ list of signifi cant buildings.

− “Building on the SHRI.” This consists of buildings (other than those in the map’s above two categories) that were record-ed by the State Historic Resources In-ventory of 1977–1979.

− “Other Building Called Contributing or Signifi cant by BAHA Report, 1990

4225 4226

4227 4228

4229 4230

4231

4232 4233 4234 4235 4236

4237 4238 4239

4240 4241

4242

4243

4244 4245 4246 4247 4248 4249 4250 4251

4252 4253 4254

4255 4256 4257 4258 4259 4260 4261 4262 4263 4264 4265 4266 4267

4268

4269 4270 4271 4272 4273

4274 4275 4276

4277 4278 4279 4280 4281 4282 4283 4284

4285 4286 4287 4288 4289

4290 4291


HD-7

Downtown Plan, LPC List, and/or Design Guidelines.” Many of these are buildings were identifi ed as “contributing” by the 1990 Downtown Plan.

− “Development Opportunity Site Appar-ently Containing No Historic Resource.” The mapping of these sites is tentative and illustrative. Nearly all of them in-volve one-story buildings, parking lots or other open uses, or vacant land. A few properties with two-or-more-story buildings are shown in special cases, including some buildings that are very near the BART station or that have seri-ous seismic problems.

Figure HD-3 also depicts the boundaries of the Civic Center Historic District and the Berkeley High School Historic District.

In the future, additional properties will be desig-nated or documented as historic. On the other hand, some of the properties that were noted as “contributing” or “significant” only by the 1987 BAHA report and/or 1990 Downtown Plan may – upon further analysis – be deemed to be not historic.

SUBAREAS AND CONTEXTUAL DESIGN

The cityscape of Downtown contains numerous and diverse subareas. Some of them have a strong visual identity, and these involve notice-able concentrations of historic buildings. Down-town’s most important historic subarea generally includes the buildings along Shattuck Avenue from about University to Durant, as well as some buildings on side streets. Despite some unfortu-nate remodelings, this “main street” has retained its basic visual character. Another particularly im-portant historic subarea is the Civic Center.

Some other parts of Downtown contain fewer historic buildings and lack a strong visual iden-tity. Substantial demolition and rebuilding has occurred since 1950 along many side streets, where parking lots and other underutilized sites interrupt the urban fabric.

A balanced urban design strategy should include both preservation and infi ll, and should:

− conserve the character of subareas that have a strong historic identity, while rec-ognizing that sensitive infi ll development and, in appropriate cases, additions to designated Landmarks can occur; and

− channel much of Downtown’s new de-velopment into sections now lacking a strong visual identity.

The answer to “What should a new building look like?” will vary from place to place.

Two different urban design approaches are needed: one for subareas that have a strong historic character, and one for Downtown devel-opment outside those subareas.

In subareas where historic resources are con-centrated, designers should pay special atten-tion to a project’s context, including the charac-ter of adjacent properties and the subarea as a whole. The Downtown Design Guidelines should be strengthened to better protect and reinforce the overall character of these subareas. In addi-tion, the Landmarks Preservation Commission should evaluate subareas, including residential ones, to determine whether any additional sub-areas should be designated as Historic Districts. Recent years’ additions to the Berkeley Main Li-brary and the Francis K. Shattuck Building (at 2100 Shattuck) illustrate how sensitive design

4292 4293 4294 4295

4296 4297 4298 4299 4300 4301 4302 4303 4304 4305 4306

4307 4308 4309

4310 4311 4312 4313 4314 4315 4316

4317

4318 4319 4320 4321 4322 4323 4324 4325 4326 4327 4328

4329 4330 4331 4332 4333 4334

4335 4336

4337 4338 4339 4340 4341

4342 4343 4344

4345 4346

4347 4348 4349 4350

4351 4352 4353 4354 4355 4356 4357 4358 4359 4360 4361 4362 4363 4364


and development can both respect and enhance a historic subarea.

For subareas without historic character, historic evaluations, design review, and landmarking should be used to protect individual historic build-ings and the general Downtown cityscape, while allowing for a lively variety of good architecture.

In all commercial and mixed-use subareas, the Downtown Design Guidelines should be amend-ed and applied to attract demographic diversity, encourage economically viable retail space, pro-vide on-site open space, mitigate impacts from parking garages, promote public safety, and pro-mote resource-effi ciency and sustainable practic-es (see Goal HD-4). And development should re-inforce the character of Downtown’s commercial and mixed-use streets by bringing buildings up to the sidewalk, maintaining continuous storefronts, continuing dominant rhythms for structural bays or bay windows, and continuing dominant cornice lines. While contextual design can be perceived as limiting, solutions can be highly creative.

URBAN DESIGN THROUGH BUILDING STAN-DARDS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

DAP urban design objectives should inform zoning regulations, not the least of which ad-dress building heights, setbacks, and street-level uses. New “character-based” provisions should spell out desirable and measurable ur-ban relationships, such as the ways that build-ings should face streets and make them more active, safe, and attractive.

Improvements to Downtown’s public realm of streets and open spaces are also vital. Public improvements should be appropriate to Down-town’s historic settings and enhance Downtown as a place to live, work, shop, learn, or play (see “Streetscapes and Open Space” chapter).

THE UNIVERSITY’S ROLE

The University, as with any developer within Downtown, should support urban design objec-tives through its development, to the joint benefi t of town and gown. UC development should be integrated closely and sensitively into the tradi-tional urban fabric of Downtown.

Where it owns historic buildings, the University should maintain the signifi cant parts of these buildings’ character and integrate any remodel-ing and/or additions following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Where it plans for new buildings, the University should itself include suitable landscape features that relate Down-town to the main campus’s green features.

Furthermore, significant open space and streetscape opportunities exist for coordinating City actions and University actions. One such opportunity is to reduce the number of auto lanes on the east-of-Shattuck segment of Hearst Avenue, create bicycle lanes there, and provide truly substantial adjacent landscaping (see what the “Streetscapes and Open Space” chapter says about extending the Ohlone Greenway).

GOALS, POLICIES & ACTIONS

GOAL HD-1: CONSERVE DOWNTOWN’S HIS-TORIC RESOURCES AND UNIQUE CHARAC-TER AND SENSE OF PLACE.

Policy HD-1.1: Historic Buildings & Sites. Preserve historic buildings and sites of Down-town, and provide where appropriate for their adaptive reuse and/or intensifi cation.2

a) Retain Landmarks and Structures of Merit in Downtown. Designate, where appropri-ate, additional properties as Landmarks or Structures of Merit.

4365 4366

4367 4368 4369 4370 4371

4372 4373 4374 4375 4376 4377 4378 4379 4380 4381 4382 4383 4384 4385 4386

4387 4388

4389 4390 4391 4392 4393 4394 4395 4396

4397 4398 4399 4400 4401 4402

4403

4404 4405 4406 4407 4408 4409

4410 4411 4412 4413 4414 4415 4416 4417

4418 4419 4420 4421 4422 4423 4424 4425 4426

4427

4428 4429 4430

4431 4432 4433 4434

4435 4436 4437 4438


HD-9

b) When evaluating potential modifications, adaptive reuse or intensification of des-ignated or sufficiently documented his-toric resources, in addition to applying the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the proposed work must also be evaluated for conformance with the Secretary of the Inte-riors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstruct-ing Historic Buildings. Where applicable, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guide-lines for the Treatment of Cultural Land-scapes,” must also be applied. At a mini-mum, historic facades should be maintained and/or rehabilitated and the scale and char-acter of additions must be compatible with the historic building.

c) For the most common practices and altera-tions, compile reference materials that de-scribe appropriate maintenance and façade improvements for common practices and al-terations, and where additional information can be obtained. Develop materials using community participation. Make these mate-rials available to property owners, contrac-tors, and architects.

d) Allow flexibility in parking and other stan-dards, such as exemption from on-site open space requirements, when such buildings are substantially and appropriately preserved or restored as part of a development project. Review and, if necessary, revise standards that may discourage historic rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. Identify potential sources of fi nancing, tax relief (such as through the Mills Act), grants, and a full range of other incentives and resources for historic preser-vation, such as those relating to accessibility and seismic upgrading. Provide this informa-tion to owners of historic resources (see Poli-cies ES-4.1, LU-2.1 and LU-4.3).

2Additional analysis will be needed to determine with certainty the merit of resources that were noted as “Contributing” (and in some cases noted as “Signifi cant”) in the 1990 Plan but that have not been designated as Landmarks or Structures of Merit, or documented as historic resources. Ongoing efforts and analysis may elevate some of these to be designated Landmarks or Structures of Merit. Other undesignated properties that were noted as “Contributing” or “Signifi cant” in the 1990 Plan may be deemed to be not historic after evaluation required under CEQA and vetting through local procedures.

4439 4440 4441 4442 4443 4444 4445 4446 4447 4448 4449 4450 4451 4452 4453 4454 4455 4456 4457

4458 4459 4460 4461 4462 4463 4464 4465 4466

4467 4468 4469 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 4481

Figure HD-4: Adaptive Reuse & Intensifi cation. The bottom three stories of the Francis K. Shattuck Building were built in 1901 and were renovated in 2000 at the same time as when a new fourth story was added. Staff photo


Policy HD-1.2: Evaluation of Potential Re-sources. Encourage historic resource surveys evaluating properties that may qualify as a Landmark or Structure of Merit – especially on underutilized parcels that are potential sites for future development.

a) Complete a historic resources survey for Downtown with information on significant building and site attributes, such as: building age, dates of alterations and/or additions, ar-chitect and/or builder, architectural integrity, building height. Also cite historic registrations and/or designations, and classifi cations from prior surveys and previously adopted plans. Update this survey as construction or de-molition occurs. Use the historic resources survey as an additional tool for evaluating resources that may qualify as a Landmark or Structure of Merit, especially those called out as historic or potentially historic in previ-ous plans and surveys. Update this survey as construction or demolition occurs.

Policy HD-1.3: Repairs & Alterations. When substantial repairs or alterations are proposed for buildings over 40 years old, the City will encourage the restoration and repair of any lost or damaged historic features when feasible and appropriate.

a) Allow fl exibility in parking, open space, and other standards (see Policies ES-4.1, LU-2.1 and LU-4.3).

b) Evaluate and, if needed, strengthen recom-mendations relating to substantial altera-tions contained within the Downtown De-sign Guidelines.

c) Encourage property owners, developers, and other stakeholders to use archives and other resources to guide the design of ap-propriate restorations and repairs. Support the maintenance of and encourage public access to archives with information on older Downtown buildings.

Policy HD-1.4: Public Awareness. Enhance community awareness of Downtown’s unique history and architectural heritage.

a) Use public communications to promote Downtown’s history and architectural heri-tage. Refer users of the City’s web pages to materials of interest at the City’s libraries.

b) Refi ne Downtown’s “Historic Context State-ments” (prepared in 2007) for the use and enjoyment of a general audience. Make it available at a nominal price. In this publi-cation, use the historic resources database and add maps to describe Downtown’s his-toric contexts.

c) Work with the Berkeley Architectural Heri-tage Association (BAHA) to update and ex-

4482 4483 4484 4485 4486 4487

4488 4489 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 4501 4502 4503

4504 4505 4506 4507 4508

4509 4510 4511

4512 4513 4514 4515

4516 4517 4518 4519 4520 4521 4522

4523 4524 4525

4526 4527 4528 4529

4530 4531 4532 4533 4534 4535 4536

4537 4538

Figure HD-5: Historic Context & Green Features. The Fine Arts Building furthers a tradition of Art Deco buildings Downtown, and incorporates in a sympathetic way green features for energy effi ciency, such as light shelves that bounce daylight deeply into interior spaces. Staff photos


HD-11

pand its “Downtown Walking Tour” brochure. Encourage distribution of this brochure by the Downtown Berkeley Association, the Berkeley Convention and Visitors Bureau, UC Berkeley, and other organizations.

d) Promote the use of plaques, signage, mu-rals, and other ways to increase citizen awareness of Downtown’s history.

e) Encourage invited artists to install art in Downtown to refer to Downtown’s historic features and events.

Policy HD-1.5: Residential Character. Con-serve the scale of residential-only neighbor-hoods within the Downtown Area, and reduce development pressures that lead to the loss of older buildings that contribute to the overall character of these neighborhoods (see policies under Goal LU-4).

GOAL HD-2: ENHANCE AREAS OF SPECIAL CHARACTER IN DOWNTOWN, SUCH AS CLUSTERS OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.

Policy HD-2.1: Special Subareas. Identify ar-eas with special character that might be high-lighted with streetscape improvements and other public and private design features.

a) Recognize subareas having a unique and/or historic character by making street and open space improvements that reinforce the character of these subareas – while also en-couraging overall design continuity for some features throughout Downtown.

Policy HD-2.2: Historic Subareas. Protect and reinforce the character of discrete subareas where historic resources are concentrated, while also recognizing that sensitive change may occur

within such subareas. Make sure that within sub-areas where historic resources are concentrated, building alterations, new construction and public improvements are designed with particular con-cern for compatibility with their surroundings.

a) The Landmarks Preservation Commission may designate one or more historic subar-eas as Historic Districts to protect historic resources and promote compatible new development – while acknowledging the im-portance of creativity, and continued growth and increased building densities in Down-town’s mixed-use areas.

− Newly designated Historic District should be accompanied by develop-ment design guidelines to describe how new development can complement the District’s historic character.

− Encourage the analysis of known and potential historic resources as a part of considering Historic District designation(s) by the Landmarks Pres-ervation Commission.

− Consider creating a “Shattuck Avenue Historic District” that would generally include buildings along Shattuck Av-enue, between University Avenue and Durant Avenue.

− Use criteria pertaining to historic district designations in Berkeley’s Landmark Preservation Ordinance (LPO) and ap-plicable guidelines in the National Reg-ister Bulletin “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.”

b) Evaluate and, if needed, strengthen the exist-ing Downtown Design Guidelines to encour-

4539 4540 4541 4542 4543

4544 4545 4546

4547 4548 4549

4550 4551 4552 4553 4554 4555 4556

4557 4558 4559

4560 4561 4562 4563

4564 4565 4566 4567 4568 4569

4570 4571 4572 4573

4574 4575 4576 4577 4578

4579 4580 4581 4582 4583 4584 4585 4586

4587 4588 4589 4590 4591

4592 4593 4594 4595 4596

4597 4598 4599 4600 4601

4602 4603 4604 4605 4606 4607

4608 4609


age designs that are contextual to subareas where historic resources are concentrated (see “Figure HD-3, Historic Resources, Note-worthy Buildings, and Potential Development Opportunity Sites). Use available survey fi nd-ings to inform this process.

GOAL HD-3: PROVIDE CONTINUITY AND HARMONY BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.

Policy HD-3.1: Contextual Design. To promote continuity between old and new, new construc-tion and building alterations should meet streets and public spaces in contextual ways that line streets with building streetwalls and support a pedestrian-oriented public realm.

a) Review and, if needed, strengthen the Down-town Design Guidelines to further encourage continuity and harmony between old and new construction. Promote ways to complement Downtown’s historic context through: materi-als, cadence/modulation, color, fenestration & entry patterns, cornice lines, massing, roof form, building “build-to lines,” and other ap-propriate architectural devices.

b) Consider new and/or revised Zoning stan-dards and Design Guidelines that will help support and maintain Downtown’s traditional main-street character. Specifi cally, modify the Zoning provisions and Design Guidelines to better address continuity and relationships between buildings (see Policy HD-4,1).

c) Amend the Downtown Design Guidelines to address how taller buildings can be made com-patible with Downtown’s context and historic resources (see policies under Goal LU-4).

Policy HD-3.2: Continued Variety. Recognizing building height, massing and scale, allow for con-tinued variety that respects Downtown’s context.

a) The review of development proposals, and resulting refi nements, should consider Down-town’s traditional context and respect Down-town’s historic resources while also consid-ering DAP policies relating to building height and envelope (see Land Use chapter).

GOAL HD-4: IMPROVE THE VISUAL AND EN-VIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF DOWNTOWN, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON PEDESTRIAN ENVI-RONMENTS THAT ARE ACTIVE, SAFE AND VISUALLY ENGAGING. ENCOURAGE APPRO-PRIATE NEW DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN.

Policy HD-4.1: Pedestrian-Oriented Design. Improve the pedestrian experience and the aesthetic quality of Downtown’s environments through appropriate design. New construction and building alterations should promote pleas-ing public open spaces and streets with frequent street-level entrances and beautiful facades. In commercial areas, buildings should encourage activity along the street and generally maintain the urban tradition of no street-level setbacks.

a) Continue to apply the Downtown Design Guidelines to new development and build-ing alterations, and strengthen them to:

− include contextual provisions specific to where historic resources are concentrated;

− help attract a variety of people to live Downtown through the design of appro-priate multi-family housing;

4610 4611 4612 4613 4614 4615

4616 4617 4618

4619 4620 4621 4622 4623 4624

4625 4626 4627 4628 4629 4630 4631 4632 4633

4634 4635 4636 4637 4638 4639 4640

4641 4642 4643 4644

4645 4646 4647

4648 4649 4650 4651 4652 4653

4654 4655 4656 4657 4658 4659

4660 4661 4662 4663 4664 4665 4666 4667 4668 4669

4670 4671 4672

4673 4674

4675 4676 4677


HD-13

− encourage economically viable and physically adequate retail spaces (see Policies ED-1.3 and ED-1.6);

− better guide the design of on-site open space, including publicly accessible courtyards, plazas, and midblock walk-ways, and the inclusion of ecological site features (see Policy OS-3.1);

− address the design and adequacy of open space for residents;

− mitigate potential impacts of parking ga-rages on streets and publicly accessible open spaces;

− provide adequate lighting and safety features in garages, in bus shelters and at bicycle parking;

− promote resource-effi cient design and emerging sustainability practices (see Environmental Sustainability chapter); and

− encourage on-site greenery and eco-logically benefi cial features (see policies under Goals ES-5 and OS-2).

b) Consider new and/or revised development standards that will help promote active, interesting and pleasing pedestrian envi-ronments. Specifi cally, modify the zoning code to better address issues of continuity, compatibility, sustainability, and the special existing qualities of Downtown, such as: fre-quent building entrances, street-level trans-parency/windows, on-site open space, etc. Emphasize measurable standards that are easy to understand and apply. Zoning pro-

visions should be developed with extensive input from the public.

c) Evaluate and improve public signage to re-duce visual clutter and help visitors navigate Downtown (see Policy ED-1.12).

d) Encourage outdoor dining, street fairs, and other beneficial yet limited use of public space by private concerns (see policies un-der Goal ED-1)

e) Establish new and enhance existing conve-nience facilities including publicly accessible restrooms and drinking fountains (see Policy OS-4.3).

Policy HD–4.2: Solar, Visual & Wind Impacts. Design and position new buildings to avoid sig-nifi cant adverse solar-, visual- or wind-related impacts on important public open spaces. Also provide for adequate natural light in residential units through appropriate building form (see Pol-icies ES-3.3 and LU-4.2, and Table LU-1).

a) Strengthen standards and guidelines to better address potential solar access and wind impacts.

b) For buildings exceeding 75 feet, use solar, visual and wind simulations to evaluate and refi ne design alternatives.

Policy HD-4.3: Urban Open Spaces. Create, enhance and maintain streets, plazas, midblock open spaces, and other urban open spaces to enhance the pedestrian environment and in-crease the number of people who will use Down-town. The design of streets and open spaces should complement the character of Downtown as a whole and the character of nearby archi-

4678 4679 4680

4681 4682 4683 4684 4685

4686 4687

4688 4689 4690

4691 4692 4693

4694 4695 4696 4697

4698 4699 4700

4701 4702 4703 4704 4705 4706 4707 4708 4709 4710 4711

4712 4713

4714 4715 4716

4717 4718 4719 4720

4721 4722 4723 4724

4725 4726 4727 4728 4729 4730 4731

4732 4733 4734

4735 4736 4737

4738 4739 4740 4741 4742 4743 4744 4745


tecture – especially in subareas where historic resources are concentrated (see Policy OS-1.1).

Policy HD-4.4: Design Creativity & Excel-lence. Continue Berkeley’s tradition of archi-tectural excellence. Support design creativity during the development approval process and in the resulting construction. All new construction and building alterations should be of the highest quality and promote sustainability (see policies under Goal ES-4).

a) Strengthen the existing Downtown Design Guidelines to:

− further promote excellence in design;

− encourage visually interesting buildings;

− promote appropriate methods for inten-sifi cation and adaptive reuse (see Policy HD-1.1);

− encourage architectural and site fea-tures that use durable materials and are detailed to be long-lasting promote ex-cellence in design;

b) Promote and, where appropriate, require buildings that have resource-effi cient design and emerging sustainable design practices (see Policies ES-4.1).

GOAL HD-5: ENHANCE AND IMPROVE THE PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DOWN-TOWN AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

Policy HD-5.1: Appropriate Buildings. Encour-age the University to use the Downtown Design Guidelines and Downtown Area Plan to guide the character and scale of its future development. Strongly encourage the University to design build-

ings that are appropriate to Downtown and make streets that abut University property pedestrian-friendly, in a manner required of any Downtown developer. Along street frontages of University buildings Downtown, the ground fl oor should be pedestrian-friendly and have windows and en-trances, and avoid blank walls. Encourage active street-level uses. Provide retail or other active public-serving uses along Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue (see Policy LU-6).

a) Encourage the University to use the Down-town Design Guidelines and Downtown Area Plan to guide the character and scale of its future development.

b) Encourage the University to make develop-ment at the east end of University Avenue (be-tween Walnut and Oxford) a priority to bring more retail and pedestrian activity, and for the creation of an important “Gateway” for per-sons arriving to the Campus or Downtown.

c) Active pedestrian-friendly ground fl oor uses should be maintained on all three sides of the proposed new Berkeley Art Museum and Pa-cifi c Film Archive (BAM/PFA). The proposed primary entry of the museum should be locat-ed on Center Street, with a secondary entry provided from Oxford or the corner of Oxford and Addison. Consider modulated edges and pockets of open space. Loading docks should be carefully designed to contribute positively to the pedestrian environment.

Policy HD-5.2: Public Improvements. En-courage the University to enhance streets and public open spaces in Downtown (see Streets and Open Space chapter). Urge the University to make substantial and fair contributions for street improvements adjacent to their properties, and engage the University on how to fund other Downtown improvements.

4746 4747

4748 4749 4750 4751 4752 4753 4754 4755

4756 4757

4758

4759

4760 4761 4762

4763 4764 4765 4766

4767 4768 4769 4770

4771 4772 4773

4774 4775 4776 4777 4778

4779 4780 4781 4782 4783 4784 4785 4786 4787 4788

4789 4790 4791 4792

4793 4794 4795 4796 4797 4798

4799 4800 4801 4802 4803 4804 4805 4806 4807 4808 4809

4810 4811 4812 4813 4814 4815 4816 4817


HD-15

a) Urge the University to make substantial and fair contributions for street improvements adjacent to their properties.

b) Work in partnership with the University to implement the Streets & Open Space Im-provements Plan (see Policy OS-1.1), espe-cially in locations of mutual interest. Engage the University on how to fund improvements benefi ting all of Downtown.

c) Encourage University efforts to enhance open spaces along the Oxford-Fulton edge of the main campus, including “the Cres-cent” and the new open space referred to as “Kittredge Glade” in UC Berkeley’s 2020 Long Range Development Plan.

d) Celebrate the seam between the park-like campus and the urban Downtown. Partner with the University on the design and imple-mentation of Oxford-Fulton as a green bou-levard, through both street improvements and active building fronts.

e) Encourage the University to help extend the Ohlone Greenway along its Hearst Avenue frontage.

f) Maintain public access along Walnut Street passage between Hearst and Berkeley Way.

g) Encourage midblock pedestrian connec-tions between University Avenue and Center Street, as part of UC development.

Policy HD-5.3: Historic Buildings. Encourage the University to respect historically important buildings, and strive to integrate them within its development.

a) When proposed UC development includes or adjoins historically important buildings,

consistent with provisions of the UC Berke-ley 2020 Long Range Development Plan, the City expects that the University will con-sult early in the development design process with appropriate City entities, and use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

b) Encourage the University to preserve a meaningful portion of the landmarked garage building and forecourt at 1952 Oxford Street, and integrate it within future development.

4818 4819 4820

4821 4822 4823 4824 4825 4826

4827 4828 4829 4830 4831 4832

4833 4834 4835 4836 4837 4838

4839 4840

4841 4842

4843 4844 4845

4846 4847 4848 4849

4850 4851

4852 4853 4854 4855 4856 4857

4858 4859 4860 4861

Documents

5 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION & URBAN DESIGN ... 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 Historic Preservation & Urban Design HD-3 − New construction, renovation, and reuse can help revitalize