1. CAMPANILE WAY Landmark Designation #LMIN 2017-0006 APPEAL HEARING
Prepared by Fatema Crane, Senior Planner/LPC Secretary
Presented to City Council September 20, 2018

2. Campanile Way Landmark Designation Basic Information
Topic
Information
Regulatory Authority:
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance
Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 3.24
Review Body:
Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)
Landmark Application Author:
Steven Finacom
Subject Property:
UC Campus Bancroft Way
Appellant:
Kristina Lawson, Hanson Bridgett LLC
On behalf of “property owners affected by the approval”

3. Background - Chronology
Date
Activity
September 7, 2017
Designation petition submitted with 50+ signatures.
November 2, 2017
Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) opened the hearing and continued consideration awaiting the formal application.
December 1, 2017
Landmark application authored by Steven Finacom submitted.
January 4 & February 1, 2018
LPC opened and continued the hearing awaiting staff recommendation.
March 1, 2018
LPC Chairperson Steven Finacom called for a Special Meeting to occur for this matter.
April 5, 2018
Staff recommended that LPC decline the designation & report the need for scenic view study & protection to City Council or, alternatively, that LPC grant the designation without view protections according to recommended findings & report the need for view study and protection to City Council.
LPC approved the designation with a revised resolution drafted by the Applicant.

4. Background - Chronology
Date
Activity
May 29, 2018
Staff issued a Notice of Decision.
June 12, 2018
Staff recommended that City Council set a hearing to review the decision and adopted resolution, and to consider clarifying the designation action and scope –addressing ambiguities embedded throughout the application, record and designation documents.
Council did not set the matter for hearing.
June 13, 2018
Appeal of the designation received; the appeal included 50+ signatures.
September 6, 2018
Staff mailed and posted notices of the Council hearing.
September 10, 2018
Steven Finacom inquired about the City’s Appeal application verification procedures.
September 19, 2018
The City confirmed that the Appeal application had been verified in accordance with the requirements of BMC
September 20, 2018
Appeal Hearing date

5. Background – Issues during review
What’s the issue?
Ambiguities
Ambiguities within the record have resulted in concerns about how this designation action may incorrectly affect development on properties that were not the stated subject of this LM application and that are not historically significant.

6. Background – Issues during review
What is the scope of the adopted designation resolution?
The adopted resolution contains language similar to the Landmark application.
LPC revisions to the draft resolution failed to address ambiguities related to the historical status of the views
References to the views appear throughout the resolution
Resolution uses both explicit and ambiguous language ascribing historic resource status to the views
Resolution finds that Downtown development would impact the view
We need to acknowledge here that the LPC move the “views” component form “features to be preserved” category to a new category, but that the new category still creates ambiguity

7. Background – Issues during review
What is the problem with the ambiguity regarding whether or not the scenic views is included in the landmark designation?
Scenic views are not historical resources.
Views are intangible aesthetic resources.
Views are distinct from the kind of items that are within established designation standards found in the National & California Registers and the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO).
LPO does not provide for the designation of scenic views.
LPO does not provide for the preservation of scenic views.

8. Background – Issues during review
What is the problem with the ambiguity regarding whether or not the scenic views is included in the landmark designation?
Circumvents public processes.
The designation would potentially incorrectly affect development on properties in the Downtown that are:
Not on the Landmark site (UC campus)
Not Landmarked or historically significant
Not subject to LPO controls
You can mention here that this is typically done through land use planning processes, such as the DAP

9. “The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
Appeal Issue #1
“The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
a local landmark.”
The LPO does not list scenic views among the items that may be considered Structures for designation, which are:
Structures
Sites (portions of or groups of)
Landscape elements (natural or manmade)
Works of art
Districts
-BMC A

10. “The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
Appeal Issue #1
“The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
a local landmark.”
Scenic views fail to conform to other LPO provisions relate to on-going preservation because (especially in this case) they are not located on the designated property, thereby, resulting in ineffectual resource preservation measures because…
No Notice of Limitation (BMC A)
No compulsory Structural Alteration Permits can be imposed beyond the LM site (BMC )

11. “The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
Appeal Issue #1
“The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
a local landmark.”
Fortunately, the City’s established practice of studying scenic views and aesthetic resources would address this matter.
For example, the Council could refer to the Planning Commission an item on scenic view protection.

12. “The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
Appeal Issue #1
“The City has no legal authority to designate a view as
a local landmark.”
Staff recommends that City Council recognize the merits of this Appeal Issue and consider action to overturn (or modify) the designation.

13. “Historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for
Appeal Issue #2
“Historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for
view protection.”
The established practice for scenic view protection involves the advanced adoption of regulatory controls that can limit or re-direct development that could otherwise impair important view corridors.
This cannot be accomplished through historical resource preservation practices.
This is accomplished through advance land use planning.

14. “Historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for
Appeal Issue #2
“Historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for
view protection.”
The adopted resolution for Campanile Way suggests building limits that conflict with the current, adopted zoning ordinance.

15. “Historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for
Appeal Issue #2
“Historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for
view protection.”
Staff recommends that City Council recognize the merits of this Appeal Issue and consider action to overturn (or modify) the designation.

16. Appeal Issue #3
“Campanile Way is already ascribed the highest level of preservation consideration as a part of a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places.”
The designed landscape of Campanile Way – not including the views – can be found to hold local historical significance and may be considered for local designation, as staff reported to the LPC on April 5, 2018.
However, as discussed in the Appeal report, there are other reasons to consider overturning (or modifying) this designation.

17. Appeal Issue #3
“Campanile Way is already ascribed the highest level of preservation consideration as a part of a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places.”
A decision to overturn the designation would not place the Campanile Way, or any other historic resources, in danger.

18. Appeal Issue #3
“Campanile Way is already ascribed the highest level of preservation consideration as a part of a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places.”
Staff recommends that City Council find that this Appeal Issue is irrelevant to this case and without merit, and dismiss it.

19. Appeal Issue #4
“The LPC violated conflict of interest requirements in approving the landmark designation, in part, by allowing the LPC Chair to take a leave of absence from the meeting at which the public hearing was conducted and then appear to present the application for the Landmark Designation and submit the motion that was approved by the LPC.”

20. “LPC violated conflict of interest requirements...”
Appeal Issue #4
“LPC violated conflict of interest requirements...”
During the LPC review of this LM application, Steven Finacom:
Recused himself from substantive and final deliberations on this matter; and
Attended LPC meetings and participated as the LM applicant only, and did not attend or participate as an LPC member.
The City and Steven Finacom adhered to these arrangements in order to ensure that bias would not enter into the LPC’s review of the designation request.

21. “LPC violated conflict of interest requirements...”
Appeal Issue #4
“LPC violated conflict of interest requirements...”
Requisite documentation confirms that Steven Finacom has no financial interest in the outcome of this review, and that the City has complied with the Political Reform Act.

22. Appeal Issue #4 Staff recommends that Council find no merit
“LPC violated conflict of interest requirements...”
Staff recommends that Council find no merit
in this Appeal point and dismiss it.

23. Appeal Issue #5
“In clear violation of the California Environmental Quality Act’s mandates, the City has conducted no review whatsoever of the potential environmental impacts of the application or the LPC’s decision, nor has the City proposed any means of compliance with CEQA.”

24. Appeal Issue #5
“…violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.. no review whatsoever of the potential environmental impacts...” Staff agrees with some aspects of this Appeal point and believes that Council can address them by overturning the designation (or approving a modified designation).

25. Appeal Issue #5
“…violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.. no review whatsoever of the potential environmental impacts...”
The designation of properties as City Landmarks is subject to CEQA review because it is a discretionary action and, therefore, a “project” as defined under the Public Resource Code section

26. Appeal Issue #5
“…violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.. no review whatsoever of the potential environmental impacts...”
Staff reviewed the Landmark application and then presented recommendations to LPC on April 5, 2018, which included findings of compliance with the CEQA general rule.
Staff’s recommended actions were found to be exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (b)(3).

27. The LPC’s action included no review pursuant to CEQA.
Appeal Issue #5
“…violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.. no review whatsoever of the potential environmental impacts...”
However, on April 5, 2018 the LPC adopted a draft resolution prepared and presented by the Landmark applicant.
The LPC’s adopted resolution includes no statement or finding pursuant to CEQA or environmental compliance.
The LPC’s action included no review pursuant to CEQA.

28. Appeal Issue #5
“…violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.. no review whatsoever of the potential environmental impacts...”
Overturning (or modifying) the LPC’s action would address this matter because the City would authorize no project under CEQA, and the rejection of the designation is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(4).

29. Appeal Issue #5 Staff recommends that City Council recognize
“…violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.. no review whatsoever of the potential environmental impacts...”
Staff recommends that City Council recognize
the merits of certain aspects of this Appeal Issue and
consider action to overturn (or substantially modify) the designation.
Any other action requires CEQA review.

30. Recommendation
Conclude that the Appeal is valid and that the City has verified the Appeal application
Conduct a public hearing on the Appeal
Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the Landmark designation because:
Scenic views do not satisfy the fundamental LPO standard for designation.
Landmark designation is not the appropriate regulatory procedure for scenic view protection; advance planning and development controls would properly achieve scenic view protection.
The Campanile Way designation occurred with insufficient CEQA review.

31. Recommendation Alternatively, Council may take the following actions:
Continue the hearing
Affirm the LPC decision
Modify the LPC decision
Remand the matter to LPC for consideration of specified issues