Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. Submitted by: Timothy Burroughs, Director, Planning and Development Department

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 31 Office of the City Manager PUBLIC HEARING September 20, 2018 To: From: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Timothy Burroughs, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark designation (LMIN ) for a portion of the UC Berkeley campus, address 2301 Bancroft Way RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution reversing approval of the Campanile Way City Landmark designation and upholding the Appeal. SUMMARY The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) approved a Landmarks (LM) application to designate Campanile Way, a pathway on the UC campus, and the scenic views that are observed from this pathway as a City of Berkeley Landmark. The Appellant believes that the decision would unfairly affect properties in the Downtown and that it should be overturned by City Council because of its inconsistencies with municipal standards and established preservation practices, the lack of adequate environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the alleged conflict of interest of the LPC Chairperson. In this report, staff explains that the LM application and designation appear to conflict with several regulatory codes and practices, including: BMC Section , which does not authorize the designation of scenic views; BMC Chapter 3.24 and Title 23 that define the purview of various City Boards and Commissions; and the CEQA Guidelines for environmental consideration. Therefore, staff concurs with at least three of the five appeal issues. If City Council finds merit with any one of the five Appeal Issues, then staff recommends that Council uphold the Appeal and reverse the LPC s decision Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: (510) TDD: (510) Fax: (510) manager@cityofberkeley.info Website:

2 Page 2 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The recommendation to uphold this Appeal would have no impact on the City s adopted budget or fiscal program. CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS In accordance with the provisions of BMC Section A.1, Kristina D. Lawson of the firm Hanson Bridgett LLP, representing property owners affected by the LPC approval of the application to designate Campanile Way as a Berkeley Landmark, has appealed the LPC s decision to City Council. Lawson submitted a letter of Appeal with attachments on June 13, Please see Attachment 2 of this report. The filing of an appeal tolls the LPC decision until a determination has been made. Council must hold a public hearing on this matter and, in accordance with BMC Section E, take action to either reverse, affirm, modify or remand the decision after opening the hearing. If no action is taken within 30 days of the close of the hearing, then the Appeal shall be deemed denied and the decision to approve the Landmark designation shall be affirmed. BACKGROUND On September 7, 2017, Landmarks Preservation Commissioner Steven Finacom submitted a letter accompanied by the signatures of 56 persons identifying themselves as Berkeley residents requesting that the Commission initiate Landmark designation consideration of Campanile Way. This initiation petition was submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), codified as Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section On October 16, 2017 staff sent a letter to the Regents of the University of California, informing them of the initiation petition and anticipated public hearing to occur not less than 70 days after the petition was received, in accordance with BMC Section In accordance with BMC Section , staff mailed and posted notice of the November 2, 2017, LPC hearing on October 23, 2017, to the UC Regents and properties owners and residents within a 300-ft. radius of the site. On November 2, 2017, the LPC opened the hearing on this matter in accordance with the LPO/BMC; however, the item was continued without discussion because no application materials other than the petition had been submitted or evaluated. [Vote: Yes: Adams, Allen, Beil, Brown, Carter, Linvill, O Malley; No: none; Abstain: none; Absent: Schwartz (one vacancy).] On December 7, 2017, Finacom submitted a Landmark (LM) application for consideration by the LPC. The scope of the request included the Campanile pathway, located on the UC campus, and the scenic views observed from the base of the Campanile facing westward along the pathway. Page 2

3 Page 3 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 On December 22, 2017, staff mailed and posted notices for the January 4, 2018 LPC hearing in accordance with BMC/LPO requirements. At that time the LM application was still under review and staff had not determined the scope of the request. Because the LM application listed the UC campus as the site address but also cited and studied a four-block area within the Downtown, staff included both the UC campus and the Downtown in the noticing area for the hearing. Notices were posted on the UC campus and within Downtown, and mailed to all property owners with the Downtown commercial district as well as to the UC Regents and to residents and owners within 300-ft. of the UC Campus and the four-block area of Downtown. On January 4, 2018, the Commission opened the hearing on this matter to allow members of the public to speak but did not deliberate on the matter, and continued the hearing to February 1, On February 1, 2018, the Commission opened the hearing and allowed the public to speak but did not deliberate, and then voted to continue the hearing to a date to be determined by the availability of a staff recommendation for action. [Vote: ; Yes: Adams, Allen, Beil, Brown, Schwartz; No: none; Abstain: none; Absent: Carter, Crandall, O Malley (Finacom recused).] On March 1, 2018, Finacom, acting as the Commission Chairperson, called for a Special Meeting on the subject of this designation to occur separately from the next regularly scheduled LPC meeting. On March 26, 2018, staff mailed and posted public meeting notices for the Special Meeting and public hearing in accordance with the requirements of BMC Section The noticing area included the UC campus as well as the four-block area within the Downtown, and staff mailed notices to the property owners within that area, recognizing them as interested parties in this review process. On April 5, 2018, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the designation of Campanile Way as a City of Berkeley Landmark in accordance with BMC Section [Vote: ; Yes: Adams, Allen, Brown, de Leon, Metzger, Schwartz; No: none; Abstain: Beil, Crandall; Absent: none; (one vacancy).] The designation resolution included the view corridor as significant contributing elements to the Campanile pathway. Under federal and state historic preservation practices, the term significant contributing elements would be analogous to features to be preserved, which would endow the views with local landmark status under the City s LPO. On May 29, 2018, staff mailed the Notice of Decision (NOD) in accordance with the requirements of BMC Section On June 12, 2018, staff transmitted a copy of the NOD to the City Council and recommended that City Council set a public hearing to review the LPC s decision because the LPO does not allow for the designation of views as a City Landmark, and Page 3

4 Page 4 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 because the proper preservation of views through development controls is not within the purview of the LPC or LPO. On June 13, 2018, Lawson filed an Appeal in accordance with BMC Section A.1. In the Appeal, Ms. Lawson states that the City has no legal authority to designate a view as a local landmark; historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for view protection; Campanile Way currently receives the highest levels of historic preservation protection; LPC Chair Finacom has a conflict of interest in this case; and the City has conducted no environmental review of the action. At least ten days prior to this hearing, staff mailed and posted public meeting notices for this hearing in accordance with the requirements of BMC Section Staff mailed notices to UC staff, residents and owners within 300-ft. of the UC Campus, and property owners within the four-block area of Downtown, recognizing them as interested parties in this review process. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The environmentally sustainable effects of the recommendation to uphold the appeal are currently unknown. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The issues raised in the Appellants letter, and staff s responses, are itemized and presented below. For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are not re-stated in their entirety; please refer to the Appeal letter (Attachment 2) for full text. Issue 1: The Appellant asserts that the City has no legal authority to designate a view as a local landmark. [Page 1 of attached Appeal letter] The LPC has designated Campanile Way as a City landmark and identified the scenic views from the pathway as significant contributing elements, which means the views must be given protection considerations going forward. The Appellant asserts, however, that the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance does not allow for the designation of scenic views as local Landmarks or Structures of Merit, so the designation is not legal. Response 1: The Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) is codified in Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter LPO/BMC Section allows for the designation of structures (individual and groups), sites, manmade and natural landscape elements, and districts. Because scenic views are not listed among the objects to which a designation may be applied, staff agrees with the Appellant and concludes that the LPO does not allow for the designation of scenic views. Page 4

5 Page 5 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 Furthermore, there are other complications that would prevent the City from applying its preservation controls to scenic views. The City s preservation controls are limited to individually designated parcels only, and not to other parcels generally. These controls require: (1) the recording of a Notice of Limitation on the designated parcel [BMC Section A] and (2) discretionary review by means of a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) for all future exterior alterations to the designated property [BMC Section ]. However, neither of these controls can be applied with effective results to scenic views when they exist beyond the boundaries of the designated property because the view corridors would be beyond the City s preservation authority. These incongruences with the City s historic preservation provisions suggest that scenic views were never intended to be designated or preserved as historic resources under the LPO. The Landmark (LM) application for the Campanile Way (submitted December 7, 2017) seeks City of Berkeley designation status for the Campanile Way path on the UC campus as well as for the scenic views that can be observed from the path. These views are the lines of sight that extend west from the UC campus to the Golden Gate. The LM application states this two-part designation request in several places, including The application is for a roadway/scenic corridor (LM, page 6), and Campanile Way is both physical road/landscape corridor and view corridor (LM, page 47). The document makes multiple references to the pathway and views as the scope of the consideration. The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the designation request on April 5, 2018, citing views as significant contributing elements, (Designation Resolution, page 14), a description that will entitle the views to preservation consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the federal Historic Preservation Act. This term is analogous to the LPO term features to be preserved, and is problematic because it has the effect of endowing the views with a local Landmark status notwithstanding the impractically of applying local controls. The designation of Campanile Way and the scenic views as a City Landmark conflicts with the historic preservation provisions of the BMC, provisions which do not list views as objects to which the designation may apply nor do they envision effective methods for scenic view protection. Failure of the LM application to comply with these fundamental LPO standard warrants overturning the designation approval. For this reason, staff concludes that the assertions of Appeal Issue #1 are correct and supported by evidence in the record for this case. Page 5

6 Page 6 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 Recommendation 1: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Appeal of the Landmark designation of Campanile Way and the associated view corridor on the basis that the designation is not permitted by the municipal code, and reverse the Campanile Way City landmark designation. Issue 2: Historic preservation is not a proper mechanism for view protection. [Page 1 of attached Appeal letter] The Appellant contends that historic resource protection practices are not appropriate for the preservation of scenic vistas because scenic view protection potentially affects broad and expansive areas and, therefore, would require advanced land use planning and the enactment of development controls. Response 2: Planning and development controls are the regulatory mechanism by which scenic view preservation can be achieved within a jurisdiction. These controls are set in place through the advanced adoption of area plans, specified design criteria, regulatory ordinances, prescriptive zoning restrictions and holistic land use programs. City Council studied and established scenic view protections for Berkeley with the adoption and implementation of the 2002 General Plan and the 2012 Downtown Area Plan, Environmental Impact Report and related Zoning Ordinance amendments for the Downtown commercial district (C- D/MU, BMC Section 23E ). These actions were undertaken through a public process and in consultation with the Planning Commission, as required under BMC Section 23A.20 Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The Campanile Way Landmark designation seeks to enact scenic view projections, including reduced C-D/MU district building height limits, through regulatory mechanisms that are intended specifically and exclusively for historic resource protection. The provisions of the LPO and the purview of the LPC are limited to historic preservation (BMC Section ) and do not include prescriptions for land use or development controls. The Campanile Way LM application suggests a building height limit for new development within the Downtown as a means of preserving the scenic views from the UC campus. Specifically, the LM application states that a building of about 100 feet [in the Downtown] would be the maximum height that could be built without a significant view impact Page 6

7 Page 7 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 (LM, page 50). This height prescription is problematic for several reasons: It is beyond the purview of the LPO and LPC to prescribe building height limits. The Downtown is beyond the boundaries of the designated property (UC campus) that is the subject to the LM application. The suggested height limit conflicts with the adopted zoning controls for the Downtown (C-D/MU district, BMC Section 23E ) which allow for the construction of mixed-use commercial and residential building as tall as 180 feet, subject to conditional use permit approval. This LM application s prescription for Downtown development controls is further embedded within the City s Landmark designation where the adopted resolution states: Campanile Way is significant as a worldfamous formal view corridor [Page1] ; Campanile Way is significant as a gathering point and cherished campus view corridor [Page 3] ; and Buildings or large structures or new tall tree plantings on campus, in the Downtown Berkeley area, or on Campanile Way itself would significantly impact this view. [Page 11]. Changes to existing development controls in order to preserve scenic views from Campanile Way would require establishing a view protection overlay zone within certain areas of Berkeley which, in turn, would require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (BMC Chapter 23), revisions to the Zoning Map, and consideration of relevant area plans and environmental studies that have been previously adopted. These activities would be within the purview of City Council and the Planning Commission. The Landmark application and designation for Campanile Way would circumvent these processes. Staff concludes that limiting adopted zoning regulations and Downtown building heights through the designation of Campanile Way with its associated views as a City Landmark exceeds the purview of the LPO and LPC, and would be inconsistent with the City s past practice. Therefore, staff finds that the fundamental assertions of Appeal Issue #2 are correct and supported by evidence in the record for this case. Recommendation 2: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Appeal of the designation Campanile Way as a City Landmark on the basis that the designation conflicts with the provisions of BMC Section 23E (C- D/MU development standards) and BMC Section 3.24 (LPC Powers and Duties), and with the appropriate and established regulatory practices for scenic view protection. Page 7

8 Page 8 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 Issue 3: Campanile Way already receives the highest level of preservation consideration because it is included in a National Register site. [Page 1 of attached Appeal letter] The Appellant contends that granting local designation to Campanile Way is not necessary for the protection of its historic significance because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places with the UC Classical Core and, therefore, already receives the highest level of preservation protection. Response 3: The Campanile Way landscape currently receives historic preservation protection because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places a contributing element of the Classical Core of the UC campus, a multiple property designation that occur in It has been recognized for its unique historical value and called out for preservation and rehabilitation in the 2004 UC Landscape Heritage Plan, and it is not threatened for removal or detrimental alteration. So the general assertions of this Appeal Issue 3 are correct. However, National Register status alone would not warrant overturning a local designation. A local designation exclusive of scenic views would be expected given that the Campanile Way landscape and the Classical Core possess historical significance at the national, state and local levels. In this case, the April 5, 2018 LPC designation reaches beyond established preservation practices and, as explained in responses to Appeal Issues #1 and 2, should be overturned for reasons unrelated to its National Register listing. The preservation considerations afforded to Campanile Way as a contributor to a National Register site are notable, and it is understood that the Campanile pathway would not be endangered if this designation is overturned. Therefore, staff recommends that City Council recognize the protections currently in place for the Classical Core of the UC campus, and dismiss this Appeal Issue because these protections alone are not a basis to overturn a local designation. Recommendation 3: Staff recommends that the City Council dismiss this Appeal Issue because it appears to be without merit, but uphold the Appeal on the basis of Recommendations #1 and 2, above, as well as Recommendation #5 introduced below. Page 8

9 Page 9 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 Issue 4: During its review of the Campanile Way designation, the LPC violated conflict of interest requirements. [Page 1 of attached Appeal letter] The Appellant states that City allowed Steven Finacom to take a leave of absence from the April 5, 2018, LPC meeting at which a public hearing was conducted on the designation, and that he then appeared at the hearing to present the Landmark application and to submit a document containing a draft resolution for approval. Response 4: Finacom has served as a member of the LPC since November 23, 2016, and he is the author of the Campanile Way Landmark application for this designation. In mid-january 2018, City staff advised Finacom to recuse himself from the City s review and consideration of this LM application, and he did. At the February 1, 2018, Finacom recused himself from the LPC s review of this matter; and on April 5, 2018, Mr. Finacom was granted a Leave of Absence from LPC. Recommendation 4: Finacom participated in the LPC hearing on January 4, 2018, but no discussion or deliberation of the LM application for Campanile Way occurred. During LPC s review on February 1 and April 5, 2018, Mr. Finacom presented the Landmark application as the author only and did not participate as a member of the Commission. During the April 5, 2018 meeting, he submitted a document containing a draft resolution for LPC approval of the designation. The LPC adopted this document with revisions when voting to approve the designation. These actions did not violate the conflict of interest requirements of California s Political Reform Act (1984) because Finacom has submitted requisite California Form 700 (most recently submitted on April 2, 2018) which documents that he has no financial interest in the outcome of the City s decision in this case. Further, the City protected the Campanile Way designation review process from potential bias by ensuring that Finacom participated in the proceeding as an applicant only, and that he did not participate in the LPC s substantive deliberations or determining vote on the matter. Staff believes the Appellant s assertions about a conflict of interest have not been substantiated and are without merit, and recommends that the City Council dismiss Appeal Issue #4, but uphold the Appeal on the basis of Recommendations #1 and 2, above, as well as Recommendation #5 introduced below. Page 9

10 Page 10 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 Issue 5: The City has conducted no review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this designation action. [Page 1 of attached Appeal letter] The Appellant claims that the City has not conducted required review of the potential environmental impacts of the Landmark application or the LPC s action to approve the designation. Response 5: City staff s review of the Landmark application for Campanile Way included consideration of applicable CEQA requirements; however, the LPC s decision to grant City Landmark status failed to include an environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA. On April 5, 2018, staff recommended that the LPC either decline the applicant s request to grant City Landmark status to Campanile Way and the view corridor, or grant designation to the pathway exclusive of the views with findings for approval pursuant to CEQA and the LPO. The recommended findings for granting approval of the pathway included a finding that the LPC s action was exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline (b)(3). This CEQA Guideline explains that an activity, such as a local register designation, is exempt from environmental review where it can be seen with certainty that there is not possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Because this staff recommended action would not have directly resulted in any physical or developmental changes to the designation site or its immediate surroundings, it was seen with certainty to have no effect on the environment. LPC took neither staff recommended action and, instead, adopted a resolution prepared by the applicant granting designation status to the pathway and ascribing significance status to the views and linking their preservation to reduced building heights for future development in the Downtown. This action was taken with no stated findings pursuant to CEQA. The potential environmental effects of this action and the implication of downzoning in the C-DMU district were not analyzed and are not known at this time, so the LPC s action cannot be seen with certainty to have no effect on the environment, and its status under CEQA is undetermined. As outlined in responses to Appeal Issues #1 and 2, above, staff believes that City Council may overturn this decision on the basis that it fails to meet the standards of the LPO and BMC and is inconsistent with Page 10

11 Page 11 of 31 Appeal of Campanile Way Landmark Designation PUBLIC HEARING LMIN # September 20, 2018 Recommendation 5: established City practice. If the designation is overturned, then staff believes that the City s activities related to this designation consideration could be seen with certainty to have no effect on the environment, and that CEQA Guideline (b)(3) would apply to the action to overturn the designation. However, if any other action is taken, then further environmental review may be required. Staff recommends that the City Council find that this Appeal Issue is supported by evidence in the record and overturn the designation on the basis that an adequate environmental review of the LPC s decision did not occur. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED In accordance with BMC Section E, the City Council may take action to continue the hearing on this matter, reverse or affirm or modify the LPC s decision in whole or in part, or remand the matter to the Commission to re-consider the application. If Council remands the decision, then Council must also specify which issues shall be re-considered. CONTACT PERSON Timothy Burroughs, Director, Planning and Development Department Steven Buckley, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning and Development Department Fatema Crane, Senior Planner and Landmarks Preservation Commission Secretary, Planning and Development Department Attachments: 1: Resolution 2: Appeal letter, submitted June 13, : Administrative Record 4: Public Hearing Notice Page 11

12 Page 12 of 31 RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S. REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARKS PRSERVATION COMMISSION TO DESIGNATE THE CAMPANILE WAY AND VIEW CORRIDOR AS A CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARK (#LMIN ) WHEREAS, on September 7, 2017, Steven Finacom submitted a letter accompanied by the signatures of 56 persons identifying themselves as Berkeley residents and requesting that the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) initiate Landmark designation consideration of Campanile Way as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) section ; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2017, staff mailed and posted notices of the LPC public hearing on this matter, in accordance with BMC Section ; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2017, LPC opened the hearing in accordance with BMC Section and then continued the hearing to await receipt of the complete Landmark application; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2017, Finacom submitted a Landmark application for the designation of Campanile Way and view corridors as a City Landmark or Structures of Merit; and WHEREAS, on December 22, 2017, staff mailed and posted notices of the LPC public hearing, in accordance with BMC Section ; and WHEREAS, on January 4, 2018, LPC resumed and then continued the hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, LPC resumed and then continued the hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2018, Mr. Finacom, as Chairperson of the LPC, called for a Special Meeting to occur for this matter on April 5, 2018; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2018, staff mailed and posted notices of the LPC Special Meeting and public hearing, in accordance with BMC Section ; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2018, the LPC approved the Landmark application and granted City Landmark status to the Campanile Way and view corridors; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2018, staff issued a Notice of the LPC s decision in accordance with BMC Section ; and

13 Page 13 of 31 WHEREAS, on June 13, 2018, Kristina D. Lawson of the firm Hanson Bridgett LLP filed an appeal of the decision with the City Clerk pursuant to BMC Section A.1; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, staff posted and mailed notices of the hearing in accordance with BMC Sections and A.3; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the LPC s decision and the standards used in the decision and found that, in the opinion of this Council, the facts stated in, or ascertainable from the public record, including comments made at the public hearing, warrant upholding the Appeal because: (1) the Landmark application does not satisfy the standards of BMC Section for consideration as a City Landmark because views are not listed among the items to which designation status may be granted, and (2) the purview of the LPO is limited to historic preservation, according to the standards of BMC Section , and does not include scenic view protection. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council hereby reverses the decision of the LPC to designate Campanile Way and the associated view corridors as a City Landmark. Page 2

14 Page 14 of 31

15 Page 15 of 31

16 Page 16 of 31

17 Page 17 of 31

18 Page 18 of 31

19 Page 19 of 31

20 Page 20 of 31

21 Page 21 of 31

22 Page 22 of 31

23 Page 23 of 31

24 Page 24 of 31

25 Page 25 of 31

26 Page 26 of 31

27 Page 27 of 31

28 Page 28 of 31

29 Page 29 of 31

30 Attachment 3 Administrative Record LPC Appeal: Campanile Way This attachment is on file and available for review at the City Clerk Department, or can be accessed from the City Council Website. Copies of the attachment are available upon request. City Clerk Department 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA (510) or from: The City of Berkeley, City Council s Web site

31 Page 31 of 31 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING-BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2134 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY APPEAL OF LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION S LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF CAMPANILE WAY AND VIEW CORRIDOR, #LMIN Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 at 6:00 PM a public hearing will be conducted to consider an appeal against a decision by the Landmarks Preservation Commission s approval of Landmark Application #LMIN for the designation of Campanile Way as a City of Berkeley Landmark. A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City s website at as of September 13, For further information, please contact Fatema Crane, Senior Planner/LPC Secretary, ; fcrane@cityofberkeley.info Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet. Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City s electronic records, which are accessible through the City s website. Please note: e- mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at or clerk@cityofberkeley.info for further information. Mark Numainville, City Clerk Mailed: September 6, 2018 NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny(code Civ. Proc (b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5) an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section , no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project. If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least seven days prior to the public hearing.

32