v •■- esc > > ..: ' r^^WMSf '*_>* br*£ : .4^M^%P *3Plfc NAC CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FINE ARTS LIBRARY Cornell University Library NAC 768 .B51Z87 Zone ordinance procedure 3 1924 024 453 932 The City-Planning Movement in Berkeley J. R. DOUGLAS, Secretary of the City Club. The City Club may justly claim a considerable share of the credit of initiating the movement for city-planning in Berkeley which has recently begun to accomplish actual re- sults. The vital importance of planning to the development of a city was realized by the charter members of the organiza- tion and city-planning was early made one of the policies for which the club would stand. The City Club Committee. One of the first committees to be created was the Com- mittee on City- Planning and its members have proved to be unsparing workers for the fulfillment of their aims. Among the various accomplishments of this group, working as a whole or individually, can be named the publication of bul- letins on several phases of Berkeley's planning problem, the securing of a research fellowship in city-planning, the secur- ing of an expert to make a survey of the problem of Berke- ley and Oakland, and finally the creation of an interest in the subject on the part of members, citizens and officials great enough to bring about the establishment of a public body to carry on the work. The important publications of the committee of the club, beginning January, 191 3, have been: The Movement to Secure Increased Playground Facilities. Harbor Development. City-Planning (The Introduction to the Hegemann Report). City-Planning Bibliography. The Building Code. The Zone Ordinance. Transportation Problems in Berkeley. City-Planning in Berkeley. Professional Study of the Problem. In 19 1 3 the Smith Fellowship was established at the University of California by an Oakland capitalist who was 3 impressed with the necessity for the study of city-planning subjects. The fellowship was awarded to Mr. Francis H. Bird, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin. Under the guidance of the University authorities and working in co-operation with the City Club, Mr. Bird spent one year in collecting very valuable information regarding Berkeley's planning problems, especially those relating to playgrounds. During the following year a movement, in which mem- bers of the City Club committee took a prominent part, was inaugurated to secure the services of an expert to prepare a city plan for the entire east bay urban community. As a re- sult of this movement Dr. Werner Hegemann, city-planner from Germany, was secured to undertake this work. Dr. Hegemann spent nearly six months in completing his task and after some delay his Report on a City Plan for the Municipalities of Berkeley and Oakland has now been pub- lished and is for sale by the City Club of Berkeley. The City Committee. City-planning activity had reached a point where it was advisable that it should be undertaken by an official body rather than be continued by private effort. The charter of Berkeley was found to provide for the creation of a Civic Art Commission, but due to the unpopularity of the word "civic art" in many minds, no attempt was made to take ad- vantage of charter authority, but instead a semi-official body called the City-Planning Committee was created by Ordinance 3554 — N. S., and the members were appointed on July 17, 19 14, by Mayor C. D. Hey wood. This body remained in existence about one year and did a good'deal to prepare the way for the more permanent work which was to come. Among its activities were the drawing up of a statement in the form of a comprehensive plan out- lining the scope, function and problems of the committee, the endorsing of the city-planning and housing measures be- fore the Legislature of 19 15 and the endorsing of the open- ing of Walnut Street from Hearst Avenue to Berkeley Way. The Civic Art Commission. Shortly before the Heywood administration retired, the City Council, believing that the city-planning movement was now so well understood that no disadvantageous conno- tation would henceforth be attached to the title, took advan- tage of charter provisions to create, by Ordinance 408 — N. S., an official Civic Art Commission. By August 17, 1915, its personnel, partly appointed by the retiring and partly by the new mayor, S. C. Irving, was completed and consisted of Duncan McDuffie, President, B. J. Bither, Professor J. W. Gregg, B. D. M. Greene, Professor J. C. Merriam, R. M. Osborne and A. T. Sutherland, and City Engineer J. J. Jessup and City Architect W. H. Ratcliffe,' Jr., members ex-oifico. Several of these gentlemen had been active in the work of the city-planning committee of the City Club. The Civic Art Commission soon arrived at the conclu- sion that the matter of zoning was of primary importance and its first efforts were therefore directed toward the pass- age of a zone ordinance. This has now been accomplished and the commission will proceed to secure the passage of the many other measures of advantage to the industrial and so- cial growth of the city. » The Park Commission. In conclusion, mention should be made of the recent establishment of another public body which will undoubted- ly accomplish much in the direction of city-planning along recreational and esthetic lines. By Ordinance 461 — N. S., of July 6, 191 6, there was created the Park Commission of Berkeley. Its members are Professor J. W. Gregg, Presi- dent, R. L. Donley, C. H. Henderson, J. S. Hutchinson, and W. E. Miles. Due to the fact that the President of the Park Commission is also a member of the Civic Art Com- mission, the two bodies will undoubtedly work in close co- operation. City-planning has now become well established as an of- ficial function in Berkeley and private effort can best be directed toward supporting and giving publicity to the work 5 that is being done. This policy the City Club will adopt. Several bulletins have been published relating to the problem of zoning. The present number is devoted to completing the information that has been given on this important sub- ject. From time to time the Club will endeavor to give similar publicity to the other phases of city-planning as they are taken up and thus afford the necessary supplement to public undertaking, publicity and education. Legal Aspect of the Zone Ordinance B. D. M. GREENE, Member of the Civic Commission. In order to understand the necessity for a zone or districting ordinance in the City of Berkeley, a brief review of the present situation is necessary. I shall not attempt to give in detail or even in resume the various provisions of either the ordinance or rules of the Civic Art Commission, as they are both set out in full elsewhere in this Bulletin. The Failure of Private Restriction. A great many separate residence tracts have been platted and sold with restrictions as to use and occupancy. Although variously phrased, the main import of these restrictions is that no building shall be constructed in such tracts other than a single-family dwelling-house with the usual outhouses and appurtenances. In most cases these restrictions are bind- ing only for a stated period and in some instances have al- ready expired. The consequence has been that many pur- chasers of land during the time that the restrictions were in force have erected residences in conformity with the restric- tions and as soon as the restrictions have lapsed, stores or apartments have been erected in immediate proximity to the residences, thereby depreciating their value and nullify- ing the purpose for which the land was originally intended. Although restrictions running with the land which are unlimited as to time seem to afford real protection to pur- 6 chasers, nevertheless in practice . such is not the case. If a man buys property within a restricted tract and wishes to devote it to uses other than those allowed, there is nothing to prevent him from obtaining a building permit from the city to erect any type of building he desires. The only method of preventing such violation is by tedious and costly legal proceedings instituted by a property owner in the re- stricted tract at his own expense, immediately upon know- ledge that a violation is threatened. These occurrences are so numerous that a restriction running with the land is in many cases a nullity. " • Object of Zone Ordinance. It was one of the aims in the creation of the present zone ordinance to take from the property owner the burden of enforcing these restrictions, and to continue the restric- tions, if equitable, beyond the time when they would origin- ally expire. The ordinance is based upon the fundamental doctrine that when a tract of land has taken upon itself a certain identity or character, that identity should be pre- served, and not be liable to be destroyed by the whim or de- sire of one person. The ordinance is framed to preserve, the present status quo rather than to disturb existing conditions by retroactive provisions. Its Simplicity. Our ordinance differs fundamentally from the Minnea- polis and Los Angeles ordinances in that our residential dis- trict may be classified into any one of six separate classifi- cations. The other ordinances referred to differentiate merely between industrial districts and residential districts, with no minor classifications within the residential districts. Furthermore, the other ordinances are drafted on the basis of excluding certain objectionable features from parti- cular districts, whereas the Berkeley ordinance is strongly af- firmative throughout its entirety and states precisely what is to be allowed within a district. Our ordinance is thus much simpler in its operation and does not 'need continuous 7 amendment as new industries or occupations arise which require classification and exclusion from districts. Its Application. In explaining the application of the Berkeley ordinance I will attempt to show the procedure suited to the. type of district that may be created. If, for example, occupants of a territory which was formerly or is now protected by single- family dwelling-house restrictions, or is of a character suit- : 'ed to .such,rgstrictions, desire to be classified as a District of Class No. i, which is the single- family dwelling district, then a petition must be made in the required manner to the City Council by whom it is referred to the Civic Art Com- mission for investigation. In accordance with the rules of the Commission, detailed information as to the character of all the buildings within the district, and other data, must be furnished by the applicants. If it appears that within the confines of the proposed district there are certain buildings already erected which are not allowed in a district of Class No. I, it lies within the discretion of the City Council to de- clare the entire district to be Class No. i, and thus by retro- active operation force the removal from the district of the prohibited structures. The Council can, however, except from the classification of District No. i those buildings al- ready erected which are not allowed within that classifica- tion. Thus, if the building is an apartment house, that par- ticular land on which it stands can be classified by the Coun- cil as District No. 5, in which apartment houses are allowed. If the building is a store, for which no classification is pro- vided by the ordinance, the lot of land can be exempted from the operation of the district and can be left wholly unclassi- fied and it becomes, as has been familiarly phrased, "No man's land." If in the future, the use to which that parti- cular piece of property is being put shall change and threaten to become a detriment to the neighborhood, the Council can immediately pass an ordinance classifying that particular piece of land into any appropriate district and thus the char- acter of the neighborhood will be maintained. 8 If, on the contrary, property within certain boundaries has already taken upon itself the character of a district of Class No. 4, then of necessity, even though it had formerly been protected by original tract restrictions which allowed only single-family dwelling-houses, it would be the manifest duty of the Council to classify it now as a district of Class No. 4. Since, however, stores are under the Ordinance not allowed within a district of Class No. 4, it would be neces- sary to exempt the property within that district on which stores stand from the operation of this classification, if the Council felt that the stores should be allowed to remain there. It is self-evident that even in a purely restricted district there are certain classes of occupations or callings which are conducive to the general interest and welfare of the com- munity such as those enumerated in districts of Class No. 6, namely, public buildings, schools, libraries, churches, etc. It has been felt that a separate classification was necessary for such buildings. Its application is as follows : If, there is no church or assembly hall or other buildings of Class 6 type within a district which has already been classified as a restricted district, and it is the concensus of opinion in that district that a church or other building of Class 6 should be erected therein, a petition can be presented to the Council asking that a certain piece of property within the restricted district be released from the restrictions and be reclassified as a district of Class No. 6. All of the people residing within the district will be thoroughly protected, inasmuch as the Council, upon introducing an Ordinance to that effect, must give due notice throughout the district by posting notices of the proposed change, whereupon a full hearing will be had. It is then within the discretion of the Council to grant or deny the petition. Business Property Exempted. There has been some criticism of the ordinance on the ground that no basis of classification of business property has been adopted. It was felt by the Commission that at the 9 present time the spirit of the ordinance would not be main- tained if we attempted to go into detailed classification of the various obnoxious forms of business which should not be allowed within the ordinary retail business district, and that if we attempted to enumerate every class of business which should be allowed within each district, difficulties necessitating continuous amendment would arise, such as were encountered in the Minneapolis and Los Angeles ordi- nances. We felt that the process of elimination, arising from the creation of districts where business property was not allowed, would gradually throw all business property into "no man's land," where it would be safe and unmolested. The classification ordinance also contains two factory districts. We felt that the factory, as well as the residence, needed protection. Only too often residences are erected in close proximity to factories and later the owners complain of the depreciation of their residence property owing to the maintenance of the factory. We must be able to assure manufacturers that if they locate in Berkeley in a district suited to their use, they will be amply protected. With this in view we have made a classiffication for districts in which only unobnoxious factories will be allowed and another classification in which obnoxious as well as unobnoxious factories wil be allowed. An Experimental Measure. The ordinance, as drafted, is not intended to be final in its forms or contents. The whole scheme is necessarily ex- perimental and various exigencies will arise from time to time demanding changes. In fact, various meritorious amendments have already been suggested, but we feel that the ordinance as drafted should be thoroughly tried out and tested before alterations are attempted. After applications of its principles have been made, we can then better consider the effect of proposed changes. Necessity of Data. It is apparent that the classification of the city into dis- tricts under this ordinance will be an exceedingly arduous 10 task. In order to insure bona fide applications for the for- mation of districts, it has been necessary to adopt rules which may seem rather burdensome, but it must be remem- bered that the members of the Civic Art Commission are de- voting their time to- this matter without salary or remunera- tion, and it is only fair that they should not be expected to' make detailed investigation of every application unless the applicants show their good faith by furnishing the data re- quired by the rules. If the ordinance has no effect other than to perpetuate the present restrictions which now cover so much property in Berkeley, the Commission feels that it will have accom- plished something which will be of lasting value to the com- munity. It will at least take from the individual property owner the burden of enforcing restrictions within the tract where he resides, for when a district has been classified un- der this ordinance no person will be able to obtain a building permit from the City to erect a building therein which is not allowed by the classification within which that district may have been placed. A Practical Application of the Zone Ordinance DUNCAN McDUFFIE, President of the Civic Art Commission. The actual operation of a law is a much surer test of its desir- ability and practicability than the logic and theory used to justify its passage. For this reason it has seemed valuable to include in this bulletin the report of the President of the Civic Art Commis- sion of the action taken on the first petition presented for the creation of a zone under the ordinance. The action upon it is ad- ditionally valuable because of the number of precedents that will undoubtedly be set by it. To the Honorable, the Mayor and Council of the City of Berkeley : On June 23 your honorable body received a petition from the property owners of Elmwood Park requesting the formation of a District of Class 1, to include Elmwood Park 11 and vicinity, under the terms of the recently adopted Dis- trict Ordinance No. 452 — N. S. This was the first petition to be presented since the adoption of this ordinance. The Commission's Investigation. On the same date this petition, together with the map which accompanied it, was referred to the Civic Art Com- mission with the request that the Commission recommend to your honorable body what action should be taken in this mat- ter. After the receipt of the petition the Commission, with the approval of the Council, engaged Mr. C. H. Cheney to examine the conditions existing in the district, to prepare such maps as should be found necessary and to make a re- port with regard to the petition. Mr. Cheney made a num- ber of visits to the district, talked with a large number of the property owners, canvassed every portion of the territory affected, and finally made a preliminary report to this Com- mission on June 26. This report was thoroughly discussed, tentative conclus- ions were arrived at and it was determined to call a neigh- borhood meeting to> further discuss the matter before mak- ing a recommendation to your honorable body. This meet- ing took place in the assembly room in the John Muir School on the evening of July 7 and was attended by sixty or more interested property owners. The Commission again met on the evening of July 11 and, after carefully considering the protests of College ave- nue property owners which had been referred to it by your honorable body, adopted the report of its consultant, Mr. Cheney, together with the accompanying map, and deter- mined to recommend to your honorable body the passage of an ordinance embodying its recommendations on the sub- ject of the Elmwood petition. The Terms of the Petition. The petition submitted by the property owners of Elm- wood Park and vicinity requested the classification of the property bounded by College and Pine Avenues and Russell 12 and Webster Streets as a district of Class i. The petition stated that this district contained three flat buildings, an apartment house and a number of stores that would be pro- hibited by the formation of the proposed district. The Commission's Recommedations. The recommendations of the Commission regarding this petition are set out in detail in Mr. Cheney's report. The more important of these recommendations are as follows : District of Class I. The Commission strongly recommends to your honorable body the granting of the request of the petitioners with the exceptions that will be noted below. The property owners of Elmwood Park and vicinity ask that their district be classified under the District Ordinance as a district of Class i, which, under the terms of 'the ordi- nance, is a district in which no buildings shall be erected or maintained other than single-family dwellings with the ap- purtenant outbuildings. The petitioners make this request on the ground that such a classification will afford them a protection against, the invasion of their district by flats, apartment houses and stores, with the deterioration of val- ues that is sure to follow. Of the two hundred and seventy-five parcels of land in the district proposed by this Commission, two hundred and nine are already improved with single-family dwellings. The owners of more than half of these dwelling's have joined in the petition. Most of these owners purchased their property and erected their dwellings before the restrictions, which limited the use of the property to such dwellings, ex- pired. They now ask the municipality to give them the pro- tection they formerly had, and which they feel they now most urgently need. In proof of this need they point to the fact that within the area formerly restricted there have al- ready been built three flats, an apartment house, a school and a number of stores. They state that the building of any additional flats or apartments or the extension of the 13 store district will seriously imperil their investment, which they estimate to be in excess of $1,250,000. The Commis- sion believes that the position of the petitioners is a sound one and that the municipality should afford them the pro- tection they desire and need. Enlargement of District. The Commission recommends that the boundaries of the district proposed by the petitioners be extended to include the lots fronting on the north side of Russell Street, those fronting- on the south side of Webster Street, and the prop- erty lying between the proposed district and the rear lines of the lots fronting on Claremont Avenue. The Commis- sion makes this recommendation because it is of the opinion that if the property on the north side of Russell Street and the south side of Webster Street were not included in the district, its unregulated development might have an adverse effect on the property on the opposite sides of those streets. Furthermore, it sees no reason why the property immedi- ately east of Elmwood Park, which has been developed as residential property in much the same manner as Elmwood Park, should not receive the benefits of the regulation pro- posed. It, however, finds the property fronting on Clare- mont Avenue is subject to different conditions and influ- ences than that to the west thereof, and it has not, therefore, included it in the proposed district. Exceptions. The Commission recommends that the three flat buildings apartment house and school contained in the district origin- ally petitioned for, together with the flat building in the added district, should be excepted from the district of Class 1 which is to be formed, and that the lots on which each of these buildings stand should be properly classified under the terms of the District Ordinance with the added provis- ion that should the buildings in question be burned or re- moved, altered or changed in use, the property on which 14 they stand should automatically take the classification of the larger district which surrounds them. The Commission takes the position that in general the District Ordinance should not be so applied as to deprive any property owner of his vested rights unless he is exercis- ing them to the great detriment of the community. It be- lieves that the flats, apartment houses, stores and the like are a detriment in a purely residential section. Nevertheless, it recognizes the fact that the owners of these properties un- doubtedly made their investments in good faith, and sug- gests that these rights remain undisturbed until the build- ings are removed or destroyed. At that time it believes the lots on which the buildings stand should be limited to the same uses as those enjoyed by adjoining property. College Avenue Frontage. The Commission recommends that the existing store buildings on the College Avenue frontage of the proposed district be excluded from the district and, for the present, remain unclassified; that a portion of the frontage on the easterly side of College Avenue, both north and south of Ashby Avenue and one lot on the westerly side of ColPege Avenue, be classfied as an apartment-house district, and that the balance of the College Avenue frontage, as far south as the southerly line of the district, be classified as a district for single-family residences only. The Commission regrets exceedingly that it has not Leen able to' submit to the Council an amendment to the District Ordinance providing for districts for various classes oi busi- ness. For the reason stated in the paragraph on exceptions and for the additional reason that different conditions and influences affect the College Avenue frontage, it does not believe that the store buildings on College Avenue should be included in the proposed district of Class i. As there is no business' district provided for, there is no other course open than to leave these buildings unclassified until the ordi- nance may be amended to provide a suitable district for them. 15 It is contended by the owners of vacant property ad- joining these buildings and further south, that their prop- erty also should remain unclassified and that they should have the privilege of erecting either stores or apartments, or both, upon their lots. In answer to this contention the residents of Elmwood Park urge that the present retail district at College and Rus- sell and College and Ashby is sufficient to serve the needs of the community for a long time to come. They point out the fact that the territory tributary to this business center is al- ready eighty per cent filled up; that there are now some stores vacant, and that the number of residents who will oc- cupy the now vacant property will not be sufficient to war- rant any increase in the size of the retail district. They state further that any increase in the size of the retail dis- trict will prove a great disadvantage to the residential prop- erty in the proposed district of Class i. The Commission agrees with the latter of these argu- ments and finds that there is at present no apparent need for any expansion of the retail district under consideration. It is, however, most strongly moved by the consideration that if this property is left unclassified there is nothing to prevent the entrance of business much more objectionable than stores into this neighborhood. The location of an undertaking establishment, a garage, a stable or laundry on the College Avenue frontage of Elmwood Park would not only work great harm to the residential property east of Col- lege Avenue, but, at the same time, would decrease the value of adjoining College Avenue frontage either for stores or for apartments. The Commission, therefore, recommends that the portion of the College Avenue frontage which lies north of a line fifty feet south of the present retail area, be classified as a district of Class 5 in which apartment houses, flats and dwellings are permitted. To the south of this proposed District of Class 5 there are only three vacant lots on that portion of College Avenue under consideration. Five of the owners of these residences have asked to have their property classified in a District of Class 1. The Commission believes their request is a reason- 16 able one, and therefore recommends that the balance of the College Avenue frontage to the point 160 feet south of the south line of Webster Street be so classified. When the existing ordinance has been so amended as to provide classifications for various classes of business, and for free-standing apartment houses not more than two stories in height, if it appears that a re-classification of the College Avenue frontage is necessary, the matter may be then con- sidered. But for the present, the Commission believes that the protection of all the neighboring property, business, apartment house, as well as residential, demands the classifi- cation suggested above. A Neighborhood Park. In a letter addressed to the Civic Art Commission, the Secretary of the Elmwood Park Improvement Association calls attention to the desirability of the purchase of the lots on the east side of College Avenue both north and south of Ashby Avenue for park purposes. The Commission is in hearty accord with this suggestion. It believes that the con- version of these lots into small parks or playgrounds would not only furnish a breathing-spot and playground for the entire neighborhood and a fitting entrance to a desirable residential section east of College Avenue, but would, at the same time, provide a buffer between the present business de- velopment and the residential section and between the exist- ing store buildings and the property that should, in the opin- ion of the Commission, be devoted either to apartment houses or private dwelling uses. In the opinion of the Commission, however, the benefit to be derived from the creation of these small parks is so largely a local one that they should be acquired, through the formation of a special assessment district to include the property benefited. This district would be so large and the benefit so great that the burden would not be a heavy one upon any property owner. The Commission, therefore, recommends to the Elmwood Park Improvement Associ- ation that it take steps to ask the Council to form such a dis- trict for the purchase of the proposed park spaces. 17 Acknowledgments. The Commission desires to call the attention of the Council to the admirable form and completeness of the peti- tion and the accompanying map, prepared by the Elmwood Park Improvement Association, and for the assistance that has been rendered it and its consultant, Mr. Cheney, by the petitioners. With this assistance Mr. Cheney made a most painstaking investigation and his advice has been invaluable to the Commission in forming its conclusions. Respectfully submitted, Duncan McDuffie, President. Dated July 13, 1916. Ordinance No. 452 N. S. CREATING A BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION BY MEANS OF WHICH THE CITY OF BERKELEY MAY BE DIVIDED INTO DISTRICTS WITHIN SOME OF WHICH IT SHALL BE LAWFUL AND WITHIN OTHERS OF WHICH IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO ERECT, CON- STRUCT OR MAINTAIN CERTAIN BUILDINGS, OR TO CARRY ON CERTAIN TRADES OR CALLINGS. Whereas, the public interest and convenience of the City of Berkeley and the proper preservation of its public peace, health and safety require the classification of said City into districts within some of which it shall be lawful and in others unlawful to erect, construct or maintain certain buildings or to carry on certain trades, or callings, and Whereas, to properly effect said purpose, it is necessary to enact certain definitions of districts within said City as the same are hereinafter set out Now, Therefore, Be it Ordained by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows : Section i. Districts of Class I shall be that portion or those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no building or structure shall be erected, constructed or maintained 18 which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any purpose other than that of a single-family dwelling. Section 2. Districts of Class II shall be that portion or those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no build- ing or structure shall be erected, constructed or maintained which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any purpose other than that specified in Section 1 hereof, and that of a two-family dwelling. Section 3. Districts of Class III shall be that portion or those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no build- ing or structure shall be erected, constructed or maintained which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any purpose other than those specified in Sections 1 and 2 and that of a group dwelling, each habitation of which shal have a separate entrance on the ground floor level and of which no part shall be more than two stories in height, exclusive of a finished attic. Section 4. Districts of Class IV shall be that, portion or those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no build- ing or structure shall be erected, constructed or maintained which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any purpose other than those specified in Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereof and that of a boarding-house, fraternity-house, student club-house or dormitory. Section 5. Districts of Class V shall be that portion or those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no build- ing or structure shall be erected, constructed or maintained which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any other purpose except those specified in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 hereof and that of an apartment house, hotel, lodg- ing house or restaurant, all without display windows. Section 6. Districts of Class VI shall be that portion or those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no build- ing or structure shal be erected, constructed or maintained which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any other purpose except that of a building used for reli- gious purposes or place of worship, assembly hall, public or 19 private school, playground structure, park structure, public art gallery, museum, library, fire house or convenience sta- tion. Section 7. Districts of Class VII shall be that portion or those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no build- ing or structure shall be erected, constructed or maintained which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any purpose other than that of a warehouse, industry or factory not engaged in making or preparing soap, candles, fertilizer, glue, tallow, chemicals, gunpowder or other ex- plosives, or in slaughtering, bone boiling, fat boiling, tan- ning, dressing or preparing skins, hides or leather, or used for crematory or similar purposes. Section 8. Districts of Class VIII shall be that por- tiorfor those portions of the City of Berkeley in which no : building or structure shall be erected, constructed or main- tained which shall be used for or designed or intended to be used for any purpose other than those specified in Section 7 hereof, and those of making or preparing soap, candles, fertilizer, glue, tallow, chemicals, gunpowder or other ex- plosives, or in slaughtering, bone boiling, fat boiling, tan- ning, dressing or preparing skins, hides or leather, or used for crematory or similar purposes. Section 9. Private stables and garages and the usual outbuildings may be located or maintained appurtenant to any building lawfully within the boundaries of any district herein specified. Section 10. Any ordinance of the City of Berkeley hereafter enacted which shall classify any property within said City as being within any district of any class of said City shall be construed as referring to the district of the class defined in this Ordinance, or any amendment hereof. Section ii. Whenever the Council of the City of Berkeley shall introduce an ordinance to classify or reclassify any portion or portions of said City into one of the districts hereinabove specified, then the Street Superintendent of 20 said City shall immediately after the introduction of said ordinance cause to be conspicuously posted along all the streets within the district affected by said ordinance notices of the introduction of said ordinances. Said notices shall be headed "Notice of Districting," or "Notice of Redisricting" as the case may be, in letters of not less than one (i) inch in length and shall in legible characters state the fact of the introduction of said ordi- nance, its date and the district within which said ordinance proposes to include the territory. Said notice shall also con- tain a statement of the day and place when and where any and all persons having any objection to the proposed district- ing or redistricting may appear before the City Council and show cause why said proposed districting or redistricting should not be carried out in accordance with said ordinance. The City Council shall at the time of the introduction of said ordinance cause notice to be entered at large upon its minutes stating the said date and hour of hearing protests. At any time not later than the hour set for hearing ob- jections to the proposed districting or redistricting any owner of property within the proposed district may make written protest against the proposed districting or redistricting. Such protest must be in writing and be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the hour set for hearing protests. At the time set for hearing protests the City Council shall proceed to hear and pass upon all protests so made, and its decision shall be final and conclusive. The failure of the Street Superintendent to post such notices shall not invalidate or affect the jurisdiction of the Council to finally adopt such ordinance. Section 12. Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this Ordinance certain words and phrases are defined as follows : (1) Dwelling: A dwelling is any house or building or portion thereof which is occupied in whole or in part as the home, residence or sleeping-place, either permanent or transient, of one or more human beings. 21 (2) Types of Dwellings. For the purposes of this Or- dinance the types of dwellings are denned as follows : Single-Family Dwellings. Two-Family Dwellings. Group Dwellings. (a) A Single-Family Dwelling is a dwelling occupied by but one family alone. (b) A Two-Family Dwelling is a dwelling occupied by but two families alone. (c) A Group Dwelling is a building designed for more than one private dwelling, each private dwelling of which shall have a ground floor entrance and be entirely separated from each other private dwelling by a vertical party wall. (3) Boarding-House. A boarding-house is a building in which persons are lodged for hire and in which there are not more than twenty-five sleeping rooms, with or without a public dining room. (4). Story. The term "story" means a vertical dist- ance from floor to ceiling. Section 13. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after thirty ( 30) days after its final passage. Section 14. This Bill is hereby ordered to be printed and published (with the ayes and noes) for two days in "Berkeley Daily Gazette," which newspaper is hereby desig- nated for that purpose. Finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Coun- cil of the City of Berkeley held on the 28th day of March, 1916. Form of Procedure FORM OF PROCEDURE FOR THE GUIDANCE OF PETI- TIONERS FOR THE FORMATION OF DISTRICTS UN- DER THE DISTRICT ORDINANCE. (Ordinance No. 452— N. S.) i. On a form which may be obtained from the City Clerk, the petitioners shall secure the signatures of at least fifty property owners within the proposed district, or the sig- natures of the owners of at least 25 per cent of the frontage therein. After each name shall appear the address of the signer and the number of feet of frontage owned by him. 2. The petition shall name the class of district it is de- sired to have formed, the total number and exact use of all buildings therein, and the buildings in the proposed district, the present use of which will be prohibited by the formation of the district. 3. The petition shall be accompanied by a blue-print or map on which shall be shown the boundaries of the proposed district in red. On this map shall also be shown in cofors or by other means, as directed by the City Engineer, the location and use of all buildings within said district, and for not less than one block in each direction outside the boun- daries of such district. Maps for this purpose may be ob- tained at the City Engineer's office at cost. Information as to' the kind and location of buildings may be secured from the insurance maps in the Building Inspector's office at the City Hall. After locating the buildings on the map provided, the petitioners should make a building-to4>uilding survey of the district to check the correctness of the map and to determine the use of the buildings shown thereon. • 4. At the bottom of each map and each petition there shall be given the name and address of an authorized repre- sentative of the petitioners to whom communications may be sent by the Civic Art Commission or Council. Accompany- ing the map there shall be a certificate of some responsible 23 person or persons stating that the map is accurate as to the use and character of the buildings shown thereon. Approved by Resolution No. 5494 N. S., adopted by the City Council April 28th, 1916. Additional Information Requested by the Civic Art Commission The petitioners should file with their petition and map copies of any and all building, property or set-back restric- tion put into deeds, contracts or leases on any property within the proposed district, giving time restrictions which have yet to run or date when they lapsed. This information is important to the Commission and should be given as fully as possible. Form of Petition for Formation of a Distridt UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 452— N. S. To the Honorable, the Mayor and Council of the City of Berkeley. Gentlemen : — The undersigned owners of property within the dis- trict shown on the map hereto attached, respectfully petition your Honorable Body to form a district of Class No as same is defined by Ordinance No. 452, N. S., to include the property within the district delineated on said map. The total number of buildings within the proposed district is The exact use of all buildings within said district is set forth in Schedule A hereto attached. 24 The buildings within the proposed district, the pres- ent use of which will be prohibited by the formation of the district, are set forth in Schedule B hereto attached. , residing at No street, Berkeley, Cali- fornia, is hereby designated as the authorized representa- tive of the undersigned petitioners to whom communications may be sent by the City Council or the Civic Art Commis- sion. Name Address frontage Owned ^ ££ ^C I A3* ^4--*' ^ * > ,v * ■ ^■W SSSJSi^ ft-** v.