Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision
Berkeley City Council
October 24, 2006
Re: Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision dated
August 3, 2006 for 1 Cyclotron Road, also known as Building 51 or the
Bevatron
Dear City Council:
This appeal is being filed based upon an objection to the NOD and a
process that has allowed staff to corrupt the Notice of Decision (NOD)
for the Bevatron by the improper inclusion of additional language into
the recommendation.
Please consider:
The landmark for the Bevatron was conducted over many months with much
citizen participation. Many differences arose during the process on
how to landmark the Bevatron. This caused some delay until a compromise
was reached on the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) in August
2006. At that time, a majority of the commission chose to landmark the
site. They also elected to include a statement in the NOD about the
Bevatron/Building 51; specifically, it is being listed on California
Resources Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Most importantly, the NOD, as reflected in the public record of August
3, 2006, should be limited to the proposed NOD and left intact without
the added language (bolded) in WHEREAS, No. II & No. IV. (See below.).
It is because the Landmark process is a legal process, that the requirement
to properly record the decision is critical. The alteration of the NOD
after the commission’s rendered decision, violates the legal rules
of the process. Simply stated, the NOD should follow the motion verbatim
as passed by the LPC on August 3, 2006, and no more
The legal process does not afford any person, even city staff, the right
or discretion to add to the Notice of Decision after it has been voted
on by the LPC and prior to being approved by council. . It is requested
that the proposed added language of the NOD, as reflected above, be
removed for Landmark NOD for the Bevatron, Building 51.
The following is a public accounting of the misrepresentations and illegal actions taken by the City of Berkeley to accommodate the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and their intent to destroy the Bevatron, a City of Berkeley landmark of the highest order. The Bevatron history of Nobel prizes now bears this legacy of deceit.
DRAFT NOD Bevatron I. WHEREAS, consistent with Section 3.24.110.A,4, the Bevatron, Building
51, completed in 1954 after a design by the San Francisco architectural
firm of Masten and Hurd, was designed as a purpose-specific structure
to house the accelerator magnet, machines, controls, and shielding;
and
II. WHEREAS, consistent with Section 3.24.110.A.4, the Bevatron “machine,”
designed by engineer William Brobeck and staff, had educational and
historical value as it was the largest, highest-energy accelerator in
the world when it opened in 1954 at the University of California Radiation
Laboratory, although it no longer exists as a complete or functional
apparatus, because substantial portions have been transferred to other
locations and other larger accelerators have since been constructed
and continue as fully functional "machines"; and
III. WHEREAS, the Bevatron, Building 51, allowed various individuals
to carry out experiments that led to their receiving several Nobel Prizes;
and
IV. WHEREAS, the Commission acknowledges that the Bevatron, Building
51, no longer possesses full integrity of its architecture, equipment
and purpose, but determines that the site of the Bevatron, #1 Cyclotron
Road, nevertheless merits designation as a City of Berkeley Landmark
for the reasons set forth below:
1. Consistent with Section 3.24.110.A.4, the Bevatron site has educational
and historical value due to the distinguished research conducted at
the facility, which directly resulted in the award of two Nobel Prizes
to University of California Radiation Laboratory (UCRL) scientists and
which indirectly contributed to the award of two Nobel Prizes to scientists
from other universities.
2. Chamberlain & Sergre Nobel Prize 1959
A team of UCRL scientists led by physicists Owen Chamberlain and Emilio
Sergre, using three magnetic quadrupole lenses to focus antiprotons
onto electronic counters – scintillation counters and Cherenkov
counters – found clear evidence of a negatively charged particle
with exactly the same mass as a proton - the antiproton - and were awarded
the Nobel Prize in 1959 for their experiment.
3. Alvarez Nobel Prize 1968
In 1968, UCRL scientist Luis Alvarez won the Nobel Prize in Physics
for the discovery of a large number of resonance states, made possible
through development of the technique of using hydrogen bubble chambers
and data analysis (In 1952, Donald Glaser invented the bubble chamber
at the University of Michigan – for which he won the 1960 Nobel
Prize) 4. Indirect connection to LBNL Bevatron: Lee
Yang Nobel Prize 1957
Scientists at the Bevatron made experimental observations of subatomic
particles K mesons that contributed significantly to the theory of parity
nonconservation – that parity does not hold in some cases. Tsung-Dao
Lee (Columbia University) and Chen Ning (“Frank”) Yang (Princeton
University) later won the 1957 Nobel Prize for their theory of parity
nonconservation.
5. Indirect connection to LBNL Bevatron: Gell-Mann Nobel Prize 1969
Berkeley emulsion groups contributed to Murray Gell-Mann’s identification
of so-called strange particles. UCRL physicists Sheldon Glashow and
George Kalbfleisch discovered a new elementary particle, the Y*1, that
provided important confirmation of Murray Gell-Mann’s theory of
the Eightfold Way. Gell-Mann, a Cal Tech physicist, won the 1969 Nobel
Prize for the Theory of Strangeness and the Eightfold Way.
V. WHEREAS, the Bevatron, #1 Cyclotron Road, is listed on the California
Historic Resources Register and has been determined eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic PLACES (correspondence dated 5
December 1995 from Cherilyn Widell, California State Historic Preservation
Officer, to Anthony Adduci, DOE/Oak/NEPA Compliance Officer, Department
of Energy, Oakland Operations Office); and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bevatron site, located at #1
Cyclotron Road on the grounds of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkeley, is hereby designated a City of Berkeley
Landmark.
BE IT FURTHER RSOLVED, that, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of
the City of Berkeley recommends that the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory commemorate the Bevatron, its scientists and the experiments
and discoveries carried out there through a publicly accessible display
of a substantial nature retaining such elements of the Bevatron as may
adequately recount the history of the facility and the Nobel Prize winning
experiments which gave it its reputation including at least the Bevatron
model currently housed in the facility and such material and architectural
artifacts as may be determined pertinent and that no other elements
or artifacts, beyond those included in the display, be identified for
retention on the Bevatron site and that the Laboratory has expressed
concurrence with this finding.
BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Landmarks Preservation
Commission of the City of Berkeley recommends, in light of the fact
that the City has no regulatory authority over the development sites
and buildings at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, that if
at some future date the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory should
succeed in removing the Bevatron, Building 51 and Building 51A, any
City of Berkeley review of the design for its replacement should be
carried out in accordance with the rules then in place for general structures
at the Lab, notwithstanding any designation of this structure now being
made by the Landmarks Preservation Commission
. It should also be noted that the landmark NOD contains several typos.
The WHEREAS No. V should read…listed on the California Historic
Resources Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. (See WHEREAS No. V.) Also, please note the misspelling (twice)
of Emilio Segrè. (It is not Sergre`)
In fairness to this Berkeley landmark and legal public process we, the
petitioners of the application, respectfully request that that the NOD
be corrected to reflect the public record and the original NOD.