Chair Edwards: To sort of frame our discussion, I have a question, which is actually a question Mr McBride asked. To understand the nature of what is before us this evening, Mark, and I understand that there are two or potentially three specific items that the LPC is to pass on.

One is the adequacy of the EIR, the final EIR.

And my understanding is that if we were to find the EIR adequate then we could discuss the alteration permit. If we to find that it is inadequate, then we would not be able to discuss the alteration permit. I guess that's sort of my first question.

Mark: Let me try to answer that. Um..to answer Mr. McBride's question. The EIR doesn't have to be listed on the agenda. The public comment period for the Environmental Impact Report is over with. Action has been taken by the city to certify so this commission's pursue to use that already certified document and base this for a potential action on the alteration permit that's before you tonight. We would ask before or as a part of the motion that this commission might make tonight either in favor or opposed to the project that acknowledgement of that environmental document be stated first. So that the motion might be that the landmarks commission believes that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues or the landmarks commission does not believe the EIR adequately addresses the historic resource issues that are in front of them.

Chair Edwards: Can we then, if we were to find that the EIR were inadequate, can we then comment on the Alteration Permit?

Rhoades: Yes, you would have to deny the Alteration Permit. You would not then have the opportunity to approve it, but regardless you could still discuss the Alteration Permit in either scenario. And I'm not suggesting that you have to make a motion ----- happy to --- the EIR now and then go into a discussion about the Alteration Permit, but it does mean they can be done together at the end of the commission's deliberations.

Dishnica: That's a question I'm still not clear on. Because I don't understand, we have a certified EIR. If we...that period's over. The question of historical significance adequacy in the environmental document is the underpinning for our decision making. Seems to me to be fundamentally if we have the requirement to act on that, that takes us to the next step. If we say it is adequate, then we have the right to look at the permit as an alteration permit, if we see it as inadequate, it seems to me it's over. How you can lump these two together. I don't understand how that works.

Rhoades: That depends on how the commission wants to structure its discussion tonight.

Edwards: Because I do recall that we had previously been told that if we were to find the EIR adequate in its discussion of historic resources then we could discuss the alteration permit, and if we were to find it inadequate we could not subsequently discuss it. That's my recollection from one of those meetings. Mark has already said that we couldn't approve it if we found it inadequate.

Rhoades: One other option is that you can also find that the EIR is adequate and still take an action to deny the alteration permit. There's a lot of options that the commission has. And I don't think that a discussion of the EIR precludes a discussion of the alteration permit.

Edwards: OK. I had one more sort of opening question, which is, forgive me, I just can't remember, but is it already subject to questioning about on the demolition permit of the structures on the site because they are over 40 years of age?

Rhoades: I remember we've already done that.

Edwards: I don't believe we have

Rhoades: That would basically forwarding referral comments to the Zoning Adjustments Board.

Edwards: I can't imagine that we would have discussed that and not the other. And then lastly, two more things quickly then, just for clarification of the commission and those in the audience, permit streamlining is in effect and it has a deadline of ...

Rhoades: I believe it is March 14th, but I'm going to check the file just to give you the actual date.

Edwards: OK, and then after there is an action here this evening, whichever way it goes -- where does this project go next?

Rhoades: The Zoning Adjustments Board will discuss this project Thursday night, the 8th, subject to the same permit streamlining act date.

Edwards: Jeff and then Jill,

Eichenfeld: I did not..

Edwards: Jill?

Korte: I had a question about the EIR, our discussions about the adequacy or the inadequacy of the EIR. Tonight has focus on the historic resources section. We don't have to limit our discussion to the historic resources section because I do have concerns about the alternatives analysis.

Rhoades: I suggest is the commission wants to forward its outstanding concerns relevant to the EIR to the Zoning Adjustments Board for issues that aren't within the commission purvue, that that could be a separate motion, but the historic resources section is the particular piece of the EIR that's under the commissions purvue for the Alteration Permit. That's not preclude you from discussing other elements of the EIR.

Korte: Because it seems as if some alternatives have greater impact than others on the historical nature of the property. And I don't see how we can just focus on one area without talking about the other, talking about the adequacy.

Rhoades: The alternatives section is a perfectly legitimate section for the commission to discuss. They could have impacts on the historic resource.

Edwards: Um..

Eichenfeld: If the EIR has already been certified, it is kind of mute

Rhoades: But you still have to find it adequate for the purposes of your analysis. It's been certified by the ZAB for the purposes of their analysis. So any other discretionary body, quasi-adjudicatory body in the city, that would be making a decision on this project would have to basically state that the EIR was adequate for their purposes as well.

Eichenfeld: Right, but we're not certifying as a body tonight, we're just saying that ...

Miller: I think we are certifying the adequacy of the historical grounds of the EIR.

Eichenfeld: We're not certifying, we just saying the EIR Miller: We're the lead agency

Eichenfeld: We're not the lead agency on the certifying of the EIR.

Rhoades: The lead body for the city was the Zoning Adjustments Board -- they said the EIR is adequate.

Eichenfeld: We just saying tonight that the EIR is adequate enough for us to make a decision. And that's kind of... it's different.

Rhoades: It is different, it not (?) to certifying the EIR, pursuant to CEQA.

Edwards: OK, any other clarifying comments?

Thompson: Yes, one more question. So, in effect, we can decide that the EIR is adequate for us to render a decision even though we feel that it is not complete in its recognition of historic resources or offering appropriate mitigations.

Rhoades: That's what you're trying to decide tonight.

Edwards: OK, would any one care to begin the discussion? (Discussion)

Johnson: I'd like to make a Motion that the information about historic resources in the EIR is still inadequate for our purposes. How's that?

Edwards: Would anyone to second that?

Dacey: I'll second that.

Edwards: OK, that's Johnson -- Dacey. Is there any more discussion?

(Discussion)

Edwards: If I could ask the secretary to do a roll call vote, please on the motion which is to move that the EIR is inadequate.

Powell: Certainly. Commissioner Johnson?

Johnson: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Dacey?

Dacey: Aye

Powell: How about Commisioner Dishnica?

Dishnica: Abstain

Powell: Commissioner Eichenfeld?

Eichenfeld: No

Powell: Commissioner Korte?

Korte: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Miller?

Miller: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Duncan-Hall

Duncan-Hall: Abstain

Powell: Commissioner Thompson?

Thompson: Aye

Powell: So we have five

Edwards: Uh...

Powell: Excuse me, Chair Edwards?

Edwards: Um, no.

Powell: Motion passes

Edwards: Motion passes 5, 2, 2 Now, Mark, I'd like to ask you the question again in terms of the alteration permit given that it is the majority of the commission has ruled that the EIR is inadequate, what now is our role in terms of commenting on the alteration permit? Before you said we would have to deny it if we found the EIR was inadequate.

Rhoades: Yes. Having made the decision that was just made, the Landmarks Commission could not now approve the Alteration Permit. Um.. the Landmarks Commission could forward a recommendation or comments to the Zoning Adjustments Board in addition to the motion on the alteration permit that you must make as well.

Edwards: OK, so actually I think I misspoke then. We don't have to deny, it's that we can't approve.

Dacey: I have a question.

Edwards: Ms Dacey.

Dacey: If we don't deny the permit, does this in any way impact the permit streamlining act?

Rhoades: If the landmarks commission doesn't make a decision by March 14th , it does.

Dacey: Because if we don't make a decision, then on March 14th, the permit is approved by law.

Rhoades: By operation of law.

Dacey: So, we need to make a decision if we want to stop the permit streamlining act.

Edwards: We wouldn't actually stop it because the permit streamlining act will ...

Dacey: Then it won't be approved by operation of law after March 14th.

Edwards: Our only options are to deny or do nothing because we do not have the option to approve.

Dacey: And if we do nothing it is essentially approved by law.

Edwards: OK

Dacey: That's what Mark said.

Edwards: So, um, discussion then on the alteration permit.

(Discussion)

Motion to Deny (4-4-1)

(Discussion)

Eichenfeld: I'll make a motion, actually, to deny the Alteration Permit because the proposed construction and alternation adversely affects the special character and special historical and aesthetic interests and value of the landmark and its site based on the fact that the Napolean Byrne property was originally a farm and one of the last remants in Berkeley of this type of property and based on the fact that in landmark designation it states that the grounds around the building were extensive with the mood of gentle decay and a rambling garden, and that the proposal is too massive to be respectful of the site.

Edwards: OK. Is there a second to the motion?

Thompson: Second

Edwards: Eichenfeld, Thompson. Is there further discussion of the motion? I ask that you do a roll call vote, please.

Powell: OK, this is on the motion to deny. Commissioner Thompson?

Thompson: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Duncan-Hall?

Duncan-Hall: Abstain

Powell: Commisioner Miller?

Miller: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Korte?

Korte: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Eichenfeld?

Eichenfeld: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Dishnica?

Dishnica: No

Powell: Commissioner Dacey?

Dacey: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Johnson?

Johnson: I'd like to abstain

Powell: Chair Edwards?

Edwards: No

Edwards: Motion passes, 6,2, no 5, sorry, it passes 5,2,2

Eichenfeld: I'd like to make another motion. Can we still forward comments to the ZAB?

Edwards: Sure

Eichenfeld: I would like, if other commissioners would like to do that..

Edwards: You have the floor.

Eichenfeld: Then I would like to do that. I'd like to start to generate a list of comments to send to the ZAB. And I would just start to say that based on my last motion the project as proposed covers too much of the existing site with hardscape and building, and I would like to see it further reduced, recognizing that the Temple has already started in that vein, and I think they've made a good start. That's about the extent of my comments. If anybody else would like to add to that.

Edwards: Commissioner Thompson?

Thompson: Continuing Commissioner Eichenfeld's thought. I'd very strongly urge the congregation to consider splitting the uses, the spiritual uses...

Edwards: Sorry, these are comments by commissioners. So,

Thompson: ...so as to lessen the burden on this site, thank you.

Eichenfeld: Can you be more specific in what that means.

Thompson: What I mean

Eichenfeld: You mean different property?

Thompson: They do have two properties. They do have all kinds of social activities that do not do not come into the purvue of religion...I'm suggesting this is an excellent site for the sanctuary, when it comes to school and other activities....they take up a lot of space and are heavy on the local resources, they could be located elsewhere, they don't have to be right next to...

Eichenfeld: This is specific to ZAB that you recognize that they could be offsite.

Dacey: We all just make individual recommendations?

Edwards: We're potentially coming up with a list and then we would theoretically have a motion whether to forward this list or not.

Dacey: I'm just wondering if we have to agree with every item on the list?

Edwards: Normally what we would do is make a cumulative list, people would vote in favor or not. That's more convenient than doing it one by one. That is possible also. Ms. Thompson, do you have anything else?

Thompson: I still have very strong feelings about parking. It's off the culvert, but even being off the culvert it seems to me..

Edwards: I'm going to interrupt, and actually sort of bring you back to point, that

Thompson: This has nothing to do with historic resources?

Edwards: No, the intent would be to make recommendations, if you could turn your concern into a recommendation that would be

Thompson: Very well. I would in that case, recommend that the congregation strongly consider relocating their parking to another area or solving the problem in a different way.

Edwards: OK, Commissioner Duncan-Hall, do you have any?

Duncan-Hall: No, I don't.

Edwards: Commissioner Miller? Miller: I would recommend that the congregation make every attempt to leave more green space, not artificially landscaped, and that they make every effort that the openness naturalness of the site as viewed from Berryman Path be respected.

Edwards: Commissioner Korte?

Korte: I think it has already been said, but I would just very, very strongly encourage the congregation to explore other alternatives which would not preclude daylighting of the creek.

Edwards: Commisioner Eichenfeld, do you have anything other than your initial?

Eichenfeld: Jill, were you going to say about the wall restoration?

Johnson: Want me to do it? I'd like them to consider keeping the entire fence, the historic fence, not the portion by the creek, and two come back to the landmarks board with the specifications, a survey of the elements that ...excuse me? That surveys the fence and calls out repair notes and then provides us with specifications on how the fence will be prepared.

Edwards: Commissioner Dacey?

Eichenfeld: Weren't you concerned about the retaining wall too? Repair?

Johnson: The entire fence the concrete, the pylons, and the gate.

Eichenfeld: The fence is not just the stuff, the metalwork, on top?

Johnson: No, the entire fence.

Eichenfeld: The wall

Johnson: Yes

Edwards: Commissioner Dacey?

Dacey: I'd like the congregation take the creek and the open spaces seriously in terms of mitigation and impact that your buildings have on that, and also to consider the mass of the buildings and how they relate to the site

Edwards: Let me step in again You first portion is actually in the form of a recommendation. It's a bit unclear.

Dacey: I'd would like them to come up with mitigations, I'm not saying exactly what the mitigation is, I'd like them to come up with mitigations as required if this land is a historical resource. But that's not enough, I'll withdraw. Then I'll withdraw, and I don't have anything else to add.

Edwards: We have a list, which has been moved and seconded...

Eichenfeld: We're assuming the motion includes everything on the list.

Edwards: At this point that would be the easiest thing to see if that can be made into a motion, and can be either voted up or down.

Korte: I have a question, earlier we were discussing design, do we want to include some of that discussion in with this list?

Edwards: This is one opportunity to make some recommendations before final decisions would be made on it.

Korte: It seems only fair to them to include everything we've said relative to design.

Edwards: Then I just you make your motion with alacrity.

Korte: OK. Well, I know Jill had comments about the mass of the sanctuary, and the possibility of sinking that a bit to diminish the mass. Other people had comments about the sprawling nature of the buildings. I think I have one more thing to add and that is the roofing material is not really part of our vernacular here as far as residential roofing materials go. I would like to see some alternative to that material. It's metal.

Eichenfeld: It's metal? Offer some suggestions?

Edwards: Turned metal roofing. So what is your? You want to make it in the form of a recommendation, what is it you wish to see?

Korte: I don't want to recommend anything specific, just to give some thought as to other roofing materials that might fit in better with the neighborhood. It seems like the Hillside Club that sprung up in that area of the city liked natural materials that looked natural, and I'd like to see them try to find a material in that vein.

Edwards: Are there other recommendations?

Dacey: I do have specifics. I'd like to see them cut back on some of the hardscapes, including the pedestrian entry off of Oxford St.

Edwards: I think that was somewhat covered by Commissioner Miller. OK, if that is our list, may we move the motion? .... You might wish to cast a vote, and I can't remember, did you second it Daniella, Jeff's motion with regards to the recommendations?

Thompson: I think so Edwards: So, at this time I would ask for one again ask for a roll call vote.

Johnson: And the motion is to send?

Edwards: Send this recommendation to the Zoning Adjustments Board.

Powell: Commissioner Thompson?

Thompson: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Duncan-Hall?

Duncan-Hall: Abstain

Powell: Commissioner Miller?

Miller: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Korte?

Korte: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Eichenfeld?

Eichenfeld: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Dacey?

Dacey: Aye

Powell: Commissioner Dishnica?

Edwards: He's absent

Powell: Commissioner Johnson?

Johnson: Aye

Powell: Chair Edwards?

Edwards: I abstain

Edwards: Let's take a five minute recess

(end of item)