Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1186 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1187 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1188 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1189 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1190 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1191 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1192 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1193 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1194 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1195 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1196 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1197 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1198 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1199 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1200 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1201 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1202 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1203 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1204 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1205 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1206 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1207 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1208 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1209 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1210 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1211 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1212 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1213 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1214 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR Page 1215 of 2369 Attachment 3 - Final EIR LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONPage 1216 of COMMISSION 2369 Meeting Action Minutes Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Avenue Main Room 1. ROLL CALL Time: 7:06 pm Present: Hall, Johnson, Linvill, Ng, Olson, Wagley, Parsons, Pietras, Winkel Absent: 0 Public Present: 35 (approx) 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (Limit: 3 minutes per person; 5 minutes per organization) 3. AGENDA CHANGES A. CONSENT CALENDAR (LPC consideration of routine or non-controversial projects) 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1512 La Loma: Due to an oversight, this item could not be included on the agenda as part of the public noticing. The subcommittee for 1512 La Loma will report later tonight on their recent on-site meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2 Greenwood Common, Structural Alteration Permit (LM #09-40000021)** • Status: Structural Alteration Permit application to allow voluntary seismic upgrade and, within existing building footprint to excavate present basement area to create additional floor area and to provide identified features, including a new door and skylights. In December of 2008, a Mills Act contract was approved for the property. • LPO Applicability: LPO Section 3.24.060.C requires the LPC to evaluate the project against the review standards and criteria contained in Section 3.24.260. • Staff Recommendation: Approve the application and comment on Mills Act contract compliance. • Presentations, Speakers, Board Comments: Nancy Russell, applicant, provided information on all appropriate changes Action: Winkel, Olson: Close Hearing Commissioner’s Comments: Winkel stated that the plans are well done and the application a good example as to how to do this type of work. Olson agreed. Motion: Olson initiated approval. Hall asked if the new family room is part of the improvements included in the Mills Act contract, which is about maintenance and preservation. Parsons advised that it should not be, but that the seismic work and ** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION AttachmentMeeting 3 - Final Minutes EIR November 5, 2009 Page 1217 of 2369 Page 2 all maintenance related items are. Staff was asked to clarify. Revised Motion: Olson revised the motion to approve with the understanding that the Mills Act will not cover any finish materials in the family room or expansion not related to seismic upgrade improvements. Hall seconded. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Motion approved unanimously B. 2600 Bancroft Way, the University YWCA, Consideration of Landmark or Structure of Merit Status (LM #09-40000023)** • Status: Nomination of the property as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit. On October 1, 2009, the LPC initiated the property at 2600 Bancroft and scheduled a public hearing for the LPC meeting on November 5, 2009. On October 8, 2009, the City received the landmark designation application for the property. • LPO Applicability: The LPO requires the LPC to evaluate the nomination against the criteria contained in Section 3.24.110. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony and, based on the written and oral Evidence, direct staff to return a Notice of Decision consistent with the Commission’s determination. • Presentations, Speakers, Board Comments: Sharon Bettinelli, Executive director of the University YWCA: expressed concern that the designation was initiated without any involvement from the Y as the property owner and that there has not been sufficient time to consider the implications of Landmark status for the building. She learned of the nomination only 1 week prior to the hearing and objects to the process as one that did not consider the concerns of the organization. The Board needs time to understand the implications of landmarking. Other speakers (8): John English, Marilyn Cleveland, Michele LeProhn, Dorothy Clemens, Mary Alyce Pearson, Ineda Adesanya, Steve Finacom and Kate Funk: Comments: Very worthy building and important for recognizing mid-century modern architecture; objected to the process; owners must be notified, requests that the process be stopped; the board needs to know how the Y would be affected; the 120th anniversary of the organization is approaching; board needs to know the difference between Landmark and Structure of Merit designations; requests the hearing be put on hold for an extended period of time (2-3 month minimum); a citizen supports landmarking, and suggests street tree planting as part of future improvements. Action: Olson, Johnson; Close Hearing Commissioner’s Comments: Olson stated that nominations usually are done as a “labor of love” by individuals without first going to property owners. Landmark designation usually applies only to exterior and not to interior features with some exceptions such as for courtyards. Under a Mills Act contract, staff directs and the Commission approves improvements as they proceed. Nominations are initiated by the public (50 signatures); or by the Commission or City Council (signatures not required); this nomination came out of the Southside Plan inventory prepared by a subcommittee, which included John English. At the time the nomination was submitted for review, the City should have contacted the property owner. ** Indicates that the Landmarks Preservation Commission received documents (notices of decision, staff reports, application materials or correspondence) as part of the packet that was delivered prior to this meeting. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION AttachmentMeeting 3 - Final Minutes EIR November 5, 2009 Page 1218 of 2369 Page 3 Johnson expressed concern that the nomination was prepared by someone with access to the organization’s files who did not advise of the purpose of the research. Parsons stated that the process is meant to be participatory and offered an apology to the University YWCA. Winkel made a disclosure of 3 ex-parte conversations with individual YWCA members, including the Executive Director ((Bettinelli). Action: Olson moved to continue the nomination for 4 months; Johnson seconded. Vote: 9-0-0-0 Action: Item approved unanimously to be put on March 2010 Agenda C. 2525 Telegraph, Remand by City Council of LPC NOD (LM #09-40000004)** • Status: On September 22, 2009, the City Council considered the appeal by Ali Eslami, the applicant to overturn or remand the LPC designation of the subject property as a City Landmark. The City Council affirmed the LPC decision to designate 2525 as a City Landmark and remands the decision to LPC for further consideration of the lightwells as historic amenities to be preserved. • LPO Applicability: LPO Section 3.24.060.C requires the LPC to evaluate the project against the review standards and criteria contained in Section 3.24.260. • Staff Recommendation: Respond to City Council request for further consideration of the lightwells and interior courtyards as features of significance in the NOD. • Presentations, Speakers, Board Comments Ex-parte conversations with individual parties disclosed: Pietras with Attorney Rena Rickles; Ng with the property owner and Attorney Rickles; Winkel with Rena Rickles and Sady Hayashida; Linvill received 2 voice messages from Rena Rickles and one from Sady Hayashida inviting him to tour the site (which he was not able to do); Parsons with the property owner (Ali Eslami) and a phone conversation with architect Sady Hayashida who also is involved in the project. Ali Eslami, property owner: the bottom line is to fix up the building and keep the tenants happy; the building is “in terrible condition.” Other Speakers (11):Michael Topliff, John English, John Melia, Maurice (Marty) Levitch, Sady Hayashida, Don Murphy, Marcis Poole, Louis Cuneo, Marc Janowiz, Steve Finacom, and Rena Rickles Comments: Courtyards defended with the presentation of a painting, books, and a model as a positive element to be kept that is an integral part of the Mission Revival style; the photos submitted by the owner and his architect (Eslami and Hayshida)