Like the tortoise lumbering its way down the home stretch, Berkeley Congregation Beth El’s bid to build a new synagogue moved closer to the finish line.
At a special, seven-hour session Monday night, the Berkeley City Council heard from the last of those who wanted to comment on the Zoning Adjustment Board’s approval of Beth El’s request for a use permit to put up a building at 1301 Oxford St. After a 20-minute debate the Council voted to close the public portion of the ZAB hearing, opening the door for the Council to debate the issue and take a vote.
But before that can happen, there’s the question of the alterations permit that was denied by the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission. So another hearing was opened, and once again the public lined up to have its say. By the end of the hearing the Council managed to get through all the speaker cards on the LPC issue — but the public hearing remains open.
Some members of the LPC didn’t receive notice of the hearing until a few hours before it began, and the Council wanted to give them an opportunity to speak. The matter was scheduled for a special session last night.
By law the Council must make a decision on the ZAB issue within 30 days from the time the public hearing was closed, and on the LPC issue within 30 days from the date that hearing opened. Both dates coincide, which puts the drop-dead date for the Council’s decision on Aug. 14.
This matter will be taken up at the next regular Berkeley City Council meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday and may be resolved at that time. If not, the Council goes on vacation for a month after that meeting, and it can troll the 30-day time limit, extending it to Oct. 2.
Nothing about this case is simple.
It pits neighborhood residents — who say they are concerned about parking, traffic, underground creeks, fish and noise — against the temple, which argues that it long ago outgrew its present building and desperately needs larger quarters.
To complicate matters further, the proposed site was once the home and farm of Napoleon Bonaparte Byrne, an early Berkeley settler. Later it was the home of Berkeley’s first freed African-Americans. Although the Byrne mansion was destroyed in a fire years ago, and few artifacts remain from that era, project opponents want the site to be treated as a historical site with all the restrictions and limitations that go along with it.
In its plans, the congregation has made provisions to preserve the historical remnants. But neighbors claim that the site itself, having once been a farm, should be protected. The planned building uses less than half the space allowable by law, but opponents say that’s not enough. They want a smaller structure so the property can retain its bucolic character and the portion of Codornices Creek that’s a culvert to be “daylighted” and open to the public.
Although the property does not qualify as a historical landmark under California law, Berkeley has its own historic registry where the site was once listed.
For the past five years, beginning before Beth El purchased the property and voluntarily convened meetings to hear neighbors’ concerns, reaction to the project has been divisive and acrimonious. Monday night’s hearing was no exception.
Both sides had hung posters advocating their positions: “Where’s the Creek? Where’s the History? Let Codornices Live,” declared opponents. “Congregation Beth El — Serving the Community Since 1944,” pronounced the other.
When two speakers asked to be heard early because they had to catch a 6 a.m. flight in the morning, there was an objection. Members of the LPC both criticized one another and defended themselves. One speaker alleged that the Council would seem racist if it approved the plan, because Chinese Alliance Church, which formerly owned the property, had been more restricted in its building than what Beth El is proposing.
Speakers took such diametrically opposed positions, in fact, that it sometimes sounded as if they were talking about two different cases. Anne Jennings, an environmental lawyer for the state and an opponent of the project, said the project’s environmental impact report was inadequate and vulnerable to a legal challenge. Fred Etzel, an environmental lawyer and a supporter of the project, described the EIR as “bulletproof.”
Landmarks Commissioner Elizabeth O’Malley railed at the Council, saying it was in trouble, though she didn’t say why. “Ask me a question and I’ll tell you,” she said, apparently trying to tantalize the board. “The city deserves what it gets.” No one asked her a question.
The Rev. Mark Wilson of Magee Avenue Baptist Church spoke on behalf of the project. The history of African-Americans in Berkeley is important, he said, but what’s more important is what is being done today to alleviate inequities and conditions for those living in south Berkeley. He spoke of Beth El’s good works and how it was meeting with, developing programs for and worshiping with the African-American community of south Berkeley.
“Don’t just talk about history,” Wilson said. “People of faith are doing something in the present.”
As for the future, even after the Berkeley City Council votes yea or nay on the project, it has indicated that a court appeal is always possible.