LOCCNA, the Live Oak/ Codornices Creek Neighborhood Association, objects to several aspects of CBE's current plan. The three areas of greatest concern are: (1) the placement of a parking area/driveway between Berryman Path and Codornices Creek, and over the culverted portion of the creek; (2) the inadequate number of on-site parking spaces (35 spaces for a congregation that is projected to be at least 720 families); and (3) the effect of the project on this Berkeley landmark site, whose historical significance has been preserved in the past through small-scale building structures and low-impact uses.
The disagreements between CBE and LOCCNA about these issues (and others) fall into three categories: disagreements over facts, disagreements over projected future impacts on the neighborhood, and disagreements over values.
It's silly to disagree over facts, which can easily be checked. We'll get those out of the way first.
- Does CBE's current plan call for putting a parking lot over the culverted portion of the creek, as LOCCNA says? Yes, as is clearly shown on the site plan filed by CBE with the City of Berkeley for the use permit application (the site plan can be viewed at the City of Berkeley's zoning office).
- Does Codornices Creek run underground almost all the way to the bay, as CBE asserts? No, Codornices is one of the most open and natural creeks in the East Bay, and has only a handful of culverted sections.
- Is the planned building "about the size of the Safeway on Shattuck," as LOCCNA says? Yes, CBE's plan calls for a building with a footprint of over 24,000 square feet, and a total gross floor area of almost 35,000 square feet. The Safeway building has a footprint of around 24,000 square feet, which is also its' floor area.
- Is it true that there are no Steelhead trout in Codornices Creek, as CBE says? No, in fact there are Steelhead trout (a federally listed threatened species) in lower Codornices (officially photographed on March 16, 2000), as well as other fish species.
The more challenging disagreements between LOCCNA and CBE relate to values (for example, how should the creek and open space be treated? What is an appropriate type of project for a landmark site?) and projections of future impacts (e.g., how much of a parking problem will CBE create?) Below, we summarize LOCCNA's thinking about the creek, open space, and parking issues.
Creek
CBE plans to build a parking lot and driveway alongside the open portion of Codornices Creek, and over the culverted portion. The parking area will run right next to Berryman Path; instead of walking next to community gardens and flowers, passersby will be walking next to asphalt, paving stones, and cars. Worse, relying on the creek for the development's only parking (which is inadequate anyway, as discussed below) will prevent the culverted portion from ever being "daylighted" and restored.CBE dismisses the idea of ever daylighting the creek---out of sight, out of mind. This is a matter of values. Many people in the neighborhood, and beyond, believe it is appalling to preclude ever daylighting the creek on this site, which is one of the rare places in Berkeley where creek daylighting is possible without tearing up a street or tearing down a building. This is not a matter of people picking on CBE; the fact that the City is seriously considering a proposal to daylight a portion of Strawberry Creek downtown, at enormous expense, indicates that many others in Berkeley feel very strongly about creek protection and restoration. Moreover, the objections to UC Berkeley's proposed projects lower down on Codornices Creek also reflect the concern which Berkeley residents have for creeks, as do the thousands of hours of volunteer labor that have gone into creek daylighting projects in our area. So far over 1700 people have signed LOCCNA's petition that requests that CBE daylight the creek as part of any development on the site.
Codornices Creek is the most open and most restorable creek in the East Bay (as confirmed by creek experts, including Ann Riley of the Waterways Restoration Institute, and by the mapping of East Bay creeks in "Guide to East Bay Creeks," published in 1993 by the Oakland Museum).
It is a pity that CBE's plans do not reflect the value that many Berkeley residents (including many CBE members) place on creek preservation and restoration.
Parking
The parking issue involves judgements relating to how much inconvenience the neighbors should be willing to tolerate, but the major disagreement comes from the projected parking impact of the new development.CBE's leadership acknowledges that the parking at CBE's present site is completely inadequate, but asserts that the 35 spaces proposed for the new site will be enough to satisfy CBE's needs.
We disagree. CBE has 600 member families, and is projected (by CBE) to grow to at least 720 families. Most of the membership lives more than 1/2 mile from the 1301 Oxford site, and will almost drive there for the religious services, catered events, school activities, camp activities, and the like, which will be held on-site throughout the week and on weekends. The 35 parking spaces in the plan would merely serve the staff that will be running these activities, and a small portion of the members driving to the site. The plan does not address parking requirements for larger groups and gatherings, and thus presumes to put the burden of those parking requirements on the streets of the surrounding neighborhood Ð i.e. on the neighbors.
If only an additional 5% of the current membership begins attending CBE events regularly, that increase alone will fill up all of the on-site parking spaces, so the parking situation will be as bad at the new site as it is at the current site. Obviously, no one can guarantee that that won't happen. What's more, the congregation projects that it will grow by over 100 families in the coming years.
The neighborhood's objections to the plan are based not only on concerns about the immediate future, but are also based on looking at 10, 20, or 50 years ahead. And it is necessary to look that far ahead: CBE has been at its current site for 50 years, and grown from 50 families to 600 families in that time! Considering CBE's history of growth, and the fact that the planned new building can accommodate many more people than CBE's existing building, the proposed plan is a blueprint for decades of parking problems.
If every development that comes into an area is allowed to dump its parking requirements on the neighborhood streets, rather than accommodating them on-site, North Berkeley will quickly become a match for Berkeley's Southside in parking woes.
Does Beth El have options besides the current plan?
If it is impossible to build a large enough building to satisfy CBE's needs while also preserving the creek and providing adequate on-site parking, then CBE should not be allowed to develop the site. Just because CBE wants the site to be big enough to satisfy them doesn't mean that it is, and it may be that in the end the site is just too constrained.But we don't think that's necessarily the case. Neighbors have suggested several alternatives to the current plans, such as building underground parking instead of the parking lot over the creek, or using another site for some components of the projectÐ for example, leaving the school and offices at CBE's current site on Arch Street, and moving the synagogue and social hall to the 1301 Oxford site.
Private developments are routinely expected to provide underground parking at constrained sites; CBE should not be an exception to this rule, particularly since this would mitigate some of the most serious impacts of the proposed project. CBE says this would be too expensive, but the neighborhood should not be required to bear the impacts of CBE's supposed lack of resources.
Perhaps CBE can come up with some other creative solutions to the problems with the current plan, which is unacceptable to many in the neighborhood and in the greater Berkeley community.
Conclusions
A recurring theme in CBE's letters and discussions is that Beth El is a religious organization that does a lot of good works. We agree, but that is not the point: LOCCNA's objections to the current plan are not based on objections to Beth El as an organization. LOCCNA would be glad to welcome CBE to the new site, if the neighborhood's concerns are addressed. It is true that we have been frustrated by CBE's intransigence in refusing to address our concerns, but that should not be confused with objection to CBE itself, just as CBE's frustrations with us do not (we hope!) demonstrate ill will toward the neighborhood.CBE's leaders appear convinced that it is impossible to develop the site in a manner compatible with the needs of the congregation, those of the neighborhood, and protection of the environmentÐ in other words, that it is impossible to build their large facility while also protecting the creek and providing adequate parking. The present plan gives little weight to the latter two issues: if it's impossible to satisfy everyone, then the neighborhood's desires and needs have to be sacrificed. Obviously, we don't think that's the way it should work.
Some points from CBE's "Open Letter"
CBE: "We have listened quietly while some opponents of the project have portrayed our religious community in a negative light." Response: We've tried to portray the plans in a negative light, not CBE.CBE: "Our architects' design incorporates results of [the] studies as well as many of the Ôcore values' given to us by LOCCNA, such as creating safe streets, having adequate parking, and retaining open space." Response: No it doesn't. The plan creates a new exit on Spruce Street, which is very busy already; provides only 35 parking spaces for a congregation of 600 families; and builds a parking lot and driveway next to Berryman Path and over Codornices Creek.
CBE: "Some have said we should remain at our present site." Response: The suggestion of LOCCNA was to keep the present site in addition to the new site. Of course, this is only one of CBE's many possible ways of addressing the neighborhood's (and others') concerns.
CBE: "Our proposed building is designed to be in keeping with the scale and style of the neighborhood, and it occupies only 26% of the property." Response: The proposed building is far bigger than anything else in the neighborhood. Also, the quoted figure of 26% does not include the driveway and parking lot. If those elements of the development are included, the project covers about 46% of the lot.
