September 3, 2000

Steve Solomon
Senior Planner
City of Berkeley
2120 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704

Re: Congregation Beth El Synagogue and School Draft EIR

Dear Mr. Solomon:

As you know, Codornices Creek is Berkeley's most open, free-flowing stream. In fact, it is the only Berkeley Creek to flow freely for most of its course from the hills to the Bay. It is also one of the onl Last Bay creeks to support a steelhead population. The Urban Y

Creeks Council has many concerns about the development proposed by Congregation Beth El at 1301 Oxford Street as well as the adequacy of its July 2000 Draft EIR.

This EIR completely falls to acknowledge the unique and important attributes of this creek or to take a watershed-based approach in analyzing any of its impacts. The description of the creek under Section 4.5 "Geology and Soils" is quite misleading. It fails to mention that the creek is more open than it is culverted or that the creek is a vital part of the Berkeley community, featured in several parks and open space areas.

The EIR does not include a true "no project" alternative as required by CEQA. Instead, it attempts to present its "No Project'A"' and "No Project'B"' alternatives as no projects, which, again, is misleading. If this site is going to be developed in any way, the City of Berkeley should require the applicant to restore the full length of Codornices Creek (now open and culverted on the project site), in accordance with the policies of Berkeley Ordinance No. 5961 as well as the Joint Watershed Goals Statement, signed by Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and Richmond. This project violates the intent of both documents. If these policies are not encouraged and upheld, there is little point in making them in the first place.

If any of the project alternatives are allowed to take place, Alternative 6.2.5 should be chosen. In contrast to the statement that the "creek daylighting" alternative (6.2.5) "would not avoid any potentially significant impacts of the proposed projects," daylighting the creek would both help avoid and mitigate some of the project's impacts. It is the best way to create a more stable channel on the site (Codornices Creek Channel Assessment and Concept Design Study, Waterways Restoration Institute, page 6, TA-9) and to remedy existing erosion problems on the creek's south bank. It would also avoid Significant Impact 4.6-8, increased and contaminated urban runoff, and 4.5-2, by limiting on-site parking and/or filtering runoff from the increased traffic the project will generate and any parking that is built on site.

The Urban Creeks Council finds the applicant's declaration that the project will have a 11positive impact" on fish habitat within the site to be highly disingenuous. Instead, there is likely to be a negative impact on fish throughout the stream system, from the increase in pollutants that the project will contribute. Although the applicant on the one hand seems to believe that it is unlikely that fish can make it to the site, it then tries to present a potentially significant impact as a positive one. As noted in both the Alice Rich fish study, page 3 1, TA-4), the section of creek just below the project site presents "the most natural appearing habitat for fishes of the whole creek." If the City of Berkeley ever hopes to restore this watershed for steelhead, this project's impacts must be taken seriously and the applicant encouraged to create the best conditions possible for fish, which will only happen if Altemative 6.2.5 is adopted.

In addition, we have the following criticisms:

To address Potentially Significant Impact 4.5.2 (increase in peak discharge), applicant proposes installing a larger pipe or reconfiguring drainage onsite. However, either way, there will be a greater net discharge to the creek, and the "mitigation measures" of installing a larger pipe or reconfiguring existing pipes are completely inadequate. They will in no way lessen the net discharge to the creek or the impacts from the increased discharge--which may include excess erosion and other problems--to downstream reaches.

To address Potentially Significant Impact 4~5-5, creek bank stability, applicant proposes "using grassy swales." However, applicant does not identify where the grassy swales will be located. Given the size constraints of the property, it is highly suspect whether enough grassy swales can be created to deal with the increase in runoff the project will cause.

The applicant claims that impacts from urban runoff will be less than significant both with and without mitigation! Any increase in urban runoff to this stream and the Bay is a significant, negative impact, particularly since the Bay is already considered an impaired water body and because steelhead live in this creek.

Applicant says it will mitigate erosion problems through the use of drainage-related erosion-control features like grassy swales and filters. However, the responsibility for monitoring these mitigation measures is relegated to the City. Applicant fails to set forth how or when this monitoring will take place and who will fund it.

Applicant says it will mitigate traffic impacts by various management practices, such as prohibiting staff from parking on nearby streets and staggering dropoff and pickup times. Again, it leaves enforcement and monitoring of these policies to the City.

We look forward to your response to these comments and urge you to remember that the citizens of Berkeley care about their creeks, especially this last, free-flowing treasure.

Sincerely yours,

Carol Thornton, Chair, Board of Directors
Lisa Viani, Outreach Coordinator

Cc: LOCCNA
Mayor Shirley Dean and Berkeley City Council