Flaws in EIR

As of 11/12/00, it is of utmost importance to get your views to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB), right now about the inadequacy of the EIR.

ZAB member addresses

Many key flaws that we previously pointed out in the Draft EIR for 1301 Oxford Street development by Congregation Beth El were not adequately addressed in the Final EIR.

• CEQA (California Environmantal Quality Act) requires that the EIR examine at least one alternative project that is environmentally superior (fewer impacts) other than the no-project alternative. This EIR FAILS to do that.

• The EIR rejects the notion of looking at alternative sites outside Berkeley, such as in Albany, Kensington, El Cerrrito. Yet at the same time, the EIR argues that Beth El is a "local institution" by virtue of the fact that the majority of its members are in Berkeley zip codes--but only if it includes Albany and Kensington as "Berkeley"zip codes. The EIR is flawed because it considers Albany and Kensington part of Berkeley in one instance favorable to the project, but not in another instance when it would be unfavorable.

• The EIR authors did not effectively repond to many comments concerning parking.

  • a parking survey conducted at 9:30 am on a Saturday in March does not accurately reflect parking demand during the hours of Beth El services and receptions that often follow, continuing into mid-afternoon.

  • parking needs, not only of neighbors (especially those without driveways), but of users of The Berkeley Art Center, Live Oak Recreation Center, Congregants at Netivot Shalom at Jewish Community Center, those who want to hold parties in the Live Oak Park reservable picnic area, or attend one of the large festivals in the park, such as the Himalayan or Live Oak Fairs.

• EIR authors totally missed the points of comments by creek restoration advocates. Many quoted the Berkeley Creek Ordinance (and Joint Watershed Goals Agreement):
  "to encourage the removal of culverts...and to restore natural watercourses whenever safely possible."
  EIR author's only response was to get legal opinion from the City Attorney that the Creek Ordinance does not REQUIRE removal of culverts. Well, they completely missed the point. The point is that Congregation Beth El, by proposing a plan that puts a parking lot over the culverted portion of the creek, is diametrically opposed to the CENTRAL CONCEPT of the above quoted section of the Ordinance, that culvert removal is ENCOURAGED even though not strictly required. An EIR that misses that point is derelict.
  Project proponents have said that building the parking lot does not preclude the possibility of daylighting the creek. But since having onsite parking is a key goal of the project, where would they put it, if they have not planned from the start for the possibility of creek daylighting? Their actions indicate they don't EVER want to see the creek daylighted.

• The size extent of the Beth El activities are seriously understated.

• The "Creek Daylighting" Alternative is recognized to have the "maximum environmental benefits for the creek..." (DEIR, p. 6.0-25), but is dismissed because the alternative "would meet some, but not all, of the proponent's objectives for the proposed project." (DEIR, p. 6.0-27). Under CEQA it is not necessary that an alternative meet all of the project proponent's objectives to be described or adopted, and thus is insufficient reason to dismiss this alternative. This alternative was strongly recommended in comments by several agencies and organizations:

  • California Dept of Fish and Game

  • National Marine Fisheries Service

  • California Regional Water Quality Control Board

• All these agencies' views were summarily dismissed.

• A six-foot wall around the property will still leave the site with an institutional appearance, drastically different from the current sense of open space that the community now enjoys.