FO5C

1236 Oxford St. -- Berkeley, CA 94709 -- 510 848 9358 -- f5creeks@aol.com

September 8, 2000

Attn: Steve Solomon, Senior Planner

and Zoning Adjustments Board

Department of Planning and Community Development

City of Berkeley

1720 Milvia Street

Berkeley, CA 94704

RE: Proposed Congregation Beth El Synagogue and School, 1301 Oxford St., Berkeley, California

Dear Mr. Solomon:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Congregation Beth El Synagogue and School, 1301 Oxford St., Berkeley, California.

As a volunteer group dedicated to protecting and restoring the creeks and watersheds of North Berkeley, Albany, Kensington, and El Cerrito, we feel that the City of Berkeley should not approve a development that violates both the spirit of the Berkeley Creek Ordinance, the goal of which is "preservation and restoration of natural waterways," and the Joint Watershed Goals Statement signed by the cities of Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and Richmond, which advocates:

• • Restoring our creeks by removing culverts, underground pipes, and obstructions to fish and animal migration, putting creeks in restored channels up in the sunshine where they can be enjoyed by people and wildlife.

  • Restoring creek corridors as natural transportation routes with pedestrian and bicycle paths along creekside greenways; wherever possible using creekside greenways to connect neighborhoods and commercial districts east of the Interstate 80 freeway to the shoreline of San Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail.

In addition, we believe there are serious inadequacies in the Draft EIR sections dealing with runoff and with what the report calls creek restoration. In this connection, the Joint Watershed Goals Statement calls for:

• • Restoring a healthy freshwater supply to creeks and the bay by eliminating conditions that pollute rainwater as it flows overland to creeks and eliminating conditions that prevent a healthy amount of rainwater from soaking into the ground and replenishing the underground water supplies that nourish creeks.

The major source of pollution in San Francisco Bay is urban runoff and its load of non-point-source pollutants, such as lead, zinc, chromium, copper, petroleum products, pesticides, and excess nutrients, chiefly from automobiles and urban gardening. The major problem of urban creeks, after culverting itself, is rapid storm runoff and lack of summer recharge, due to the impermeable buildings, roads, and other paved surfaces covering the land. The City of Berkeley is required by the federal Water Pollution Control Act (through its NPDES permit) to address these problems. Various methods for reduction and treatment are available, and research into improvements is ongoing.

Treatment of runoff is inadequate

The Draft EIR's technical appendices recommend that grassed swales and catch-basin filters be used in tandem to decrease and purify runoff from the site. That is, runoff should flow through both a grassed swale and a catch-basin filter (Technical Appendices, Questa Engineering report, pp. 24-25). This tandem recommendation is dropped in the Draft EIR. It should be maintained.

The Draft EIR's statement that use of cisterns is infeasible to treat runoff from the site is incorrect and misrepresents the technical report on which it is allegedly based (Technical Appendices, Questa report, p. 17). Questa's technical report explicitly does not rule out cisterns. Cisterns can greatly reduce peak flows without capturing all runoff in a storm. The solution may be some combination involving cisterns, swales, and other permeable surfaces.

The Draft EIR calls for grassed swales only "where possible," with no indication of where these might be located, what size and depth may be required for runoff from the site, and how these might be reconciled with other aspects of the plan, including the landscape plan, plans to maintain trees, and plans to channel runoff from the road into a five-foot-deep drain between the road the creek. This violates adequacy, California Environmental Quality Act requirements, and City of Berkeley Environmental Review Procedures (July 1990), which list "Measures conditioned on feasibility" under "Examples of mitigation measures that would not satisfy the CEQA requirements" (CBERP, p. 22).

The EIR should set a measurable standard, such as treatment of 80% of all storm runoff water (80% is currently a common standard). Further, while it is not practical to draw all plans fully prior to environmental review, plans for dealing with runoff and non-point-source pollution should at least go as far as calculating approximate sizes, depths, and locations of swales and other structures, and reconciling this requirement with other aspects of the plans. Without this, the talk of treatment of runoff is a hollow promise.

Allowing water to soak into soil is not a negative impact

The Draft EIR (p. 2.0-15 and Technical Appendices, Questa report, p. 17) calls use of permeable paving a negative environmental impact, because it would "increase" the amount of rainwater that soaks into soil. Permeable paving does not increase the amount of rainwater that soaks into soil. It simply lets some water continue to soak in, though less than if there were no parking lot at all. Thus permeable paving has a negative impact only if leaving the ground natural Ñ with grass and trees Ñ is a worse environmental impact.

Similarly, statements like "The use of a permeable surface on the project's parking lot could cause soils under the Oxford-to-Spruce access road to become unstable" are backwards and incorrect. Rain soaks into the ground now, and the soaked soils are unstable now (as the geology report clearly states, and as three slides in the last three years demonstrate). A permeable surface, by letting some water continue to soak into soil naturally, might not reduce the existing instability as much as would a paved parking area Ñ or paving over the entire site, for that matter. But allowing some water to continue to soak into soil does not cause either the preexisting instability or the need for a drain (which would rob the creek of recharge in order to stabilize the driveway).

The EIR should deal with this problem accurately and straightforwardly: Beth El plans to build a road on unstable fill next to a steep, slide-prone creek bank (Technical Appendices, Questa report, p. 5). To do this, Beth El needs to construct a drain that would deprive the creek of natural recharge along the full length of the road. This drain would have potential negative environmental impacts that must be mitigated; these mitigations should be spelled out in the report. Alternatively, paving over the adjacent soil would keep water out of the soil and so lessen the danger of building this road on unstable soil. But this would in turn increase other environmental problems, including runoff, pollution, and lack of recharge to the creek.

Effect of increased runoff is calculated inappropriately

The Draft EIR states that the planned quadrupling of impermeable surface, from 10% to 39% of the site, is insignificant because the resulting increase in runoff would not significantly affect the entire Codornices Creek watershed. Using this standard, one could pave over an entire watershed piece by piece, with no single project deemed significant. A more appropriate standard is the increase on the site itself, or the effect if this increase were applied to the entire watershed.

Proposed riprap violates Creek Protection Ordinance

Beth El's proposal for "creek restoration" includes leaving the cliff-like, slide-prone lower banks of the creek as they are, except for attempting to control further erosion by "the placement of rock at the toe of the channel bank in the open reach of the channel."

Placing rock at the toe of the channel bank would violate Berkeley's Creek Protection Ordinance. Such rock is riprap under the ordinance, which defines "riprap" as "Cobbles, rock, concrete pieces or other non-vegetative debris used to protect streambanks against erosion. Riprapping, the placement of riprap on streambanks." The ordinance states that "The intent of this section is to prohibit culverting and riprapping, unless there is strong evidence that there is no other reasonable means to prevent the erosion of adjacent supports, foundations, or other structures." The ordinance continues that riprap cannot be placed without a permit from the City Engineer, and that "Such a permit will not be granted if any one or more" of several alternatives is available, including "Excavating to restore a natural meander, stream geometry, and channel roughness" and "bank stabilization using vegetation or a combination of revegetation and construction (soil bioengineering) that does not degrade the existing natural environment," "removal of structures where feasible," and "changes in site design." Even if preventing erosion of a "structure" includes future construction of a driveway, all of these alternatives are available and practical.

The Draft EIR says a personal communication from Assistant City Engineer William Knight indicated that the proposed rocking of the bank "will not interfere with the City of Berkeley's creek ordinance." Mr. Knight is no longer employed by Berkeley, and in any event could not override the ordinance.

Plan will not stabilize creek banks

The Draft EIR indicates that the upper banks of the present daylighted portion of the creek would be reduced somewhat in slope, giving an overall average slope of 1.5:1. While this 1.5:1 slope is the likely historic condition in the geologically youthful, fast-eroding Berkeley hills, it is not a stable slope (Technical Appendices, WRI report, p. 6). Three retaining walls would be used to create and support a flat lawn on the south bank in front of the sanctuary and social hall. The Draft EIR, on p. 3.0-25, says that the plan to create gentler bank slopes on the upper bank is shown Figure 3.0-8. However, Figure 3.0-8, p. 3.0-18, shows regrading only for the gabions fronting the proposed lawn, sanctuary, and social hall, on a very short stretch of the southeast bank. No regrading is shown for the rest of the banks, including the sites of recent slides on the north and south banks.

These plans need to be clarified and improved. Riprapping the toe of the bank and leaving the banks at an unstable angle cannot be called creek restoration.

Plantings are inappropriate

Restorationists encourage planting site-appropriate native plants along creek banks for several reasons:

• • Appropriate natives generally require minimal irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticides, reducing pollution (and cost).

  • Appropriate and varied natives generally support pollinators and other beneficial insects, which in turn support bird, fish, amphibian, and other life.

  • Appropriate natives generally have deep roots that help stabilize creek banks.

The Draft EIR states in several places that the creek bank will be planted with natives (e.g., p. 3.0-25). However, the text describes and the landscape plan shows (pp. 3.0-31 & 32) a monoculture of longleaf mahonia (Mahonia nervosa), a plant of moist coastal coniferous forests not native to the East Bay and not likely to flourish without irrigation and care. At the top of the bank, the landscape plan indicates extensive plantings of non-native species of rhododendron and dogwood. Both these are likely to require irrigation that would (a) increase the instability of the soil and (b) pollute the creek with direct discharge of chloramine-treated EBMUD water, which is toxic to fish.

The geology and hydrology sections mention planting willow stakes in the rock at the toe of the bank, but this is not shown in the landscape plan, and may be unwise. Willows on such steep banks can increase erosion as they collapse or are pulled out of the bank during high flows.

In summary, we feel that this Draft EIR, and plans for this project, should be revised to incorporate genuine restoration of Codornices Creek and genuine mitigation of the runoff and pollution problems attendant on this development.

Sincerely,

Wendy Low, Secretary

For Friends of Five Creeks