Congregation Beth El inched closer to building a synagogue that will accommodate its 600 households last week, when the final environmental impact report was presented to Berkeley’s nine-member Zoning Adjustment Board.
The three-volume document prepared by consultants and reviewed by Berkeley’s Planning and Development Department concluded that the project has no significant environmental impact.
The staff assessment is that the EIR is adequate, noted Vivian Kahn, acting deputy director of the Planning and Development Department for the city of Berkeley, at the Nov. 9 meeting. About 150 people attended the four-hour session.
“Adequacy” means that all potential impacts have been addressed, mitigations made and alternatives considered, enabling the board to make an informed decision on the project. This is the most involved part of the process. Once the board certifies the EIR, Beth El can get the permits necessary to begin construction.
With plans to build a bigger synagogue, the Reform congregation in 1997 purchased a 2.2-acre site from the Chinese Alliance Church. The site, at 1301 Oxford Street in Berkeley, is only a few blocks from Beth El’s present location at Vine and Arch streets.
Gathering information for the EIR began months ago when the congregation voluntarily held a series of public meetings to hear the concerns of local residents on the proposed project.
The three-volume EIR addresses issues of hydrology, air pollution, transportation, traffic, noise, land use, parking, geology, soils and wildlife, according to Eric Norris of Pacific Municipal Consultants, who oversaw the preparation of the report. The report also contains about 300 pages of responses to comments that were received after a draft of the EIR was issued.
Berkeley’s Planning and Development Department reviewed the EIR before presenting it to the Zoning Adjustment Board.
One of the purposes of the Nov. 9 meeting was to take public comment on the adequacy of the EIR.
Ellen Polling, a transportation engineer, said that by having 35 on-site parking spots and a driveway for drop-off and pick-up, the synagogue would minimize the traffic and parking impact on the neighborhood.
“It’s an improvement over the current situation,” which has neither, Polling told the board.
Congregant Jim Samuels addressed the issue of an underground parking garage, a suggestion that has been made by synagogue neighbors.
“An underground parking lot creates impacts of its own,” said Samuels, referring to the extensive excavation that would be required. He said underground parking would not increase the number of spaces and could pose safety issues. He also raised the expense. “It would cost $1.4 million, which is an unacceptable burden.”
Opponents of the project want Beth El to explore alternative sites outside of Berkeley and have suggested El Cerrito or Albany.
But Kahn of the Berkeley Planning and Development Department pointed out that the new site “is centered where the membership is.” One-third of the congregation lives within a quarter-mile of the synagogue. “There are no other [available sites] within Berkeley,” she said.
As to the suggestion that Beth El look in other cities, Kahn said, “We have no control over them and it is not a feasible alternative.”
One ongoing issue is Codornices Creek, which has been culverted and runs under the site and throughout Berkeley. Although the plans for the synagogue include restoring the part of the creek at ground level to its natural state and landscaping it with native vegetation, some neighbors want the entire creek “daylighted.” The creek is as much as 25 feet underground and excavating it would render a large portion of the property unusable for construction.
“We have a responsibility to that creek to restore it to its natural state,” said Carol Thornton, a member of the Urban Creeks Council. She also raised the effect water run-off would have downstream.
Beth El’s plans include a water filtration system to prevent oil and grease from being washed downstream, but Thornton complained that while the EIR “talks about water filtration systems, it does not give details.”
Juliet Lamont, who coordinated the speakers in opposition to the project, raised several issues, including the site’s historic significance.
The site had been the homestead of the Napoleon Bonaparte Byrne family, the first African-American family to settle in Berkeley. Although the house had been declared a historic landmark, it burned to the ground many years ago. Earlier last week, that issue had been before Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Board. No decision was reached because Manuela Albuquerque, the Berkeley city attorney, issued an opinion saying that four of the board members had conflicts of interest and had to disqualify themselves. They are also board members of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, which wrote a letter opposing the proposed construction. The board members refused to disqualify themselves and ended up adjourning the meeting while they considered what to do. The next meeting is Monday, Dec. 4.
Finally Daniel Caraco challenged the final EIR, claiming it wasn’t adequate because Beth El didn’t disclose all the activities that go on there.
“The congregation celebrates Pesach, Chanukah and Sukkot,” he said, adding that these are very well-attended services. When asked by board member David Blake whether he was Jewish, Caraco said he was. At Blake’s request, Rabbi Ferenc Raj, the spiritual leader of Beth El, explained that the holidays mentioned were celebrated in the home and that there were no special services at the synagogue.
David Tabb, a member of Beth El and political science professor, lives across the street from Berkeley’s Cragmont School and is aware of the inconveniences and accommodations that living near a public institution requires. But he sees accommodating such facilities as part of being a responsible citizen.
“Those who promote publicly oriented values understand and seek to accommodate public institutions for public needs, recognizing it is troublesome to do so,” he said. “Those who are privately oriented seek to protect their own turf without asking that the same standards be applied to their own behavior.”
Public comments were closed shortly before midnight. In deference to the late hour and the fact that there was still one other matter on the agenda, the board decided to postpone its discussion until Monday, Nov. 27.