Public Comment

The people of Berkeley will be pleased to learn that the work of the Creeks Task Force (CTF) is drawing to a conclusion. After two years of twice-monthly meetings, public hearings, presentations, and the give-and-take of Berkeley-style debate, city staff are following the guidance of the CTF to put the finishing touches on a new Creeks Ordinance. The Public Works and Planning commissions will soon provide their comments on the proposed ordinance—the Planning Commission will hold a hearing on Oct. 11—and the ordinance will be presented to the City Council in November for possible action. 

The CTF was created by the City Council to review the Berkeley Creeks Protection Ordinance (BMC Chapter 17.08) and to develop recommendations for its improvement. The existing ordinance, which dates to the late 1980s and was one of the first efforts in the country to protect urban creeks and riparian habitat, has had a controversial history. The interpretation and implementation of the ordinance proved challenging to city staff and left both property-rights proponents and environmentalists unsatisfied. Members of the task force understood from the start that the challenge of revising the ordinance would be to achieve a reasonable balance in preserving and protecting environmental resources, public safety, drainage infrastructure, and property rights. After hundreds of hours of study and discussion in a completely public and transparent process, the CTF recommendations embody this balance. 

Protecting Berkeley’s natural and community resources is a critical quality-of-life issue for both present and future generations. Expert testimony stressed both the property protection values and the ecological values of protected creeks and naturally vegetated stream buffers. Unfortunately, the existing development pattern in Berkeley does not permit establishing a setback wide enough to preserve or restore the full natural function of Berkeley’s creeks; in fact, the proposed setback distance is less than one-third the setback recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for urban streams. However, requiring some setback will at least preserve an undeveloped buffer zone that will help protect water quality, provide important habitat to birds and animals, and minimize the hazards often caused by building too close to creek banks (including flooding, erosion, and bank failure). Ultimately, a solid majority of CTF members voted to recommend keeping the existing 30-foot setback of permanent structures from the centerline of open creeks but to allow development as close as 25 feet under some circumstances.  

Many property owners expressed their fears of losing value and control of their creekside property. The proposed ordinance eliminates their cause for concern by explicitly allowing them to rebuild their homes after a disaster (such as a fire, earthquake, or flood). Also, the proposed ordinance will not prevent upward or downward expansions of existing homes even if they violate the required setback distance. Moreover, for culverted (i.e., underground) creeks, the revised ordinance will only require a setback sufficient to protect safety and provide access for maintenance; for most property owners near culverts, this will substantially reduce the limitations on how they can develop their property compared to the current 30-foot required setback from creek culverts. 

Some would like to water down the CTF’s ordinance recommendations to appease a vocal minority of property-rights advocates. Others would prefer an ordinance that is more protective of creeks. Although we lean heavily towards creek protection, we do fully support the CTF recommendations as the best workable compromise. As CTF members (although this commentary represents our personal opinions), we are proud of the work we have done and of the time, energy, and commitment shown by our fellow task force members. We urge the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance as currently written. 

Joshua Bradt, Tom Kelly, and Phil Price are members of the Creeks Task Force.