You can read UC’s NOP here: https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/resources-notices/public-notices
April 27th Scoping session can be heard here: https://lrdp.berkeley.edu/scoping-meeting
People’s Park Committee’s submitted comments are here:
PEOPLE’S PARK COMMITTEE SCOPING COMMENTS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR UC BERKELEY LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE AND HOUSING PROJECTS AT PEOPLE’S PARK AND HILL CAMPUS 4/27/20
1. LRDP Update must not be a programmatic EIR that automatically gives the green light to future projects not explicitly listed in the EIR. All future projects must continue to be subject to public input under CEQA.
2. The NOP claims 200 meetings and events with stakeholder groups and the public, but not all stakeholders were contacted. Houseless residents of the park weren’t included. There was a 1/24/20 invitation-only meeting, at the Christian Science church by the park. Little effort was made to invite community groups like the People’s Park Committee, Food Not Bombs, Suitcase Clinic, or others who provide resources at the park so few of the park community were able to participate. Except one town hall on the LRDP in April 2019, no public meetings about this process were held. Two public meetings in February and March 2020, were limited to Project #2 at People’s Park, and didn’t include other plans to be discussed in this EIR. Which stakeholders were invited to the other 196 meetings, and what parts of the LRDP Update did they cover?
3. The NOP insists on necessity of expansion of facilities and university population, even though Berkeley has sued UC for exceeding the agreed-upon number of students to be admitted. The number of beds planned for students and non-university affiliated people are vague, talking about construction ‘up to’ a certain number, without any minimum commitment. No mention of students who are homeless now, in need of housing, let alone non-university park residents. And no specifics about nonprofits who are supposed to develop and manage the housing projects proposed at People’s Park. Who are these nonprofits, what is their proposed role, and what financial and other benefits would they derive from this project?
4. UC used the excuse of ‘deferred maintenance’, a concept mentioned in the NOP, to destroy the forested area of People’s Park as well as trees all over campus, and the excuse of ‘wildfire management’ to deforest other areas in the East Bay hills, and use pesticides, long targeting the Hill Campus area. Even mature, tall redwoods are planned for demolition by UC in the Hill Campus. UC repeatedly has been taken to court by community members seeking to defend the Hill Campus forest. UC insists that since these forested areas are not state or federal forest, it’s not necessary to discuss the impact of converting that forest to non-forest use, and because there may not be a formal habitat conservation plan, no habitat conservation activities are necessary in the project areas covered in the EIR, even though many animals, including falcons and hawks, utilize them as habitat.
5. The EIR is supposed to cover historic resources, and preserve historic legacy, and as such People’s Park, a City of Berkeley Historic Landmark, must be preserved as a park, not replaced with buildings. The NOP refers to creating multi-purpose spaces, but People’s Park already has multiple purposes and uses for humans and wildlife, which these plans would eliminate.
** THESE COMMENTS ARE SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE’S PARK COMMITTEE,
including Russell Bates, Lisa Teague, Jessie Mcginley, Michael Delacour, Max Ventura, Erick Morales, Andrea Prichett, Aidan Hill, Paul Prosseda, Ivar Diehl, Siobhan Lettow, Dawn Goldwasser, Tom Luce, Hali Hammer, Sheila Mitra-Sarkar, Charles Gary