 Good evening and welcome to UC Berkeley's public hearing regarding the draft environmental impact report for the UC Berkeley 2021 long-range draft development plan and housing projects one and two I'm Kyle Gibson the director of communications for UC Berkeley capital strategies Before we begin I'd like to take a moment and acknowledge that UC Berkeley continues to proactively engage in planning around the COVID-19 Pandemic in collaboration with the University of California office of the president and our public health partners UC Berkeley is operating in accordance with all public health directives and all relevant orders regarding the public health emergency of Direct relevance to the California Environmental Quality Act Shortly after the issuance of Governor Newsom's safer at home safer at home stay at home order in March 2020 the governor issued an executive order later extended Which suspended certain requirements for the filing noticing and posting of California Environmental Quality Act documents? deadlines for public review and comment periods for California Environmental Quality Act documents Including draft environmental impact reports were not suspended and those deadlines remain unchanged UC Berkeley is providing a 45-day public review period for the draft long-range environment Draft long-draft long-range development plan environmental impact report as Required by the California Environmental Quality Act and will continue to closely track any California Environmental Quality Act related Developments that may affect our ongoing projects including those currently undergoing environmental review Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions placed on in-person gatherings throughout the state of California This evening UC Berkeley is hosting an online public hearing rather than an in-person effect The format for this evening's online public hearing is an informational presentation followed by a reading of public comments The presentation will provide an overview of the proposed project and the draft environment impact report The presentation will highlight content and key conclusions and provide an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act The public comments that will be read after the presentation Were submitted to the university in writing in accordance with the instructions provided the notice of availability issued on March 8th 2021 Each person that submitted a comment gave their expressed permission to allow the university to read their comment as part of this evening's online public hearing All comments received by the deadline in the notice of availability will become part of the public record Not only the comments submitted for us to read aloud tonight The deadline to submit comment as stated in the notice of availability is five o'clock p.m On april 21 2021 The public can submit comments to the university by emailing planning at berkeley.edu Or by us mail to the address that will be provided in tonight's presentation Please remember that all comments submitted by five o'clock p.m on april 21 2021 Will be part will become part of the public record and will be responded to formally as required by the california environmental quality act Before we begin the presentation I would like to take a moment to highlight and to clarify that a public hearing Whether held in person or virtually online is not a questions and answer session All comments received will be collected considered And responded to in writing in the final environmental impact report as required by the california environmental quality act And now I would like to introduce a member of our physical and environmental planning team rafael To present the overview of the proposed project the draft environmental impact report and an overview of the california environmental quality act rafael Thank you for joining this evening My name is rafael brinus. I'm a senior planner in physical environmental planning I'm going to share my screen I would like to acknowledge the current circumstances. We are in this evening because of the coven 19 pandemic And that the university is continuing this online platform for the hearing As we did with the scoping meeting in april Thank you for your patience and flexibility as we continue to adapt to the current health conditions I would also like to stress that the public's participation has been and will continue to be paramount for making this project successful UC berkeley is the lead agency responsible for preparing The environmental review for the project pursuant to the california environmental quality act This evening's hearing has four parts One is to provide information on the proposed project Two to provide an overview of the california environmental quality act Also known as sequel three to explain how to review the l rdp And l rdp update eir and to provide public comments on these documents And finally four to read public comments that were received by 1 p.m. This afternoon While the presentation will provide an overview of the proposed project and process The overall purpose of tonight's hearing is to collect comments on the content of the draft environmental impact report Or eir rather than on the merits of the project Comments are most helpful when they focus on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project As kyle mentioned no questions will be addressed tonight Whether you provided comments tonight or and or any time during the public comment period All comments will be included in the public record And responded to and considered in the final eir as required by sequel Tonight is not the only time to provide comments on the content of the draft l rdp update And the update eir towards the end of this presentation I will discuss the process and schedule and explain the opportunities for public participation and input The first part of the presentation Is an overview of the project The university's current long range development plan or l rdp was approved in 2005 An update is needed to align the l rdp with the university's current priorities To meet the needs of its students and its mission as a modern 21st century public institution of higher education I will refer in this presentation to the new l rdp as the l rdp update The uc regions require every uc campus to have an Have and periodically update an l rdp While the uc regions determine undergraduate enrollment for each campus The l rdp is a guide for physical campus development based on population projections It is a framework which provides structure and order to the planning of future projects But does not commit the university to a specific specific individual Projects nor nor commit the university to carrying out development at any specific location or at any given timeline I want to emphasize that an l rdp does not determine uc Campus's enrollment or overall population and l rdp projects a future population solely for the purpose of Evaluating what facilities a uc campus may need in the future And the l rdp and the l rdp eir update are used to entitle future development and infrastructure projects The l rdp planning area includes all university owned property within the city of berkeley As well as a portion of the hill campus to the east Here which is located in the city of oakland actually here and This section is in contra costa county You can see the inset to this graphic that shows the satellite prop property within berkeley to the west the 1608 fourth street As in past l rdps the l rdp update excludes university billy village albany and richmond field station It also excludes remote field stations and other university owned properties lying entirely outside the city of berkeley The l rdp organizes the campus and the five land use zones, which are shown here We refer to the main campus as the campus park. This is the solid Blue hatched lines you see It's roughly 180 acres and defined by her sab to the north gaily p mon abs to the To the east bankrupt way to the south and oxford street to the west The campus park is the heart of uc berkeley intellectual and student life and home to the majority of the university's academic and research programs in student life facilities The hill campus west zone is immediately to the east. It's this light blue dashed area here Uh, it is it is uh about 50 acres and extends east of the campus park from gaily road to p mon avenue And includes student housing along with sports and recreational facilities including Maxwell family field california memorial stadium And the strawberry canyon recreation area as well as the greek theater The 750 acre hill campus east Which is the largest area it's this green Greenish area extends east from the eastern boundary of the hill campus west Hill campus west to the eastern boundary of the university's property at grizzly peak boulevard Which is this boundary far east of the campus The hill campus east comprises mostly natural open space but includes several important facilities Including the botanical garden laurence hall of science space science laboratory and mathematical sciences research institute The next the fourth zone is clark per campus, which is this orange Orange dotted area here. This is Located about half mile southeast of the campus park It is 45 acres and is bounded by warren street to the west white way to the north derby street to the south And clear mount canyon regional preserve to the east It comprises student and faculty housing a conference center Child care facilities and indoor outdoor intercollegiate athletic and recreational facilities then finally Other university owned properties, which are located Which we're calling the city environs properties outside Of the campus park and these three solid solid red hatched areas They comprise 70 acres And they're mostly concentrated as you can see In the city of berkeley south side neighborhood and downtown area The majority of you see student housing is located in the south side University properties in this area also Also include administrative student support and athletics and recreational facilities As well as parking structures and the site known as people's park which is this Number two In addition, there's this area. It's a 9.2 acre site known as the smith burnwell property adjacent to Clark per And Because that there could be the potential for growth of the campus park and the adjacent university property Hill campus Clark per campus and satellite properties within the city of berkeley The er study area is contiguous with the lrtp planning area For the purposes of identifying the development needed to accommodate projected campus population The horizon year is the 2036 37 academic year That was established for uc berkeley's lrtp update er I'll just give you the highlights here, which actually are right in front of you but the population population projections for the 2036 37 academic year are approximately 48,200 students 19,000 faculty and staff And then by the horizon year that 2036 37 The lrtp update analyzed the following 11,073 new student housing beds 125 new supportive housing beds 549 new faculty and staff housing units And just under 3.2 million gross square feet of academic and campus life facilities This is total for 8 million gross square feet of net new space For academic life campus life residential and parking The population projections included in the lrtp update er provide a foundation for understanding the campus's long-term space needs The assumptions represent the estimation of reasonably foreseeable development that could occur and are used as a basis for the er's environmental assessment This this slide shows the population projection for the lrtp update and er As you can see from the table the 2021 lrtp considers more growth than the previous lrtp In order to responsibly plan for growth that may be required by the state legislator legislature over time The lrtp uses the 28 2019 campus population as the baseline year associated With the draft lrtp update er As you can see by the 2018 2019 academic year, uc berkeley's enrollment exceeded our current lrtp peas projections just uh quickly Reading down these columns. You can see the population group And then this the second column is the 2020 lrtp population projections. Those were projected in 2005 With the last lrtp This third column shows the current population At the baseline year of 2018 2019 This we're moving into the future and looking at anticipated growth so you can see uh anticipated growth for each of the students undergraduate graduates and faculty and then this second to last column to the right shows the projections of 20 36 37 school year Reading down for those population groups and just to summarize the net change in students From 2018 2019 to what is projected in 20 36 37 Is uh an increase of 8492 students And employees over that same period is 3,579 students So that's a uh increase of additional 12,071 students and you can see the second to last column of 67,200 Is the projected population on campus in 20 36 37 No, I just want to note that the lrtp population projections are not a mandate for growth The uc regions and the state legislature ultimately determine undergraduate Enrollment and the campus has a responsibility to proactively plan for Facilities in the long term to support our educational mission and campus population The lrtp update eir analyzed the development program based on conservative estimate of the space needed To support the campus's projected population. So you can see in this table that the lrtp update Analyze a new net a net new need of approximately 3.2 million gross square feet of space Which includes academic research campus life and support uses 11,070 student beds 549 faculty and staff beds and 125 units of supportive housing and Additional 1,240 parking spaces and these numbers are compared to the again the 2018 2019 baseline year The lrtp update eir also Analyze is two housing projects We're calling them housing project number one and number two housing project number one Is a shown here. It's about a point 92 acre site just west of the campus park It's referred to as the anchor house the site is located across oxford street from the uc berkeley campus park And is bounded by oxford street university avenue walnut street and berkeley way to the north Located Uh, it's located in a priority development area in a transit priority area within Close proximity the shuttle and ac transit bike share As well as the downtown berkeley barge station You can see to the right of this screen That the project proposes up to 70 770 student beds focused on transfer students And includes office space and active brown uses which may include neighborhood retail space The project would redevelop An underlies an underutilized university property as much needed student housing housing project number two is known as Uh on the site known as people's park This is a two-point acre site located in the southwestern corner of the intersection of foudish street and haze street Roughly two tenths of a mile south of the campus park Uh, it's low it's also located in a priority priority development area in a transit priority area within close proximity to shuttle ac transit bike share and barge station as well The project proposes to redevelop the site to provide a much needed high density student housing To help meet the student housing needs of uc berkeley as well as provide supportive housing To the greater berkeley and bay area community Uh, it includes generous open space Uh, so the site again is about 2.8 acres and Approximately one acre of the site would be developed with the balance remaining as open landscape space University housing would be geared towards lower division undergraduates with up to 1187 beds The proposal also includes a separate building of permanent supportive housing with up to 125 Units to house lower income or formerly or the formerly homeless As described at the outset the presentation has three parts And this is the second part to provide an overview of the california environmental quality act And of the sequel process the purpose of tonight's hearing is to collect comments on that On the content of the draft l rdp And l rdp update eir The university looks forward to receiving comments on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project Sequa is the state's environmental protection disclosure law. It was enacted in 1970 and requires public agencies to evaluate potential environmental effects of a project And read the purpose of sequa is to consider And disclose to the public and decision makers the environmental implications of their actions increase public understanding of and participation in in the environmental process and to it It is purposes to identify ways to avoid or reduce the potential significant environmental effects of those actions To the extent feasible through imposition of mitigation measures or alternatives Sequa Requires mitigation to avoid minimize rectify reduce eliminate or compensate for any impacts determined to be significant Sequa allows the incorporation of mitigation as goals policies and actions to reduce and avoid impacts to the environment As as a result of future development thus resulting in what is known as the self mitigating Uh project or long range development plan You see berkeley is the lead agency responsible for preparing the environmental review for the project Under sequa the lead agency is a public agency that has the primary responsibility For carrying out or approving the project the university is both the project proponent and the lead agency The eir must be certified before approval uc regions would consider certification of the eir and approve the lrgp update Which is anticipated this summer an eir is one of sequenced mechanisms For identifying and disclosing potentially significant significant physical effects of a project An eir is an informational document that considers the environmental effects of a project an eir Discloses information about the effects of approach proposed project Could have on the environment it as a as I said earlier. I identify some mitigation measures It describes feasible alternatives to the proposed project and must be certified prior to project approval Sequa includes different types of eir's for for varying situations intended uses Program level eir's are appropriate for broad planning actions such as a long range development plan And can be used to tier Sequa review of future development projects Project level eir's are appropriate for specific development projects Because of the proposed project includes both a long range plan the lrgp And the construction and operation of two specific housing projects housing projects one and two This lrgp update is considered a program eir That includes both program level analysis for the proposed long-term policy document And project level analysis for the construction and operational phases of the two housing projects The lrgp update program eir analyzes a series of actions Is one large project that may be implemented by the university over the next 15 plus years Among various advantages of preparing a program eir is that it's helpful in dealing with subsequent activities The goal is to prepare an eir that analyzes the outer limits of any associated environmental impacts from physical planning So that many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the proposed Of the project described in the program eir And this would allow subsequent future environmental documentation That is consistent with the lrgp update eir to be streamlined, which is basically Would allow for a simple a simplified preparation and process This slide shows the process and timeline I'll just quickly describe the steps that have taken so far. We University published a notice of preparation of an eir On april 7th of last year the university held an environmental scoping meeting april 27th of last year We are currently in the middle of the 45 day draft eir public review period shown here Comments can be received through april 21st Either by mail or electronically as i will describe at the end of this presentation The university anticipates completing the final lrgp update eir with responses to public comments this summer and also anticipates consideration Of the eir of the lrgp and the lrgp update eir by the regents this summer as well I won't read this slide, but this is The draft lrgp update eir includes an evaluation of all the applicable topics identified in a appendix g of the sequel guidelines shown on the slide So you can see kind of the the breadth of the environmental topics issues that are included in a eir analysis this slide shows the Topics that were addressed and shown to to Have no impact on the environment as discussed in the notice of preparation and notice of availability And further described in chapter seven of the lrgp of the draft lrgp update eir These proposed project components would not result in significant impacts In the to these areas due to proximity and other qualifying features and are therefore not evaluated in the draft eir No impact describes the circumstances where a project would have no adverse impact on the environment And for the lrgp update these include scenic highways loss of agricultural forestry and mineral resources Conflicts with a habitat conservation plan soil adequacy for septic tanks and other alternative waste systems and conflicts with airport land use plans Which affect both hazards and noise This shows this slide shows Less than significant impact topic issues These less than significant essentially means effects that are noticeable But do not exceed establish or define thresholds or are mitigated below such threshold The topics shown here were analyzed in the draft lrgp update eir And were found to have less than significant impact The project components shown here would result in less than significant impacts with the implementation of Continuing best practices and feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level Continuing best practices are what the university includes as regulations applicable codes best management practices This university's campus the science standard These are what the university implements for all its capital projects While mitigation measures are actions or features that are incorporated into a project in order to avoid or stand Of substantially reduce a project significant impact on the environment This the project components on this slide include impacts of the draft lrgp update eir As identified as being significant Even with the implementation of applicable continuing best practices and feasible mitigation measures To reduce eliminate or avoid avoid that adverse effect These impacts are conservative program level findings because the project specific details of potential future development Are unknown or because they are temporary construction impacts such as noise For which mitigation is not feasible These conclusions do not preclude the finding of less than significant at the project level When specific details of a project in the surrounding sensitive receptors if any are known and that's goes back to the idea of Streamlining or tiering future projects That we will do a project specific analysis to Analyze the project impacts Statement of overriding considerations This sequel requires that decision making agencies to balance as applicable The economic legal social technological Or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of a proposed project against It's unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project If the specific economic legal social technological or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits Of a proposed project proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts The adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable In these instances the lead agency could approve a project Which we would could result in the occurrence of significant effects Which are identified in the final eir, but are not avoided or says substantially lessened And adopt what is known as a statement of overriding considerations The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence and record As mentioned earlier in this presentation an eir must describe feasible alternatives to the proposed project As part of selecting a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project Including the sequel required to no project alternative UC Berkeley considered but rejected several alternatives as feasible options These there are four that are shown here. There was a reduced graduate program which Was rejected because it conflicts with the project objective Of maintaining supporting and enhancing UC Berkeley's status As a internationally renowned public research Intensive institution and center for scientific and academic advancement the historic resource buildings avoidance was Not considered Because it's infeasible to accommodate the lrgp update development program without potentially affecting historic resources either directly Through renovation or redevelopment of historic resource properties or through development on vacant sites where the potential To just affect a historic district exists This includes housing projects one and two Um The alternate for housing projects one and two there was no available similar sites of size or location And again, I'll turn it I'll turn it This these two sites would likely have historic resources on them. And finally there was an increased transportation demand Demand management program Alternative that was rejected Transportation demand management also known as tdm aim to reduce vehicle miles travel Which is vmt tdm is transportation demand And vmt is vehicle miles travel And to reduce the vmt generated by new projects by shifting more typical car dependent travel to other modes like transit or bicycle UC Berkeley determined that the additional costs of new broader measures would be high Relative to the additional benefit gained when compared to the ongoing costs and benefits of implementing the current tdm Program. Additionally, UC Berkeley in partnership with the city of Berkeley Can provide Multimodal connections between the city and UC Berkeley at a more reasonable cost through shared funding with the city This slide shows the alternatives That were evaluated. There were four of them alternative a through d To reduce the potentially significant impacts previously described UC Berkeley considered in the draft lrdp update dir a reasonable range of four alternatives to the proposed project Including the secret required no project alternative A is the no project b is a reduced development program and you can see the details Alternative c is a reduced vehicle miles traveled Alternative and d is increased faculty and staff housing The alternatives focus on reducing develop and reduce on a reduced development program and increases in faculty and staff housing All alternatives would assume the same amount of population growth The alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable applicable mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project Would also apply to any potentially significant environmental impacts of each alternative except for the no project alternative The population is the same for all alternative alternatives While the proposed lrdp update is intended to accommodate changes in UC Berkeley population UC Berkeley does not control Does not control UC Berkeley population through implementation with lrdp, but rather the undergraduate student population is mandated by the state Therefore, UC Berkeley population estimates would would remain the same As under the proposed project, but for a and b There would be less accommodations in the capital development Including student housing and related development provided through the proposed lrdp update the secret requires the lead agency to identify an environmentally superior alternative Secret guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed In general, the environmental superior alternative is the alternative to the proposed project That would be expected to generate the least number of significant environmental impacts And identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure And the alternative to the proposed project selected may not be the alternative to the proposed project That best meets the goals or needs of UC Berkeley The proposed project under consideration cannot be identified as the environmentally superior alternative The no project alternative alternative a was the environmentally superior Alternative so secret requires that selection of the next superior alternative Which is alternative c Based on a greater on the greater number of reduced impacts compared to increased impacts Between the alternatives alternative a would be the environmental superior alternative but We turn to the next alternative Because we can't choose that The no project alternative and the next one is the Is alternative c Well, both c alternative c and d would result in fewer impacts Then alternative b overall, but alternative c would result in fewer impacts pertaining to energy While alternative d result in greater impacts pertaining to energy This is the third part of the presentation and focuses on how to review and submit comments in the draft l rgp update All comments received are an important part of either the planning and environmental review process But only comments which focus on the potential Impacts of the proposed project will be responded to in the final eir Comments will be tracked considered and included in the final eir Comments that were submitted by 1 p.m. This afternoon will be read aloud following this presentation How to review the draft l rgp and the draft l rgp update eir electronically you can go to the There is a website for the l rgp, which you can see is l rgp. Berkley edu Hard copies are available Unlimited we printed copies of the draft l rgp and the draft l rgp update eir available at the downtown berkley library for outside pickup During the public comment period The downtown berkley library is located at 2090 kittridge street In downtown berkley and you can go to this website at the berkley public library or website for hours and instructions how to visit and Take out the hard copy hard copies public notices This is you you can sign up if you're not already to receive emails of sequa notices and key project updates There's a link here capital strategies Dot berkley edu about us subscribe to our email list and public notices are posted at capital strategies Dot berkley edu under public notices How to submit comments? There are several ways You can send written responses to uc berkley physical environmental planning attention 2021 l rgp and housing projects number one and two draft er and e building berkley california 94720 You can email your written responses to planning at berkley dot edu With that subject line that you see Again comments must be received by 5 p.m. On wednesday april 21st 2021 to be considered After tonight we will continue to receive public comments in their environmental analysis presented in the draft lrdp update er Again comments are most helpful when they focus on the environmental impacts of the proposed project as presented in the draft lrdp update er And that concludes the presentation and i'll send it back to kyle Who will provide details about the public comment, which is the fourth and final part of this evening's meeting Thanks rafael The public comments that we will read aloud Starting in a few moments were submitted according to the directions in the notice of availability issued on march 8 2021 Those directions specified that members of the public should email comments to planning at berkley dot edu by one o'clock p.m. Today include their full name And state that uc berkley has permission to read their comment allowed The notice also specified that comments will be read up to the first 300 words The full length of comments received will be published in the final environmental impact report I want to highlight that all comments on the draft environmental impact report received in writing By email or us mail by the april 21 2021 deadline will be responded to equally in the final environmental impact report as required by the california environmental quality act There is no additional weight given to comments. We read aloud for this evening's public hearing If you would like to submit comments, please remember the deadline to submit written comments is april 21 2021 at 5 o'clock p.m. And at this time we will read aloud the 18 public comments That have been submitted for this evening's online public hearing Comment number one is from wendy williams niko Yes, do it build sound new housing with smart landscaping and safe lighting erase people's park Comment number two is from brian wilson I am a proud uc-berkeley graduate as are my wife and son and my daughter will be starting the nba program in the fall I am intimately familiar with the situation at people's park from my time in berkeley And my son lived a block away from people's park for part of his time in berkeley I understand and respect the historical significance On the other hand it has become a rundown in dangerous place That is underutilized by most people in the community The proposed plan thoughtfully takes into account the cities and universities past present and future needs It is a far better proposal than any others i've seen in the 40 years that i can follow in these issues Opposition to the plan will be vocal and aggressive, but they are in the extreme minority and they are not considering the broader public good They make legitimate points, but these are taken into account in the plan as effectively as possible I strongly support the university's plan Comment number three is from aden health I am a current uc-berkeley student a south side resident living one block from people's park And a former vice chair of the city's homeless commission The distinct mission of the university is to serve society at a center of higher learning providing the long-term benefits Of advanced knowledge and research due acts of public service in accordance with its educational purposes Taking no action on housing project two Represent the optimal long-term use of land and capital for the uc-berkeley campus as a whole The uc-berkeley physical design framework notes that open spaces provide an important resource for relaxation recreation and interaction with the environment People's park is an existing open space with intelligence synergy as a historical neighborhood resource built by community driven people The park holds significant cultural relevance with unrestricted access to its historic free speech stage community gardens and public art installations It has relatively flat topography Incorporating grassy open areas with no fencing barriers or other features that would control pedestrian movement into and through the park Approval of housing project two will physically divide and establish community and cause permanent adverse environmental impacts By removing basketball courts community gardens access to a permanent public restroom and a significant number of trees Construction will significantly accelerate adverse health and environmental effects by contaminating groundwater and increasing air pollutant emissions Leading to respiratory diseases asthma attacks high blood pressure and premature death By taking no action on housing project two uc-berkeley will acknowledge the increasing effects of climate change on the environment We'll also maximize existing land and financial resources toward the diverse and accessible extracurricular instructional and research space in berkeley south side Common number four is from alfred twoo Please consider avoiding demolition of the 1921 walnuts street building while maintaining the same or greater number of dorm beds By making housing project number one taller Common number five is from burt Weinstein My two cents for what it's worth There is no historical or cultural sanctity about the people's park It is property of cal and should be used for university purposes not dictated by other constituents of berkeley It certainly should not have housing for homeless people That would present health and safety concerns for students and present significant legal liabilities to the university Common number six is from jordan kline On behalf of the city of berkeley, i'm writing to request additional time for public comment on the uc-berkeley long-range development plan and housing projects number one and two draft environmental impact report This document was posted online march 8th and public comments are currently due on april 21st 2021 The california environmental quality act requires a thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of the project Which in this instance is actually three projects the lrdp update housing project number one and housing project number two City of berkeley staff and residents are carefully reviewing the project and plan to comment on the potential environmental impacts However, given the voluminous 957 page document Additional time is required to enable adequate public comment on the deir In addition the covet 19 pandemic had long-term effects on the community that are making it more difficult for berkeley staff and residents To complete its review of the deir within the allotted public comment period State mandates restrict gatherings for face-to-face discussions with project neighbors and with other local concerned citizens And the ongoing public health emergency complicates efforts to consult with experts better equipped to evaluate the project's many technical aspects Informed decision-making and informed public participation are fundamental purposes of the sequa process The public must have a meaningful opportunity to comment on a draft deir Here in light of the aforementioned community challenges The review period should be extended to allow adequate time for informed public participation We therefore request that the university of california extend the deadline for public comment period From april 21st 2021 to may 21st 2021 We request your response to this extension request as soon as reasonably feasible Thank you for your consideration Comment number seven is from anonymous People's park is currently a homeless encampment A health hazard and a source of crime, which is a danger to the students and other residents I support any efforts to clean up the park and to build badly needed student housing I do question mixing homeless housing with student housing But that aspect is to continue a homeless who live there should be vetted so that they do not pose a danger to the students Comment number eight from charles seagull Though uc's long range development plan will generate a huge amount of traffic That traffic is not a significant impact as divide as defined by sp 743 Yet it is clear to those of us who have looked at past the irs That this added traffic would cause gridlock gridlock at peak hours at a number of intersections in downtown berkeley Transportation demand management tdm could mitigate this problem The most effective would be commute allowances charge more for parking give commuters an extra cash allowance to pay for the higher parking costs And let them keep the cash if they do not drive to give them a financial incentive to carpool or shift to other modes Yet uc is planning to keep its current tdm measures, but not to add any new ones Though it is not required by law uc could mitigate congestion if it chose to Environmental law has also changed so developers do not have to consider the impact of parking But uc will provide enough parking for all the projected new commuters Yet they apparently are oblivious to the fact that commuters will have a miserable time Crawling through gridlocked traffic and will miss appointments in classes because because of unpredictable travel times Even if uc does not care about their plans Their plans impact on the state's efforts to control global warming Even if you do not care about its impact on the safety of berkeley pedestrians and bicyclists Including your own students Even if you care only about the automobile computers you are diligently providing parking for You should have enough sense to realize that those Unmobile computers will be miserable unless you do something to reduce congestion You are not required by law to reduce traffic But you must reduce traffic if you want the transportation system to work comment nine from lisa t quote In 1969 frank barter key a co-founder and defender of people's park wrote this call for defending the park It is important that it be heard again nearly 52 years later because the university is still trying to develop this precious and historic green space Quote someday a petty official will appear with a piece of paper Called the land title which states that the university of california owns the land of people's park Where did that piece of paper come from? What is it worth a long time ago? The coast to know and indians lived in the area now called berkeley They had no concept of land ownership They believed that the land was under the care and guardianship of the people who used it and lived on it Catholic missionaries took the land away from the indians no agreements were made no papers were signed They ripped it off in the name of god The mexican government took the land away from the church The mexican government had guns and an army god's word was not as strong The mexican government wanted to pretend that it was not the army that guaranteed them the land They drew up some papers which said they legally owned it no indians signed those papers The americans were not fooled by the papers They had a stronger army than the mexicans They beat them in a war and took the land then they wrote some papers of their own and forced the mexicans to sign them The american government sold the land to some white settlers The government gave the settlers a piece of paper called the land title in exchange for some money All this time there were still some indians around who claimed the land The american army killed most of them Comet number 10 comes from natalie louis I am a tenant at 1921 walnut street a 112 year old ranked controlled apartment building housing several long-term tenants The current plans for housing project one including victing the existing tenants and demolishing 1921 walnut street The draft eir emits vital information about the impact of this plan for the following reasons One the rdp draft eir ignores community input The berkeley community including berkeley mayor eriguin Berkeley city council berkeley rent stabilization board asuc Countless community members denounce any plans to evict tenants at 1921 walnut street and demolish the building The draft eir does not account for the perspective of people actually living in the community To housing project one will have devastating effects on the individual tenants living at 1921 walnut street As well as persons in general in the berkeley slash the bay area Because affordable units will be permanently removed from housing stock during a statewide housing crisis All new housing proposed by housing project one is student only thereby decreasing housing stock for non student populations These three these impacts directly conflict with california statewide and berkeley city local initiatives and laws That preserve and protect existing affordable housing stock UC should not be evicting long-term slash rent controlled tenants and permanently destroying affordable housing stock For the original plan for the gateway site did not include the parcel of land at 1921 walnut street Thus proving there is no need to evict tenants or demolish 1921 walnut street in order to build student housing on the remainder of the block In addition, uc has several other sites throughout berkeley where student housing can be built without displacing long-term and rent controlled tenants are urge you to halt All plans to evict the tenants at 1921 walnut street and to rewrite any plans that include demolishing 1921 walnut street Comment number 11 is from isis ferrell These projects are opposed by local residents already with legal challenges on behalf of people's park council and hills conservation network The latter is challenging another d eir specific to hill campus, which uc is targeting in multiple eir UC refuses to let environmental laws get in the way of filling every tree in its path of expansion Hill campus was among several agencies projects Reviewed by themas east bay hills dis Which together would have destroyed half a million trees on thousands of acres on university park district and oakland land UC attempted to appropriate public emergency funds for the same development scheme proposed here but was stopped in court And was the addendum to the previous LRDP eir With which uc tried to sneak the project past secret But not before you see a legally clear-cut fronting ridge before the completion of the fema eis I especially opposed making this eir programmatic a maneuver to avoid sequel compliance and public involvement on Unspecified future projects which would further encroachment of uc facilities on unwilling communities Future projects must produce their own eir and include public input I opposed increasing university population which violates city of birth agreements It burdens local infrastructure displaces long-term residents With even uc students homeless neglected by an overpriced overcrowded public university This proposal is not an effort to find solutions for existing housing problems But to expand and bring in more students further compounding the problem Attempts to develop people's parks would certainly be met with resistance like all previous attempts over the past five decades Those killed and injured depending on our public commons are not properly honored by symbolic memorials But require people's park once and for all be declared a protected historical landmark that belongs to the community not university comment 12 terms from ivardia The uc system and uc-berkeley must prioritize student safety The neglect of earthquake proofing existing historic building which has persisted for decades has resulted in a backlog in excess of 70 dangerous structures The campus sits directly on the hayward vault which is considered overdue for a large plate according to uc-berkeley's own seismologists And the general consensus in the field If uc and capital strategies continues this criminal divestment in student faculty and staff safety It is no exaggeration to say that blood will be on the hands of those making these unwise budget decisions Before uc is allowed to build new stuff They must be held to account and make serious inroads into retrofitting the top most dangerous structures before lives are lost The hayward vault could strike at any moment Due to the violation of the previous uc l rdp. The student enrollment has exceeded the agreement by at least 10,000 To provide real relief of this housing crisis much more housing than what is buildable on the 2.8 acres of people's park Building proposal one is required Due to historic due to historical status of people's park as a city landmark The site is inappropriate for this structure, which will also shade and work three architectural treasures The place to develop is at cart per campus, which is a 100 plus acre site and is very near the main campus Gill tract and oxford tract were donated for the express purpose of agricultural study increasingly important in view of climate change Oxford track is a vitally important site as a conduit for residents entering horticultural professions in the area Maintaining human and ecological integrity. Do the sensible thing bill at clark occur comment number 13 is from maxina ventura East Bay pesticide alert submitted extensive detailed comments in the past as part of this public process We invoke these those detailed comments again and note that in past parts of this process The public's actual comments were withheld only briefly summarized by representatives of uc So that those trying to access full notes were denied unless they knew how to contact individuals or groups Which submitted comments We know uc creating addenda such as the such as with the levine freaky softball field part of the eir process seeming to note It's seeming to try to hide the fact that they plan to down mature redwoods in order to make luxury viewing boxes uc has also ravaged the mature eucalyptus near there releasing sequestered carbon xenophobia leading to climate change uc deception has been in every part of the lrdp process and the hill campus and people's park plans, but we won't have it You suppressed the truth enough and it has come it has to come out and uc's de Deceptive practices in deforestation and pesticide are being understood by more and more As is the fact that the plans for people's park never have been about housing ever This eir reveals that uc not only plans to decimate most trees directly in people's park But uses its tricky legal language meant to assuage concerns by saying it will try to save trees by replanting Even a massive redwood, which will lead to many or most dying But all uc cares about is looking like it cares That's uc slash capital strategies smoke and mirrors Just a week ago a berkeley rent board member said there is no lack of vacant housing in berkeley But a lack of honestly affordable housing and uc is to blame as it charges above market rate how Above market rate for inferior housing uc says so sue us Wasting more student and taxpayer money Comment number 14 is from laurel halverson The lrdp does not adequately assess the impacts on population and housing for housing project number one Due to the decrease of overall affordable housing stock within the city of berkeley and the stark ignorance of input of people living in the local community The draft lrdp and eir does not adequately assess the impacts on population and housing Due to this due to the insufficient collaboration with local communities and unhoused people who who would be displaced due to project number two The local cultural impact of housing project number two is inadequately assessed under the lrdp and eir At all public comment for open house opportunities for community engagement There was no alternative presented for no development Alternative a under the lrdp draft should have been presented to the public before moving forward for project approvals You should be ashamed of yourselves for prioritizing these two properties of development Unaffordable and violent developments do nothing to solve a uc created housing crisis Comment number 15 is from michelle you I as a current uc berkeley student living on south side near people's park Condemned the building of housing project number two on people's park For more than 50 years people's park has been a lively communal space where berkeley residents and students come together to build community Relationships get needed resources and work on environmental preservation through events such as weekly gardening parties concerts people's park committee meetings movie nights cookouts and more The uprooting of this communal space would devastate the many residents who call the park home destroy one of the last remaining green spaces in berkeley Erase decades of rich cultural political and social history and cause permanent environmental consequences Moreover the university is not transparent regarding its construction plans The proposed affordable and supportive housing and housing project number two that will be overseen by rcd Cannot ensure that people's park residents will be provided housing once displaced during construction Firstly rcd may not even have the funds to build supportive and affordable housing units as there is no current grant secured for the project Most likely the unhoused community will be unable to access the units due to insufficient income to pay rent And likely in an ineligibility for the units as it is still unclear who rcd will provide housing for Finally by transferring all accountability of the supportive housing to rcd Means the university is not taking any responsibility for ensuring safety of those displaced from people's park If the university truly cares about those that will be displaced The university should use its monetary funds to ensure first that rcd can build the supportive housing And second that the housing will be built for those displaced from the park come in come in 16 from monie law I am a cow alum urging you to reject the proposal to demolish and reconfigure people's park I'm a lifetime member of the cow alumni association former asuc senator and member of the order of the golden bear berkeley breakfast club NAACP berkeley chapter and chapter of the berkeley community safety coalition I've read the hundred page report and some of the remaining 874 pages of attached charts and studies Clearly there are alternatives to demolishing an irreplaceable historic structure historic resource The uc has other identified opportunity sites to build upon without the significant adverse impacts present in this case To demolish a historic treasure that also provides urgently needed green space would be an Unconscionable act a disservice to the university the city and the world The last the list of mitigation proposals is inadequate The conclusion that some construction activities would have no impact is questionable I've attended many community events in the park with a diverse group of people in attendance I helped to build the stage that is there I know people who have maintained the garden over the years Please read the report of harvey smith and other historians and land preservationists This is not the location to build student housing other sites can and should be selected and include enough units That are affordable to students receiving Pell grants or grad students struggling on gsi stipends I support my alma mater providing housing to students many whom I mentor and advise People's park elimination is not the solution to our housing crisis Please build on the seven on the other seven or eight sites identified Owned by and identified by the university as suitable for student staff housing The only green space left in the area and a historic landmark that has worldwide significance is not the place to pave over comment 17 stephanie thomas Please do not destroy this sacred berkeley space. Let us be creative and work with what is there There are other places for housing at uc lands in berkeley uc is taking over our town and The final comment 18 from jenna fooden I am speaking as a berkeley resident who does not want university housing development to go on people's park The park serves as the green lungs the largest green space to an otherwise concrete full area of the south side of campus If you aren't supportive environmental justice, which my understanding is that uc berkeley is Then there was absolutely no reason to even consider developing on such important green space to not just humans But to overall ecosystem health as well Developing on people's park will not secure housing for students and vulnerable populations It is an act of gentrification that is harmful to the well-being of our urban lands and community That final comment will conclude this evening's online public hearing for the draft environment impact report for the uc berkeley 2021 long range development plan and housing projects one and two A recording of this public hearing will be posted on the long range development plan website and on the capital strategies youtube channel Please remember that the deadline to submit comments is april 21 2021 at five o'clock p.m And that all comments received before that deadline will be responded to as required by the california environmental quality act In closing thank you for joining us this evening, and we hope that you stay safe and have a good evening. Thanks