DEIR COMMENTS, Part 2 Index Page 1 of 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEIR COMMENTS, part 2 Date Submitted FIRST NAME LAST NAME ORGANIZATION 1/31/2017 Tim Johnston 1/31/2017 signatures various 2/1/2017 Lena Bilik 2/1/2017 Marie Cartier 2/1/2017 Olympia Beltran 2/1/2017 Roslyn Braun 2/1/2017 Alberto Saldamando 2/1/2017 Chani Bockwinkel 2/1/2017 Denny Abrams Abrams/Millikan 2/1/2017 Geraldine Slevin 2/1/2017 Julie Pittman 2/1/2017 Laura Redmond 2/1/2017 Lisa Tracy 2/1/2017 Margot Treisner CCRPA California Cultural Resource Preservation 2/1/2017 Patricia Martz Alliance, Inc. 2/1/2017 Sarah Rose Haughn 2/1/2017 Sydney Lea 2/2/2017 Cedar Ranney 2/2/2017 Rev. Deborah Lee 2/2/2017 Jacquelyn Marie 2/2/2017 Kim DeOcampo 2/2/2017 Michael Glassow UC Santa Barbara Professor 2/2/2017 Patricia Long 2/2/2017 Rayna Matthews 2/2/2017 Suzan Goodman UCSF, Associate Clinical Professor 2/2/2017 Stephen Most 2/2/2017 Yael Schonzeit 2/2/2017 Abby Krumbein 2/2/2017 Elsa Asher 2/2/2017 Deborah Pulido 2/2/2017 Renna Khuner-Haber West Berkeley Shellmound - Ohlone'Lisjan 2/2/2017 settlement 2/3/2017 Annie Danis 2/3/2017 Alessandro Latini 2/3/2017 Doroty Klein 2/3/2017 Diane Solomon 2/3/2017 Hallie Wells 2/3/2017 James Scott Lyons 2/3/2017 Julia Sizek 2/3/2017 Jo Anne Yada 2/3/2017 Maria Dominguez 2/3/2017 Mary Passey 2/3/2017 Max Ventura 2/3/2017 Penny Lee Brogden 3/13/2017 signatures various 2/4/2017 J. Miakoda Taylor Index Page 1 of 2 DEIR COMMENTS, part 2 Date Submitted FIRST NAME LAST NAME ORGANIZATION 2/4/2017 Kaily Heitz 2/4/2017 Drew Fenton 2/4/2017 Suzanne Yada 2/5/2017 John S. English 2/5/2017 Pennie Opal Plant 2/5/2017 Stephanie Manning 2/6/2017 Lisa Wymore UCB 2/6/2017 Arthur Jacobs 2/6/2017 Holly Calica 2/6/2017 Louise Dunlap, PhD 2/6/2017 Rhonda Robles 2/6/2017 Shawna Sanchagrin 2/6/2017 Sylvie Rousseau 2/6/2017 Lis Addison 2/6/2017 Misa Joo 2/7/2017 Ash Wynette 2/7/2017 Ashley Kelly 2/7/2017 Ashley Malyszka 2/7/2017 Alison Mertz 2/7/2017 Andres Rosario 2/7/2017 Bruce Campbell 2/7/2017 Brian Cheung 2/7/2017 Brendan C. 2/7/2017 Bruce Leininger 2/7/2017 Britney Ann Makena Silva 2/7/2017 Daniel Dumovich 2/7/2017 Dvora Gordon 2/7/2017 Daisy Meyer 2/7/2017 Deborah Pulido 2/7/2017 Elizabeth Wilmerding 2/7/2017 Heather Pugh 2/7/2017 Justine Blanchet 2/7/2017 Jessica Burleigh 2/7/2017 Jessica Chitwood 2/7/2017 signature 2/7/2017 Jenna Hackman 2/7/2017 Joyce Lee 2/7/2017 Jessica Silverstein 2/7/2017 Kylin Navarro 2/7/2017 Liz Collentine-Cole Index Page 2 of 2 Allen, Shannon From: Lena Bilik <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:33 AM To: Allen, Shannon Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on proposed 1900 4th Street Project Attn: Shannon Allen City of Berkeley Planning Dept. 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 February 1, 2017 Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on proposed 1900 4th Street Project Dear Ms. Allen and Berkeley City Planners: I am writing to express my deep concerns about the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding 1900 Fourth Street. The site was designated as a City of Berkeley Landmark # 227 by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in 2000, noting the site is “most highly significant to native descendants as a sacred burial ground.” The site was also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The original West Berkeley Shellmound and Ohlone Village Site completely encompassed the proposed 1900 Fourth Street Project and blocks beyond. It is known to be the oldest bayside settlement and one of the largest shellmounds in the San Francisco Bay Area—more than 5,000 years old. It is the true birthplace of Berkeley. It continues to be of utmost significance as a ceremonial center to the Ohlone Peoples today—a fact not acknowledged in the DEIR. The content of the DEIR is heavily disputed, as revealed by widespread community opposition and concern voiced at the March 10, 2016, December 8, 2016 and January 12, 2017 Zoning Adjustment Board meetings and the December 1, 2016, and January 5, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission meetings. There is significant controversy surrounding the methodology used to create the archaeological report and there has not been adequate peer review of the limited data in the DEIR. The archaeological analysis is inadequate and misleading. Past excavations in and around the proposed site have uncovered many prehistoric human burials and undisturbed cultural remains. The report completely fails to address human remains specifically documented in the EIR for the adjacent Grocery Outlet site that is part of the same Landmark Shellmound site. This constitutes a significant oversight and inaccuracy in the methodology and conclusions of the 1900 Fourth Street Draft EIR. The likely disturbance of human remains is highly significant as defined by CEQA and cannot be mitigated. The DEIR does not address the issue of Richard Schwartz’s recording of over 400 burials in the vicinity of 1900 Fourth St. and fails to provide any context of the lot within the larger site, ALA-307. The DEIR attempts to isolate and not analyze 1900 Fourth St. within the context of a larger site of cultural significance. Furthermore, there has not been adequate tribal consultation in the DEIR’s preparation. The primary consultant has conflicts of interest, and does not represent the all of the Ohlone people indigenous to the Bay Area. Another Ohlone California Tribal group indigenous to Berkeley area and community has formally and repeatedly requested tribal consultation as required by CEQA. The City to date has not consulted with this group for purposes of preparing the DEIR, in violation of CEQA. The consultation that has occurred to date appears to be nothing more than a token gesture that fails to protect this important Ohlone site (the West Berkeley Shellmound and Ohlone Village Site) and has resulted in payment of funds to an individual as mitigation for the destruction of this irreplaceable sacred place. The Ohlone comprise more than a dozen tribes and languages yet the DEIR consults only one individual. The DEIR also fails to assess the importance of this site as a “tribal cultural resource” separate from the category of “cultural resources – archaeological.” AB 52 established a new category of resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, “tribal cultural resources,” which considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. This DEIR, rather than fully assessing the impacts to tribal cultural resources under a new category, merely incorporates a brief discussion under the cultural resources archaeological section that states the destruction of the site will be mitigated through: 1) payment to an individual of $75,000 to improve a cemetery located outside the bounds of the shellmound and outside of the city boundaries, and 2) that educational panels will be placed at or near the West Berkeley Shellmound and Ohlone Village Site after further consultation with the Ohlone people, without identifying who will be consulted for this mitigation measure. Neither the discussion nor the proposed mitigation complies with CEQA requirements to consult with impacted Tribes and to include a new and separate category addressing “tribal cultural resources.” Resolution No. 67,353-NS of the City of Berkeley, entitled “Honor Berkeley Shellmound Indigenous Sacred Site, UC Berkeley Return Ancestral Remains to Ohlone People” states in part: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that free, prior, and informed consent of the Ohlone and other indigenous peoples of the region be integral to any alteration planning for the Berkeley Shellmound sacred site, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and calls upon all parties to follow the principles of the Declaration with respect to the West Berkeley Shellmound site.” Please honor this promise. Honoring this promise requires consultation will additional Ohlone people who recognize this site as sacred, as a tribal cultural property and it requires consent of the Ohlone and other indigenous peoples of the region. To date, Berkeley has not honored this promise and has failed to seek the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous people of the region—and has failed to respect the indigenous peoples’ opposition to the proposed project. On page 67, the DEIR states, “Consultation with the Ohlone Indian Tribe, conducted pursuant to AB52, was completed for the Project and mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate.” Unfortunately, this is only one tribal entity and the resolution very clearly states that it should also include other indigenous peoples of the region; the Confederated Villages of Lisjan, for example, should be given the same formal consultation process as Ohlone Tribe Inc. It is also unclear whether or not the City of Berkeley followed SB18 which states that when a city or county adopts or amends their general plan the Tribes from the area must be consulted, whether federally recognized or not. The City of Berkeley has amended their housing development plan numerous times since the law was put into affect in 2005, and there is no proof that Tribes were included in consultation prior to amending this part of the general plan.