Albany Bulb

An interesting read in the The Journal today:

A conversation project under way at the Albany Plateau has pitted dog walkers and recreational users against environmentalists and local city and park officials.
The project mitigates for the lose of burrowing owl habitat at the Gilman Street Playing Fields in Berkeley… but many reject the assertion that owls used that area and any mitigation is needed.

dog walker and recreational user viewpoint: “The concept of making these areas of landfill, a dump, into preservation habitat where people cannot go, where fencing keeps people out, is really an insidious part of what passes as environmentalism these days,” said Jill Posener, a Berkeley resident who walks her dogs at the Plateau. “It’s really sad.”

Albany Waterfront Committee member, Clay Larson: “I don’t think that there was any real, scientific evidence that there was an impact on the bird…”

local city and park officials: Roger Miller, senior management analyst for Berkeley’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, said mitigation is required…
Miller said, a biologist hired by the city of Berkeley saw one owl in 2006 and a second biologist said he had seen a burrowing owl in the area in 2004.
Brad Olson, spokesman for East Bay Regional Park District said there was no guarantee the owls would move.

Read the full article: Conversation Project at Albany Plateau Riles Dog Owners

As posted on the Albany City website:

The removal of “Safety Hazards” is being done  “to create a safer environment, and increase the usable area of The Bulb through the removal of exposed concrete and rebar that are remnants of this former landfill, and through the removal of noxious weeds, planting of native species and habitat restoration.”

The Albany Bulb is included in the Eastshore State Park Plan, however, it  is till owned by the city of Albany. In the  Eastshore State Park Plan the Bulb is designated  “Conservation” and contains policies to protect and enhance upland habitat for wildlife. Policies related to the Bulb are as follows:
Continue Reading »

Photo Copyright: Jill Posener

Jill Posener posted a great article on her blog – Albany Bulb RIP and a wonderful collection of photos dating back some 10 years where she shares her experiences about a place where she felt she and “many others, could pretend, as we ambled along an unkempt trail a mile into the Bay, that we were still living free”.

It was great to look back in time at a place I discovered just by chance some 8 years ago. But it also felt like I was saying goodbye.

In those 8 years I haven’t missed but one or two days of my morning walks with Toby and Cody. It was my place to get away – a place where I could either find solitude in the endless winding trails or hang out with friends on the beach or plateau. There was always something new and different -  from the gorgeous bay views to strange messages found carved into driftwood.  But that is the Bulb – beautifully, strange – a unique place of imagination and discovery.

1 Owl – 8.0 Acres – $125,700

Would someone please educate me on this whole burrowing owl plan. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know everything about the burrowing owl or its habitat – not for lack of trying though.

I can’t find much from the newspapers, council meeting minutes or the waterfront plans.

What I have found out is  The Environmentalists: “ were also concerned about the potential impacts of developing the Gilman Street site because a burrowing owl was spotted there two years ago. No nests were found, however, and plans now call for burrowing owl habitat to be enhanced and protected at the Albany plateau.”

So, okay I got it – A burrowing owl was spotted two years ago, and no nests were found.

Albany Waterfront coalition says “This was a trade-off agreed on when the future ballfields . were planned: It is hoped that Burrowing Owls on the ballfields will choose to relocate to the Plateau.”

Seems that single owl spotted some two years ago is now plural and there is hope they will relocate.

Please someone tell me – help me to understand.

Just where is that Burrowing Owl now? And what are the chances of a successful relocation which would warrant 8.0 acres of land?

Is it simply a matter of “If we build it they will come”?’

I can’t imagine it is as easy as that – especially after reading an article “Passive Relocation: A Method to Preserve Burrowing Owls on a Disturbed Site” – a relocation protocol used at sites in the Bay Area “to relocate birds living in burrow directly in the path of commercial development”. Guidelines recommend surveys on site and artificial burrowns placed close to the burrows to be destroyed.

So far I can’t find anything about surveys or artificial burrows at the site of the Berkeley Sports Fields.

Again, I repeat – ONE owl spotted TWO YEARS ago, NO nests found = Fencing off 8.0 acres of land – at an expense of $125,700? And where is that Owl?!

News Update: From Albany City Webiste

“Albany Council voted (Yes: Lieber, Atkinson, Wile; No: Javandel, Okawachi) to approve the recommendation of the Waterfront Committee and spend an estimated $590,000 on a waterfront visioning contract with Fern Tiger Associates (FTA). Of the $590,000, approximately $300,000 was already put aside in an earlier budget. However, the remainder of $290,000 has not been identified. It was “hoped” that the city-hall renovations might come in under budget so that some of those monies could be used. Note that the total is still only an estimate and may be exceeded. A number of speakers who generally approved the visioning process still considered the cost excessive.

According to the Waterfront Committee wishes, FTA will consider only “visions” for the waterfront that assume that the Golden Gate Fields (GGF) racetrack goes away. However, Robert Hartman, manager at Golden Gate Fields, noted that the number of race days at the track will almost double in the 08/09 racing season, making the track more profitable than it already is. He reiterated the company line that the racetrack is not going away.

The visioning process, and associated budget, provided by FTA can be found on the Waterfront Visioning Process page of the City’s website.

Phase I of the process calls for extensive interviews (50-60) with “stakeholders” in the process, plus a city-wide survey to gather visions from a range of Albany residents. However, it is not clear at this stage what percentage of the GGF property would be available for parkland, because some portion of the property must be devoted to commercial development of some kind in order to finance the entire purchase and development. Early guesstimates for the purchase alone — without the substantial development costs — came to $100 million; so the percentage of the property needed for development to offset this and all other costs could potentially be quite large. Of the $590,000 budget, only $52,000 (mid-point) is available for working with consultants and sub-contractors in order to gather a wide range of economic and environmental analyses.”