Parks and Open Space

Good news at McLaughlin Eastshore State Park

May 27, 2013 Leave a Comment

Aerial view of McLaughlin Eastshore Regional Park. The Brickyard is in the inland section of the peninsula at center bottom.

The East Bay Regional Park District and the State Department of Parks and Recreation have signed a 30-year operating agreement for the Park District to operate the state-owned McLaughlin Eastshore State Park (see August-September 2012, page 6). The agreement, similar to those under which the Park District has long managed state-park areas at Crown Beach and Del Valle Regional Recreation Area, gives the District needed decision-making flexibility.

As part of the agreement, the Park District was given the approval to work up a plan for the park’s long-neglected “Brickyard” area in Berkeley. Knicknamed the “Dirt Hotel” because of the pile of dirt that was repeatedly stored there and then removed, the site finally can be developed into an actual park. The agreement lets the Park District seek $5,000,000 from the 1984 State Park Bond Act for that work. Hence, we can now move forward with realizing the dream of the Brickyard actually looking like and being developed as a park.

Norman La Force, chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee

Filed Under: Parks and Open Space, Today's Highlight

Club supports East Bay plan for fire management and native restoration

May 25, 2013 6 Comments

Since the 1991 Oakland Hills fire, public agencies with large open-space areas (about 20,000 acres) along the Richmond-Berkeley-Oakland hills have been studying how to prevent future fires. In 1995 the East Bay Regional Park District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, University of California, and Oakland began a planning process, and the Sierra Club, along with the California Native Plant Society and Golden Gate Audubon, began meeting with them.

Environmentalists have three major concerns:

preventing fire;
restoring native vegetation and habitat types–both for their environmental value and because they are much more fire-resistant;
finance: the plans must be cost-effective and provide for long-term maintenance.

We want to avoid past mistakes, when agencies simply stripped off vegetation and then walked away, leaving the land clear for exotic and even more-flammable vegetation.

The Club helped the East Bay Regional Park District to get funding for fire management through the passage of Measure CC in 2004, and to put together its vegetation management program (see “Park District plan could deal well with both vegetation and fire“, October-November-December 2009 Yodeler, page 7). The Park District is now implementing that program, and we are monitoring the progress.

In the meantime, the various agencies applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funding to assist in their vegetation management work. FEMA has released for public comment an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these plans. The preferred alternative focuses on removal of fire-dangerous trees (particularly eucalyptus and other non-natives) and other vegetation and their replacement with native habitat.

Long-term fire safety and native restoration both require cutting of all eucalyptus in these areas. The preferred alternative involves application of the herbicide glyphosate (trade name Roundup) to the stumps to prevent re-sprouting. There is no practical way to eliminate eucalyptus infestations without herbicide, and glyphosate is relatively low in toxicity. The EIS finds that the plan will not have significant adverse environmental impact on flora or fauna. Another key aspect of the plan is that removal of the trees will be staggered over many years and closely integrated with the replanting of native species. The agencies must closely monitor to make sure their actions are working.

The Draft EIS is very comprehensive, and as a result the Club is able to support the plan.

Norman La Force, chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee

Filed Under: Land Use, Parks and Open Space

Changing the Albany Bulb–creating a bright spot on the East Bay shoreline

May 24, 2013 Leave a Comment

Aerial view of McLaughlin Eastshore Regional Park. Albany Bulb is second projection from the lower right.

On May 6 the Albany City Council voted unanimously to begin a program to remove campers from the Albany Bulb, the peninsula of former landfill jutting into the Bay from the city’s shoreline. This will be an important step towards completing the McLaughlin Eastshore State Park

In 1985 the Bulb became the first area to be placed into the park, when the city agreed to lease it to the state for 66 years, but money never became available for a key condition of that agreement: the land has to prepared to be parkland, in particular by removing rebar and other dangerous materials. The state park’s General Plan designates the Bulb as a conservation area for birds, with trail access and passive recreation.

In the 1990s people started camping illegally on the Bulb, and in 1999 the city and Park District removed that camper population, but the land was again left unprotected, and in the mid-2000s campers returned. There is now a camping population of around 60, some of whom have constructed makeshift housing, with cages and fencing for pets. Many recreationists have begun avoiding the park because of the human waste they find there and the danger from uncontrolled dogs. There are reports of uncontrolled dogs attacking hikers.

The city plans to try to provide counseling, social services, and housing to the campers, with the goal of enforcing the no-camping ordinance by October. By that time, though, agreements need to be completed for the Bulb to be taken over by the state or the East Bay Regional Park District so that a plan can be completed for it. The relevant agencies need to work together to remediate the problems on the Bulb, enforce appropriate park rules, and implement a plan for the Bulb consistent with the overall Eastshore Park General Plan.

The Sierra Club, along with Citizens for East Shore Parks, is working with the agencies towards this goal.

WhatYouCanDo

Write to the Albany City Council at:

1000 San Pablo Ave.
Albany, CA 94706.

Thank the councilmembers for their vote.

If you want to work with the Club on these issues, contact Norman La Force, chair of the Chapter’s East Bay Public Lands Committee, at (510)526-4362 or n.laforce@comcast.net.

Norman La Force, chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee

Filed Under: Parks and Open Space

Coastal Commission OKs Beach Chalet project

May 22, 2013 Leave a Comment

Beach Chalet proposed 60-foot light towers.

On May 9 the California Coastal Commission voted 11 – 0 to reject the appeal by the Sierra Club and over 200 other groups and individuals, challenging San Francisco’s approval of the Beach Chalet project. The plan is to install seven acres of artificial turf and bright sports lighting at the west end of Golden Gate Park (see February-March Yodeler, page 3).

The Sierra Club believes this is a bad decision, and we are hopeful that our legal challenge to the approval will still bear fruit (see April-May Yodeler, page 6).

The commission’s own staff had delivered a report affirming many of the concerns raised in the appeal, recommending that the project not be approved without significant modifications, and suggesting consideration of an alternative (see theYodeler.org/?p=7289).

One commissioner, Steve Blank, who had to leave before the vote, understood. The following are excerpts from his eloquent statement at the meeting.

“One of the reasons our coast looks like no other state is because of this commission. Our opening charter Section 30001 says the ‘California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem. (b) That the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation.’

“And this is the reason the coastal zone has stricter zoning than almost every part of state.

“As commissioners our decisions have to be guided by the Coastal Act and the city’s own LCP [Local Coastal Plan], as well as the coastal regulations. These are different from the criteria the city has. The LCP is pretty unambiguous in its description that says “emphasize the naturalistic landscape qualities of the western end of the of the park.”

“60-foot light poles and night lighting clearly doesn’t meet the definition of naturalistic landscape qualities.
“Artificial turf doesn’t meet the definition of naturalistic landscape qualities.
“Surrounding the artificial turf with new trees doesn’t meet the definition of naturalistic landscape qualities.

“The city and the speakers made a pretty good case why the current field needs maintenance and additional security. I urge the city to provide these services.

“But the city also made the unintended case that this project looks like an industrial sports facility–the antithesis of the naturalistic definition in the LCP.

“Our job as a state agency is to determine whether this project is consistent with the policies that protect the coast for all Californians.

“I think the staff recommendations do a great job in protecting the park and expanding playing times for kids.”

Unfortunately, most commissioners seemed to have their minds made up on arrival, and even the one who seconded Steve Blank’s motion to uphold the appeal waffled when she saw the other commissioners line up behind the city.

There is still time. Whether through the court proceedings or otherwise, we hope that the city will find a way to change its plans.

Filed Under: Parks and Open Space

Your chance to help save Tesla Park–Monday, June 10

May 21, 2013 Leave a Comment

Monday, June 10–workshop on alternatives–6 – 8:30 pm (drop in any time), Tracy High School cafeteria, 315 East 11th Street, Tracy.

Should the Tesla property become a real park–or be added to the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area for off-highway vehicles (OHV) to roar through (see August-September 2012, page H)?

Preserving the Tesla Park land is important because of its unique place in the regional ecosystem and its associated biodiversity. Tesla Park contains numerous threatened, endangered, and protected species, varied terrain, and rare plant communities, aside from its cultural riches and scenic beauty. Photo by Pete Veilleux, East Bay Wilds.

The Sierra Club is working with Friends of Tesla Park to establish the Tesla Park land in eastern Alameda County as a natural and historic park for low-impact recreation. The State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR), however, is moving forward on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for adding Tesla to the Carnegie Vehicular Area. The draft is expected this fall or winter.

We have been insisting that the EIR must include analysis of non-OHV alternatives for the Tesla Park area. Thus far, the OHMVR Division has stated that it will not study these.

The OHMVR Division is holding a public workshop to unveil three alternatives for the EIR to evaluate. Through attending, you can show the Division that there is strong support for preserving this jewel of a park.

The Sierra Club, along with others in the Friends of Tesla Park alliance, is also petitioning the OHMVR Division to schedule another workshop in Alameda County.

For more information on how you can help Save Tesla Park, go to www.TeslaPark.org or e-mail Peter Rauch of the Sierra Club East Bay Public Lands Committee at peterar@berkeley.edu.

Filed Under: Parks and Open Space

Prospects good for protecting Doolan Canyon

May 20, 2013 Leave a Comment

Looking south-southeast down Doolan Canyon at the area that Pacific Union Homes wants to develop. Doolan Road is in the middle of the picture. The ridge in the distance is the East Bay Regional Park District’s Ohlone Regional Wilderness containing Rose Peak, the highest peak in Alameda County, just 32 feet lower than Mount Diablo. Photo by Dick Schneider.

With strong local leadership and the backing of a unified environmental community, the prospects look good for stopping the development of Doolan Canyon.

North of I-580 and east of Dublin in eastern Alameda County, Doolan Canyon is a strikingly beautiful habitat for rare and endangered wildlife, and supports ranching and other rural uses. The main part of the canyon is not visible from the freeway and is accessible only by Doolan Road, which deadends at the East Bay Regional Park District’s recently acquired Schmitz Ranch. This property was purchased as the first step in the creation of a future Doolan Canyon-Tassajara Hills Regional Preserve.

As an unincorporated area, the canyon is currently protected by Alameda County Measure D, the voter-approved urban growth boundary (UGB–see “Stopping sprawl: Measure D and an historic victory in the year 2000″). The urban growth boundary prevents the county from approving urban development and commercial uses in the canyon. A proposal has been made, however, by Pacific Union Homes for Dublin to annex the area between the Park District lands and I-580 and approve development of nearly 2,000 senior-housing units (think Rossmoor in Walnut Creek). A subdivision of this magnitude would destroy the area’s natural values.

Over the past two years environmental groups including the Sierra Club have organized to protect the canyon against urban encroachment. The city of Livermore began proceedings to expand its Sphere of Influence to include the canyon for the purpose of maintaining an agricultural and open-space buffer between Livermore and Dublin. That effort is now stalled at the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission while Livermore and Dublin negotiate.

Recently, environmental leaders in Dublin have stepped forward with the idea of drafting a ballot measure to establish a UGB on Dublin’s east side. These leaders are the same folks who successfully ran a UGB initiative (Measure M) to protect the west Dublin hills in 2000. Nevertheless, we can expect strong opposition from the developers who want to carve up the canyon into residential units.

While it’s still early in the current effort to protect Doolan Canyon, it’s important for people interested in helping this campaign to step forward, learn more about the situation, and get involved. If you would like to help, please contact Dick Schneider at richs59354@aol.com or (510)926-0010.

Dick Schneider

Map by Bob Newey.

Filed Under: Land Use, Parks and Open Space

Sierra Club supports SF park gardeners

May 15, 2013 Leave a Comment

Sierra Club rallying with gardeners at San Francisco City Hall on May 1.

The Laborers Union Local 261, in partnership with the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, operates a landscaping apprenticeship program, which trains local residents in horticultural skills and botanical science while providing living wages, benefits, and career advancement. The program has been highly successful in giving participants the skills for landscaping jobs in the city’s parks.

Workers, however, have accused the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department of failing to promote landscaping apprentices and of hiring less-qualified people from outside the program. Such a practice undermines the integrity of our open spaces. The Sierra Club believes that whenever possible, Recreation and Park landscaping, horticulture, gardening, and maintenance workers should be employed through the apprenticeship program and should earn the wages and benefits negotiated between the Department and the Laborers Union.

Sierra Club members joined the Laborers and at least 200 men and women from organized labor for an International Workers Day rally at City Hall on May 1 before a Board of Supervisors hearing called by Supervisor John Avalos to discuss the status of the Laborers’ apprenticeship program. The hearing highlighted a disconnect between the Recreation and Park Department and the union with respect to the department’s commitment to the program, as policy-makers encouraged an amicable resolution of what appears to be a growing dispute between workers and management. A status report on those discussions is due when the department returns to the Board to present its proposed budget for 2013 – 2014.

The Sierra Club’s support for the Laborers’ program was critical in demonstrating this this issue affects not only the workplace, but is also an environmental concern that impacts the quality of our parks and open spaces. The May 1 rally and hearing is a strong example of cooperation between environmentalists and organized labor.

Joshua Arce, Executive Committee, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Filed Under: Parks and Open Space

From Commissary to culture–a crucial decision for Presidio Trust

May 11, 2013 Leave a Comment

Aerial view of former Commissary site, the large gray building to left of center, facing onto Crissy Field. Photo from RFCP.

The former Commissary at Crissy Field, currently occupied by Sports Basement, is the Presidio’s “front door” onto San Francisco Bay. This site has long been earmarked in the Presidio Trust Management Plan for eventual reuse as a cultural institution.

As the Trust plans for this conversion, it must adhere to the criteria it listed last November in its Request for Concept Proposals (RFCP), emphasizing compatibility with the natural and cultural resources of the national park. The new use needs to complement current uses and activities in the Presidio, and to integrate well with plans for Crissy Field and the Main Post. Though economic viability is important, it should not be an overriding factor. Nor should an applicant’s celebrity override the Trust’s stated criteria.

Of the 16 diverse proposals submitted in response to the RFCP, after a substantial public-comment process, as an interim step the Trust has narrowed the field to three:

Chora/WRNS–The Bridge/Sustainability Institute
Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy–Presidio Exchange
George Lucas–Lucas Cultural Arts Museum.

A Request for Proposals has been sent to these three finalists to present more fully formed proposals including program ideas, architectural designs, and funding and operations strategies. Final proposals will be due in the fall.

For all those who posted heart-wrenching comments about the potential loss of the Sports Basement, the Trust has reassured the public that it will offer a new Presidio location to this business.

The proposals and comments may be viewed at www.presidio.gov.

WhatYouCanDo

The Trust will host public presentations of the three Commissary proposals on Mon., June 17, at 6:30 pm in the Observation Post, the old Burger King, at 211 Lincoln Blvd. (at Graham Street) in San Francisco on the Main Post (directions at http://www.presidio.gov/venues/Pages/observation-post-at-the-presidio-driving-directions.aspx).

Jan Blum

Filed Under: Parks and Open Space, Today's Highlight

City Council supports nature at Alameda Point

May 10, 2013 Leave a Comment

Runway wetland on nature reserve at Alameda Point. Photo by Richard Bangert.

There’s a flurry of environmental-review activity focused on developing Alameda Point, including a renewed effort for conserving wildlife habitat there.

On March 19 the Alameda City Council unanimously passed a resolution that supports the zoning of 511 acres at the Point as a “nature reserve”. The resolution highlights the history of plans for a wildlife refuge at Alameda Point and calls for a conservation zoning designation on the federal runway area next to the future Veterans Administration (VA) outpatient clinic and columbarium.

“I believe the open-space designation in the reuse plan is equally important as the current mixed-used area,” stated Councilmember Stewart Chen, a co-sponsor of the resolution.

The resolution also calls for controlled public access to the site, and to the extent that it is compatible with protecting the least tern and other wildlife, the Sierra Club strongly supports this concept.

The original plan for the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge went by the wayside when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opted not to take the land and the VA did. The VA is not comfortable with the term “wildlife refuge” because it implies that there is, or will be, a national wildlife refuge there, but the VA still has the legal obligation to protect the endangered least terns that nest on the runway area four months of the year.

The city said its zoning would not have a mandatory effect on the VA, but would be a statement of the city’s position. Open space advocates are hoping the zoning will prompt the VA to respond with similar terminology on its land-use map, which currently designates the VA parcel as “NAS Alameda Airfield”. And while the VA is not equipped to manage a nature reserve, it could decide to lease its land to an agency that would enhance certain areas with vegetation, more wetlands, a beach, meandering trails, and educational/interpretive programs.

Since the planes quit landing and vehicles quit driving around, many more birds now come to Alameda Point. The site has hosted 187 species, and 23 species of birds have been documented breeding there. There are white-crowned sparrows, killdeer, turkey vultures, peregrine falcons, horned larks, and Lincoln’s sparrows, and even an occasional golden eagle. There are various wetland birds, such as egrets, black-necked stilts, and great blue herons.

“We hope eventually to open this space to the public for an incredible passive [i.e. no organized sports], educational, and even spiritual experience during fall and winter months. Any deviation from open-space zoning puts this great dream at risk,” said Leora Feeney, speaking to the City Council on behalf of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. “The VA has a nature center in their plans. We need open space to have nature.” Feeney is a retired wildlife biologist who has devoted decades to the protection of the least terns at Alameda Point.

Noting that there is an “ecosystem of information, strategies, and actions” calling for a wildlife area, Councilmember Tony Daysog (the other co-sponsor of the resolution) asked, “Can we still fulfill our goals with the reality that we are now working with the VA?” Passing the Council resolution was a good start.

Irene Dieter

Filed Under: Parks and Open Space, Today's Highlight, Wilderness, Forests, and Wildlife

Alameda County Supervisors reject threat to open space

May 9, 2013 3 Comments

Some of the agricultural lands in North Livermore protected by Measure D. Photo by Richard Rollins.

On May 7 the Alameda County Board of Supervisors rebuffed a threat to the county’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

Measure D, written by Sierra Club members and passed by the voters in 2000, enacted the UGB and established limits to development outside it. One of the limits restricts the proportion of a parcel that can be covered with buildings to 1% of the parcel’s area. This keeps the scale of development commensurate with parcel size and maintains viable habitat and other natural values in rural areas.

At the behest of one Castro Valley landowner, though, an attempt was made to change the floor-area ratio so that his covered arena wouldn’t count (see December 2012-January 2013, page 3). The landowner had bought the property with very large barns already on site. He then illegally covered his arena and then went to the Board to amend Measure D to legalize his act retroactively.

The Club opposed the amendment because policies enacted by voter initiative can only be changed by a subsequent vote of the people. Measure D did not give the Board authority to make this change without a public vote.

The five-member Board deadlocked 2 – 2, thus defeating the change. Supervisors Wilma Chan and Richard Valle voted against the amendment. Supervisor Keith Carson had to leave the meeting early, but would have voted no also, had his vote been necessary. All three supervisors deserve our thanks.

Dick Schneider

Filed Under: Front Page Feature, Land Use, Parks and Open Space