Berkeley Lab held a public meeting on Wednesday night about the Golden Gate Fields project for the Lab’s second campus. Tonight’s meeting was about the Aquatic Park West site, and Monday will see the Wareham Development bid for an Emeryville-Berkeley location.

Berkeleyside live-tweeted from tonight’s meeting which was held at the Frances Albrier Community Center at 2800 Park Street in southwest Berkeley. The story unfolds below:

Lance Knobel

Lance Knobel (co-founder) has been a journalist for nearly 40 years. Much of his career was in business journalism. He was editor-in-chief of both Management Today, the leading business magazine in Britain,...

Join the Conversation

11 Comments

  1. I’m not seeing the meeting summary. Above it says “The story unfolds below:” and then there’s just these comments. Has the summary been removed, or am I looking in the wrong place?

  2. Both comments were gross mischaracterizations and sounded both uninformed and disingenuous. It’s a shame we can’t have an open and honest public discussion without resorting to misleading sound bites. That might be why these sorts of things get so distorted and take so long.

  3. I doubt that the proposal being pitched to LBL will have any effect on this particular issue. The development proposal is for land at the north end of the park. The cruising occurs at the far south end of Aquatic Park. Unless the proposal includes improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access from Ashby Avenue to the park, the south end of the park will likely not change no matter what else happens.

  4. for most of my life aquatic park is a place everyone knows as a homosexual public sex meetup place that you stay away from.

    LBL would be greatly welcomed. 

  5. The “dead water” comment referred to the acknowledged lack of sufficient tidal exchange with the Bay for a fully-healthful aquatic ecosystem.

    The “parking lot” comment referred only to the northeast portion of the park that’s the most developed.

    Independent of whatever LBNL decides, the city is actively working on an Aquatic Park Improvement Plan, whose revised  EIR is expected this fall, emphasizing improvements to the natural habitat.  That EIR will also address the adjacency issues for whatever is eventually built to the east. 

  6. Thanks for the glimpse of the proceedings — I was unable to be there in person.

    I believe Aquatic Park can tolerate additional development on its periphery, but believe just as strongly that the parties involved must have a better understanding of the area.  The Richmond Field Station has been a good neighbor for the Stege Marsh and surrounding area.  But they also committed to an environmental improvement plan for the area.  The LBL architect states the park is more of a parking lot than a park and one Council member refers to the lagoon as dead water.  Neither could be further from the truth.  The Park contains a rich set of ecosystems and is an important bird habitat.  Thanks to the organizations that have chosen to settle there, the park has been recovering over the last decade and is becoming more attractive to and more widely used by an increasing diverse population.  True, it looks a bit tattered around the edges, as parks go.  That can lead to hastily-formed first impressions for those who are quickly passing through.  The park could use some love, some sensitive love that will protect the things that are working and help resolve the things that aren’t. 

    It may be possible for LBL to settle in and do good things, possibly draw State and Federal funds for improvement, but both LBL and City staff need a better grasp of the situation before the development begins.  Should the park be selected as the new site, there will undoubtedly be hearings, EIRs, etc.  I hope in the intervening time, all residents will become more intimately acquainted with the treasured resource they have in Aquatic Park and guide the development process with care and affection.

  7. Just curious:  does the present and future slowdown of federal funds for large construction mean that this structure might not be built for years, if ever?  Regarding operating expenses, what percentage of the Lab’s funding is paid for by federal funds?  Is is all Dept of Energy funding?

    Lance, the live-tweet format was an excellent means of communicating the main points succintly (albeit incompletely).  Much appreciated.

  8. Just curious:  does the present and future slowdown of federal funds for large construction mean that this structure might not be built for years, if ever?  Regarding operating expenses, what percentage of the Lab’s funding is paid for by federal funds?  Is is all Dept of Energy funding?

    Lance, the live-tweet format was an excellent means of communicating the main points succintly (albeit incompletely).  Much appreciated.