Monday, March 20, 2023 AGENDA Page 1
P R O C L AM AT I O N
C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M EE TI NG O F T HE
B E R K E LE Y CI T Y C O U N CIL
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:
Monday, March 20, 2023
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 1404 LE ROY AVE, BERKELEY 94708
JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:
DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person attendance and virtual participation . For in- person attendees, face coverings or masks that cover both the nose and the mouth are encouraged. If you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.
Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.
Remote participation by the public is available through Zoom. To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L: https://cityofberkeley- info.zoomgov.com/j/1612633953. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen. To join by phone: Dial 1-669-254-5252 or 1 -833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 263 3953. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.
Please be mindful that the meeting will be recorded and all rules of procedure and decorum apply for in-person attendees and those participating by teleconference or videoconference.
To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record , email [email protected].
This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953 and applicable Executive Orders as issued by the Governor that are currently in effect . Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900. The City Council may take action related to any subje ct listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.
Monday, March 20, 2023 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:
Worksession
1. Update on the Waterfront Specific Plan for the City of Berkeley Public Tidelands Area
From: City Manager
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700
Public Comment - Items on this agenda only
Adjournment
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 16th day of March, 2023.
Jesse Arreguin, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.
ATTEST:
Date: March 16, 2023
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. A ny lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.
Archived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.
Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.
Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electron ic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.
Monday, March 20, 2023 AGENDA Page 3
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at https://berkeleyca.gov/.
Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:
City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]
Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell
COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:
This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.
To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.
Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.
Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.
Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.
Item #1: Update on the Waterfront Specific Plan for the City of Berkeley Public Tidelands Area
1. Claudia Kawczynska
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981- 7099
E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation and Waterfront Department Subject: Update on the Waterfront Specific Plan for the City of Berkeley Public Tidelands Area
SUMMARY
This report provides background on the Berkeley Waterfront and the Marina Fund, summarizes the work completed thus far on the Waterfront Specific Plan for the City of Berkeley Public Tidelands Area (“Specific Plan”)1, and discusses areas for Council feedback.
INTRODUCTION
One of the key goals of the Specific Plan has been to update the aging Berkeley Waterfront with exciting new revenue-generating and recreational opportunities that would be appropriate and desirable in terms of scale and character. Based on community feedback and consultant input over the past two years, the following ideas have emerged as having the most value to Berkeley: a smaller new hotel in addition to the Doubletree, new food and beverage sites, and new placemaking and recreational amenities such as promenades, trails, new play structures, interpretive signage, bicycle and boat rentals, and special events spaces. It should be noted that the City is not a developer. The City’s current task is to create a specific plan with guidelines to facilitate these new uses from the private sector in a way that benefits the public and ensures that key community values are preserved. In order to draft the Specific Plan, the staff need feedback on the following questions:
1) Is the current Inner Harbor developed area appropriate for additional opportunities like food/beverage and hotel uses?
2) Are the existing shoreline, parks, and natural areas appropriate for new and enhanced recreational amenities like an aquatic center, small craft launch, and an expanded Shorebird Park?
3) What funding alternatives are possible given the limitations of Marina Fund revenues to cover Waterfront expenses?
1 This is distinct from the existing Waterfront Specific Plan from 1986 that governs the private tidelands east of Marina Blvd.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
This feedback will inform which opportunities we explore as we draft the Specific Plan and take community feedback in a third community meeting this Spring.
In 2019, the Council funded a study to provide a long-term vision and plan for achieving a financially self-sustainable, publicly-owned Waterfront in the City of Berkeley. It was originally called the Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan (BMASP), but is now referred to as the Waterfront Specific Plan for the City of Berkeley Public Tidelands Area (“Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan is a response to numerous reports identifying the growing operational deficit in the Marina Fund, the decreasing Marina Fund balance, and the list of significant unfunded capital needs at the Waterfront.
Work to date has included extensive public process, including 2 large community meetings, 2 questionnaires, and 24 focus groups, as well as multiple studies. As shown in the timeline below (see Figure 1), next steps are to discuss potential opportunity areas for revenue generation and recreation in a third large community meeting, to develop a draft Specific Plan, and to conduct a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The final Specific Plan will then be brought to Council for review and approval at the end of 2024.
Figure 1 – Waterfront Specific Plan timeline
The goal of the Specific Plan is to give the City a roadmap of potential new appropriate revenue-generating and recreation opportunities at the Berkeley Waterfront, capital improvements, and funding alternatives that will ensure that current and future generations of Berkeley residents can enjoy the Waterfront for the next 25-50 years.
BACKGROUND
Definitions
Now, when we use the term “Berkeley Waterfront”, we refer to the entire area shown below in blue in Figure 2, containing all public tidelands to the west of Eastshore State
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
Park, bounded by the western end of the current 3,000 foot Berkeley Pier2. The University Ave right-of-way from West Frontage Rd to Marina Blvd is also included.
“Berkeley Marina” refers to a subset of the Waterfront: the main harbor with 1,000 boat slips.
Figure 2 - Berkeley Waterfront Public Tidelands Area
Waterfront History
A detailed account of the history of the Berkeley Waterfront from the 1850s to date is included in Attachment B. It recounts the area’s commercial and industrial beginnings on private tidelands, a small yacht harbor on public tidelands, a causeway-turned- Berkeley pier that was initially built to transport cars via ferry to San Francisco, and a landfill on public tidelands converted to Cesar Chavez Park. Starting in the 1950s, the City’s priorities for the Waterfront shifted from industrial uses to a mix of commercial development and recreation and public access. The Berkeley Marina docks, infrastructure and commercial buildings were built during the 1960s and 1970s using state loans, and leases for the hotel, restaurants, office space and boatyard were used to repay the loans.
2 See Attachment A for a map of the current Waterfront area and amenities.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
The physical layout of those commercial uses has not changed since then. The zoning designation for the Berkeley Marina is “Unclassified” per the City’s zoning ordinance. In an Unclassified zoning district, all uses require a Use Permit with a Public Hearing (UPPH). A Use Permit in an Unclassified zoning district must first go to the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB).
The ZAB takes action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Use Permit. The ZAB’s decision is then forwarded to the City Council, which must affirm, reverse, or modify the ZAB decision within 30 days. Given that there is also a lease process for Waterfront properties, this sets up significant hurdles to any new uses and prevents the existing commercial areas of the Waterfront from adapting to current needs.
Jurisdictions & Regulatory Authority
At present, as shown in Figure 3, the following entities have regulatory authority over the Berkeley Waterfront area that is located on public tidelands:
a. State Lands Commission (grant of state tidelands to Berkeley, as amended, 1913 through 1961, covering all land and water on public tidelands). b. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (all waters within the grant of state tidelands, as well as the 100-foot shoreline band of all Berkeley Waterfront uplands).
c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (all waters within the grant of state tidelands). d. Regional Water Quality Control Board (Cesar Chavez Park Landfill and stormwater discharges to the Bay from all Marina uplands) e. Alameda County Stormwater C3 Discharge Permit requirements. f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Cesar Chavez Park Landfill Methane Pipe System and Flare Station only).
g. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant program (Cesar Chavez Park southern section (Phases I through IV) and Shorebird Park). h. City of Berkeley Open Space Ordinance (Measure L) (applicable to three formally designated parks at the Marina: Cesar Chavez Park, Shorebird Park, and Horseshoe Park).
i. City of Berkeley Use Permit No. 5567 to construct the Berkeley Marina (as required by the “Unclassified” zoning category at the Berkeley Marina). j. 2003 Marina Master Plan (primarily a capital plan, does not exert additional legal requirements).
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
Figure 3 – Berkeley Waterfront Jurisdictions
Marina Fund
In 1964, the Council passed a resolution creating the Marina Fund3. The purpose of the Fund was to receive a $1.8M loan from the State to build the Marina, including a breakwater, dredging, adding 600 new slips to the existing 200-slip marina, slip utilities, lockers, pilings, roads, parking lots, pathways, landscaping, Marina office building, restrooms, bait shop, and chandlery. The loan required that revenue from slips and future hotel and restaurant leases would cover the costs of debt service, maintenance and operations of the Waterfront.
In 1970, the City took on a second State loan to increase renovated slips to 1,000, complete the upland areas and sailing basin south of University Ave. In the 1970s and 1980s, the City completed Cesar Chavez Park (previously known as North Waterfront Park) using grant and other local funding. However, by the late 1990s, the Marina Fund showed signs of distress. Budget updates and fee reports continually described structural deficits threatening to exhaust Marina Fund reserves. For example, Council minutes from November 9, 1999 note:
“…The Marina is significantly under-funded and there is no current source of funds to implement core capital projects while maintaining existing Marina operations…Without a commitment by the Council to actively seek additional sources of ongoing funding beyond non-recurring grants, Marina infrastructure will continue to deteriorate...”4
3 See Resolution 39,950-N.S. to Establish the Berkeley Marina Fund for Small Craft Harbor Loan, May 12, 1964.
4 See p.2 of Waterfront / Marina Fund Update, April 12, 2018 for a summary of budget reports from 1999 - 2017.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
Over the next 20 years, staffing reductions and deferral of capital and maintenance kept the Marina Fund solvent. But over the last several years, as capital infrastructure further deteriorated and staffing levels could not be further reduced, Marina Fund revenue could no longer to cover basic operational costs. This was exacerbated in 2019 with COVID-19, which significantly reduced hotel and restaurant lease revenue at the Waterfront.
General Fund support has been needed since 2021 to maintain Waterfront operations.
The Council authorized transfers to the Marina Fund of $1.4M in FY22 and $1.15M in FY23 using American Rescue Plan funding to keep the Fund solvent. These transfers will still be needed in coming years to maintain operations. In FY24, $1.08M is needed and has yet to be identified. After that, there is a structural deficit of more than $1.4M/year, (see fund forecast in Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
In 2019, to address these fiscal challenges at the Waterfront, the Council initiated a Specific Plan process with following mission statement:
To provide a vision and plan for achieving a financially self-sustainable, publicly- owned marina area with infrastructure and amenities to support current and future community needs, while adapting to climate changes and promoting recreation and environmental stewardship.
Why a Specific Plan?
The current Berkeley Marina is over 60 years old, Cesar Chavez Park is over 40 years old, and the entire area needs revitalization. At the same time, three new projects have transformed the entire Berkeley Shoreline since 2000: McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, the Pedestrian Overcrossing at Interstate 80, and the Bay Trail Extension. With the new world of electric vehicles, e-bikes, and ride-shares, etc., public access to the Berkeley shoreline has never been better. The cost of operating the Waterfront area, however, is continually rising, and with a current annual structural deficit of over $1.4 million, the Waterfront cannot continue to cover annual costs, let alone capital replacement of deteriorating infrastructure. The challenge is how to bring in appropriate new uses to the Waterfront that generate new revenue, that also help meet community needs and preserve community values.
At present, the Marina Waterfront is zoned as “Unclassified”, which makes any new uses extremely difficult to achieve. A new Specific Plan would provide specific regulatory and zoning clarity to the community, staff and potential investors. A Specific Plan would include a set of guidelines and zoning ordinance amendments that would expedite potential new appropriate revenue generating and recreation opportunities, and would include a CEQA process to ensure that any environmental impacts are considered and mitigated.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
As an example, most recently in Berkeley, the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan5 was created to establish a community vision and plan for how that area should evolve into the future. As a specific plan, it proposed detailed zoning changes and development standards, which give the community, staff and potential investors a clear set of guidelines for any future changes. The level of detail in the Adeline plan is helpful, especially given that most of the properties in the plan area are privately owned. The plan becomes the City’s main tool for guiding private development in the future.
In contrast, the Waterfront is entirely public land and the Specific Plan is one of two tools the City has to shape policy at the Waterfront. The second tool is the lease process. Any new development would need to be consistent with the Specific Plan and have a Council-approved lease. This allows the City to retain a high level of control to determine what is built and how, and to obtain more community benefits like trails, restrooms, and other amenities.
What this means in practice is that the Specific Plan will describe new uses, and general large-scale design guidelines; and small-scale details can be negotiated and approved by Council through the lease process.
What has been the process for developing the Specific Plan? The process started with an evaluation of baseline conditions in the Waterfront, followed by an evaluation of potential new appropriate revenue generating opportunities. There has been and will continue to be extensive community outreach and engagement to generate ideas, take feedback, and re-evaluate opportunities. To date, there have been 24 focus groups, 2 large community meetings, and 2 community questionnaires.
Tonight is the second Council worksession, and a third large community meeting will be held within the next two months. The staff and consultant team will use this feedback to produce a draft Specific Plan this Spring of 2023, and begin preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The final Specific Plan and EIR will be brought to the City Council for review, approval, and certification in 2024.
The Specific Plan will be drafted by staff from multiple City departments, including Planning and Development, City Attorney’s Office, and Parks, Recreation & Waterfront together with a consultant team from Hargreaves Jones.6
What we’ve learned: studies to date
Attachment D summarizes what we have learned through studies conducted by our consultant team, including review of the Marina Fund, study of market demand and revenue potential for additional hotel / food and beverage development, infrastructure condition assessment and capital improvement priorities, and parking and mobility. A key takeaway of these studies is that capital and operating needs at the Waterfront require more revenue than can be generated at the Waterfront, even with new revenues. New amenities and investment will be important to offset Waterfront costs; but additional funding sources will still be needed, particularly to address the significant current capital improvement needs.
5 See https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Adeline-Corridor-Specific-Plan.pdf 6See www.hargreaves.com.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
What we’ve heard: public process
Attachment E summarizes what we have heard through the public process, including 24 focus groups, 2 large community meetings, 2 community questionnaires, hundreds of emails, and 1 Council worksession. There is broad consensus that the Waterfront should not be overly commercialized; some new amenities are definitely desired, but there are concerns over potential impacts to parking and accessibility; and parks, recreation, nature and open space should continue to be priorities at the Waterfront.
Staff identified 6 community-driven themes for development of the Specific Plan:
• “Existing Resources”: Support and enhance existing recreation, parks, and open space, development, and programming currently enjoyed by Berkeley residents and visitors.
• “Unique Identity”: Reinforce the identity and character of the unique landscape of the Berkeley Waterfront for the recreational, environmental, social and economic values it provides to the surrounding community.
• “Appropriate/Selective Re-development”: Encourage commercial and recreational redevelopment opportunities that are compatible/complimentary with the land uses appropriate at the Waterfront, respect the uniqueness of the site and maintain shoreline access and views.
• “Equitable Access”: Promote opportunities and diverse and inclusive programing for all Berkeley residents and visitors to access and experience the Berkeley Waterfront, including its remarkable natural environment, diverse waterfront recreation, and community resources.
• “Enduring Berkeley Marina Waterfront”: Establish a sustainable approach to long-term revenue generation and funding to effectively operate and maintain the Berkeley Waterfront, and proactively plan for and implement capital improvements.
• “Flexible Implementation”: Develop a strong vision plan and roadmap with a flexible phasing strategy that is incremental and adaptable to respond to local needs.
A note on Cesar Chavez Park: during the public process, we heard interest in more recreational amenities and events at the Waterfront. At the second community meeting last spring, staff presented potential options for public feedback, including an adventure play area or a special event amphitheater area in Cesar Chavez Park. Following the meeting, rumors circulated incorrectly that the City was planning major commercial development at the Park. This generated a large influx of public comments that opposed this, and advocated to keep the Park as-is, with only minor improvements to existing amenities, but no new recreation or commercial amenities. At separate focus groups held last month focused on Cesar Chavez Park, these opinions were reiterated:
that any changes to the park should focus only on improvements to existing amenities
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
(bathrooms, pathways, signage, landscape, etc.); a potential landscape management approach to reduce invasive species, enhancing coastal habitat value and environmental resiliency consistent with the park’s beloved “wild” character; and interpretive signage that engages visitors with the park’s history and ecology.
Staff’s approach following this feedback has been to not consider any new development at Cesar Chavez Park, and to only explore minor park improvements there.
Where We Are Now/ Areas for Council Feedback
As we prepare to draft the specific plan, there are four areas for Council feedback:
1) Is the current Inner Harbor developed area appropriate for additional opportunities like food/beverage and hotel uses?
2) Are the existing shoreline, parks, and natural areas appropriate for new and enhanced recreational amenities like an aquatic center, small craft launch, and an expanded Shorebird Park?
3) What funding alternatives are possible given the limitations of Marina Fund revenues to cover Waterfront expenses?
Each of these questions is discussed below. Council feedback will inform which opportunities we explore as we draft the Specific Plan and prepare for community feedback in a third community meeting this Spring.
1) Inner Harbor– New hotel, food and beverage opportunities
Through the community process to date, we heard broad consensus that the most appropriate locations for revenue-generating opportunities like a new hotel, restaurant, café, beer garden, or grab-and-go spot would be in the existing commercial core of the Waterfront – the uplands surrounding the Inner Harbor area, as shown in the red areas in Figure 4. Locating potential new commercial development in this area would preserve existing shoreline, park and natural areas, support existing and new recreational activities, and better coordinate with existing parking and transit.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
Figure 4 - Commercial & Recreation Opportunities
If Council agrees that the Inner Harbor area is most appropriate for commercial activity, staff, with input from the community, will explore potential hotel and food & beverage opportunities that could enhance the general visitor experience and generate new revenue at the Waterfront at the following locations:
a) Marine Center (boatyard) area on the north side of the Marina b) Dry boat storage area on the north side of the Marina c) Potential expansion of the existing hotel
d) Berkeley Marina office area on the south side of the Marina e) Skates parking lot on the south side of the Marina
The goal is not to determine final locations or projects, but to study how these types of uses could be appropriately integrated within this commercial area and the broader Berkeley Waterfront. It will be up to applicants to propose specific food and beverage and hotel opportunities within this commercial area, subject to approval by the City via the permitting and lease processes.
For purposes of the Specific Plan, staff will codify development standards for proposed projects in these areas, such as maximum heights, FAR (floor area ratio) standards, and maximum square footage of new development on existing development.
Waterfront projects such as active lease negotiations like 199 Seawall can proceed independent of the Specific Plan project. This site will continue to be a restaurant and event space. The area is constrained from any new uses per BCDC regulations. Any new use would require an amendment to the Bay Plan, which would be a significant, multi-year regulatory effort. The City currently has an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Innovation Properties Group (IPG) to work towards rehabilitating that site to re- open as a restaurant/event space.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
Given the timing of the Pier/Ferry project, it would proceed as a separate project with its own project-level CEQA review, although it will be included as a use in the specific plan.
The Pier/Ferry project has completed conceptual design. The preferred concept for the Pier/Ferry does not provide direct revenue-generating uses. If the Waterfront were to allow additional hotel or food & beverage nearby, there could be a strong synergy with foot traffic for the Pier/Ferry, thus creating potential additional revenue for food, beverage and hotel businesses through increased lease revenue. The parking and access among all proposed new projects would need to be evaluated and balanced, and would be subject to Council approval.
As we consider areas for commercial development, a note on Measure L, the parks and open space ordinance passed by Berkeley voters in 1986. Any new projects and uses at the Berkeley Waterfront would have to be evaluated for consistency with the City’s Open Space Ordinance, which preserves existing parks and open space and does not allow the conversion of these spaces to private development unless approved by voters at a general election.
2) Shoreline, parks & natural areas – Enhance existing & integrate new recreation opportunities
The community process reinforced that the Waterfront is a highly valued resource within the City, and that preserving access to Bay waters, views, nature, and recreation opportunities are among the community’s highest priorities. There was consensus that the shoreline, parks and natural areas should be preserved for these purposes, and that there were potential recreational amenities that could enhance the public’s use and enjoyment of those areas.
If Council agrees that the shoreline, parks and natural areas at the Waterfront are appropriate for enhancing and expanding recreational amenities, staff, with input from the community, would explore the following potential opportunities:
a) An aquatic boat center/cafe in the South Cove area for the sailing clubs and general public.
b) Small watercraft launch and event area in the 199 Seawall Peninsula. c) New recreational opportunities at Shorebird Hill and Shorebird Beach.
The orange shading in Figure 3 shows potential areas for enhancing existing or integrating new recreation opportunities. These could be new structures, for example, an aquatic center in the South Cove area to house the current water sports organizations Cal Sailing and Cal Adventures as well as a potential café so visitors can extend their visits to the Waterfront. This could be a similar model to the boat house at Lake Merritt. While the focus would be on recreation, this type of opportunity could have some revenue-generating features, like a rentable community event space.
During the public process, there was support for creating a small watercraft launch area at the southwest corner of the 199 Seawall Peninsula. Nearby, there has been interest
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
in activating 199 Seawall parking lot with recreational amenities, like a temporary event plaza, to get more than just parking out of that lot.
There was also interest expressed in improvements to the Shorebird Park beach, potentially creating a more sandy shoreline condition and improving water access for children and families and persons with disabilities; as well as Shorebird Hill, potentially integrating a playscape with nature-based features and destinations along a pathway that links to the Nature Center, while preserving the wildness and wooded condition of this area.
3) Limitations of potential Waterfront revenues – Funding alternatives
An assumption at the start of this Specific Plan process has been that the Waterfront could be financially self-sustainable. Given what we now know about 1) the limits of potential commercial development, from a market demand perspective and from a community interest perspective; and 2) the extent of the costs to address the capital and operations of the Waterfront, we know that it is not possible to generate all the revenue needed at the Waterfront. The operating structural deficit is approx. $1.4M. New hotel and food & beverage revenue could eventually address some of this deficit, by raising an estimated $860,000 in lease revenue. But there remains a considerable challenge in funding capital needs at the Waterfront: to address even a quarter of the unfunded capital needs at the Waterfront (see Attachment F) would require more than $2M in annual capital investment. Additional funding sources will be needed to ensure the Marina Fund is sustainable into the future. These include, but are not limited to:
• CIP Fund (General Fund): there could be a designated annual allocation to Waterfront infrastructure.
• Parks Tax increase: maintenance of any park or landscaped area in the Waterfront is eligible for Parks Tax. An estimated $1.5M in costs could be shifted from the Marina Fund to the Parks Tax. While the current Parks Tax revenue could not sustain this, a tax measure to increase the Parks Tax approved by voters could unburden the Marina Fund and close the structural deficit.
• New City or regional tax: A citywide tax or Waterfront Mello-Roos special tax district could be established to raise annual funds for Waterfront services and capital. Pillar Point Marina in Half Moon Bay receives 2/3 of their revenue from a special harbor district property tax.
• Bond measure: A general obligation infrastructure bond targeted toward the Waterfront could raise one-time funds for continued capital investment.
• Loans or private financing: Loans from the State Division of Boating & Waterways have been the financing mechanism for all Berkeley dock replacement projects for the last 50 years. However, debt service has historically been paid from the Marina Fund, and until a more stable fiscal position is established, it will be difficult to secure additional loans.
Waterfront Specific Plan Update WORKSESSION
March 20, 2023
• Local funds, grants and external funding: Over the past 20 years, the City has raised more than $40 million for Waterfront capital projects. This includes, most recently, the $15 million state earmark authorized for Berkeley Marina and pier projects.7 While this could be a central strategy for raising capital funds, grant programs are highly competitive and quite variable in terms of timeframes.
• Use fees: These would be fees paid by people who use the Waterfront, and could include, for example, parking fees, a Waterfront entry fee, or special event fees. In the world of parking management, parking fees are used as effective tools to manage parking rather than true revenue generators. As discussed during Council exploration of recent parking districts at the Waterfront8 and elsewhere, there needs to be significantly more traffic and turnover at the Waterfront for parking fees to be revenue-generating, which may be possible in future years but would not be the case now. A Waterfront entry fee, for example, could be implemented, but received certain criticism during community and focus group meetings, and might generate concerns from BCDC for raising barriers to public access to the Waterfront. It should be noted that special event fees for the Waterfront are already contained in the City’s fee schedule.
Council feedback on these issues will inform development of the Specific Plan.
NEXT STEPS
Staff and the consultant team will begin drafting the Specific Plan based on Council feedback. A third large community meeting will be held this Spring to seek community input on aspects of the draft plan and the potential opportunities discussed above. Staff will return to Council this Summer to receive feedback on the draft Specific Plan and to finalize a project description for the purposes of CEQA review. The consultant team will then start the environmental review process, with a fourth community meeting planned for early 2024. The final Environmental Impact Report and Waterfront Specific Plan will be brought to Council for approval and adoption in late 2024.
CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation and Waterfront Department, (510) 981-6700 Christina Erickson, Deputy Director, Parks Recreation and Waterfront Department, (510) 981-6703
Attachments:
A. Map of the Berkeley Waterfront
B. Waterfront History
C. Marina Fund 5-Year Forecast
D. Summary of Studies Completed to Date
E. Summary of Community Feedback and Public Process to Date F. Funded Waterfront Capital Projects
G. Waterfront Unfunded Capital Needs
7 See Attachment F for a full list of funded PRW capital projects. 8 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-01- 18%20Item%2017%20Establish%20a%20Marina%20Master%20Parking%20Plan_0.pdf
O
N
M
L
K J
I
H
G
F
EDCB
5 Nautical Miles to Angel Island
8 Nautical Miles to the Golden Gate
5 1/2 Nautical Miles to San Francisco
San Francisco
20 mi
30 km
Alameda
Oakland
Emeryville
Berkeley
RichmondLarkspur
San Rafael
Tiburon
Sausalito
University Ave.
Seawall Dr.
University Ave.
Marina Blvd.
Spinnaker Way
Western Burrowing
Owl Habitat
Doubletree Hotel, Restaurant,
Coffee Shop, & Event Space
Spinnaker Way
Vista Point
Berkeley Marine
Center Boatyard
4-Lane Public
Launch Ramp
Berkeley
Y acht Club
Skates on the
Bay Restaurant
Berkeley Pier (Closed Until Further Notice)
Shorebird Park Nature
Center & Classroom
Shorebird Park
Playground
Adventure
Playground
Beach
Horseshoe
Park
Cal Adventures
& Cal Sailing Club
1 Mile to 4th
Street Shopping
District
Free Compost
Pick Up
1/3 Mile to 1-80
Hana Japan Restaurant
Berkeley Sportsman’s Center
Small Scale
Ferry Service
& Charter Boats
Small Boat Docks
& Hoists
Watersports: Sailing,
Windsurfing, Kayaking
Y acht Club Point
Gas Dock
San Francisco Bay T rail
Berkeley Marina
Watefront Office
North
Sailing Basin
San Francisco Bay
Berkeley Marina
South
Sailing Basin
Cesar
Chavez Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
Shorebird
Park
Chavez
Memorial
Solar Calendar
Protected
Natural Area
Dog Park
Off Leash Area
Attachment A: Map of the Berkeley Waterfront
Attachment B: Waterfront History
The Berkeley Waterfront has evolved over the past century as the population has grown and the economy has changed. Up until the 20th century, the Berkeley Waterfront was defined as the area along the original Berkeley shoreline. Over time, certain parts of the shoreline were filled in for commercial purposes and the actual shoreline moved westward. The current location of the Berkeley Waterfront is over ½ a mile west of the original shoreline (except for four locations: Berkeley Beach, North Basin Strip/Tom Bates Fields, the Stables, and University Ave Extension).
Now, when we use the term “Berkeley Waterfront”, we refer to the entire area shown in Attachment A,
containing all areas to the west of Eastshore State Park. “Berkeley Marina” refers to a subset of the Waterfront: the main harbor with 1,000 boat slips. The University Ave right-of-way from West Frontage Rd to Marina Blvd is also included. The entire area is defined as “public tidelands”.
The tidelands that run from the shoreline westward to Marina Blvd were parceled and sold by the State to the private sector in the 1860s, and were thus referred to as “private tidelands”. All of the private tidelands west of Interstate 80 are now part of McLaughlin Eastshore State Park.
In 1913, Berkeley decided to build a yacht harbor in Bay waters. To proceed with the project, the City obtained a grant of state tidelands that designates the City as the “trustee” with ownership rights that allows the City to implement various projects as long as they comply with State tideland public trust requirements (e.g., fishing, navigation, commerce and public access to the waters of the state that must be available to all peoples of the state). The boundary for this initial grant of state tidelands ran from the original Berkeley shoreline westward over three m
iles to the middle of the Bay where it
met the San Francisco County boundary. At that time, the state tidelands parcels adjacent to the shoreline were already defined as privately-owned tidelands and the state tidelands to the west of that zone were defined as public tidelands. The new City yacht harbor was developed in the public tidelands. The City began installing dikes and piers heading westward into the Bay, but it took over twenty years, several rounds of funding, and four amendments to the grant of state tidelands to complete the yacht harbor in 1936, which ultimately used federal Works Progress Administration (WPA) funds.
In 1926, the Golden Gate Ferry Company constructed a causeway to bring automobiles from the original Berkeley shoreline (at 2
nd Street) westward three miles over Bay
waters to a ferry terminal in deeper waters for a ferry to San Francisco.9The causeway was the last link of the Lincoln Highway (from 1910) that brought travelers from across the country to San Francisco. When the Bay Bridge was completed in 1937, most ferry service in the Bay area ceased operations, and the causeway was formally abandoned to the City. The City operated the causeway as a public fishing pier until it closed in 2015 due to structural problems. (As of the late 1950s, most of the causeway had 9 The Golden Gate Ferry Terminal of 1926 was located just north of current day Treasure Island.
deteriorated and become unusable, but the first 3,000 feet from Seawall Drive heading westward was renovated in 1959-61 using state Wildlife Conservation Board grants).
In 1937, the State constructed the Eastshore Highway by creating a levee in tidelands just west of the original Berkeley shoreline to run from Emeryville northward to Richmond. The soils for the levee were excavated from the tidelands on the east side of the highway, which created an excavation (borrow) pit in Berkeley. Rather than fill it in, the City chose to convert it into Aquatic Park for public recreation as well as an attractive visual feature along the highway that would bring travelers to Berkeley. The highway and Aquatic Park projects were funded by the federal WPA. The highway was upgraded to become Interstate 80 in 1956.
By the 1950s, the Santa Fe Railroad had acquired most of the privately-owned tideland parcels off the Berkeley shoreline and attempted several commercial development projects over the next three decades.
In 1951, the Berkeley Waterfront was rezoned from “Industrial” to "Unclassified.” From 1955 through the early 1960s, the City considered several proposals to fill in the shoreline area with commercial development. However, in the early 1960s, strong public concerns emerged about filling in Bay waters for commercial purposes, e.g., from the newly-formed Save San Francisco Bay Association and others, which in turn led the City of Berkeley to change policy direction and prioritize recreational and public access uses of the shoreline over large-scale industrial and redevelopment projects. During this period in the 1960s, the City also participated in regional planning efforts to develop concepts for a regional approach to develop an East Bay Shoreline for recreation and public access.
Within this context, Berkeley decided to re-develop the existing Yacht Harbor of 1936 into the modern Marina that exists today, which consists of a protected harbor for 1,000 recreational boats and upland areas for recreation and certain commercial activity. The City contracted with a design firm to produce the Marina Development Plan (1960- 1964). The City financed the project with two loans from the state’s new Small Craft Harbor Loan program ($1.8 million in 1964 and $1.5 million in 1970). A key condition of the loans required the City to have various businesses at the new marina (restaurants, hotel, fuel station, boat repair, etc.) to generate revenue so the City could pay back the loans. In 1961, the City amended the original Grant of State Tidelands of 1913 to obtain state authorization for the new marina development project. This amendment involved a new survey of the boundary of the grant of state tidelands to the City. The survey clarified that the public tidelands began at the western boundary of the zone of privately- owned tidelands that were initially created in the 1860’s (e.g. along current Marina Blvd). This explains why the Berkeley Marina on public tidelands is located westward into the Bay over ½ mile from the actual Berkeley shoreline. The Berkeley Marina was formally dedicated in May of 1966, and fully built out in the early 1970s.
From 1957 through 1991, the City operated the Berkeley Landfill on public tidelands on the north side of the Berkeley Marina. From 1981-1991, the landfill was filled in,
capped, and opened to the public as North Waterfront Park in several phases, and was renamed Cesar E. Chavez Park in 1994.
In 1986, i
n order to counter the strong pressures for new commercial development on the private tidelands, the City adopted two Waterfront regulatory planning documents to set the direction for limited development on the private tidelands: the Waterfront Amendment to the General Plan and the Waterfront Specific Plan. After this and other legal actions, the Santa Fe Railroad sold their parcels of private tidelands to the State in order to become the Eastshore State Park. The General Plan for the new state park was approved in 2002 and was formally named McLaughlin Eastshore State Park in 2012. Once the private tidelands became Eastshore State Park, the two City of Berkeley planning documents from 1986 (the Waterfront Amendment & Waterfront Specific Plan) no longer had jurisdiction over these areas. It should be noted that there are still four areas that are still covered by the Waterfront Specific Plan (North Basin/Tom Bates Fields, the Stables at Golden Gate Fields, Berkeley Beach, and the University Ave Extension Right-of-Way).
Attachment C - Marina Fund 5-Year Forecast
March 2023
Description / Account FY 2021
Actuals
FY 2022
Actuals
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
Beginning Fund Balance 3,151,380 5,461,419 4,520,961 763,523 (1,078,899) (2,634,410) (4,067,165) Revenues
Dmg to Cty 18
Short and Over (112) (20) 0 0 0 0
Interest Invest Pool 802 9,266 108,272 8,000 0 0 0
Marina Benches / Trees 0 27,200 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 Sewer Service/Marina 3,850 3,974 4,045 4,146 4,250 4,356 Live Aboard Fees 256,143 266,631 244,215 269,111 275,838 282,734 282,734 Launch Ramp 121,220 95,360 84,832 82,000 84,050 86,151 88,305 Dry Storage 105,671 109,737 109,008 111,021 113,796 116,641 116,641 Charter Boat Fees 66,935 98,469 89,229 84,050 86,151 88,305 90,513 Locker Rentals 20,773 24,609 21,292 21,824 22,370 22,929 23,502 EV Charging Stations 1,946 3,686 3,280 3,362 3,446 3,618 3,799 Miscellaneous 105,389 29,916 36,369 30,922 32,469 32,469 34,093 Fines & Penalties 64,319 66,758 56,274 64,319 64,319 64,319 64,319 Marina Leases 1,186,077 1,583,795 2,135,048 2,214,337 2,302,910 2,395,027 2,418,977 Berth Rentals 3,443,688 3,493,497 3,487,737 3,529,780 3,618,025 3,798,926 3,893,899 Special Event / Filming Fees 2,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Playground Svc Fees (605) 105 18,860 35,000 35,000 35,000 40,000 Nature Center Fees 0 0 7,330 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 Donations 0 0 1, 538 1,576 750 750
Insurance Claims 15,977
Misc Fees (Doubletree Capital Payment) 3,000,000
Transfer from ARPA Fund 1,400,000 1,150,000
Subtotal, Revenues 8,376,115 7,212,983 7,580,569 6,506,209 6,691,001 6,978,026 7,109,333 Expenditures
Personnel 3,220,688 3,352,407 3,865,545 4,135,023 4,217,722 4,302,077 4,388,118 Non-Personnel (excludes debt svc & capital) 1,841,572 2,120,261 2,706,460 2,785,889 2,601,071 2,680,985 2,763,893 Capital Projects 345,016 2,038,295 3,904,502 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Minor Maintenance 173,082 156,760 375,781 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Principal Payment 188,059 197,546 197,546 319,346 333,212 354,236 370,420 Interest Payment 297,660 288,173 288,173 508,373 494,507 473,483 457,299 Subtotal, Expenditures 6,066,076 8,153,441 11,338,007 8,348,631 8,246,512 8,410,781 8,579,730 Operating Income / (Loss) 2,310,039 (940,458) (3,757,438) (1,842,422) (1,555,511) (1,432,755) (1,470,398) Ending Fund Balance 5,461,419 4,520,961 763,523 (1,078,899) (2,634,410) (4,067,165) (5,537,562) Reserve Rate 65% 63% 10% - 17% -39% -58% -78%
Description / Account FY 2021
Actuals
FY 2022
Actuals
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
Notes:
6) Personnel and Non-Personnel escalate by 2% starting in FY25. 7) Starting in FY24, assume additional $342K in annual payments for $5.5M DBAW loan at 4.5% interest rate, 30-year term. 8) Includes baseline of $350k/year in capital; $250k/year in minor maintenance. 1) FY21 operating income appears high because $3M Doubletree payment for Marina streets was received as revenue, but the $3M in capital spending on that project happened in FY22-23. Actual operating loss was approx. -$700k in FY21. 2) ARPA funding received in FY22 ($1.4M) and FY23 ($1.15M) will sustain the Fund through FY23. Approx. $1M is needed to keep the Fund solvent through FY24. After that, there is a structural deficit of approx. $1.45M/year.
3) Berth rentals expected to remain flat in FY23; increase 2.5%/year starting in FY24 with annual fee increases; and increase an addl 2.5% in FY26 after D&E dock replacement.
4) Marina lease revenue began recovery in FY22, but not expected to return to baseline levels until FY25. 4% growth in leases is projected in FY25 and FY26 (to reflect potential 199 Seawall $180k base by FY26), falling to 1% growth after that. 5) FY23 Personnel assumes $400k in salary savings due to vacancies. Full staffing projected in FY24 and beyond. Expected to resume full staffing levels in FY23. FY24 Personnel is reduced by 1 project-based FTE.
Attachment D: Summary of Studies to Date
This is a summary of what we have learned through studies conducted by our Hargreaves consultant team, including review of the Marina Fund, study of market demand and revenue potential for additional hotel and restaurant development, infrastructure condition assessment and capital priorities, and parking and access.
Review of Marina Fund
Subconsultant Keyser Marston reviewed the Marina Fund and affirmed that the Fund must achieve a significant increase in annual revenues to eliminate the structural deficit, maintain or enhance existing levels of service, and address unmet capital needs.
In their review of expenses between FY18 and FY20, they found that approximately $1.3M (or 20% of the Fund’s expenses) were on landscaping and recreation programs.
While important for the vitality of the area, they noted that they are not typical expenditures at other marinas and waterfront districts that are more narrowly focused on revenue-generating uses.
In the near-term, the Fund is projected to face an ongoing structural deficit that has been deepened by the impact of Covid-19. In the long-term, to achieve fiscal sustainability, the Marina Fund will need to eliminate its current structural deficit and address unmet capital needs. Figure 1-1 illustrates the additional Marina Fund revenues needed to support a portion of unmet capital needs, assuming a 30-year amortization period. As shown, Marina Fund revenues would need to increase by 20% to support one-quarter of the amortized cost of unmet capital needs. This increase in revenues is in addition to the 10% increase required to eliminate the Marina Fund’s current structural deficit. Revenues would need to more than double to fully eliminate the Fund’s structural deficit and support all unfunded capital needs.
Current unfunded needs at the Waterfront exceed $160M, (see Attachment G). These include $108M in waterside needs like docks, pilings, dredging, and the pier; $36M in pathways, buildings and shoreline work like sea level rise mitigation; and $16M in streets and parking lots.
Infrastructure Condition Assessment
In their evaluation of existing boating and waterside infrastructure, subconsultant Moffat and Nichol made findings summarized in the table below.
Moffat and Nichol proposed a draft list of priority CIP projects that would improve revenue generation, quality of the existing infrastructure, and resiliency to the impacts of sea level rise; and they are working with staff to refine these priorities. Priority projects include many that are now funded and underway, including D&E dock replacement and dredging. There are many more priority projects that are unfunded, including 3 sea level rise projects, 3 parking lot projects, South Sailing Basin seawall replacement, J dock replacement, the next phases of finger docks, pilings and dredging, fire water loop, street improvements on University and Seawall, and Bay Trail projects.
Sea Level Rise
Like all waterfront California cities and counties that needed to comply with State Lands requirements, Berkeley conducted an assessment to evaluate the impact of sea level rise by 2030, 2050, and 2100. The assessment identified three low-points that will need mitigation to prevent periods of flooding during heavy storms. These include the shoreline rip rap along University Avenue between Frontage Road and Marina Blvd; the intersection of the Virginia Street extension and Marina Blvd; and the northwest corner
of the inner harbor behind the Doubletree Hotel. To mitigate these low points, improvements to the existing revetment (rip rap) and other shoreline improvements will be needed. These projects are included on the City’s unfunded needs list, and together are estimated to cost $11M.
Market Demand and Revenue Potential
Subconsultant Keyser Marston Associates evaluated market trends over the next 20 years and found market support for up to 200 new hotel rooms and 12,000 square feet of new food and beverage facilities within the Marina Area. They estimate that new hotel and restaurant development could potentially generate over $860,000 of annual new ground lease revenue to the Marina Fund ($690,000 from a hotel and $170,000 from new food and restaurant space). In addition, a new hotel would annually generate approximately $1.7 million of transient occupancy (hotel) tax and sales tax revenues, and new restaurants would generate approximately $56,000 in sales tax revenue to the General Fund.
Within the Marina, subconsultant Moffit and Nichol found that market trends do not appear to support an increase in total slips or the expansion of marina-related commercial uses and amenities. However, there are opportunities to optimize existing uses to ensure the Berkeley Marina remains competitive over the next 20 years. The current D&E dock replacement is important given the poor condition of the docks and market demand for those slip sizes. After that, as docks J, L and M reach the end of their useful life, there will be an opportunity to reconfigure the existing slips to better align with market trends. Currently only 12% of slips on docks J, L and M are for vessels over 35 feet. Benchmarks from other rebuilt Bay Area marinas would suggest targeting at least 70% of slips for vessels over 35 feet. These changes are not expected to generate substantial new revenue; but should keep the Marina competitive in future years.
Reviewing other commercial uses, the Marine Center (boat repair yard/fuel dock) and the Sportsman Center (bait shop) provide many key amenities needed by slip holders at the Berkeley Marina. Both entities have leases set to expire within the next 10 years.
Onsite boater conveniences such as the fuel dock and bait shop enhance the marina’s market appeal. However, the onsite boatyard functions as a regional amenity and is likely less important to the marina’s competitive position.
Demand for dry storage is on the rise, but fees collected from dry storage are very modest. Dry storage could function as an interim use to be later replaced by longer-term development opportunities with greater revenue potential.
Parking and Access
In their review of parking and access issues at the Waterfront, subconsultant Nelson Nygaard with City staff identified 2,033 current parking spaces in the Waterfront, equivalent to about 20 acres or 15 football fields and comprising close to 20% of Waterfront land. While some Waterfront lots are full or near capacity at peak hours (i.e. weekends), others have available spaces. For example, during peak hours, the South Cove lots were at 100% full, while neighboring lots and the Waterfront average was
60% full. Nelson Nygaard recommended better parking management strategies to take advantage of existing and underutilized parking.
Nelson Nygaard surveyed various user groups and found that each group had specific requests and most preferred designated parking adjacent to their destination. Nelson Nygaard cautioned against designating parking by use and instead recommended loading zones and new regulations that differ lot by lot to better accommodate the needs of tenants and users. They recommended improved signage to help users identify parking and improved regulations to better distribute parking throughout the Waterfront.
They found that many Waterfront parking lots are in poor condition and could be better maintained. They advised the City that parking benefits individuals and businesses, but has tradeoffs for the public good, such as expensive maintenance costs of $300-$600 per space per year, using up limited Waterfront land, contributing to traffic, and incentivizing single occupancy vehicles. They noted that ample parking generally disincentivizes alternative transportation like rideshare, bikes, scooters, and public transit.
Attachment E: Summary of Community Feedback and Public Process
The following summarizes community feedback and the Waterfront Specific Plan public process to date. More detailed summaries are available on the City’s website:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/berkeley-marina-ar ea-
specific-plan-bmasp-project.
Focus Groups
Staff held 24 focus groups over the past two years. These typically had 6-8 participants, and were a mix of virtual and in-person meetings.
The first 4 focus groups were held in September and October 2020 with current Waterfront users to discuss what people value about the Waterfront now, and what improvements they would like to see. Ideas included an entry kiosk, more commercial activity, clean energy generation, improved docks/marine infrastructure, an aversion to development, and excitement about development, enhanced infrastructure, and improved commercial and recreational opportunities/facilities.
In October 2021, 2 focus groups were held with business owners and tenants.
Participants proposed linking existing amenities like views, parks and pathways with new amenities like cafes, casual dining, new hotels, and paid recreation like bike rentals as a way to enhance the Waterfront as a destination. There was interest in food trucks, casual recreation, attractions, and amenities to draw the public out to the shoreline.
Participants suggested a wide range of commercial options, including hotels, festivals, events, conference centers, and maintaining the existing marine center. Recreational ideas included an aquatic center with a research center and community center/café, investments in Shorebird beach, interactive tidepools, and oyster beds – though concerns about Bay toxicity were raised.
In September and October 2022, 10 focus groups were held on food, beverage and hotel opportunities. Many supported development within certain parameters, e.g. new structures should be eco-friendly, hotels should focus on eco-tourism and nature, restaurants should not have single use plastics, windows should require bird-safe glass, and infrastructure should include artistic elements like sculptural human-scale steps down to the water. There was interest in more food options, including cafes, beer gardens, food trucks, casual dining, and an aversion to chain restaurants. People drew inspiration from examples like Highline Park in New York or Tunnel Tops in San Francisco; or more locally, from places like the Westbrae Biergarten or the Sit and Stay café at Pt Isabel. There were discussions about the Marine Center area, with some preferring a higher-revenue use with more public access to the Bay frontage, some valuing the working boatyard, and others suggesting a mix of the two. At the in-person focus groups, participants mapped their ideas, (see Figure 4 for examples). Concerns were noted about the need for parking and the need for better bike and transit options.
Figure 5 - Sketches from hotel, food and beverage focus group
In November and December 2022, 4 focus groups were held on priorities for recreation and nature at the Berkeley Marina, outside of Cesar Chavez Park. Ideas included:
improving ADA accessibility; improved pathways, parking, parks, and beaches; better signage; and more bathrooms. Many appreciated the “wildness” of the Waterfront.
There was interest in native plantings, birding, urban biodiversity, more park benches, a sandier Shorebird beach, small craft launch near 199 Seawall, biking, an aquatic center/boathouse, events in the 199 Seawall lot, festivals, and more food, noting “Food is recreation!” People drew inspiration from Crissy Field, Tunnel Tops and the Presidio, Seattle’s South Lake Union walk, the UCSF boathouse, and Jericho in Vancouver.
In February 2023, 4 focus groups were held on priorities for Cesar Chavez Park.
Participants generally preferred to keep Cesar Chavez as-is, with minor park improvements. Ideas included: ADA improvements, pathway improvements, better management of fox tails, signage and wayfinding, pollinator gardens, more native plantings, more park benches with windscreens, and more restrooms. There were varied opinions on fencing, with some interest in more fencing around off leash area and owl habitat, and others with concerns about additional fencing. There was some interest in events especially the kite festival, and some concern about events. There was interest in more parking and that it be kept free.
Community Meetings
The project’s first large community meeting was held via Zoom in January 2021, with 124 attendees. Participants reported using the Waterfront for a broad range of recreation, including walking, biking, running, dock walking, bird watching, playing at the park, and a variety of water sports including swimming, sailing, and kayaking, etc.
People expressed support for new restaurants and a fish market; an environmentally sensitive hotel; and potential slip reconfiguration. There was support for keeping development around the existing marina basin, and maintaining a balance between development and natural open space. There was interest in more support for bikes, more recreational opportunities, a fish market, farmer’s market, or night market, a café, more environmental education, festivals and events, and clean energy generation.
A second large community meeting was held via Zoom in March 2022, with 75 attendees. Breakout groups of 10-15 discussed the pros and cons of the three land use alternatives, (see Error! Reference source not found. bel ow) .For revenue- generating uses, there was a fair amount of support for a new hotel/retreat center (if smaller than the Doubletr
ee) and more food/beverage services (casual dining and food trucks). There was support for an interpretive center/museum as a complementary use, although many thought it would not provide any significant revenue-generation. The concept of an Adventure Park II (e.g., ropes course) had limited support. For complementary uses, there was support for dredging the South Basin, small boat and bicycle rentals, and an aquatic boat center (with the condition that it does not displace existing aquatic programs). Participants identified a range of environmental planning and design criteria that should guide the siting of new uses, parking, and associated services. A broad consensus from the five breakout groups was that new uses should
harmonize with the existing Marina character and not overwhelm the scale, natural qualities, views, and existing recreational uses.
Figure 6 - Land use alternatives presented at Community Workshop #2
Community Questionnaires
A first online questionnaire w as conducted between January and March 2021, with 979 responses. Approximately 2/3 of respondents supported new commercial development and a bond measure to support the Waterfront as tools to address the Marina Fund’s fiscal crisis. Respondents were supportive or neutral on all potential revenue-generating
mechanisms with casual outdoor dining and restaurants garnering the most support.
Eighty percent of respondents were supportive or neutral on an additional hotel. There was strong support for amenities like nature viewing areas, Shorebird beach improvements, picnic and play areas and an aquatic center. There was strong support for programming ideas like festivals, environmental education programs, concerts and movie nights.
A second online questionnaire w
as conducted between March and April 2022. There
were 820 respondents, of which 82% were from Berkeley. Similar to the prior questionnaire, approximately 74% were supportive or neutral on a new hotel and 84% were supportive or neutral on expanded food/beverage options. Eighty percent of respondents supported up to 4 large events or concerts. The questionnaire presented several geographic locations for new hotel and food/beverage options – all based in the existing commercial area surrounding the Marina. There was not a clear preference for particular locations within that area. When asked about additional uses that could enhance the Waterfront, the highest three preferences were food trucks, small boat hourly rentals and bike rentals. On park amenities, respondents preferred living shoreline, pathway improvements, public restrooms and tree planting.
Attachment F - Funded Waterfront Capital Projects, as of March 2023 Project Status Capital Projects
Anticipated
Construction
Waterfront: Marina Finger Docks- Phase 4 now
Waterfront: Marina O and K Electrical Replacement now
Waterfront: Key Fob System now
Waterfront: Marina Pilling Replacements
Summer 2023
Project Status Capital Projects B udget
Amount Spent
to date Feb 2023
Amount
Remaining
Anticipated
Construction
Waterfront: Cesar Chavez Park Restroom T1- $445K T1- $0 T1- $445K FY25 Waterfront: Cesar Chavez Perimeter Pathway SCC Grant- $2.1M SCC Grant- $0 SCC Grant- $2.1M FY26 Waterfront: DE Dock Replacement T1- $595K
MF- $5.5M
SCC Grant- $1.6M
T1- $222K
MF- $0
SCC Grant- $0
T1- $373K
MF- $5.5M
SCC Grant- $1.6M
FY25
Waterfront: K Dock Restroom Renovation T1- $495K T1- $0 T1- $495K FY25 Waterfront- Dredging Main Channel MF- $300K
SSC Grant- $7.4M
MF- $42K
SSC Grant- $0
MF- $258K
SSC Grant- $7.4M
FY25
Waterfront- South Cove West Parking Lot SCC Grant - $1M SCC Grant- $0 SCC Grant- $1M FY25 Waterfront: Shorebird Park 2-12 Play Structure*** CIP $200k Waterfront: Bike Park - Conceptual Design CIP- $100K CIP- $51K CIP- $49K Waterfront- South Sailing Basin Dredging CIP- $350K CIP- $0 CIP- $350K Waterfront: Waterfront Specific Plan-BMASP CIP- $1.05MMF- $2K CIP- $678K MF-$2K CIP- $372K
MF- $0
Waterfront: Pier-Water Transportation EIR/Design SCC Grant- $2.9M SCC Grant- $0 SCC Grant- $2.9M *Funding Sources
Cat Res- Catastrophic Reserve
CIP- Capital Improvement Fund
GF- General Fund
MF- Marina Fund
PT- Parks Tax
SCC Grant- State Coast Conservancy Grant (pending approval) T1- Measure T1, Phase 1 and 2
***funding re-allocated because of increase in construction costs for existing projects.
T1- $1.2M, CIP- $1.85M, MF- $575K
Construction Projects in Design/Planning
Design/Planning Only Projects -Construction Not
Funded
MF- $100K
Projects in Construction or have been awarded
Projects Bidding /Construction in Spring-Summer
2023
CIP- $870K, MF- $883K
Budget*
MF- $550K
Attachment G - Waterfront Unfunded Capital Needs (as of Mar 2023) Project Cost Estimate District
Waterfront
Waterfront Pier and Docks
Finger Dock Replacements $1,579,500 1
Piling Replacement $1,368,900 1
Main Channel Dredging $6,318,000 1
Inner Harbor Basin Dredging $9,582,300 1
South Cove Dredging $14,478,750 2
Dock Replacement - J $11,477,700 1
Dock Replacement - L $10,635,300 1
Dock Replacement - M $9,477,000 1
Dock Replacement - N $4,896,450 1
O&K Maintenance $1,790,100 1
Berkeley Pier Renovation (including restroom) $37,381,500 1 /2 Berkeley Pier/Ferry project $83.5M 1/2
Waterfront Pathways, Shoreline and Buildings*
Bay Trail from Adventure Playground to Pier $3,500,000 1 Bay Trail from University to Virginia / Marina Realignment / On-Street Parking $5,265,000 1 Bay Trail from Virginia to Park / Sea Level Rise / Parking Improvements $4,000,000 1 University Ave Sea Level Rise Improvement $4,000,000 2
South Cove Sailing Basin Seawall Replacement $5,475,600 1 Marina Harbor Basin Northeast Sea Level Rise Improvement $3,211,650 1 Bike Park $1.65M 2
University Avenue Kiosk $527k 1/2
199 Seawall Building Improvements $5,265,000 2
Cesar Chavez Park Perimeter Path/Amenities $2,106,000 1 Cesar Chavez Interior Pathways/Amenities $2,632,500 1
125-127 University Improvements $1,263,600 1
O, LM, FGHI, DE Restrooms (Structural Improvements) $2,106,000 1 Shorebird Nature Center-classroom (K) $42,120 2
Waterfront Parking Lots
F & G Parking Lot - Pavement, Drainage and ADA $947,700 1 O Parking Lot - Pavement, Drainage and ADA $1,010,880 1 J & K Parking Lot - Pavement Rehab, Drainage and ADA $1,058,265 1 Skates/N Lot Pavement, Drainage and ADA $1,453,140 1
Launch Ramp Lots Pavement Rehab, Drainage and ADA $2,029,131 1 L & M Lot - Lot Pavement Rehab, Drainage and ADA $1,316,250 1 199 Seawall Lot Pavement, Drainage and ADA $2,506,140 2 South Cove West Lot Pavement, Drainage and ADA $1,368,900 1 Waterfront Infrastructure
Fire Water Loop $1,953,000
Waterfront Streets
University Avenue (Marina Blvd to Seawall Dr) $1,316,250 1/2 Seawall Drive $3,159,000 1/2
Waterfront Projects Total $165,971,626
*Does not include City-owned buildings leased to private parties at the Waterfront and in City parks. (K) = Improvements needed per Kitchell condition assessment
Communications
All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.
City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/
To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:
1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”
2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting
3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)
4. Click the “Search” button
5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned
6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF