Extra

Responding to a request under the Public Records Act, the Berkeley Planning Department has released a Memo of Understanding (MOU) between the City Manager’s Office and a consortium of international shipping companies. The MOU calls for a major expansion of the Berkeley Marina to accommodate a new container terminal, and the Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan (BMASP) has been modified to include expansion of bay fill to accommodate the new industrial development. Because of the expanded scope of the plan, BMASP is now WSP, for Waterfront Specific Plan. 

The document request included non-privileged emails between the City Manager and Transportation consultant Rick Shaw, explaining that the relatively modest plan for a ferry terminal in the Berkeley Marina was scrapped after a thorough economic analysis. 

“The ferry, as proposed, would have been a financial negative for the City,” Shaw wrote. “The ferry terminal plan would have required Berkeley to spend about $29 million in land-side facilities, particularly parking and road access improvements, with virtually no new revenue for the Marina Fund. We also concluded that the ferry would not have made any significant contribution to relieving traffic congestion.” 

“There are only two kinds of development with a proven track record of providing new revenue on the required scale:,” legislative analyst Eileen Wright added to the discussion thread. “Hotels and container terminals. The City Council is averse to new hotel development, so a container terminal is the only remaining option.”  

Economic consultant Ben Dover added that the container terminal is a “fresh, new, ‘outside the box’ approach to the Berkeley Waterfront,” writing that revenue is projected at tens of millions annually. “There are social and cultural benefits as well: This plan will help relieve supply chain backlogs during the next global transportation and shipping crisis.” 

Another email participant questioned the project based on the requirement imposed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) that new bay fill must support recreational activities.  

“That’s been considered,” wrote Barb Dwyer, one of the landscape architects under contract to the consortium. “Container operations provide a rich assortment of recreational opportunities. Visit the Port of Oakland on any weekend afternoon, for example, and you’ll find families watching the container loading operations. It’s a fascinating thing to see, especially close up. And don’t forget, we’ll get a new fishing pier alongside the ship berths as part of the deal.” 

“People tend to forget that BCDC stands for Bay Conservation AND Development,” Wright added. 

One email participant from the Parks and Waterfront Commission, who had been completely unaware of the direction the planning process had been taking until after the MOU had been signed, questioned whether the project was in compliance with the EIR and Cal CEQA requirement to present alternatives to the project. 

“We conducted public hearings, and focus group workshops by invitation, evaluating four alternatives,’ wrote Ella Phyno from the planning consulting firm of Kay, Serra & Serra. “Yes, there were alternatives presented. The consultants offered a choice among various ship docking configurations: bow-in, stern-in, side-tie, or diagonal. Side-tie was the clear favorite, providing the largest area of wind shadow in the lee of the giant ships for hiking, picnics and dog walking.”  

Wright added a follow-up comment, writing “We are strong advocates of mixed use development,” she wrote. “This project puts open space and industrial space in close proximity, adding to the value of both.” 

The transcripts of several invitation-only focus groups were also provided under the Public Records Act. The attendees included an assortment of hikers, dog walkers and rowers, but various business interests were also very well represented. 

Restaurant developers Sal Manella and Lo Fat proposed renovating the building formerly occupied by Hs. Lordships to create a restaurant space offerring Italian-Chinese-vegetarian fusion cuisine, but they logged out of the zoom session abruptly when the Mayor’s aide mentioned that the City would soon be making another attempt to convince the State Lands Commission to allow an RV park on the adjacent parking lot. 

“Restaurants are very minor economic contributors in the context of industrial-scale commerce,” explained Wright, who was moderating the focus group. “A very successful restaurant might contribute $100K a year to the Marina Fund, but the waterfront needs millions to cover long-overdue capital upgrades and repairs.” 

Hotel developer Isadore Adjarr was similarly disappointed that his vision of a five-star hotel covering most of the old Hs. Lordships parking area was no longer feasible. His concept called for a sprawling low-rise structure with a sloping, living roof that would transform the parking lot into a grassy hillside. 

“Rooms with views of the Golden Gate Bridge will go for upwards of $500 a night,” he claimed, “and think of the room tax revenue that would flow uptown. It won’t compromise the park-like nature of the living roof - those west-facing windows would not have been visible from anyplace on land. But the hotel clearly not feasible in the current plan.” 

Additional documents supplied under the Public Records Act, possibly by mistake, included some communication between City officials with names redacted. 

“It’s really a shame,” wrote one staffer, “that we spent all that money on consultants and planning to get a major ferry terminal on track, and now all that work has to be scrapped to make room for the container port.” 

“Not really,” answered another individual, name redacted. “The ferry process demonstrated how easy it can be to get a controversial project to the binding MOU stage. The key was minimal interference from the commissions, sidestepping the more onerous CEQA requirements, and leaving virtually no public record of the by-invitation focus group commentary. It was well worth it, showing us the way forward for the container port, which will grow to a cash cow for the City on a scale that the marina could never sustain despite our past efforts. Managing a public process is child’s play if done right, especially when the end result is known from the start.”  

In another focus group session, Moderated by Council aide Berndt Bridges, concerns were expressed by open space advocate Milhouse Creak about the extent of bay fill required for container handling and storage. “While It’s true that the port projects a throughput of 9,000 containers per day,” answered Dover, “we believe we only need storage space for 2,500 boxes. Optimized routing and just-in-time pickup and delivery management can work around the limited storage space. Recreational users of the waterfront will not be affected, except that the marina entrance will be blocked by large ships at intervals published in advance, with few exceptions.” 

“This was all planned even before lower University Avenue was repaved and re-aligned to get rid of the bumps,” added Clay Foote from the Road Repair Division of Public Works. Does anyone really believe we would have spent all that money on fixing the bumps in the road if it was just for access to a marina and a park? The traffic circle at U. Ave. and Marina Boulevard, for example, is really a truck pad. The curbs are low and sloping, so big rigs with containers can use the pad to make the turns. Notice that we recently laid out the recommended tire paths on the red brick pad, although this was done a few years ahead of schedule due to a typo in the City’s request for bids.” 

May Day and Lilly Pond, representing the Cal Sailing Club and Cal Adventures at another focus group, pointed out that the interaction of small sailboats with large ships will be a challenging addition to the their training regimen. “At last we’ll have a dredged approach channel to the marina, Lilly wrote. “Although, we didn’t need to go all the way down to a depth of forty feet.”