Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2024-11-20 21:29:11 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_79c0342a-c8c3-483e-886b-32ddd9e1c44f.ogg

Segment 1

Today is November 18th, 2024.
And this is the special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.
It's a work session to consider the Waterfront Specific Plan.
Before we get started, I'd just like to read some introductory comments to allow for full participation of all members of the community and to ensure that important city business is able to be completed.
We ask that all attendees conduct themselves in an orderly manner and respect the rights of others participating in the meeting.
Please be aware that the city council's rules of decorum prohibit the disruption of the orderly conduct of the council meeting.
A summary of these rules is available in the one page handout on the table at the rear of the boardroom.
Disruptive behavior includes, but is not limited to shouting, making disruptive noises, creating or participating in a physical disturbance, speaking out of turn or in violation of applicable rules, preventing or attempting to prevent others who have the floor from speaking, preventing others from observing the meeting, entering into or remaining in an area of the meeting room that is not open to the public or approaching the council dais without consent.
We ask that you observe these rules so that all members of the public may observe and participate in tonight's meeting.
Thank you.
Recording in progress.
Now, city clerk, please, if you will, take the role.
OK.
Council member Kassarwani here.
Kaplan present.
Bartlett here.
Drago present on.
Present.
Participating remotely.
One graph here in a para here and Humber present.
Mayor Ergin is is absent this evening and for Councilor Hans participation, we just need to go through the A.B.
two four four nine script.
I understand it.
Councilor Hans intending to participate tonight under the emergency circumstances of the justification under the Brown Act as amended by A.B.
two four four nine.
A quorum of the council is participating in person at the physical meeting location that is identified on the agenda and open to the public, which satisfies the requirements of the Brown Act.
Council member Han has notified the council of her need to participate remotely.
Council member Han, if you could provide a general description of the circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely.
However, please do not disclose any medical diagnosis, disability or other confidential medical information.
Thank you.
Yes, I need to take care of a family member who has a sudden emergency.
Thank you.
And Councilor Han, please disclose if there are any other individuals 18 years of age or older present in the room from which you are participating and the general nature of their relationship to you.
I am.
I think there is nobody else with me at this time.
OK.
And Councilor Han will participate through both audio and visual technology.
So actually, this if it's a family caregiving need, then that falls under the could fall under the just cause circumstances, and then the council does not actually need to vote to permit the participation.
So we can proceed with the meeting at this time.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
This is a special meeting and we will be only taking public comment on the one item on our agenda tonight.
City manager, do you do suggest that we take public comment before the presentation or after the presentation? Doesn't matter.
OK, whatever you'd like to do, Madam Vice Mayor.
I think I think it's useful to take it after, frankly, but OK.
Yes.
OK, so we will proceed then.
Yes.
Thank you so much, Madam Vice Mayor.
Tonight, staff is prepared to review with the mayor, the council and the public, the waterfront specific plan.
This is an item that has been worked on for a number of years.
Tonight, you will have our park rec and waterfront director, Scott Ferris, and then our deputy director, Christina, and they will take over the presentation now.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tonya.
Scott Ferris, park recreation, waterfront director with me tonight to make this presentation is Christina Erickson, our deputy director.
Also in the audience.
So we have Roger Miller, senior manager, analyst and Allie Endress, our waterfront manager online.
We have Lysak McNulty, our CIP manager, Mary Lydekter from Hargreaves and Jones, Justin Horner, principal planner in the planning department, our city attorney team.
And in addition to that, we have our outgoing chair of the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission, Claudia Kosinska, and our incoming chair of the same commission, Alan Aschez.
And Alan is going to talk a little bit after Christina and I are done presenting.
Christina.
Great.
OK, let's share screen.
OK, go ahead and get started.
OK, thank you, council members.
You can hear me.
I'm going to put a little closer.
Better.
OK, great.
OK, we're here tonight to talk about the waterfront specific plan.
Let me jump right in.
So this plan started, as many of you know, back in 2019 when council authorized the city to conduct a study looking at the long term vision of the Berkeley waterfront.
And this came at a time when year after year we were coming as a department to council to talk about the challenges we were having in the marina fund because costs were well outpacing revenues.
And this was, you know, even prior to covid, these problems were making themselves known.
And after years of this going on, the council said, let's take a step back.
Let's evaluate the long term plan for what we're trying to do at the waterfront.
Let's think about ways in which we can create a sort of financially sustainable waterfront well into the future and think about what we want our waterfront to look like well into the future.
So that started back in 2019.
Flash forward to September of 2023 after some public process.
I'll touch on in just a minute.
The draft plan was published.
We updated.
We made several changes to the draft and updates over the course of last fall.
And the most recent update just was released last Friday, November eight.
At a high level, the draft plan provides a vision for meeting current and future community needs at the waterfront over the next 25 to 50 years.
Importantly, and why it's a specific plan and not just a general or a master plan, it's going to create zoning guidance where there is none today.
So currently, the waterfront is only one of, I think, three places in the whole city that's in this unclassified zone.
And so it means that there is no governing guidance for the planning officials and the city council about what should go there.
And so proposers don't have a lot of visibility into what the city would want.
And there's a sort of more onerous process than any other part of the city to introduce any kind of new use at the waterfront.
So what this plan will do is designate potential areas and create zoning where there is none.
Designate areas for commercial redevelopment, new recreation opportunities and provide the sort of design guidelines and development standards that will then inform changes later to the zoning ordinance.
OK, so I touched on this, but just to go back to it, because it framed so much of why we got started with this project was the Marina Fund.
And the Marina Fund is the vehicle that we use to manage all of the revenue that's brought in at the waterfront, largely from leases, from the hotel and restaurants and from birthers, all of the boaters that you see down at the waterfront and the related activities and revenues.
Those revenues are intended to cover the waterfront are intended to cover the cost down at the waterfront.
And, you know, to date, those costs have included all of the operations and maintenance of the waterfront, which includes the streets, the parks, the marina, the all of the landscaped areas.
And over time that there was a clear mismatch and that created an operational deficit today.
That operational deficit is at eight hundred fifty thousand dollars a year.
And this council knows well, we've been coming year upon year to talk about that and talk about the gap that we need to fill each year.
Stepping back.
The other thing that's gone on is we have huge unfunded infrastructure costs.
And part of this is just a function of the whole waterfront was really built up in present form back in the 60s.
And so by twenty twenty four, so much of that infrastructure has reached the end of its useful life.
And so that's where we are.
And we have about ninety four million dollars in things that we know need fixing.
And that is exclusive of the Berkeley Pier.
So everything outside of the pier is going to cost ninety four million dollars.
So even if you said, let's try to accomplish fixing all of those things over the next twenty five years, we'd be looking at needing, you know, close to four million dollars just to cover those infrastructure needs.
So when you add those two things together, that creates about a four point six million dollar gap.
Now enter Measure Y.
You know that we are not fully done with our election, but it looks likely that Measure Y will pass.
What Measure Y will do in addition to adding capital for parks, it also is going to have a tree planting unit that will be established in the city.
But it also allows for the waterfront parks and landscaped areas to now be covered by the parks tax, where historically that was never the case.
And what that effectively does is it shifts one point five million dollars in cost off of the marina fund, creating that breathability so that that operational deficit is closed and that there is some money for capital.
You can see from this map, it doesn't go all the way to what we think we need, especially on the capital side, but it's important and important dent.
OK, this next slide is really about the process that we've been working with the community on since 2019.
Twenty nineteen is when we sort of got the approval from council and the contract really got moving in very early 2020, almost exactly when the pandemic started.
So it was a bumpy first couple of years, but luckily, much of the work was able to be virtual as a lot of studies we took on.
We completed a number of infrastructure and market studies, and there was a large community process that I'll touch on in just a moment.
You can see where we are on the slide.
We're here at the end of twenty four.
The next step after we get your feedback tonight will be do we proceed with the environmental review phase or undertake more studies or pause or stop rather on the entire plan? OK, here's a look at the public process and the community engagement that we've had to date.
You can see on the left of this slide, this is just a high level glance.
We've had six large community workshops with over four hundred thirty attendees.
We've had twenty eight different focus groups over the course of the last several years.
We've had three community questionnaires that have gone out.
We have about fifteen hundred subscribers to our website who get updates on this project.
And we've had four council updates and two council work sessions prior to tonight.
It's hard to take all of the four years of feedback and distill it into five bullet points, but we've tried to at least get to some of the kind of common themes we've heard here.
A major one we heard over and over is that people do want new users to be encouraged to come to the waterfront, but they also want to make sure we're preserving existing uses because there is a lot of love for the existing uses that are at the waterfront.
And so we want to see those endured into the future.
We've heard interest in balancing redevelopment as we think about what could come in the future, think strategically about geography and balancing on the north and south sides.
We've heard about wanting to preserve access to nature and recreation.
And so that could mean, for example, promoting density and discouraging sprawl so that we don't cut into views of the water and access to the water.
We've heard a huge emphasis on protecting open space.
We want no development.
And we've heard no development in park areas is what the community would like to see.
And then limited on the shoreline edge to make sure that people continue to have good access to the water.
And we've heard over and over that people want to make sure that this waterfront is sustained well into the future.
People don't all agree on exactly how we should sustain it financially into the future, but everybody agrees it needs to happen.
So here I mentioned this a little bit in the very beginning, but what the specific plan will and won't do.
So what it will do is it's going to give council and it's going to give planning officials and the public and proposers clear guidelines for making civic decisions well into the future about the waterfront.
There will be specific land use regulations, development standards, clear zoning parameters and design guidelines, all in the service of helping all of you and the public and developers have appropriate and positive proposals.
What the Berkeley waterfront specific plan will not do is design or implement any of the renderings that you'll see in the plan.
We have some beautiful renderings of possibilities, but those are just that.
They're possibilities, always what will materialize as a function of what the private market will bring forward and what the city would support.
Similarly, there will be no guarantee that any capital projects will come, will happen as a result of this, just like it is today.
Those are a function of existing city, existing funds available and city priorities.
The other important thing that this Berkeley waterfront specific plan doesn't include today is planning around Cesar Chavez Park.
And I'll get into this in a moment.
But that really came about a couple of years ago when we heard a large public outcry against the possibility of any change to the park.
And I think there was a lot of concern that what would happen would be, you know, big commercial development or, you know, large activities.
And people really responded to that.
And so the response was significant enough that the decision was made at that point to pull it out of of the plan and to leave it as is.
And so that's where we are today.
And I'll just say a little bit more about Cesar Chavez Park and its history now as we think about this going into the evening.
So Cesar Chavez Park, everyone knows, is a former landfill and it was a park built over that landfill.
And the original master plan for that park was initially developed in 1977 and then approved in 79.
And you can actually see a picture on this slide of what was envisioned at the time.
And, you know, not much of that exists today.
But there were things like, for example, a seven acre pond and buildings, an area for ball fields, picnics, overnight camping, in addition to marshland and grass fields and fishing areas.
By 1991, there was a new effort to do a conceptual master plan that focused much more on landscaping, still made reference to other kind of recreation amenities like an amphitheater area, a children's play area, a small boat dock, public art.
It also made more mention of sort of important landfill testing and management in addition to those park improvements.
It was never formally adopted.
The 2003 Marina Master Plan that preceded this effort was really primarily a CIP plan.
And so it didn't have any reference really to Cesar Chavez Park, except that southern edge right along Spinnaker Way.
And there it talked mostly about a sort of potential small boat launch and a forest grove and that sort of thing, a restroom.
So this is really the main governing document that's been adopted by the city is that 1979 plan.
And so it's it's interesting to see that versus what we see now on the ground.
OK, so let's step back to this plan.
So the waterfront specific plan is close to 300 pages, and we're not going to go through it tonight.
I'm just going to touch on a few highlights of it.
This is what's in it.
It's a table of contents.
I'm not sure how well you can see this.
Hopefully, everybody can see it on your own screens.
But there's some yellow highlights on this page that at the heart of the plan is the Berkeley waterfront vision section two.
And that includes the vision for parks, recreation, nature, redevelopment and all the supporting infrastructure to make that happen.
And then section three is where we take the meat of the plan.
And this is the part that then goes to inform future changes to zoning.
This includes land use allocation, land use regulations, development standards, et cetera.
The parts you see that are highlighted in yellow, those are parts that are still under development, so they're not complete in the plan today.
That's the executive summary you can see under supporting infrastructure.
We have two sections that we're working on parking strategies, which I'll talk more about in a minute and infrastructure priorities.
We want to do some more work with the community on identifying our priorities for infrastructure.
Implementation is not finished yet, but will be soon.
If you've seen the outline specific plan, it has a series of tables that show you how you get from vision to implementation.
That's what will be here.
And then we'll add the EIR basis of study as we get direction from the council about how we proceed.
OK, I'll have a few quick slides on the vision and won't go too deep into this.
The idea is to identify what new opportunities exist amidst existing opportunities.
And so this rendering, if you look closely at it, shows that balance of existing and future potentially.
I won't go through it in detail, but there are, you know, to highlight some of the things there are potential beach improvements or shoreboard park improvements.
There are potential redevelopments at redevelopments at near skates and the parking lot or near the Marine Center or an expanded double tree.
Lots of things are possible here, but these are just ideas.
Here's some renderings that we did as part of this project to spur some of the thinking about what could be at the waterfront and how should that inform our zoning.
This these are pictures of potentially, you know, park improvements at the wild area of Shorebird Park, a potential aquatic center on the top right with potentially a hotel in the deep background at skates by the bay, skates on the bay at the Marine Center.
There could be an opportunity to have some kind of food and beverage that helps you take advantage of that amazing shoreline or more food and beverage overlooking the harbor.
Lots of different ideas.
OK, this map, in some ways, is the most important one in the plan because it lays out what can be permitted, what uses can happen where.
An important thing to notice is that the green parks will remain parks.
And so that is what they're intended for.
And we don't see a lot of of change.
There won't be commercial activity in any of those parks.
As you see, the inner core is red.
That's the commercial area that would be designated for commercial activity.
And what's distinctive about that area now is that it's all parking lots and buildings for the most part.
And so the idea would be that the city is open to looking at ideas for how we could have those areas invigorated with some new uses as well.
The areas that are in that yellowish, orangish color would be dedicated to recreation, so that doesn't mean necessarily that couldn't be a structure there, but pardon me over at the aquatic over where the Cal Sailing and Cal Adventures are right now in the South Cove, you could have something like an aquatic center, but it would need to be recreational in orientation.
And now the hatched area around the inner harbor that has a couple of of functions.
Number one, it is a public realm.
And so the idea is that maybe leased area.
You can see where the double tree is and down where the Marine Center is today.
Those leased areas go right up to the water.
But we want to make sure that this plan stipulates that the first 100 yards, 100 yards from the shore are going to be dedicated to public or prioritized for public access.
Similarly, if you come down towards the Seawall Peninsula, I can use a cursor here.
The Seawall Peninsula is at the southern edge of the waterfront.
That has a special regulatory quality to it.
And the reason is, is that was fill right at the same time that around the same time that BCDC, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, came into being.
As a result, there are very different regulations governing that particular peninsula.
And in many ways, the regulatory authorities see that area as water, not actually fill.
And that's kind of the regulatory level that any changes there would be held to.
So any existing uses like the existing parking lot and the existing restaurant that we have down at the former His Lordships, those would continue to be allowable because we have a permit from BCDC to do those things.
Any change would be extremely difficult, could take two to three years and would require a significant amount of political consensus.
OK, I am not going to go through every line on this slide, but this is the land use table.
This governs what new uses would be permitted.
And this is all in the plan, and I encourage everybody to check it out at a high level.
Any existing use will continue to be permitted at the waterfront.
And we've tried to use terms for those uses that already exist in the zoning code so that we don't have to define many new uses.
So if things feel a little funny in terms of how they're worded, that's why the initials in the middle of the table refer to the type of permission or permit that would need to be sought.
So does it need a zoning certificate if it's something small like a coffee cart, perhaps? Does it need a use permit if it's something more significant like a hotel? Yes.
And for things in between, there could be an administrative use permit, which is issued at the staff level in the planning department.
OK, this next slide is a snip, and again, I won't go through the details, but these are the development standards that inform the entire plan.
And so this gets at things like what are the height limits? What are the coverage ratios? You know, in typical planning zones, you'll see floor area ratio is an important metric at the waterfront.
It's just one parcel of land.
And so you can't use that metric.
It doesn't work.
And so to try to get at something similar, we've divided the waterfront up into these sub areas and then said the percentage of land that you can cover with structures is X.
And so, for example, that's why you see the building sub area coverage as a as a development standard.
There are also setbacks, ground floor uses, et cetera, all in here.
OK, now we're going to turn for a minute to the parking study.
So we were ready, actually, to present much of this information to the council around this time last year.
And we paused for a year.
And that's because we wanted to pause and take on and let the parking study that was already starting to get underway at the waterfront proceed.
And that parking study is actually being done under the Pier Ferry project.
So the Pier Ferry project was fully funded for design and environmental last summer in the early part of 20 May and June of 2023.
As part of the scope of that project, they're evaluating how the visitors from the Pier Ferry are going to have an impact on parking and what will be the strategies the city uses to mitigate that impact.
In addition to that, there's scope in that project to be able to look at the cumulative impact not just of Pier Ferry visitors, but also of potential additional visitors from waterfront specific plan related new commercial new recreational uses at the waterfront.
So we've got that parking study going on right now.
Again, I hope you can see the highlights here.
But where we are is highlighted in yellow.
We've completed the existing conditions.
Those are up on the web on the Pier Ferry's website.
And we are underway now on the Pier Ferry test to portion of that.
And the team is waiting for feedback in part from tonight on undertaking test three so that they can identify what's the level of development we're thinking about for the waterfront specific plan.
And then they'll study the related number of visitors.
What that study has found is that just the existing conditions study, existing conditions are that there is parking at the waterfront.
There's significant parking.
And the study will provide much more detail.
But the chart on the right gives you a sense of how this has played out on peak Saturdays.
This is a chart of activity on Saturdays on peak Saturdays.
You can see that some lots and in particular at the South Cove, right in the middle of the southern part of the waterfront, it does fill up.
But if you look at the neighboring lots, they're not full on those same peak Saturdays.
And that's kind of the story of what we're seeing in existing conditions.
We held a community meeting on this in September at the very end of September.
This study is scheduled to be completed in the next two to three months.
And I think I just covered this, so I'm going to breeze through that.
OK, so now we want to talk to you about the the level of development that is being considered in the waterfront specific plan.
So we have these development standards and guidelines.
But the other thing that we are looking at layering in is what's the appropriate level of development? Because then we can kind of put something on top of the development standards that informs that.
And so we're going to talk a little bit more about that in the next few slides.
And then we're going to talk a little bit more about what's the appropriate level of development that informs that to think about that.
We wanted to show you first a picture of the existing waterfront.
So the existing waterfront generates two point two million dollars in Marina Fund revenue.
And as this collection of buildings, not all of them are leases.
But together, this three hundred eighty thousand square feet of existing development generates that amount of revenue.
So we wanted to show you a picture of the existing waterfront.
And then we're going to talk a little bit more about some of the additional scenarios that show basically a low, medium and high level of development to give you a sense of what could be considered as we go forward for the plan and also for things that we're studying, including the parking study and environmental impacts.
So here's the low scenario.
The low scenario would be doubling the existing number of structures.
So this is a picture of the existing waterfront.
And again, this is a picture of what's going to happen because as we've talked about, we don't know what will actually happen.
That'll be a function of of market interest and city support.
But this just gives a broad sense of if we double the square footage, an example of how the kind of heaviness of that could feel.
And what it could look like is potentially an expansion at the double tree.
There could be an expansion where the Marine Center is now.
There could be a spot for a hotel.
You can see the areas around the current HANA Japan and 125 office building.
Those could be built up or expanded.
There could be a small aquatic center, et cetera.
The moderate scenario basically moves up from there.
So if the prior scenario was about twice the massing of the existing waterfront, this would be about two point six times the existing waterfront.
And you can see this, each of these buildings and these places just get a little bit taller and similar.
What this would do if we followed the same ratio as existing revenue brings in about two point two million dollars.
Well, two point six times that would bring in an additional three point five.
And then in the high scenario, this would be a little more than tripling the existing massing.
And so you can see, again, the buildings all.

Segment 2

get a little bit bulkier.
And the idea would be, though, that they could be anywhere.
This just gives a sense of how this would look at that level of gross square feet.
So as we think about what's the highest level of development that should be considered, the kinds of considerations to keep in mind, the first one is the EIR is going to evaluate the most significant possible conceptual build-out.
It's only a conceptual build-out.
The more development we study, the more we're going to understand about the impacts, not just of environmental impacts, but of parking impacts.
On the other hand, we know that there are concerns about excessive development.
And so weighing how the user experience is managed in the face of any kind of incoming development.
And then finally, another arc of consideration is the marina fund revenue.
And larger development may equate to larger revenue, which may secure the waterfront more into the future.
And the table here just summarizes what we just discussed.
OK, so before we talk about wanting council feedback, we wanted to share with you what we've heard from our Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission in terms of feedback.
The first thing to know, and I should mention that Ellen next to me is going to also come in as soon as we're done and provide more context here.
The commission did not take a stand on those development scenarios we just showed.
Instead, what they recommended is delaying action on the waterfront-specific plan right now so that we have time to do two things.
One is complete that parking study.
I mentioned we're about two to three months away, so we're close on that.
And the second is to prepare a conceptual plan for Cesar Chavez Park to bring it back into the waterfront-specific plan process.
Ellen will talk more about that in a minute.
They had some other recommendations that were somewhat secondary to those first two goals, looking to reorient the waterfront-specific plan a little bit away from revenue generation and more towards enhancing the waterfront experience.
They wanted to set a 25-year horizon, not a 50-year horizon for planning.
They wanted to reframe the discussion of the Seawall Peninsula to encourage use and development consistent with BCDC guidelines.
They wanted to encourage public benefit components of any future commercial development proposals and to encourage philanthropic funding and donations as we look forward into how we identify long-term financial solutions for the waterfront.
OK, I think I'm going to hand it over to Scott.
Nice job.
OK, so we're looking for direction from you tonight on a couple different areas.
We want to know should we proceed immediately? That means starting CEQA, completing the CEQA, and coming back to you in the spring of 2026.
And you just saw that if we do proceed, you're going to need to give us direction on the limit of development in order to study it under CEQA.
Do we pause, do more studies? We're going to talk about those options in a second, and more public process, and then come back to you again before we proceed with CEQA? Or do we stop work and end the project? And so we're generally looking for that direction, but each one is a little bit more complicated, and we're going to take a look at those possible directions right now.
Next slide.
So if you tell us to proceed, give us direction to proceed, like I said, we'll likely come back to you in 2026.
And we'll have completed the CEQA process and ask for more specifics on exactly what can happen in terms of development down the waterfront.
We'll also bring back zoning adjustments and equates to that plan.
And so if we do proceed, we've seen three options.
I wonder if you can put them back on the screen.
First, the load development option, which could still allow for new amenities, though it may attract fewer proposals, as there's less square footage to develop.
And if we were to equate our existing square footage with our existing revenue and keep that ratio the same, then the load development scenario could raise up to $2.2 million, because it doubles as existing square footage.
Or the moderate scenario, which adds 605,000 square feet for potential development and potentially more new amenities and responds to community concerns about more appropriate level of development in our mind.
So this is not the highest level.
It's more of a moderate level.
And if you were to use the same ratios for revenue that we have now, potentially it could add up to $3.5 million.
And lastly, the high scenario.
And we have a typo here.
It actually adds 835,000 square feet.
We had corrected it, but forgot to correct it on this version of it.
So this is the high scenario, which would give us a total of 1.215 square feet of development and adds 835,000 and potentially up to $4.8 million.
So we're looking at those three scenarios in terms of development.
And if you tell us to proceed, we're going to want you to identify one of those so we can move forward.
The high development scenario in terms of CEQA provides us the most flexibility in terms of ultimately what you can determine, what development happens in the waterfront when we come back to you.
Because when we do CEQA, that means we'll study both the high, the moderate, and the low and then come back to you in a year from now.
And you will be able to choose between those three options or some version in between about where you want to, what kind of commercial development, and how much.
And so that is the advantage of doing the high scenario.
City staff are recommending the moderate scenario largely because we've heard so much concern about too much development could potentially ruin the feel and the nature of the waterfront.
Next slide.
If we were to pause, several things could happen.
One, we could finish the parking study at the high redevelopment scenario.
So if we pause right now, we're still going to want you to identify what the study in that parking scenario.
And then we would come back to you after we finish that.
We're probably in five to six months, and we'd start CEQA in 2025.
Additionally, the second option is we pause, and this is our commission's recommendation.
And I will tell you that staff agrees with this recommendation is that we would finish the parking study and complete a Severs-Chavez recreation-based conceptual master plan.
And I'll add the word nature into that too.
So a nature of recreation-based conceptual master plan.
And then return to council when we're done with that plan.
And obviously, we'd be done with the parking study.
And that would be in sometime in 2026.
So that is option two if we were to pause.
And additionally, in this option, you could still identify a level of redevelopment.
And we're going to need a level of redevelopment to finish the parking study either way.
Next slide.
Or should we stop? And the reasons for stopping could include a few things.
One, it looks like we're going to pass a park stax that will deal with the operational deficit for the marina fund for the near future.
And we would be able to redirect our focus to other projects in the waterfront.
Redevelopment would still occur, but it would go through a more difficult approval process in the waterfront as it would remain unclassified in the zoning code.
Okay, I am at this point.
We can take questions and discussions, but I'd like to turn it over to our incoming commission chair, Alan Apshes, to talk about the commission recommendation.
Susan, is this okay? Good evening, members of the council.
I'm Alan Apshes, incoming chair of your Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission.
First of all, I want to say, please don't stop.
There's a lot of work that's gone into this, and I want to make it clear about the commission's feeling.
Please don't stop.
The commission's participated in the WSB process for two-plus years, has carefully studied the WSB as it's evolved.
At every commission meeting, at every commission meeting over that same period, the commission has also received extensive public input regarding the WSB.
And you might remember that in July of last year, the commission submitted an extensive report to the council that you might recall.
This past week, the commission adopted seven unanimous recommendations that we afforded to you.
I want to focus on two of them tonight in the time you've allotted to the commission to make this presentation.
Again, please don't stop.
That's an extra plus recommendation.
Don't stop.
Recommendation one, as you're very well aware, the number one concern of the public regarding the WSB is parking.
Accordingly, the commission recommends that before the commission make any further decision about the WSB or initiates an EIR, the commission strongly recommends that what the staff report calls task three of the parking study be completed and be released to the public.
Task three should evaluate existing parking demand, additional parking demand from the high level of potential development, which is the biggest scenario you can examine, as well as foreseeable parking demand from the ferry and pier development.
This is all critical because task three will provide recommendations regarding to what extent and how cumulative development, whether low, moderate, or high, might be served by parking and TDM.
And when the council has received a well-thought-out parking plan, the council can make a well-informed decision regarding the WSB, including how much development is appropriate, because it may answer the question for you.
And waiting for task three's analysis and recommendations will put the WSB on a better empirical and a better public footing.
Recommendation two, some of this has been covered by Scott and Christina.
The WSB is proposed as a 50-year plan for our waterfront.
But as that stands before you, the plan does not include the largest land use at the waterfront, that used in Cesar Chavez Park.
At 90 acres, Cesar Chavez Park comprises more than half of the waterfront's land area.
It should be an anchor of the WSB, and it has potential to become Berkeley's crown jewel park.
But it cannot serve these purposes if it is allowed to remain in its present state as a barely reclaimed landfill.
The council knows that there was substantial blowback when the WSB consultants discussed introducing commercial uses to the park.
The commission is not recommending revisiting that issue.
Rather, the commission proposes that the time be taken to prepare, as part of the WSB, a conceptual plan for improving Cesar Chavez Park with biodiverse, natural, local landscaping, great design, organization, and state-of-the-yard picnicking amenities, while retaining the 17-acre off-leash dog area.
There is actually substantial public interest in this idea, and the commission is ready to take a leading role in stewarding such a plan through the public process.
Increasing the attractiveness and the use of Cesar Chavez Park by more diverse users is long overdue, and will promote social equity.
Moreover, enhancing the park's largest, sorry, enhancing the waterfront's largest land use will increase the attractiveness of the waterfront to other private investment that's necessary to drive and sustain the other components of the WSB.
So, on behalf of your unanimous commission, I ask that you adopt these two recommendations, and I'm prepared to answer questions about any of the other recommendations.
Thank you.
Council Member Weingraff, I'd like to go back to one slide, too.
I wanna finish, because there are some financial implications here that I failed to point out.
If we proceed, we haven't, you know, initially, in 2019, we allocated $1.1 million for this project.
If we proceed, we'll be able to finish the project with that budget.
If we don't proceed, if we pause, there's gonna be a financial cost.
So, even if we pause just for six months, we're anticipating about a $35,000 increase in the cost.
If we pause for a year, it's gonna be about 45, if we pause and go back and do additional studies outside the ones that are already funded.
For instance, if we do an additional study for Cesar Chavez, that could eat up a lot of the existing money that we have set aside for the environmental process, and we'd have to come back to you after completing those studies to ask for additional money to complete the environmental process when we do.
Okay.
Ellen, I wonder if you could summarize the two options that you are recommending to the council.
There's a lot of information in your presentation, and if you could distill, I'd appreciate that.
Thank you.
First, we think the council, sorry.
Yeah, we're gonna go back.
Okay, back to the..
First, the commission strongly believes the council deserves and the public deserves to receive a completed parking study, and the parking study's gonna really tell you empirically what can be done through TDM and parking for whatever level of commercial development and existing development and the ferry that you might envision.
So it's critical information, and it would be difficult to make a well-informed decision if you didn't have that information.
And secondly, we think there's really strong support for enhancing Cesar Chavez Park.
This kind of got caught in the snafu.
The air has been cleared about this, and the commission really knows that the public strongly supports enhancing that area.
And since it's the largest land use at the waterfront, I mean, there are kind of two anchor uses at the waterfront that are being considered here.
One, the pier and the ferry, and the other is the unrealized potential of the park, and that the potential of the park for the city as a whole is immense, but it needs to be enhanced, and that can be done through natural landscaping, amenities, and terrific design.
And we think it's worth the time to do that if this is a 50-year plan, because then you're gonna have your other major anchor, being Cesar Chavez Park, which the city already owns, to anchor and drive public attraction, drive public investment, and all these different things.
So that summarizes, I think.
Okay, thank you.
Does that conclude your presentation? It does.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, we'll go now to questions from the dais, and then to public comment.
And, yes, you go.
Thank you.
I think I'll probably save most of my questions till the end, but I wanted to say I really appreciate staff going the extra mile to provide presentations to us, and thank you to the commissioners as well, who met with our office.
There's one aspect that I either don't recall hearing when we had the meeting, or this is new information.
Could you clarify, I think, Scott, you said that pausing option two would be your recommendation, and I wanted to make sure I, was that the correct understanding of what you're recommending? Because I thought the recommendation was to proceed with option two.
Yes, so we are recommending, staff recommendation is that we proceed with a moderate redevelopment scenario, and that, and we additionally, we agree that we should go back and do the work at Cesar Chavez.
It was initially in the plan to do that work, and then was removed, and just, we will finish the parking study in that time.
The parking study's probably gonna be done in January, so that'll be done, but yes, we agree that if there's funding, there's funding in the project now, but we'll use up that funding and have to come back to you for additional funding to finish the EIR.
So from our perspective, we think that's the right thing to do.
Doing a waterfront-specific plan without doing that work around Cesar Chavez Park, we really feel like we have an incomplete plan, and that by adding it, we will complete the plan, even though it delays it farther.
So as a follow-up, and I'll save the rest of my questions till later, could we be, just as an alternative, would it be legally sound for us to say tonight, proceed with the plan and leave the discretion to staff to start the EIR once the parking study is completed without it being put back to us in a few months? No, because, and I don't know if Frima or staff is on, but once we start that EIR process, we've got a time limit, and so we want to finish all the studies, then come back to you and have you authorize the EIR process formally sometime a year or so from now.
Thank you.
Council Member Humbert, any questions? No, I don't have any at this time.
Council Member Kisilwani? Excuse me? Yeah, I'm not going by that gizmo.
I'm just going down all-time analog, you know? Thank you very much, Madam Vice Mayor.
Thank you, staff, for the presentation.
I do want to hear from the rest of my colleagues on this, but I want to express support for pursuing, I think it's called the maximum scenario for EIR, environmental impact review, and it doesn't mean that we would necessarily pursue that level of development, but as many of us have come to learn with these environmental impact reviews, if you don't study the maximum scenario, you can then be limited.
So I think we should have the option, and we can then make those determinations later, and this is simply an exercise in conducting an EIR.
So I wanted to express that point, and that's all I have for now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Bartlett? Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.
Wonderful presentation, thank you.
It's great to see it all laid out in such an easy-to-digest format.
You know, the piece that keeps coming to mind here is the unfunded costs, right, the marina funding gap.
I'm curious if the projections take into account any additional sort of calamitous events like sea level rise or a deepening of the kind of strange occurring of the gas leakage at the park underground.
On the first question, can you hear me? Yes.
On the first question, yes, those figures, the $94 million of unfunded infrastructure needs includes the three sea level rise projects that we know that we want to work on because there are three levels, three areas of the waterfront that have been identified as vulnerable to sea level rise.
One is at the corner of Virginia and Marina Boulevard.
We call it the Virginia Street Extension near the entrance to Cesar Chavez Park across from the Doubletree.
The other is in the corner where the Doubletree is near the D&E docks.
And then the third one is along University Avenue at the approach to the waterfront.
Those three projects are built into that unfunded number of the $94 million, yeah.
But what's not built into it is maintenance on the existing projects that we've been doing and are doing currently and have been completed and will complete.
So that, yes, the $94 million represents the envelope of things we need to complete now, but it doesn't represent the maintenance that we'll need to do in those in the next 25 years.
So.
Thank you.
Theoretically, the number's gonna be greater than that.
Okay.
Thank you, that's it.
Council Member Taffer.
Thank you.
I do have some questions, but I want to first thank staff and the commission and my colleagues for their foresight in 2019 as well.
So this idea of pausing for a conceptual plan for Cesar Chavez Park, you would need an additional 30K to do that, is that correct? No, it would probably be in more in the 200 to 250K realm.
And we were to pause just, I'm sorry, Council Member Taffer, if we were to pause just for the next six months to deliver the parking study and come back to you, it would probably, the cost would probably be another 35K.
If we were to pause and do the Cesar Chavez plan, then it would probably be in the range, another two to 250,000.
For a combined total of? No, it wouldn't be combined, it'd be separate, yeah.
And would that, when would we make that allocation? Would that take place during the June process or would that, or I don't know if there would be available funding under the current cycle, is that? We wouldn't need it this fiscal year.
We would come back in 2026 for that.
So it could be funded potentially in 2026.
And if it, heaven forbid, if it were not funded in 26, then it wouldn't, we wouldn't be able to conduct it.
Correct.
Which would delay the WSP by? Until we found the funding to complete the EIR.
So when we set out on this, Cesar Chavez was included and it was decoupled at a certain point because of the outrage people had in response to one of the community engagement meetings.
So if we do a conceptual plan and people don't like those renderings, would we find ourselves in the same situation or we would have to decouple it again because people got mad or the same people turned up the same opposition? Just trying to think through how we can accommodate that without repeating the steps that brought us to here.
Yeah, so if you're asking, will we end up with the same product that we have now if we start that process? Potentially that's possible, but I think that there was confusion when that happened.
I think people thought we were gonna do commercial development there, even though we didn't show that type of development in the plan and somehow that kind of blossomed into we don't want Cesar Chavez touched at all.
And so that's the reason why it was taken out of the plan.
I think as soon as we go forward with this understanding that it's focused on nature and recreation, that it's going to, we're not gonna have that same issue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Or not as big of an issue.
Yeah, well, those are my questions now.
I'll leave that there, thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Luna-Powell.
I had similar questions as my colleagues and they've been answered, so I'm all good.
Thank you so much to staff for this presentation and for all of your hard work and to the commission as well.
Okay, thanks.
Council Member Hahn, your hand is up.
Please, please go ahead.
Great, can you hear me? Yes, we can.
All right, great, thank you so much.
There was a slide, and I don't need to see it again, but one of the options was stop and focus on other projects.
I was curious, what are the other projects that we would focus on if we stopped? Great question.
So we currently, my department currently has 41 capital projects that we're working on.
And so it would be, and we are moving as fast as we can on a lot of those projects, but the Waterfront Specific Plan does take up a fair amount of time and energy.
And so we would just be able to spend that time on other capital projects and initiatives in my department.
So.
Okay, got it.
So it's not other projects at the marina, like urgent repairs or something like that.
It's writ large, other projects for the Parks Department.
Both projects in the marina and in the Parks Department, correct.
We have a lot of current projects in the waterfront and a lot of current planning projects that this project draws resources from.
Okay.
And I'm curious, I know it could take up a whole session, but what about the ferry? Is that alive? Is that faltering? Is that endangered? Obviously from the time that project was originally envisioned to now, there've been a lot of changes and patterns of whether people go to work and how they get there.
And I know there's also a strong desire to have it for recreational purposes, but can you just briefly say something about whether that element is full steam ahead or teetering? Yeah, correct.
Thank you.
Well, the Pier Ferry Project, the planning for the Pier Ferry Project and the ERR process through final design is fully funded with $11.1 million and a combination of three sources.
We have a grant from the State Coastal Conservancy, a grant from ACTC, and we have $3 million from WIDA.
And those makes up $11.1 million and we're currently have brought on a series of consultants to help us do that work and are working on that process now and plan to start the public process in the next couple of months.

Segment 3

Um, which will lead into the secret process, um, and be complete in that secret process in 2020 at some point in 2025 or 2026.
So, that piece goes forward, whether this goes forward, pauses or doesn't happen.
Whether the parking study is done or not, that piece has its own engine.
And it's on funding.
Um, correct.
Okay.
And is the park study integral to being able to figure that out? Yeah, yeah, I think Christina mentioned that the parking study that we're using now is being funded by the peer ferry project.
So, and so that's why we're able to do that parking study.
And the reason why we paused a year ago, because once those funding sources became available, and there was the need to do that parking study, we allowed, and I cry from the public to do it.
We use those funds to do that study and we brought on a contractor that study is in process.
And I don't know if you can fit back to that slide, Christina, but we've done a lot of the baseline work and that study should be done in the next couple months.
And finalized.
Okay, so that goes forward no matter what as well.
Correct.
Okay.
Um.
On these different scenarios, like the low, medium and higher intensity development scenarios.
You have these projections of income.
And potential income, I, I'm assuming that that is the maximum potential income if 100%.
Of the proposed.
Volume of development were.
Completed is that correct? Or is it the average and does it envision sort of when everything would be done in 1520 years or trying to understand that number? Is that a number that we could get in 5 years? Or is that like a long term aspirational number? That's a great question.
So let me describe what that number is.
So, right now, and we're looking at the slide that shows 380,000 feet of development in the waterfront and that development includes commercial development.
Hotels, restaurants and recreation includes a variety of things and that development.
That's the city.
That's the Marina fund 2.2Million dollars.
Each year, and so that was the ratio and that we use to generate the number and then when we increased it by, and this is may not it's not exact science here.
Right? So, if we obviously, if we were to increase, if we just do commercial development.
And don't do recreation development in terms of square footage, then that number may be even more, or it may be even less.
We have, but I understand that the numbers and estimate and I appreciate.
That it's derived from some reasonable rational.
Basis, what I'm saying is, are we imagining that we get to that number? I don't need the existing I need, like, the proposed future scenarios.
Where they have higher numbers, if you could maybe move to 1 of those slides.
Yeah, so that 4.8Million as an example.
Is that assuming all this development that's shown here took place all of it's done all of it's full.
It's all built.
And it's all generating revenue then at that point.
You're estimating 4.8Million.
Is that what that is? That number.
Yeah, it's based on the ratio that we have that we use to existing square foot to existing revenue now.
So that is the, but I mean, the likelihood of us.
Building an additional, like I said, there's a typo here.
I think it was 835 square foot.
Of commercial development is.
In the next 25 years is slim that a lot of things would have to happen to make for this to happen.
And 1 of the reasons why we're recommending the moderate level is because there isn't as much development given the feedback we've heard from the residents about keeping development under control.
Okay, yeah, I mean, I guess I kind of, I know that.
I feel like we're sometimes putting a little bit of a cart before the horse here thinking that that the reason to do this thing is to get the money.
Right when you these things might never get done.
And if they did get done, they would take a long time to get done.
And then the amount of money they might generate is.
Speculative, right? And so I just feel like when we have a number like that up on the screen, people are like, okay, if we pick this scenario, wow, we're going to have all that money.
And that's that's not really what what it really plays out as.
I mean, it could be more money.
Maybe it's 10Million dollars we get.
But a lot of other things would happen have to happen.
For us to get there, and I just think it's important for us all to realize that whatever the money is that might be realized from a low, medium or high scenario.
1, it's speculative, none of it might ever happen.
Some of it likely will happen and all of it probably won't happen.
Right? And whatever does happen is going to take a long time.
I just think we all need to understand that a static number on the page, it's not static in.
In reality, I recall quite a while ago that we also asked the public if they would be willing to support a bond measure.
To do the necessary upgrades and repairs at the part at the.
Waterfront without additional intensification and I, I recall that that pulled pretty well or surveyed.
I don't remember what you would call it.
Is that am I misremembering or wasn't that an early question that was asked in this process? You mean, in the process when we were pulling for revenue measures of this for this November? No, I think when I went to.
1 of the sessions, the small group sessions that you had about a year ago, or maybe a year and a half, maybe it was 2 years.
I recall, but I may be misrecalling that that we did ask the public, like, would you just be willing to pay for this stuff? And the answer was, yeah.
Am I misremembering that? Did we never ask that question? I don't remember that question.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
And then my last question is, why didn't we ask for more money and just cover these capital needs? There was, you know, and kudos to those who ran the parks campaign.
That money just rolled in.
I mean, the public said, yes.
Without a lot of effort, so why.
Why are we even here thinking about.
More development when it seems like we might be able to just go to the voters and.
Get the money to do these additional capital improvements.
Why isn't that 1 of the options here? Yeah, I'm not sure I can answer that question about the, you know, the level of the.
Um, the parks tax increase, I do know when we pulled, though, there were elements.
And when we pulled around elements around fixing the waterfront, they did not pull well in terms of our, when we pulled for revenue measures for the variety of measures that we're pulling full.
So, the, the, the 1 day, we, we talked about just fixing the waterfront infrastructure, those they didn't that didn't pull very well.
Okay, I will just say that as a general matter, I'm leaning very heavily towards the recommendations of the commission.
I agree very strongly that nature and recreation should be primary.
I think we have seen.
That the public is despite what the polling said, the public was very ready.
To support our parks, and I think if we could.
The public doesn't view all these parcels and overlapping agencies jurisdictions.
This is park.
This is Marina.
This is this.
They don't see that.
They just see this whole area as 1 big thing.
And I think if we could put together and an integrated and inspired plan.
Something fabulous visionary.
For all of it and propose that to the public, I think they would fund it.
And I, I, it's a.
Yeah, it's a little frustrating to see.
Us get caught up in, you know.
I don't know we're putting small.
Jurisdictional money generating considerations.
Up front, rather than having something visionary and inspiring.
That really captures the imagination and enjoyment of the community.
And, um, puts this whole thing together as as this incredible park and destination and.
Public amenity, not just for Berkeley, but for the entire use Bay and that is my wish.
That is my dream is that we dream a little bigger.
We do something integrated and we come up with designs that are really.
State of the art.
World class designs, and then we'd go and sell that to the people in Berkeley.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member.
Um, well, let me just say that for as long as I can remember, this part of the city has been running at a deficit.
I can't remember when we were not in the red.
And I can't tell you how many years back that was, but it was a long time and I'm.
Looking forward to finally dealing with this.
Let's make this right.
Let's put this part of our city, this treasure, absolute treasure.
Let's fix it and make it right.
I agree with council member.
We should be looking at the broadest possible options because it's not a good idea when you're doing planning to limit your options.
So, it doesn't mean we're going to do them, but for the purposes of sequel, we should be studying them.
So I would.
I would, I'm right now favoring.
Studying the.
The biggest proposal that's before us.
And I guess right now, that's.
What I have to say, I want to thank the commission.
I know you've all worked so hard on this.
And it hasn't been easy, so I really want to thank you for your persistence and for your commitment.
And I want to thank staff too for hanging in there and dealing with this year after year after year after year.
I think it's time to move forward.
And I look forward to going down there 1 day and.
Seeing it all fixed, so I think that legal has a comment and then I'll go to council member.
Taplin, I think Laura Packard from legal would like to clarify something.
So, if you're on.
Yes, I'm on.
Did you want to thank you vice mayor? So, we wanted to revisit council member suggestion.
You know, if we're understanding correctly, this question is whether it's permissible to give direction to staff now to complete the parking study phase 3 and or.
The Cesar Chavez conceptual plan and then.
Initiate the environmental overview.
And, you know, if we're understanding that correctly, that would be a permissible path and wouldn't require.
You know, an intermediate.
Step of coming back to the council if council wants, it could give that direction this evening to.
Study and then proceed, it would be legally permissible to do so.
Thank you very much for that clarification council member.
Thank you very much.
I just want to briefly say that.
I don't think we should have to go back to the voters to fix basic things that they expect us to maintain.
And I know there are 2 parks in the waterfront.
The waterfront also includes things that are not parks, such as the harbor, such as the Marina itself.
And we've heard tonight that Cesar Chavez and the pier ferry are anchoring are anchoring things in the plan.
I would say that a 3rd anchor is the harbor itself.
And all the aquatic stakeholders who whose activities are down to the harbor and the parks fund won't cover waterfront capital, which is what we need the Marina fund to do, which we can't do because of all the things that are burning the Marina fund, which is why we are here tonight to begin with.
I, I, I align myself with my colleagues.
I think, you know, looking at the, the, the higher development potential for the is is is strategic.
It doesn't tie us to any of those levels of development.
But I think, you know, being able to look at each scenario will be beneficial for us and for future councils.
I, I, you know, I would be supportive of of having the Cesar Chavez conceptual plan.
If I knew that in June, we would be able to.
To to fund that without risking our ability to fund whatever else might need to be funded, such as the FNG docks, which are a harbor project and which would generate revenue perhaps sooner than the rest of everything else happening.
I just don't want to have to choose between.
You know, if if it's well, I guess the question I have on that note is, what do we would we be able to fund the conceptual plan using parks funds or parks acts? Or would that be general funds? That's a great question.
The conceptual plan for the waterfront for Cesar Chavez Park, you could use parks tax for it, but the the EIR for the waterfront study, you could not use parks tax for.
It's potentially a portion of it, you could, but a small portion.
Thank you.
OK, I think I'd like to go to public comment now and then after public comment, we can bring it back to the dais for discussion.
So please line up.
If there are more than 10 speakers, you each have a minute, if there are, let's count them out.
One, two, three, four.
Does that count those on Zoom, Rose? Yes, we have we have four on Zoom, five on Zoom, six on Zoom, seven on Zoom.
OK, I think you have a minute, Jim.
So I'm here to support the Parks Commission.
The goal is to get to yes.
And in order to do that, you're going to have to build some consensus.
That's going to be required.
Can you speak into the microphone, please? That's going to be required if you're going to get funding.
As you know, the third rail is parking, and I disagree with the conclusion in the statement.
In fact, we found parking counts that show on this summer, the basin, all the parks, all the parking lots in the South Basin are full on a weekday.
So it's not that parking, but whether or not you support parking retention to protect access for recreation, or you want to change the way in which people get to the waterfront, you have to have a valid base and the public has to be aware of it.
So you have to have good numbers and they have to be out there public.
And they also have to be sufficient to draw any new commercial development.
If you're looking at a doubling the square footage down there, you're going to have to double the parking or come close.
Thank you, Jim.
Hi, I'm a researcher and I participated in a systematic random sampling of fishers along Seawall Drive over the past couple of years and got about over 200 in the sample.
What is surprising is that the demographic breakdown of the sample is just about flipped in comparison to Berkeley.
While Berkeley is 52% white, 8% black, 12% Latino, for example, the sample is about one quarter each black, white, Latino.
Also, Berkeley's medium income is about $104,000, so 50% of the people are below that, while in the sample, 70% of the sample had an income at that or less than $90,000.
So what this is saying is this is partly because of the historical pier that draws people to here, also a potential anchor, and it continues to be fishing a popular recreational use of the marina along the shoreline.
And it shows once again that this is one of our most socioeconomically diverse recreational areas in Berkeley, and it could be grown.
With no integration of the pier ferry project in the waterfront specific plan or alternatives, like a ferry starting from inside the marina, like no ferry, a ferry for weekends or special events, as was indicated a preference in one of the city's surveys to the community, it is difficult to understand the impact of this major capital project on this use and on other recreational uses in the waterfront.
Before this meeting, David Fielder and I and Gordon Stout sent you a final list of 949 signatures.
I have copies of people who are in favor of a more holistic approach to this parallel pier ferry and waterfront specific plan efforts.
And so we know more about the full impacts of the WIDA ferry plan, know its full cost to Berkeley residents, honestly assess alternatives.
We urge you to take the Park Recreation and Waterfront Commission's recommendations to pause the waterfront specific plan.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, I'll try for one.
I might need a tiny bit more.
Okay.
Firstly, I want to thank everyone who voted for yes on Measure Y.
The parks tax increases, you know, it's a campaign I co-ran with the PRR, my PRR, excuse me, PRW colleague Gordon Wozniak.
I also want to thank the mayor and the council members for agreeing with your parks commissioners back in November of 2023 to place that initiative on the ballot.
We on the measures citizen led committee ran a very lean operation, but due to some part of your unanimous endorsement and wonderful logo my husband designed, Y prevailed.
But that brings me to my second point.
I am requesting that you take under advisement the recommendation that was detailed tonight by Alan and vote for a slight pause on moving the WSP into a CEQA review.
There are a few issues mostly based in and around the not-for-prime-time parking study that need more data and more acceptability from the public.
We want the WSP to succeed, and if you take the leap and do an EIR now, our expert advice is it won't, it'll fail.
So all we're asking for is a slight pause and with consideration for a conceptual plan for Chavez that I promise I'll work my butt off to make it pass.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Claudia.
I'm Martin Nicolau speaking for myself, but I'm the chair of the Chavez Park Conservancy.
The best thing about the draft is the absence of a plan for commercial development in Chavez Park.
But the million-dollar so-called master plan, now renamed conceptual plan, looks like a Trojan horse to bring commercial development back.
It has no foundation, and I think it needs to be stopped.
The draft's description of waterfront flora and fauna is worthless.
The consultants have no idea what actually grows there.
They've pasted it together from textbooks or with AI.
They've never actually walked the park.
There's no environmental consciousness in the draft, no land acknowledgement, no Save the Bay discussion, no awareness of the native plant area and the native pollinator habitat, nothing about bird-safe glass or about safe night lighting.
They even want to convert native grasslands to lawns.
They claim that the entire waterfront except Chavez Park is built on construction debris.
That's so glaringly wrong.
It's shocking to see it in print.
The council has asked how to respond.
My recommendation is pause, fire Hargreave Jones, and start again with a more competent and trustworthy consultant.
Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
Yes, hello.
My name is Ernest Isaacs.
I'm a long-term user of the park.
I've been running around it for a long time, and actually some of my tires are underneath the landfill there.
I don't want to talk about the plan itself, which I think sucks, actually, but I want to address one small part of it, which is the public response.
I'm old, word to drop.
The public response.
There was a slide up there at the beginning that said how many focus groups there were and how many people, and I was on all those focus groups.
The result of this plan had nothing to do whatsoever with the theme of what people were talking about.
The consultant showed us a picture, and in the back was kind of a hotel looming in the back, and people looked at that hotel and said, what the hell is that? They said, oh, it's just a kind of an idea of some sort.
But in point of fact, it has not been.
That impact has not been taken into account.
The ferry is really embedded in this whole plan, and the result of these focus groups was they think the ferry sucks.
They think it's going to be a drain on the city and not much value.
So what I'd like to suggest is to pause, go on, and whatever the council decides to do, make sure that the public input really is listened to.
One more thing was, I guess, a year of summer at Shorebird Park, the PRW had a little display of all the pictures and what was going to be happening, and the response was Post-it notes to put on the pictures, and I have no idea if anything ever happened to that.
I remember talking to some of the staff members, and it was supposed to be the staff listening, and I would say X, and they would argue with me.
So whatever goes forth, I would like you to really consider the public input.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Paul? Thank you.
I'm Paul Kamen.
I'm a naval architect.
I love ferries.
For the last 51 years, I've been at the marina almost every day, and I blame the Cal Sailing Club for the fact that I don't have a PhD.
One thing that really jumped out at me from the staff report is the contention that the ferry plan and the specific plan are completely independent of each other, as if they're on different planets.
They're not on different planets.
They're on the same stretch of waterfront, and each one has a profound effect on the other.
A proper area plan would have, along with identifying three possible levels of development, would have also identified three possible or more possible allowable levels of impact from the ferry system, and we should have been presented with alternatives for the ferry service that varied the location of the terminal, the level of service, the speed and size of the ferries.
Instead, we only got four different breakwater designs.
That was just rearranging the deck chairs with only one real alternative for the ferry service.
So it would make much more sense to pause the ferry plan and continue with the specific plan, because the specific plan really should be driving the nature of the ferry service.
I'll send the rest in an email.
Thanks.
Thank you, Paul.
Next speaker, please.
Hi, I'm Verona Fonte, and I'm the public.
I agree with what Sophie Hahn said in that whatever does happen is going to take a long time.
I'm at the marina every day, and I spend a lot of time walking there.
I'd like someone to point me to whoever is responsible for taking care of upgrading basic infrastructure before we do anything else.
And specifically, I'm talking about Seawall Drive.
I have a friend who fell there last week, and I took her picture.
I said, just stay there, turn your face away.
And, you know, I wondered if the city of Berkeley was liable.
And I went to the office, and the person was really nice, and he said, oh, we'll go mend it.
And along the trail walkway, the sidewalk is awful.
It's awful.
And why is that a priority? I read the whole 254 pages of the report trying to find out who makes priorities in terms of infrastructure upgrading and where the Bay Trailway is, and if that will be done.
So that's my question.
Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
Good evening.
My name's Erin Deem.
I'm the Vice Chair of the Parks, Rec and Waterfront Commission.
And I want to thank the public, as Claudia Koshinska already did, for supporting Measure Y.
It does look like it will pass.
It's 75%.
And we also want to thank you, the City Council members, for putting Measure Y on the ballot and for supporting the input from us, the PRW Commission.
And as you know, we're here to share additional input.

Segment 4

We request a brief pause in the planning process for the waterfront to add a couple of really important updates One I would like to see is a little bit more information around the benefits of measure Y We know it'll raise three point eight million dollars 1.5 million are earmarked for the waterfront and we know that $850,000 of that will actually go to address the structural deficit, but what's going to happen with the remaining? $650,000 I think it'd be good to have some information about that The second is most important is the completion of the parking study.
It's at the core of this planning effort.
Okay here But it's really essential.
So we have an adequate parking study to enter into the sequel review I think you all have been emailed the language around the bay plan That we have to be sure that even if a ferry is brought in we cannot usurp access to recreational acts to recreational access and And So as it stands the current version of the WSP hasn't yet established a stable Baseline project description of existing conditions, which is required by sequel law So we ask you to pause and finish the parking study and then go on from there.
Thank you.
Thank you Next speaker, please I'd like to cede my minute the gentleman behind me It's three minutes, thank you So I'm a member of the Cal Sailing Club the beating heart of the Berkeley Marina and I'd like to ask tonight your support for the recommendations of your park commissioners to pause the study to complete the relevant to pause the the Waterfront plan and to complete the relevant parking study and also Listen to the recommendation moving ahead and read and revising this plan to put less emphasis on revenue development Now recently the the City Council passed unanimously support to keep us at our Historic JDOC berths and thank you again for doing that standing up for Community sailing and waterfront activities and you really listened to the overwhelming community support in over 3,000 petition signers scores of letters speakers at hearings and Those voices were not just narrowly focused on JDOC, but rather support for the Cal Sailing Club as a vital cherished institution and I'd submit more vital now than ever and What they were speaking for was what we already have now at the South South sailing basin wasn't just focusing on JDOC And what we have now, you know, most cities would be ecstatic to have an organization not not having to be burdened by city employees or having to add money each year to run it but run by volunteers and Really I've been in the club for a while.
I've seen I've seen it grow.
It's never been more accessible more open more community minded and So the my main point is it's it's successful now without development Now sure we could pave the the yard lot or maybe add water or move the back fence But so many of these other proposals are just out of character and not necessary in the South sailing basin So just ask you to support What's already a good thing? Without further development and some of these Representations, you know, we're told there, you know, they're just drawings or don't take the text seriously But they keep reappearing in every draft So I would I would hope moving forward that those Proposals could be removed and instead show pictures of the current vibrant activity we have in the South Sailing Basin Thank you very much for your consideration Thank you Are there any other speakers in the room that wish to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none.
We'll move to zoom and The first speaker will be Charles Denson Yes, I thank you I'm asking the council to pause the environmental impact report For the waterfront specific plan until the parking study for the marina is finalized This brief pause is needed to determine the negative effects and the impact the parking for the proposed ferry Will have on the marina and the surrounding parks Also, the plan is too vague about the future of the Marine Center boatyard and chandlery The Marine Center is vital to the marina and it appears the plan calls for the facility to be reduced and transformed into a beer garden or a parking lot for food trucks The boatyard needs to be preserved as it's a historical component that should not be excluded from the plan We need this working waterfront and the revenue and the jobs that it generates It's the only do-it-yourself boatyard on the bay.
It's educational.
There's no reason That it should be removed from the put that should be removed from the plan And also, thank you for ending the commercial development of Cesar Chavez Park and that high scenario Development would be an absolute disaster For the marina.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Virginia Browning Virginia can you can you please speak? Okay.
Can you hear me? Yes Okay.
All right.
First of all, oh You know the thing about studying Cesar Chavez Park, I hope you've read Martin Nikolaos's Comment he has a good written comment that includes a lot of things about the plants and stuff now I don't think you need to spend money studying and vibrate Vibranting Cesar Chavez Park.
It's already a magnificent treasure Miss Wengraff.
I hope you'll be able to hear me sometime So, you know that could take away some of the cost I'm sorry, but this thing about massive development is Just it's not appropriate for this place and it's not just the parking It's also the by the way, I have a minute seated to me from Daniel Borgstrom.
He's here, too Do you want to say something? I hope that I'm seeing time.
Okay, so anyway So the high development is totally inappropriate coming the cars coming down the road now are Are at certain times of the day are already too many I put a whole bunch of stuff about how to you know, thoughts about that in my comment one thing though is as Martin Nikolaos has a good picture in his comment of how crowded it is there now sometimes So I know you guys want money, but as far as being a treasure It's already a treasure and the the main thing is not to put commercial development across right across the street on Smineker Way there Which you say it's essentially still part of Cesar Chavez Park as far as how people use the park people sit there and Chill out all the time and look at the sunset.
It's so beautiful They come from all over people came I went down and interviewed people they were coming from Walnut Creek from all over to go there to enjoy and Get peace from the massive development that's going on in the city We need that somehow there needs to be money found for it Thank you Hi Tony Good evening.
I want to thank outgoing Parks chair Claudia Kaczynska who has done a fantastic job Everybody who's been to the Parks Commission and knows what goes on there is in awe of the quality work that she put in I want to thank Gordon Aaron and all of the park commissioners and everybody who voted for measure why the parks tax I Agree with every single word that Jim McGrath Marty Nicholas and especially Paul Kamen talked about and I don't really believe there's enough space for parking for all this development for the ferry and for people to want to come and Recreate at the waterfront the best development that I heard tonight was world-class state-of-the-art picnic tables I think that if we had some really good picnic tables down there people from all over the Bay Area would flood and just come down and enjoy themselves and Thank you.
I love I love picnic tables.
Thank you.
Thanks a lot Merrill Siegel Hi good evening I'm co-founder of a group called beautiful San Pablo and we represent a lot of people in West Berkeley We go to the marina that's where we and chill especially in light of all the Urbanization that's happening in d1 and d2.
It's really important to keep this area free from Communication and development.
I Know people like Igor have been involved in the Sierra Club and bird watching.
That's where we go we go to the marina and Watch the birds and hang out so I'd like to say that many in our group agree and support Marty Nicholas and Charles Denson and others who said put a pause on this project And we want to thank Sophie Han for her very well stated comments about Let's let's take another look.
Thank you.
One more thing, sir D1 has the least open space of any other district.
Okay.
Thank you Thanks a lot.
Good night Reena Reena Fisher.
All right.
I'm the chair of Berkeley's Commission on disability And I wanted to throw just two things into the hopper One is very preliminary, but I want people to think about The development that happens at the marina Should be viewed as as the minimum requirements and that we need to Have it look look at other other places that have included accessible Ways for disabled folks to get onto the water and and and and Ways for disabled folks to get onto the water Accessibility built into the peers.
I want us to look broadly at ways at priority number three ways to expand the populations and community members that are using the Waterfront and specifically the disability community and that brings me to my second point Which is that the city of Berkeley is legally required to comply with What's called? WCAG web content accessibility guidelines and this 250 page draft and each of the previous drafts are not Accessible to people who use screen readers and the city is legally required To make these documents accessible to folks who use screen readers, and I want to encourage the More than encouraged.
I want to state the requirement to the folks putting together these very intent image intensive map intensive Documents that now that that there are less expensive ways using AI to To have alternative text Explanations, but this must be done in a document.
That's so important for the city's future planning Thank you.
Thank you Next speaker is Nicholas What waiting? Yes, so Nicholas with the Cal Sailing Club On the board of the Cal Sailing Club, so First yes I would like to thank all the support that we've received recently both from the City Council and and the PRW Commission In support of community sailing and the community use of the area I would like to raise some issues We see with the plan in particular with our area in the intense scenario This area is heavily used.
It's it's really de facto already an aquatic center and there's many many different options available to the public different types of sailing kayaks windsurfing rowing all across the marina and what we keep seeing in the plan are these renderings and the text that goes with it with the idea of putting a Cafe on top of our our heads is is not really compatible with With community sailing and the current Identity identity and nature of the organizations that are there.
So I really just implore for the staff and and the people working on the plan to really talk to the current users and what would make sense there and I would finally just would like to come in support of the recommendation from the Commission to Pause and do a proper study of the parking.
Thank you All right, next speaker is Andrew Sullivan Thank you, thank you for having me I'm Andrew Sullivan, I'm the current president of the San Francisco Board Sailing Association we represent about 5,000 Board sailors across the Bay Area and we advocate for shoreline access and the Berkeley Marina is a major Access point for our users.
I want to talk about the importance of shoreline access as a magnet for diversity, first of all Access to the shoreline isn't just about going out on a boat going out on a board it's something that is has become particularly post kovat a cathartic release experience for people and an emotional and psychological soothing experience for a larger and larger part of our population and I think that needs to factor into the way we're talking about the shoreline because it's a major part of Our urban landscape right now.
We are talking about a critical piece of Landscape for people to find relief here Not just recreation, but relief and I want to say that beaches and shoreline access are magnets for diversity and ferries are not I was heavily involved in the Albany Beach restoration project And one thing that's similar here is that you are not factoring into the fact that the parking studies that are currently being done Which is some suspect don't factor into the the fact that his Lordships is closed the Burke the pier is closed There's been a crime issue down there, which has negatively impacted use and it's still full right and we haven't beautified it yet So once you improve this space, you will have more demand and the demand is already heavy Without a ferry.
So these parking studies need to take into consideration What the space would be used and when it's improved Secondly, I think that you need you really need to look at BCDC compliance and remember that this is a park It's it's not a commercial development property.
It is a recreational area defined by Given to Berkeley by the BCDC under those terms and you're gonna you're gonna slam into a brick wall if you don't remember that Andrew please wrap up your comments.
That's it.
Good.
Thank you very much Next speakers Kelly hammer grin Thank you, I'm gonna go direct to my comments, um, I Know that you all want to get this off your plate and not have to come back or fruit not To have it come back and give further guidance and to not have to come back and talk about the EIR But I would encourage you To do just that so that We need to get the parking study done I've been attending the Commission meetings and from what I've heard I'm concerned that the peak parking Utilization is not being captured So I want to say that word again the peak parking Utilization when it is busiest we want to make sure that that is Captured we talk a lot about equity in Berkeley And we just heard from Rena who is on the Disability Commission and access And I think we need to pay attention to that.
I also worry that we push away diversity of Users who do not have a lot of income who currently? Access the Waterfront right now and I would ask that the recreational Activities that go on at the waterfront whatever we plan should be recreation That is it has to be at the waterfront, you know things that can take place At another location shouldn't we shouldn't be using space for that at the waterfront? At the waterfront it should be like the swimming the sailing the nature that all occurs at the waterfront Thank you Thank you for not interrupting me.
Thank you, Kelly Next speaker is Gordon stout Can you hear me now, yes, we can thank you The parking strategies that will probably be necessary To get as much stuff squeezed into the marina as conceivably possible are likely to be expensive.
We should keep in mind That the Kittleson intercept study found that 16% of the respondents of people as a random Selection of people who were down there that they interviewed reported household incomes less than $50,000 and 10% reported less than $25,000 So even if parking were $5 a day on average three days a week and 25 weeks a year That would be 375 bucks a year That's a lot for people for many of the people who come down there and I don't think we should let that happen So I think we have to keep that very firmly in mind as we go through the parking study We paid parking is basically I think a non-starter down there Okay, some thoughts about Berkeley residents who have not felt welcomed in our past I think we need to put the welcome out there.
We need to open the 199 seawall a lot and put a bunch of food trucks in it Don't wait for the Weta ferry Build a new Berkeley pier If you can get the Berkeley pier restored faster than the Weta ferry do it If you can't got to do it the other way If you can't got to do it the other way, but if you do it do it keep the seawall drive view parking If you look at Google Earth over the years you will see that many or most of those parking spaces are full people like to sit in their cars protected from the wind and Cold and enjoy some privacy the view and some conversation This is something that people actually want you have evidence that they want it.
They're always doing using it Don't take it away, especially if you want to be welcoming keep those cars pointed at the view Some boat rides at the marina that do not require previous boating skills the dragon boats have free rides during the Bay Festival on 4th of July CSC offers free open house rides one weekend per month Pegasus has free keelboat rides for kids Not presently free but could be implemented And or subsidized Hornboro clues has holiday dinner crudas leaving from the Doubletree a little bit Can you please wrap up please? Oh, I'm sorry.
I was Okay, consider me wrapped Thank you, okay now we'll go to former council member and former Parks and Recreation Commissioner Gordon was there Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can go Yeah, first I want to thank the council as my colleagues did for putting measure why on the ballot and all of you for endorse endorsing it In the public for it's giving it super majority over two thirds Secondly is even with some additional funds for parks for measure why There as the staff has pointed out there is this huge unfunded Capital liability and if you don't do some additional development down there it's not clear at all where that money comes and even though one of the representatives from CalSailing which does great things, you know says we don't need anything more in the South Sailing Basin But if you looked if you were I was down there Sunday Evening and it was a mudflat.
You can't take any boats out When you know the mudflat extends, uh, you know over, you know 300 200 300 feet you got a dredge that at some point that's going to cost tens of millions of dollars There's also you know, the whole waterfront around the harbor was designed in the 60s like a strip mall There's 20 acres of parking.
There's less than 15 acres covered with buildings Surely we can find some space there to generate some Attractions and some uses that would generate revenue and Attract more people to the waterfront.
So I hope the council will move forward with this.
I support the recommendations from the Commission and It's really important.
I'm gonna be 81 in February and I'd sure a lot 91 this thing finally ends.
Okay, and the way it's going could be a hundred.
Okay.
I'm not sure I'm gonna live that long So good luck Thank you Okay, that completes public comment on zoom I'm gonna bring the discussion back to the dais and Councilmember Taplin you're in the queue Thank you very much.
My vice mayor and thank you to all the speakers tonight.
Um, I want to preface What I will say next with them.
I am a recreational stakeholder at the marina I'm happy to say I've been going there my whole life.
I've been sailing with Robert I've gone out with Paul on the dragon boats.
I watch birds there I think one of the few things I don't do there is walk dogs.
I don't have a dog And I really want to align my comments with what we just heard from former customer Gordon Wozniak Yeah, you know I want to applaud staff and the community's work and our joint vision for Plan that balances the commercial uses or recreational uses the biodiversity And you know, these are not these are not competing interest These are these are part and parcel of our ecosystem at the waterfront.
I use the word ecosystem literally and figuratively That being said I'll put a motion on the floor to Give staff direction to first complete the parking study and prepare a nature and recreation based conceptual plan for Sears Harvest Park Then pursue an EIR for the high development scenario then come back to council for approval of the waterfront specific plan and certification of the EIR second Thank you Okay, we have a motion in a second Councilmember Casuana you're in the queue.
Did you want to say something beyond second? Thank you very much madam vice mayor, I I want to echo councilmember Taplin I also enjoyed taking the the dragon boat for Chinese New Year and visiting Cesar Chavez Park and taking my son to adventure playground and You know broadly when I was in community meetings for this waterfront specific plan What we talked about was trying to make the marina more accessible for even more users And that's also the idea of the ferry.
I love Seeing people in the South Sailing Basin doing those adventure sports I'm thinking of people like council former councilmember Rigel Robinson and others doing windsurfing and kayaking and Just swimming and and and it's really wonderful to go out there and watch them do that but not everybody has the time skill or inclination To be able to take advantage of that and so we want to offer other opportunities for People of all ages and abilities to be able to experience our waterfront So this is really an opportunity to to to make our marina even more inviting than it already is I Also want to just share That I got to participate in the Berkeley half marathon this weekend and we get to run along the Bay Trail Fire Chief Sprague was also out there as well running and and so there's just so many opportunities for us to make the marina accessible The Cesar Chavez Park.
We didn't mention tonight that we received our state funding to make the path ADA accessible and widen it and that's another example of trying to make our marina more accessible You know, there's a lot of focus on Development and while it is true, we have to be cognizant of our financial situation That is not the sole motivation behind this plan And I like others want to thank the voters for their generosity in supporting the parks tax But we can't always count on that.
We saw with measure L The voters said no to that they said I think the message I took from that is focus Berkeley City Council focus on clear Specific priorities and that's what we saw in this election.
We saw measure FF a clear focused measure on streets and Sidewalks and safety we saw the parks tax a very specific focus And so and we saw the library tax as well, so I I think we have to be careful and we can't expect a Blank check from our voters, you know, people are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis in the Bay Area So we need to be fiscally prudent and we can do so in a way that makes the marina more accessible.

Segment 5

Thank you, Councilmember Taplin, for your motion and I look forward to voting.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor Wengraf.
I want to thank staff, especially our park staff, Director Ferris and Deputy Director Erickson, members of the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission, Councilmember Taplin and everyone who's played a strong role in shepherding this through the process and bringing it to us today.
I want to echo the comments of Councilmembers Taplin, Kesarwani and Wengraf.
I strongly support us moving forward with the high scenario, which gives us the maximum flexibility to consider future uses.
All we are doing is deciding what to study and that gives us the most wiggle room to figure out what will actually work at the marina.
Understand that we have a very dedicated set of present, current marina users and I applaud them for recognizing just how special this resource is.
But I also think there are a lot of other people in Berkeley and the broader East Bay who don't visit our marina, if they even know about it at all.
We have an opportunity to create something that preserves the activities and features of the marina that we love while making room for new opportunities and generating some additional funds.
And we have to generate funds for the marina.
Thank you, former Councilmember Wozniak and former Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commissioner Wozniak, one and the same, of course, for really sharply illustrating this issue with your comments about the South Cove being a sea of mud right now.
It's going to cost a lot of money to dredge that and we have to generate some funds from the marina to do that.
We're entering into an uncertain new period with the results of the national election and we need the maximum room to maneuver as we study what comes next at the waterfront.
This is especially true because we're unlikely to be able to rely on federal and state funds in the coming years.
So the spirit of Berkeley is fundamentally about sharing what we have and I think finding new and expanded ways to share our marina with more visitors is consistent with that.
I'd point to the example of Tunnel Tops in San Francisco.
It's just a rousing success.
It's a beautiful place to visit.
I encourage people to go there and see what it's like and we can aspire to at least some of that.
I support the current motion on the floor.
Thank you.
Council Member Hartlett and then we'll go to Council Member Trayett.
Thank you, Lieutenant Mayor.
I too am a lifelong participant and an enjoyer of the facility of the park down there, the waterfront.
My father took me down there and I take my daughter to the same place and it's so much fun.
I sail with the Cal Sailing Club.
Wonderful experience.
Thank you for coming tonight.
And my father met Ursula Killeguen there.
They used to meet for coffee there once a week and walk together.
Really interesting place.
And that being said, we're planning for 50 years in the future where this is long-term horizon planning and I think we're applying yesterday's lens to this approach and I think we need to, one, have flexibility to let the future councils decide what goes where and I do believe that everything we're assuming now will be out the window.
As of now, the autonomous rideshare companies are doing 100,000 rides a week.
So this notion of parking and having massive parking lots, that's not going to be happening.
It's going to be over.
There will be cars in motion coming and going for different neighborhoods.
There'll be nothing like we see now.
And the buildings that go there, laboratories, offices, whatever we're envisioning will not be that either.
We know that the commercial retail space is in flux and that flux will only continue as people need to be in person and not to be in person as much to earn money.
So I think we need flexibility to design things that should go there that can generate the revenues we need and open up access and really move beyond this sort of scarcity mindset and let people enjoy this facility because it's beautiful.
So I support the measure as well.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
So I really want to thank everyone for taking the time to be here tonight and all the councils that preceded us for your long-term thinking about the sustainability of this crown jewel of Berkeley.
I'm not going to enumerate all the various ways that the waterfront has meant so much to me.
If you see me hobbling around a little bit, I also ran the half marathon on the waterfront.
Have appreciated being taken on a sailboat by the Cal Sailing Club and look forward to coming back if you'll have me again.
If I can ask actually Council Member Kaplan, it sounds like a motion that I would be ready to support.
I just, if you could repeat it to make sure I got it.
Yes.
Just give me one second.
The motion was to first complete the parking study and prepare a nature and recreation based conceptual plan for Cesar Chavez Park, then pursue an EIR for the high development scenario, then come back to council for approval of the waterfront specific plan and certification of the EIR.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I do support that motion and I know that the high development scenario in EIR may have a certain connotation to the public that community members, that sounds jarring to some.
I certainly understand that.
At the same time, this is an EIR, this is a study.
And I think given the tough budgetary environment that we are in and that we are planning for, it would be fiscally prudent to plan for different scenarios so that we don't have to revisit this later.
It doesn't foreclose the possibility that in practical likelihood, the development that is ultimately approved, if anything is approved, would be significantly less intense.
This is simply a planning document.
It's a legal document.
And that is an important distinction.
I did want to ask staff, or maybe the commissioner, one of your recommendations was looking at a 25-year versus a 50-year horizon to look at Cesar Chavez.
I think my question for staff is, whatever we pass tonight, does it foreclose our opportunity to weigh in on that question in the future? I don't think so, but I might defer to legal on that.
But I don't think whether it's 25 or 50 years, you're going to be able to weigh in on it at any point.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I think that answers my question, actually.
I understand the recommendations from the commission, and I understand where you're coming from.
And I appreciate the time that you've spent, certainly with my office, explaining the rationale behind it.
I think whatever we do tonight does not preclude us from having those discussions.
And I think, frankly, probably getting into some of that discussion tonight would be premature.
I absolutely support the notion that, I mean, I don't believe staff, if this motion is approved, needs to come back to us prior to starting the EIR.
I think it makes sense to do this all in one motion.
I think that is the fiscally sound path to take.
And lastly, I've heard a number of comments about Cesar Chavez.
And I, too, am very interested in ensuring that it is preserved as public use, always.
And again, that is not what is before us tonight.
What is before us tonight are the recommendations that have been laid out, or rather the options.
And with that, I am going to support the motion.
Thank you.
Council Member Hearn? Yeah, thank you very much.
I just, I had a question for Council Member Taplin, who made the motion.
If I understood correctly, so the parking study gets completed, we do a Cesar Chavez study.
Do we have money for that, or is that something we need to do some kind of a, do we need to add a budget allocation on that? Yes.
Could we ask staff for just some kind of a ballpark so that we can add a budget request to this motion? Would you be amenable to that? Council Member Hahn, as was discussed previously, this is going to be a decision that will be made for the next budget.
So for the June fiscal year 25-26 budget, it's not something that we're going to be doing tonight.
And yeah, to do a budget referral, so that, or are you thinking that you might bring something like that back another time? I just want to make sure that there's the money to do the studies here.
And I'm, of course, either of you might be bringing it up.
Council Member Hahn, could you direct your question to staff, please? You know, currently we don't have the budget to do both the Cesar Chavez study and the EIR.
We're probably short between, you know, in the range of $250,000, but we'll come back to you at the beginning of the fiscal year, or prior to that, and let you know exactly what that dollar figure is.
Okay, great.
So I just want to make sure the money gets allocated, because it doesn't get done if the money isn't there.
Okay, and I'm just wondering, so with a referral here, and this is for staff again, to complete the parking study and do, and then add a vision around Cesar Chavez Park, and do an EIR for the full scenario, can you come back with something integrated, where all the, and the various going forward, a vision that really shows how all these pieces work together? I mean, in a sense, Council here is, would be giving you the ability to look at everything, all the pieces, but can we get something that knits it all together when all is said and done? We are going to, what we can bring back is, there was, you know, we've done a lot of work on the Waterfront Specific Plan, and we're going to add Cesar Chavez to it, and so we'll bring that back.
At some point, we are starting up, very soon, we're starting a process for the Pier Ferry, but we're also in the middle of other public processes for other capital projects that will be brought to Council, hopefully, for approval for construction in the next few years, and we can, when we come back, potentially for approval of the Waterfront Specific Plan, we can call those out.
Let's see if I had any other questions.
If we do the EIR for the highest intensity scenario, we're not required to do it, right? Correct.
It just, it allows future Councils to go up to that.
Correct.
Okay.
Yeah, I mean, I think it makes sense to study all options, because it allows all options to be possible, and this may come together a couple of years from now, all the pieces, and it would be better to have all the information and all the opportunities, so I'll support the motion.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'm one of those very unfortunate people who gets very seasick, and I cannot sail, but I go to the Waterfront all the time, and I go there to clear my head, I go there for comfort, to see the horizon, I go there to meditate, I go there with my dog, there's a group called Oodles of Poodles, and we go with all our poodles, it's an amazing thing.
Anyway, I love the Waterfront, and I really, in my travels, I've been to other cities where they have waterfronts, and I see how they have integrated the waterfronts into the core of the city, and I suggest, you know, if you have the time to go to Sydney, Australia, or San Diego even, you know, Vancouver, I mean, there are cities around, Seattle too, you know, they've really done an incredible job of integrating and balancing recreation with a small amount of development that brings in revenue to maintain that recreation, and that's the whole thing, that's the sort of 64,000 or maybe 640,000 or maybe 640 million dollar question, which is how to create that balance so that the recreational facilities have the maintenance that they need to create this, you know, phenomenal place.
So I support the motion, thank you very much, Council Member Taplin, for the motion, and I look forward to watching from afar how this proceeds.
So with that, I think we'll call the question.
Council Member Lunafar, did you have anything you wanted to add? I just, I appreciate the motion, and I also love the waterfront.
I don't want to add anything that hasn't, I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, so I'm ready to vote, thanks.
Okay, please call the roll on the motion.
On the motion, as stated by Council Member Taplin, Council Member Keserwani, yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Traigub, aye, Han, yes, Wengraf, yes, Lunafar, yes, and Humbert, yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Thank you all, I think we've completed the business of this evening.
Thank you for coming, thank you colleagues, thank you, Assistant City Manager, and Council Members, and we'll see you tomorrow night.
Motion to adjourn.
Oh, motion to adjourn, sorry.
Motion to adjourn.
So moved.
Second.
Roll call.
Okay, Council Member Keserwani, yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Traigub, aye, Han, I think she, maybe she will, okay, Wengraf, yes, Lunafar, yes, Humbert, yes, motion carries.
We are adjourned.