Berkeley Marina
COMPROMISED · THREATENED
NEXT MILESTONE
BCDC parking hearing, “in the coming months”
Berkeley is the most serious threat in this report, both for the access it would take away and for the precedent it would set.
The city filled the Bay in the 1960s to build a regional park, and asked for state and federal recreation money to build it. It now wants to charge for parking in the lots that serve the South Basin launches, and to give part of its waterfront to a commuter ferry terminal. It points to a shortfall in the marina fund to justify both. If the BCDC allows Berkeley to put a price on access to land filled for public recreation, every East Bay shoreline park becomes a potential source of revenue. At stake is whether a city can take land on public terms, then rewrite those terms and sidestep the regulators who enforce them. The answer will decide not only who can afford to reach the shore but also what purpose our shoreline serves.
Where SFBA stands. SFBA does not oppose ferries or development at the waterfront. We oppose paying for them with access to one of the few places on the Bay where people can launch, swim, wade, fish, sail and simply enjoy our shoreline. Put the terminal inside the marina, not out in the Bay. Be honest about what it costs, who it serves and how riders get there: most of them drive, and every one who drives needs a parking space.
The two proposals.
- Paid parking. Berkeley's city parking programs lost $1.55M in FY2025 ($4.93M in revenue against $6.48M in costs). And without any supporting details, Berkeley claims that paid parking in the marina will generate $182,000 a year, which they claim is essential for maintaining boating facilities. But at the same time, the city is sliding more than $2 million in boating revenues out the side door instead of maintaining boating facilities. In their proposal, 273 spaces at South Cove and the South Basin would become paid parking at $6 a day or $500 a year. Four 10-minute loading zones would take out 4 more spaces. Furthermore, the city can change the program at any time, a trial can become permanent administratively, and monitoring would be staff observation only. BCDC has made paid parking a major permit. It is off the October 15 agenda and is "anticipated … in the coming months" (BCDC, September 30, 2026). Does this look like a city acting in the best interest of its park users?
- The pier-ferry terminal. A 1,080-foot pier and a 400-foot breakwater, with 275 spaces in existing waterfront lots converted to paid, full-day parking for ferry riders (200 on Seawall Drive, 75 at Skates/North). While the city puts the cost at $174M, we estimate over $200M, against about $300M available for all new ferry capital in the region. The Draft EIR comment period closed April 28. On September 16 the Governor certified the project for SB 149 fast-tracked court review. A Final EIR, a council vote and a BCDC permit are still ahead, but the city has already moved to seek $25M from MTC for landside work.
The city's revised parking application says that without the projected parking revenue it cannot fix a broken hoist and a sinkhole by the failed seawall at South Cove. It concedes that fewer users can launch sailboats as a result.
How the marina fund was drained. The city claims that changes need to be made to address a chronic deficit at the Marina. Jim McGrath's review of city budgets since 2000, however, points to a deficit largely of the city's own making:
- Since FY2001: at least $18M in waterfront park maintenance and recreation programs has been charged to the marina fund instead of the parks tax, including more than $2M in FY2025 alone.
- Parks taxes: a 2014 increase has raised more than $20M, and a 2024 measure earmarked for the waterfront parks has raised about $3M. None of the 2014 money has gone to marina facilities.
- 2022–2026: about $13M in Coastal Conservancy grants went to things other than asset repair, including ferry-terminal development.
- Failures: the pier closed in 2015. East Dock closed in February 2025 and was lost for about half the season. It was built, and later rebuilt, mostly with grants Berkeley accepted along with an agreement to maintain it.
The neglect has its own cost. About 200 berths sit vacant, losing roughly $300,000 a year, and there is no reserve for dredging. In September 2026 the city tied South Cove repairs to approval of paid parking.
What Berkeley promised, and what the law requires.
- A park built with public money. In its 1965 application to BCDC, Berkeley described the South Basin as a "131-acre Marine Park" and sought federal Land and Water Conservation Fund money for it. Recent Bay Trail, parking, restroom and dock improvements serving the lots now targeted for fees cost about $18.6M, much of it from state and regional grants.
- Bay Plan Recreation Policy 3. Recreational facilities should be "easily available from parking reserved for the public," and launch sites for non-motorized boats need "sufficient, convenient parking that accommodates expected use." The city's answer, free parking up to a third of a mile away, does not work for anyone carrying a sail, a kayak or a wing.
- Recreation Policy 9. Ferry parking "should not be usurped" from park and marina users.
- Equity. BCDC guidance says public access to the Bay should "in general" be free of charge. More than 10% of respondents to the city's own survey report household income of $25,000, and apart from one council hearing, the city has done none of the outreach BCDC's environmental justice policies call for.
- Public trust. The marina sits on tidelands granted in trust. The city must account for trust revenues to the State Lands Commission (Public Resources Code §6306), and the state Constitution says access to navigable waters "shall be always attainable for the people."
There is not enough parking for both. The city's consultants forecast about 915 ferry riders a day. At WETA's existing terminals, 48% of riders drive and park, and the city's own consultants put it at 55–60%. That is roughly 440 to 550 cars a day. The plan provides 265 paid, time-limited spaces and sends the rest to Marina Boulevard and University Avenue. Meanwhile about 171,000 people a year visit the south waterfront, around 470 a day, many driving because they carry gear or kids. Both groups would compete for the same lots on the same days.
The city's count is built to come out low. It rests on five days of counts in 2024, taken on weekends, off-season or at 4 p.m., after the midday peak. Even so, the consultant counted 67 cars on Seawall Drive at peak, where the city now proposes 33 spaces. The baseline is also a low point: a pier closed since 2015, a failed dock and a silted basin. Racetrack, EBRPD's Albany Beach, shows what happens when shoreline access is improved: after EBRPD's 2020 rebuild, use jumped. BCDC has asked the city for real data on recreational demand. Anonymized mobility data can provide it, but the city refuses to use it, because those numbers tell a story the city doesn't want to tell.
Who gets pushed out. The south waterfront lots serve the activities that need gear and a nearby car: 76% of sailing and boating visits, 75% of playground visits and 70% of swimming visits in the city's own survey. They also serve more lower-income visitors: 20% of south-lot respondents earn under $75,000, against 8% in the north. In San Diego, paid parking at Balboa Park cut visits by 34%. The city's agreement with WETA promises ferry riders parking "within a reasonable distance." Recreational users deserve the same standard.
Who has authority over the waterfront. Berkeley argues that BCDC can only review the 53 of 273 spaces within 100 feet of the shoreline. BCDC's own ferry staff report says jurisdiction south of University Avenue "is difficult to confirm." Jim McGrath, a former BCDC commissioner, went back to the original documents:
- BCDC permitted the fill itself. Permit 1966.028.00 approved 4.6 acres of fill for "a marina restaurant, public beach, park area, automobile parking, and a relocated and expanded University of California sailing facility." It has never been amended.
- The fill came after the McAteer-Petris Act. When BCDC's jurisdiction began, the city had paid only for the containment dike, not the fill behind it. The South Basin was brought to its current elevation afterward, and Berkeley never obtained a vested-right exemption.
- A designated priority recreation area. The Bay Plan marks the waterfront as Waterfront Park/Beach Priority Use Area #48.
The city has also split the project into four pieces reviewed separately: the ferry terminal, paid parking, spaces set aside for a restaurant tenant, and a Waterfront Specific Plan that could triple commercial space. BCDC should set its jurisdiction from the permit record, not the city's map, and review the four pieces as one project.
What the city's analysis leaves out. BCDC's comments on the ferry Draft EIR asked for "additional details regarding existing demand for recreational facilities" and said the DEIR rejects the in-Marina location but "does not adequately explain why."
- The most expensive way to move a commuter. WETA spends about $28.80 per ride and collects $5.40 in fares, a subsidy of roughly $23 every trip (Paul Kamen, from WETA's FY2024–25 budget). The regional money covering that gap is expected to run out around 2030, and Berkeley pays for the landside facilities.
- The in-marina alternative. The terminal was originally planned inside the marina. McGrath estimates the location out in the Bay saves about four minutes, at a cost of $170–205M, leaving Berkeley with a bill of at least $40M. Alameda's Seaplane Lagoon terminal cost $23M, and Paul Kamen has sketched an in-marina design at about $20M. The city has not produced a costed in-marina alternative.
Why it matters beyond Berkeley. Windsurfers, wingers, kayakers, swimmers, Cal Sailing Club, Cal Adventures, anglers and all sorts of shoreline visitors use these lots, and fees fall hardest on those who live beyond biking distance. Berkeley is one of four launches most of the Bay's boardsailors depend on, and the East Bay's other options are shrinking: Toll Plaza is gated, Crown Beach is squeezed by riprap, parking at Point Isabel will tighten during the park's 2027 cap project and, due to improvements there, and it's often difficult to park at Racetrack. By the city's own account this would be BCDC's first standalone permit for parking fees. Approving it would give every city and agency a template: divert the maintenance money, let the facilities fail, then charge the public to fix them. TIDA is already following the same pattern at Treasure Island. This is a disturbing trend to commercialize our shoreline parks.
If Berkeley is permitted to meter recreational parking at the South Basin, it will disrupt the largest source of shoreline recreational parking in the East Bay and one of the largest in our region. We have a house-of-cards of local access, so shoreline decisions must be made with a strong eye for regional implications. In order to do this, we must have an accurate understanding of parking demand and plans that address it.
2026–27 priorities:
- Seek denial of the paid parking permit. If anything is approved, it should be a time-limited trial with a sunset date, independent monitoring and a use baseline reconstructed from mobility data, and it must not become permanent administratively.
- Ask BCDC to review the parking fees and the ferry parking plan as one project.
- Set the baseline with real data, using mobility data and the Racetrack comparison, to answer BCDC's request for data on recreational demand.
- Require the full §6306 trust accounting, and fund the East Dock and South Cove repairs before any fee.
- Hold off on ferry funding, including the $25M MTC request, until there is a Final EIR, a BCDC permit, a full cost estimate, a revised MOU and a costed in-marina alternative.
- No net loss of recreational parking, measured at peak recreational hours with an understanding of latent demand.
Next decisions: the BCDC paid-parking hearing (expected in the coming months); Berkeley's November 3 bond measure, which includes dock pile replacement; the ferry Final EIR and council vote; and MTC's decision on the $25M request.
Plans and documents: City of Berkeley, Pier-Ferry project · Waterfront Specific Plan update, Mar 2023 · BCDC Design Review Board staff report, Pier-Ferry · BCDC comments on the Draft EIR · Berkeley Waterfront Community Coalition (parking and TDM reports) · BCDC, San Francisco Bay Plan