Embedded Files
Our current major concern with the access to the waterfront is the Water Emergency Transportation Authority's (WETA) proposal for a new ferry terminal at the pier. The city's information site for this project is HERE. The plan replaces the existing 3000' pier with a 580' pier and ferry terminal (see Jack London terminal for general idea) and a breakwater. The city says it will provide the money to extend the pier another 500' if feasible. We think the plan as proposed displaces waterfront recreational visitor access with commuter parking lots and appears to be an inefficient transit option to boot, with potentially costly impacts on the City of Berkeley and region.
(scroll down for more on the ferry parking plan)
In May 2025, BWCC submitted public comments on the city's call for "scoping" to solicit a suggested range of topics to be covered in the draft environmental impact report (DEIR). In February, the city posted the DEIR, posted on this page. The DEIR is over a 1000 very technical pages. Our team of volunteers slogged through it and submitted this 100-page public comment:
BWCC's public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
Here's a snapshot of our issues with the DEIR and general plan:
Will the city use the reduced use of waterfront caused by pier closure and parking lot closures as baseline for calculating impacts? YES. They bundled recreational infrastructure projects already in pipeline with the ferry plan DEIR to make it sound like the WETA project is delivering more than it is.
Will alternative plans for a rec-only pier or in-marina ferry terminal be entertained? NO. They gave short shrift to any other options except for WETA-friendly options. See Save the Pier for more on reopening Berkeley pier.
What evidence is there of "secondary benefits" of this plan? LITTLE. Keyser-Marston consultants gave a lukewarm shot-in-the-dark estimate of 10% increase in leaseholder tax receipts to city and WETA is making no promises.
Is there evidence that this is an environmentally friendly transit option? NO! The new terminal increases Vehicle Miles Traveled and traffic in the waterfront, GHG emissions analysis was airy, and proposal could be detrimental to existing transit financing.
Will fish, bird, whales and harbor porpoise be affected by new and ongoing major dredging and 28 high-speed ferry crossings per day? YES! See here and Sierra Club DEIR comments.
Will the city charge parking to all waterfront users to make space for the estimated ~400 ferry riders needing to park? YES
Is opposition to the WETA plan only about wanting free parking? NO. It's about low-cost access to the shoreline, an increasingly valuable and necessary public good. See another example where city managers didn't get it right for cherished public spaces: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/san-diego-parking-21336558.php
Could this plan be setting the city up to just build a ferry terminal and ferry pier with no recreational extension? POSSIBLY. A fiscal risk exists and you get to pay for it.
Other agency DEIR public comments: CEQAnet
Parking plan for ferry traffic
Parking plan for ferry traffic
At a procedural meeting, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission officers asked Berkeley to return with a ferry parking plan. The current city draft plan is found here:
At a procedural meeting, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission officers asked Berkeley to return with a ferry parking plan. The current city draft plan is found here:
The plan unsurprisingly concludes that there is plenty of space at the waterfront to accommodate the 915 passengers estimated to leave daily on a ferry. How? On May 26, 2026 BWCC held a waterfront walk-along meeting to discuss. It is based on unreasonable assumptions and weak data. See the above link for the background reports and the notes below for position of BWCC and members:
The plan unsurprisingly concludes that there is plenty of space at the waterfront to accommodate the 915 passengers estimated to leave daily on a ferry. How? On May 26, 2026 BWCC held a waterfront walk-along meeting to discuss. It is based on unreasonable assumptions and weak data. See the above link for the background reports and the notes below for position of BWCC and members:
McGrath letter to project manager
BWCC letter to FITES Committee
Summary of exchanges with project manager
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse