WETA - Berkeley Ferry Project 

SUCCESS!!! BCDC Commissioners agree marina parking plan needs a "major" application, not a "minor" administrative consent. You all made this happen!

See below under Ferry parking plans for more details.  

Basics

Our current major concern with public access to the waterfront is the Water Emergency Transportation Authority's (WETA) proposal for a new ferry terminal at the Berkeley pier.  We think the proposal displaces waterfront recreational visitor access for a large-scale transportation hub and is inefficient as a transit option, with costly implications for the City of Berkeley and region. 

The city's information site for this project is HERE.  

What is the plan?  

Replace the existing 3000' pier with a 580' pier and ferry terminal (see Jack London terminal for general idea) and a breakwater and do major major dredging.  

The city says it will provide the money to extend the pier another 500', if feasible, for walkers and fishers, sightseers, etc.   

The number of passengers expected to leave the Berkeley terminal each day on weekdays is 915, though sometimes you will see people using other estimates put out there from various reports.  

All of WETA's routes to SF start from BIG parking lots.  Here, they think they would need 421 parking spaces daily on weekdays, based on the Kittelson parking report: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley-WTPF-Parking-and-TDM-Plan-March-2025-Public-Draft.pdf which is on this city website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/berkeley-pier-ferry-access-project.  

The city owns the former Hs Lordship's property - lot and building etc - and has an option agreement with a potential tenant would lay claim to the 150 parking spots exclusively in the HsL/Seawall lot.  We are not sure how they would "defend" the 150 spots.  Parking management implementation is super vague and one of the points we make.  The city is trying to sell paid parking as a savior for marina fund, but numbers don't work out.  As far as we are concerned, it's an excuse to depress recreation demand for parking to make room for the ferry ahead of approval of ferry project. 

WETA has not established what size ferry they would use.  City likes to say a 250-passenger electric ferry.  There ain't such thing.  WETA has a 150- and a 400-passenger electric ferry model.  Not a 250 one.  

There are landside elements to the construction.  Some pertain only to ferry and some are not exactly ferry-dependent but could be depending on how they design it.  City is on the hook for most of these landside elements. The city likes to mix-and-match the costs of these landside elements as part of ferry project or part of just regular marina maintenance, as serves their purpose for whatever presentation they are making.  

The revenue generation potential of bringing the ferry is speculated in a report by Keyser-Marston consultancy (WETA business plans do not make any promises):

While large-scale ferry service will likely generate very modest direct revenues to the Marina Fund, ferry service would enhance the Marina Area’s market appeal in attracting a new hotel and other revenue-generating development opportunities. Upon buildout of large-scale ferry service, ferry passengers are estimated to represent a major segment of demand for food and beverage facilities, sustaining up to 10% of total food and beverage spending in the Marina Area.

So, no direct revenue from WETA/SF Bay Ferry, although the city collected revenue directly from its other ferry operations, like Tidelines that operated up until the pandemic, and Genentech ferry which ceased operations in December 2025 due to cost.  And representing 10% of total food / drink sales at Marina? Don't know if this is really "major"  or couldn't be had through alternative plans that don't kill low-cost recreational access.

Other FAQs on ferry plan  

Environmental Impact Report

Timeline

• May 2025: BWCC public comments on the city's Notice of Preparation (NOP) asking for "scoping" comments

• February 2026: city posted the Draft EIR on this page.  

• April 2026: BWCC submits public comment: BWCC's public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report

• July 2026: BWCC request to governor's office to deny city's CEQA streamlining application

• TBD: staff present final EIR to city council for approval opening up window for submitting lawsuits

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 

Ferry parking plans

Of those 915 estimated to leave Berkeley each day, consultants say 421 parking spaces.  The city's agreement with WETA says those spaces have to be "reasonable distance" from the terminal gate.  Can they do it? The plan is here:

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/berkeley-pier-ferry-access-project

Counterpoints to the plan: 

Erin Diehm letter on the plan 

Key Points from BWCC meeting

McGrath letter to project manager

BWCC letter to FITES  Committee

Summary of exchanges with project manager

In May 2026, the city moved a paid parking program for South Cove and the J&K lots, bypassing the Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Commission and separately from the ferry parking plan. Our analysis (see our DEIR public comment) shows:

• 52% of waterfront visitors who arrive by car are 50 or older.

• 47% earn below Berkeley's median household income.

• On average, visitors to the south waterfront have lower incomes than those visiting the north waterfront.

• Seawall Drive and South Cove West draw the highest share of visitors earning under $25,000.

• The J&K lot near the bait shop also sees a high number of visitors earning under $75,000.

• Those earning under $25,000 most often park in South Cove West.

Regulars at the south waterfront — employees of local businesses, nonprofit volunteers, seniors, and others — would face paying a $500 annual pass to park.

Because parts of these lots fall within the 100-foot shoreline band that the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) oversees around the entire bay, BCDC must approve the plan. BCDC's role is to protect public access to the shoreline. We'd encourage you to write to them and share your concerns about this proposal.

We are delighted to report that BCDC commissioners voted 12-7 on August 6, 2026 to bump up the paid parking permit application from an admin permit -- which would have allowed city to proceed with the paid parking plan -- to a major permit application.   One commissioner specifically cited the volume of public testimony as strong indication that the plan would adversely impact public access.  Great job everyone!!

There is a lot more to unpack here, and this will come up again, but for now - take the win!!! Low-cost access to the shoreline lives another day (and hopefully longer)!

We can't underscore enough how much we are grateful for your support and engagement on this. 

Link to August 6, 2026 Commission Meeting

Read Berkeley application HERE.  

Read these letters from our members to see key points:

Allison Granzella's letter to BCDC

Jim McGrath's letter to BCDC

BWCC response and letter to BCDC