Response to comments by Hornblower Charters and Events concerning the WETA EIS/EIR and the siting of the Berkeley ferry terminal

by Paul Kamen, Naval Architect, P.E.
Member, Berkeley Waterfront Commission

February 18 2009

Some of the comments by Hornblower Charters and Events on the Berkeley ferry terminal EIS/EIR are highly biased and self-serving, and require further comment to correct some errors and present an opposing opinion. 

Dredging: 

Hornblower may be correct when they conclude that somewhat more dredging for Alt A (Doubletree site) will be required than the EIR estimate. However, this ignores the fact that the Alt A site utilizes most of an existing channel that will need periodic dredging regardless of the ferry terminal siting. Hornblower's own vessels, some of which are larger than the proposed ferry, require maintenance of the existing channel. 

All other sites require duplication of the existing channel. 

Errors or omissions in the EIR analysis notwithstanding, Alt B (fishing pier) will involve a second, new dredged channel south of the fishing pier with a continuing maintenance burden, while Alt A (Doubletree) uses an existing channel with some improvements. 

By what twisted logic does a single shared channel cause more environmental damage than two parallel channels, each maintained to approximately the same depth? 

If the environmental impact of dredging is a serious concern, then a terminal site that takes advantage of the existing channel and ongoing maintenance dredging is the most viable option. 

On other issues:

"Alternative A requires… that the harbor channel used by recreational and commercial vessels be shared."

In other words, "we have ours, go someplace else for yours." 

The harbor is a public facility, and while impacts do need to be considered, Hornblower with its high-end market-rate business and dinner cruise excursions is in no position to claim any sort of moral high ground here. Not to mention that one of the "vessels" that would be displaced is be a permanent floating kitchen houseboat that was sited there in violation of BCDC and tidelands public trust guidelines. (My understanding is that public service mitigation is required, but since the Berkeley Bay Festival has not taken place for several years it is unclear how this is being performed.)

But on the main issue: As a daily user of the Berkeley Marina, and as a marine professional, it's very unlikely in my opinion that an hourly ferry transit will cause any qualitative difference in marina traffic congestion or collision hazard. Remember that several of Hornblower's six active vessels berthed in Berkeley are considerably larger than the proposed ferry. 

" Does WETA anticipate paying for the additional wear and tear placed on the vessels and light weight Marina docks caused by the increase in vessel traffic?

They've got to be kidding. The Horblower boats themselves, and the existing fish boat fleet (mostly monohulls) produce more wave action than the proposed catamaran ferry. One of the characteristics of catamaran ferries is low wake profile, and at harbor speeds the wake will be negligible. 

"Other examples on San Francisco Bay indicate that a marina is likely to eventually be abandoned when ferry service is inserted"

They have this backwards. The major cause of marina abandonment is shoaling. See Alviso, Palo Alto, and possibly San Leandro in the near future. Vallejo Yacht Harbr is also in trouble, as are several others. These harbors failed (or are in danger of failing) because recreational use alone could not support the escalating cost of keeping the entry channel dredged. 

The best way to insure continuing existence of a marina on the Berkeley shoreline is to increase the number of users sharing the cost of dredging the channel. 

"For example, the water depth at the north end of the Hornblower dock will not allow deep drafted vessels that are currently in use there (such as the Sunset Hornblower or the Empress Hornblower)"

But the Commodore Hornblower and Captain Hornblower are smaller and shallower, and would have no trouble berthing at the north or west end of the extended dock. (Clearly Hornblower's comments are not intended to be reviewed by people familiar with the Berkeley Marina or with Hornblower's fleet.) 

More to the point, Hornblower is being extremely short-sighted to the detriment of their own interest. Berthing revenue from recreational boating alone cannot support continued dredging of the marina channel. Hornblower will, in the not too distant future, be forced to limit or abandon operations from the Berkeley unless an outside source of funding to share dredging costs can be found. Restated: If Hornblower is not willing to share the harbor, they are likely to lose it entirely. 

View obstruction:

"The proposed structure will significantly impair, if not completely block, the views of Hornblower’s guests from the top of our main gangway and the adjacent waiting areas, as well as from the public access pathway and the Doubletree Hotel’s restaurant and lounge windows."

Pot. Kettle. Black. Hornblower's six vessels and two kitchen houseboats are a continuous view obstruction, especially to people walking along the public access shoreline path and especially from the hotel restaurant (as if this should be a priority of some sort). Talk about "architectural doublespeak." Compare Hornblower's 24-7 view obstruction to that caused by a ferry that's only at the pier for a few minutes every hour. Sheesh. 

Wake damage and risk of collision

"the proximity of the potential WETA terminal and boat operations will introduce wake wash from vessel movements that likely will cause excessive wear and tear on the docks, pile keeps and cleats along the entire length of our facility (as well as on other adjacent docks in the marina)."

Red herring. Wake damage is inconsequential from vessels this size at typical harbor speeds. Historically, wake damage has only resulted from much smaller craft (e.g. monohull fish boats or utility boats) at higher speeds.  

"this proposed dock configuration creates a clear possibility of vessel collisions", jeopardizing the safety of not only our guests and crew, but also guests and crew on other affected boats."

This is a highly exaggerated claim. Yes, as shown the ferry terminal would be an inconvenience, but hardly a threat to life, limb and property as characterized. 

That said, there are problems with the configuration of the proposed terminal next to Doubletree. It is far more elaborate than needed and more expensive than is justified by the anticipated passenger load. A more sensible configuration, costing a fraction of the estimated $17M, would incorporate the terminal into the current Hornblower berthing area and move Hornblower's berths one or two spaces to the north and west. 

Parking:

Agree that a parking fee won't work anywhere in the Marina, whether at Alt A or Alt B sites. But Alt A is the only location with a reasonable possibility of expanding parking without negatively impacting other users and businesses. New parking in this area also has the best potential for shared use, filling a need for park access on weekends and ferry access for weekday commuters. 

In any case, word is that Doubletree plans to gate off their parking area, so the hotel and Hornblower parking will be protected from ferry-generated demand. 

Conclusion: 

The basic problem with the Hornblower comments is that they are written from a pure economic self-interest rather than from a public interest perspective. No surprise that they are biased and exaggerated. 

Please keep that in mind.

--------------------
Paul Kamen, Naval Architect, P.E.
Surface Propulsion Analysis 
1224 Campus Drive  Berkeley, California 94708
pk@well.com   http://www.SurfacePropulsion.com
510-540-7968   510-540-6324 (fax)  510-219-8106 (cell)