This is a review of the status of the 1999 Marina Plan,
including observations regarding the plan's most
probable function and recommendations for the plan's
content.
The 1999 Marina Plan will probably not serve as a
blueprint for implementation, due to both the lack of
consensus on development issues and the lack of
economic viability.
The Marina Plan will, however, serve several important
functions over the duration of the current planning cycle:
- As a reference document, it will provide
authoritative economic data and projections.
- As a policy document, it will set standards for new
projects, establishing acceptance criteria and some
very general performance goals.
- As a land use proposal, it will establish locations
for possible future facilities and amenities in the
form of "place holders" to be implemented when and if
funding becomes available.
- The plan will also identify key infrastructure
upgrades and ongoing maintenance projects that are
necessary to the continued operation of the Berkeley
Marina.
So for the most part, the Marina Plan will only be
taken down from the shelf in response to new proposals.
"Is it consistent with the Marina Plan?" is the
question that will be asked, and the Marina Plan should
be constructed with this in mind.
Economic Analysis:
Although one member of the City Council (Diane Wooley)
has publicly expressed the belief that it is
inappropriate to include economic analysis as part of
the Marina Plan, this is not the official position of
the Council and there has been no directive, implied or
explicit, to remove economic analysis from the plan.
In view of this sentiment, the Marina Plan should defer
to the expressed desire of public planning workshop
participants to have detailed economic data available
as a context for planning decisions. This desire was
both well-reasoned and consistently expressed by the
public participants. There is no justification for
removing the economic analysis from the plan, or for
reducing its importance.
Simplicity of presentation is critical, but the waterfront financial
situation is complex and several different levels of summarization may
be required. But one element that cannot be legitimately suppressed in
the name of "simplicity," is the clear indication of the assumptions
used for economic analysis. To date, virtually every presentation has
prompted a question along the lines of "what interest rate are you
using?"
If this document is to have a useful shelf life, it's
critical that interest rates and other variables be
stated up front, in big type, in bold, underlined,
italics.
Another missing element has been probability assessment. Economic
forecasts are highly probabilistic, yet they have been presented as
deterministic. For example: hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and boat
yards all have very different probabilities of meeting projected revenue
numbers. Some are very high risk and some are low risk. When comparing
very large and very uncertain revenue estimates to very large and very
uncertain expense estimates, especially as they project out over a long
time period, the deterministic test for economic viability becomes
increasingly inappropriate.
The resources to perform a truly rigorous economic
analysis, with standard deviations and/or confidence
bands included in the results, do not seem to be
available. Still, some commentary to the effect of
relative risk levels associated with various projects
is very much in order. Other financial risks due to
maintenance overruns, uncertainties in public funding
sources, and unpredictable market conditions need to be
recognized, if not quantified.
Without some rudimentary degree of risk analysis,
future users of the plan who have not considered these
probabilistic elements could be led seriously astray.
Development Policy:
The City Council, as of May 11 1999, is very clear in
its intention to block any significant new commercial
development in the marina. Although this plan will
probably outlast the current council by many years, the
guideline suggested by the Council needs to be
incorporated now. Perhaps this could be stated as a "no
increased commercial footprint" policy, although that's
not exactly what the Council resolution says.
Beyond that, we are left with new path designs,
landscaping, and some improvements to vehicular
circulation. The Marina Plan incorporates the reasoning
behind these designs, but the final wording needs to
recognize that they may be applied in a more general
way, rather than in accordance with the specific
details shown.
Recreational Priorities:
Establishing recreational priorities is one of the
primary elements of the Marina Plan. The basic concept
to come out of the public workshops is the importance
of access to truly water-related activities, as opposed
to shore-based activities that just happen to be near
the water. Low-cost access to sailing, rowing,
sailboard launch sites, tidal zone exploration, and use
of the limited beach resource all deserve prominence in
the Marina Plan. Some guidelines balancing the value of
these high intensity "urban waterfront" uses against
the value of "wilderness" habitat protection is in
order.
The Marina Plan should also address the role of the
boat berthers in general terms. Traditionally, boat
berthing is the core recreational service provided by
the Marina. Are the berthers to be treated strictly as
a revenue source (as per the Williams and Kuebelbeck
recommendations) or do they add value? And how do
policy decisions affecting boat berthing (berth size,
fee structure, live-aboard policy, amenities for
berthers) affect this added value?
The role of non-profit organizations and co-operatives
also needs to be mentioned in the context of low-cost
water related recreational services. Some good examples
already exist (Cal Sailing Club, Berkeley Yacht Club),
and the Marina Plan should include some wording setting
a general policy that establishes guidelines for the
creation of new organizations along the same lines.
Ongoing policies towards commercial ventures that
provide recreational services (although generally at
much higher cost to the end user than from a non-
profit) should also be considered. Sometimes a
commercial operation serves the public better than a
non-profit, sometimes not. Guidelines to help determine
which is more appropriate would be very valuable.
These are programmatic and organizational issues, not
the kinds of things that can be drawn on a site plan.
As such they tend to get short shrift from planners
with landscape architecture or brick-and-mortar
backgrounds. But with essentially no money to implement
the physical side of the Marina Plan, the programmatic
elements will become the real essence of progress at
the waterfront.
Place Holders:
Other than necessary infrastructure maintenance, most
of the specific features of the Marina Plan will not be
implemented on any known schedule. These plan elements
serve as project-specific place holders, establishing a
preferred configuration or use category, for "when and
if" the funding becomes available. Realignment of
Marina Boulevard, the small craft launch facility
serving the North Sailing Basin, and the Sailboard Club
at the South Sailing Basin are examples.
Proposed Action:
Complete the Marina Plan, incorporating as many of the
elements described above as possible.
Because of the development constraints imposed by the
Council, the plan will very likely be an economic non-
starter. If the Marina encounters serious financial
difficulty maintaining current infrastructure and
service levels, the ball goes back to the Council's
side of the court.
Meanwhile, the door has to stay open for other funding
sources and programmatic development options. Grant
funding is one. Additional private non-profit
cooperatives are another. These will most likely be a
poor fit to the details shown in the Marina Plan, so
adaptability is critical. The emphasis will shift to
the non-physical elements of the Marina Plan, and many
of these issues will have to be addressed by staff and
Commissions after the current planning process is
complete.