[Bboa-members] Waterfront Commission Meeting

[Paul Kamen]

On 3/9/2006 at 3:47 PM Janet Cobb wrote:

>Paul, I think your suggestion of an equality clause would be a good
>idea.  We can't help it that this place hasn't been managed like a
>business over time.  I believe houseboat owners have paid the bills 
>sent to them by the City every time.  You are absolutely correct, 
>there is nothing special about the houseboat community.  They have 
>paid and they should receive -- and have been told by Commission 
>and Staff that Marina funds would be used to rebuild the docks if they 
>followed the public process.
>
>Your stance on H & I is fascinating.  You sat through two years of
>meetings and professional presentations smiling and nodding. 

I consistently objected to building new berths of that size. I still think 
building new 48 and 52 ft berths is a bad idea. And the fact is that
berths next to and between floating homes are difficult to market, 
which is and always has been a very good reason not to simply rebuild 
the existing configuration. 

>H&I residents begged to have those docks repaired in the same 
>configuration.  We were sent on another fool's errand. 

Economic conditions change. If the City can't afford to build new docks
exactly the way the floating home owners want them, then compromises 
will have to be made. I don't think anyone was acting in bad faith here. 

>I appreciate your creative spirit, but you have City-paid-for engineering 
>reports that say that the city is renting out unsafe docks. Lisa Corona, then 
>Waterfront and now Deputy City Manger, told us in no uncertain terms 
>that the pilings and docks were rotten to the point of not being restorable.  
>That report is years old now.  What kind of slum lord situation are you 
>perpetuating by more delays? 

There's little question that the docks need to be replaced, as do many other 
docks in the marina. Maybe the city needs to protect itself from liability by 
condemning the docks now and vacating them entirely. 

>Are you seconding Brad Smith's stated list of options at last month's 
>meeting that privitizing or closing down the Marina were being looked at up 
>town?  Perhaps we can explore the berthers forming a non-profit
>corporation and running the place.  Would that mean that we would all get 
>free berth rental?

Privatization of the boat berthing part of the waterfront is on the table. No 
reason why a berthers association couldn't be one of the private entities 
to bid on the deal. The idea of a "Berkeley Marina Coop" sounds 
intriguing - but I wonder if it could really be that much more efficient than 
the CIty (flashing back to memories of the old Berkeley food coop....)

>The Harbor Master and Waterfront Manager sent notices out a year ago 
>that all sewer system outlets be brought inside the boats.  For some of 
>us that meant going through the permitting process and expending large 
>sums of money to comply.  

Well, bringing sewage tanks inside the hulls instead of floating out in the 
harbor seems like a very reasonable requirement, and one that should 
properly be borne by the home owners. 

>This, to date, is another thing that has not been enforced.

Do you think marina staff should start enforcing this by fining or evicting 
floating homes that are not in compliance?

>I believe that all docks in the Marina that have liveaboards should include 
>sewers such as Pelican Harbor in Sausalito does.  

Every live-aboard I know uses the yacht club or the marina bathrooms. 
Alternatively, large boats (and floating homes) have the option of hiring a 
holding tank pump-out service if they can't make the trip to the pump-out 
station.

There is a big difference between a navigable live-aboard boat and a floating 
home. 

>Sewers aren't that expensive when you consider the environmental 
>degradation and public health infractions that we all know are happening 
>on a daily basis.  

Agreed, but can you be more specific about which "environmental 
degradations and public health infractions" would be prevented by sewer 
lines on all the docks? It seems to me that most of the problems are from 
existing sewer systems in poor condition. Adding more sewer lines where 
they are not needed would be setting us up for more problems in the future. 

>You are absolutely correct, houseboats paid for the sewer 
>and it has been available to a thousand other boaters and guest boats.  
>It is a complete wreck at this time because of delayed replacement, which, based
>on Commission-Staff-Council current stated intentions, will go on into the future.
>Other points you address.  I'm sure you are correct about the docks not 
>being sufficiently well built for heavy boats.  

No, I said they were not designed for floating homes. I believe they were, and 
may still be, sufficient for navigable boats of normal proportions. It's mainly a 
question of wind loading, not weight. 

>One might wonder why the management of the Marina permitted an enormous 
>two-berth, three-story boat to replace a much smaller one-story modest boat.

I don't know what approvals were given or required, but it may be that allowing 
large floating homes on the old docks is not a good idea.  I do know that Sausalito,
Oakland and Alameda have stability codes for floating homes. Berkeley should 
probably have something similar. I have reviewed some of these codes, and I 
suspect that Paul Canin's boat would not have sunk if it had been in compliance. 
You can't blame it on the old docks. 
   
>I wonder why the City of Berkeley recruited houseboats at all way back then?  
>I've been told they represented a steady source of income.  I guess the City didn't 
>see fit to retrofit the docks to meet their recruitees' weights.  They must have 
>considered the boats about equal in weight to large cruising vessels. 

Again, it's windage, not weight. And I think most of the boats were smaller back 
then. Also, note that the Marina Ordinance was originally written with the intention 
that houseboats gradually go away through attrition, not sold and resold, and not 
replaced by newer and large boats. Over the years this interpretation seems to 
have changed, and our last Marina Ordinance revision attempted to clean up this 
discrepancy. But if we're looking for original intent, it seems likely that houseboats 
were brought in as a temporary solution to some vacancies during the marina's 
start-up phase. Why else would there have been language prohibiting the 
replacement of an old houseboat with a new one? 

(From BMC 6.20.200, 1996 version: "A residential houseboat cannot be replaced 
by another residential houseboat once a berth is vacated.)

>Your expertise would have been most helpful too them in making the 
>correct calculations.  Are you suggesting that the City condemn the entire H& I, 
>buy the houseboats at fair market value, destroy them or create floating 
>hotels and restaurants and call it a day?  Is that what you are dancing 
>around about, Paul?  If so, give me a ring.  I'm very interested in any 
>business-like proposal.

No, I'm suggesting we move the houseboats to the end of K-dock where the 
docks and pilings are in much better condition, and proceed with a rational rebuild 
plan for the area now occupied by H and I.  Fish boats would move to a new fish 
boat-only I-dock. 

>Your dedication to the waterfront is truly inspirational, Paul.  I'm sure 
>by working together we can find the perfect solution to all of these notty 
>challenges.  

>Best wishes.  Janet                    

>p.s.  Paul, you mentioned that the transit authority asked you for help with 
>siting and permitting the ferry.  Does that mean that you have a major conflict
>in promoting same?  Will you be working with them under contract to do what 
>you said they asked?  I'm curious about this matter and I'm sure others might 
>also be confused about  proper roles and responsibilities.

I was called by some potential private consulting firms for info about 
the project, presumably in my capacity as a Waterfront Commissioner. 
I also attend the public WTA Board of Directors meetings on occasion. 

I have no business relationship with WTA or other involved parties at all, except 
that I've written a couple of technical papers on ferry economics and design 
using Berkeley as a case study. They're on my website if you would like to 
see details. http://www.well.com/user/pk/waterfront/Ferry/index.html

---------
Paul Kamen
Chair, Berkeley Waterfront Commission
510-540-7968  510-219-8106 (cell)
pk at well.com   www.BerkeleyWaterfront.org