| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:13.14 | Mayor Withing | Good evening and welcome to a joint meeting of the Sausalito City Council and the Sausalito Financing Authorities, Tuesday, December 12th, 2014. |
| 00:00:28.82 | Unknown | Well, that's appropriate. |
| 00:00:29.77 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, that's appropriate. Thank you. |
| 00:00:31.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:31.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:00:32.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:34.02 | Mayor Withing | Okay. Um, Debbie, will you first take the role for the social leader of city council, please? |
| 00:00:46.40 | Debbie | Council member Pfeiffer. Councilmember Weiner. Present. Councilmember Leone. here. Vice Mayor Theodores. |
| 00:00:54.69 | Mayor Withing | Present. Mayor Withey. here would you please call the role for the board of directors of the financing authority |
| 00:01:09.79 | Debbie | Member Pfeiffer. Here. Member Weiner. Member Leone. Thank you. |
| 00:01:17.03 | Mayor Withing | here. |
| 00:01:17.28 | Debbie | Thank you. Vice Chair Theodorus. Present. Chair Withey. |
| 00:01:18.92 | Mayor Withing | President? Chair Withy. Here. Let's move into the Pledge of Allegiance. We have no members of the public here other than staff. So Charlie Francis. Why don't you lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:36.66 | Unknown | and I'm not sure. |
| 00:01:39.81 | David Sudo | Thank you. |
| 00:01:50.80 | Mayor Withing | we would like uh... A motion from the City Council to approve the full agenda. So move. |
| 00:02:00.96 | Councilmember Weiner | Take care. |
| 00:02:01.87 | Mayor Withing | All in favor? Aye. And we need a motion for the financing authority for its component of the agenda. |
| 00:02:02.97 | Councilmember Weiner | Bye. |
| 00:02:14.84 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. |
| 00:02:17.75 | Mayor Withing | Bye. Okay, so our first matter in the joint meeting is the The first and only matter is the public hearing of the City Council, the City of Sausalito, and the board of the directors of the Sausalito Financing Authority to approve the issuance of sewer revenue bonds. Charlie. |
| 00:02:38.91 | Jeffrey Chase | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chair, members of the Council and Board. Just for a summary, Sausalito's sewer system is old, it's deteriorated. We have a responsibility to protect the environment and keep the bay clean. We... It's essential we address urgent sewer needs, and we did so by adopting new sewer rates this past summer that went into effect for the next five years. They provided the resources necessary to implement the critical renovation of our sewer pipes. As part of the sewer rate study, we did an analysis of the tradeoff between cash funding and pay-as-you-go capital improvements and the issuance of new debt. And the sewer rate study concluded that issuing tax-exempt state revolving fund loans and new tax-exempt revenue bonds would give us the most amount of money in order to do the urgent capital improvements that we need right now. So the sewer infrastructure investment plan that was recommended to the city council was part of that sewer rate study. It was fiscally responsible and addressed the urgent sewer needs to protect the environments and health and safety of the council. This has been a process that's been under discussion by the city council for quite some time. We began the sewer rate study in October or November of 2013. We had a number of hearings in front of the city council finance Finance Committee and City Council and in the spring of 2014 we approved the new sewer rates during following that we made sure that the new sewer rates got put on the property tax bill and then we initiated bond document drafting after looking at all the different financing options and we're here today for City Council approval. If we receive the City Council and the Financing Authority approval to issue the bonds in January, the bond interest rates will be set, and we'll be able to fund the projects by February of 2015, which will still give us time to design projects during the winter season so that after the rains stop, we can start putting pipe in the ground. |
| 00:03:37.30 | Unknown | So, um, |
| 00:04:48.17 | Jeffrey Chase | Just for a summary, we're talking about the sewer collection system here. The sewer collection system is this part of the system. It's what the sewer comes down into. We're not financing any activities that go into the treatment plant. That's the responsibility of the Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District. |
| 00:05:03.27 | Unknown | that is... |
| 00:05:07.16 | Jeffrey Chase | The sewer rates that we approved in the spring and put on the tax roll this fall provided the increment. In other words, those rates were designed to provide increment that would give us the kind of debt service coverage that we needed in order to issue revenue bonds it's been under consideration uh... these are the priority projects that were identified in the uh... technical memo that accompanied the uh... sewer rate study there's over six million dollars worth of uh... infrastructure projects uh... the million of them uh... million a little about one point three million i think are underway with the uh... spinnaker sewer project that's being funded by the state revolving fund loan and the remainder of these projects. Hopefully many of these, as well as urgent sewer capital improvements that may be needed along the way, will be funded with the proceeds of this sewer revenue bond. So this is kind of a summary of it. The bonds will be issuing about $6.6 million worth of bonds, and that will generate $6,190,000 worth of money for sewer capital projects. $180,000 will go right into a reserve fund, and we have financing costs that will be coming down into here. So the reserve fund and the project fund then will fund the sewer priority projects as we go. And how this works is that the net operating income, in other words, we put gross revenues, the revenues generated from the sewer fee increase will come to the city. Out of that we pay the operating expenses of the sewer enterprise. So whatever is left, that net operating income is the sewer enterprise fund is coveting to provide to the Sausalito financing authority for the purpose of paying bond principal and interest payments to investors. So based on that promise, the financing authority is able then to issue these bonds, and the bonds to investors, and investors then give proceeds back to the Sausalito financing authority. And once it comes to the financing authority, it's distributed to the reserve fund, to the issuance costs, and to the sewer priority projects. The financing team consisted of the City Council Finance Committee, city staff, bond counsel Brian Quint from Quentin Thimmig, financial advisor Craig Hill from NHA Advisors, the trustee. We go back to this slide that these monies that go into the reserve fund and the sewer priority projects and the issuance cost all go to the Bank of New York Mellon, which is a trust fund that only distributes those monies based on certain covenants that the city council and the financing authority will be making today. Since this is going to be a competitive sale, not a negotiated sale, the underwriter will be determined on the day of the competitive sale. And how competitive sales work is it gets advertised and the bond buyer. The sales purchasers go online and they give their best quotes. And when the period, the bidding period ends, the computers automatically calculate the winning bid based on the true interest cost, you know, the true interest cost of the city being the lowest interest cost of the city. The bond documents in your packet today include indentures of trust, the notice of intention to sell bonds, the official notice of sale, the preliminary official statement and continuing disclosure certificate. Any questions on any of those documents, our bond counsel, Mr. Brian Quint, would be able to answer for the city. So the action tonight is a joint public hearing that is being held by the city council and the Sausalito Financing Authority. After you close the public hearing, City Council then would take two actions. First action would approve the issuance of bonds, and the second action to approve continuing disclosure obligations. And then the Board of Directors of the Sausalito Financing Authority would approve the bylaws of the authority, and the Board of directors then would approve the issuance of bonds. I have the – so in summary, with our current funding, the city's done everything it can to reduce sewage spills, and now these sewer revenue bonds are going to provide the additional funds to upgrade our 75-year-old deteriorated sewer pipes and infrastructure that will protect our water, it will protect our property transport sewage for the health and safety of residents, we'll continue to comply with the EPA's order, we'll keep the city financially stable, and it ensures intergenerational equity among rate payers. So with that, I have the exact wording of the motions when it comes to that time of the city council and the board of directors. If it's their desire to pass these motions, the motions will be on the screen for you. And at this point, I'll be able to answer any questions that you have, or the public works director or our bond council, Brian. Okay. |
| 00:10:12.42 | Mayor Withing | Okay, great. Thanks, Charlie. So let's open it up for questions up here. I don't know how many questions there are going to be. Let's start off by trying to go and take turns at asking questions, maybe a question and a logical follow-up, and then yield and we'll see how many questions emerge. So who wants to go first? |
| 00:10:35.93 | Councilmember Leon | Come on, hi. Charlie, in the staff report on page three, it says the average rate is 3.9% and that the The debt service will be $360,000 a year. Now, I take it we're not sure what that's going to be until we go out to bid, correct? That's correct. |
| 00:10:49.57 | Jeffrey Chase | That's correct. That's based on today's market considerations. |
| 00:10:52.96 | Councilmember Leon | And that's your best guess. |
| 00:10:54.93 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:10:54.97 | Councilmember Leon | Obviously. |
| 00:10:55.47 | Jeffrey Chase | Right, and what will happen if the interest rate goes up, we'll issue less debt, and if the interest rate goes down, we'll be able to issue more debt. The goal is to keep the debt service at $360,000, the amount that we identified in the sewer rate study to be funded. |
| 00:11:11.83 | Councilmember Leon | And when would we go out? assuming we approve tonight, |
| 00:11:17.29 | Jeffrey Chase | Yeah, from now until the middle of January is when we start reaching out to the underwriters, telling the story, going to the rating agencies and make sure that the rating would determine if we need insurance, which would be included in the bids. And then you have to advertise for what, 30 days? 15 days there'd be an advertising and then the bid would occur in mid-January. |
| 00:11:35.80 | Unknown | you |
| 00:11:44.83 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, Charlie, on attachment 1D, page 28 of 28, we've got the list of priority projects, 1 through 27. And so just to confirm that these bonds are going to cover the costs of these projects, |
| 00:11:53.24 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 00:12:02.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And the other question is, I know that in the Marin ship, as you know, sometimes we have intersections of privately owned sewer lines with the city owned sewer lines. So I notice we've got Gate 5 Road pipeline, and we've got the number 27 Liberty Shipway. So I guess my second question is just a reassurance that we are financing the city owned sewer pipes and I don't know if there's been any intersection or any arrangement with the marine ship owners on that. |
| 00:12:38.54 | Jeffrey Chase | Right. So in terms of the priority projects, hopefully the priority projects will occur pretty much in the order that they're in priority in this document, and we can only fund up to the point where we have enough money for those priority projects. If there's an emergency project that happens at any point in the time, then the bond resolution allows us then to say, becomes a higher priority than one of these projects and we can address the money towards one of those projects. And in terms of private sector, the city cannot use public money to fund private sector infrastructure improvements. So this would only be for the public sector improvements. |
| 00:13:23.32 | Jonathon Goldman | Jonathan Golban, Public Works Director and City Engineer. Just to be perfectly clear, what the city is allowed to do is to take over responsibility for lower laterals when a main line is being replaced. And so they aren't private laterals at that point in the process. Our ordinance provides for that. and the rate study and the basis for these cost estimates as we've done on Johnson Street, Richardson, and other areas of the city where we've had the opportunity to do a mainline replacement between the funds available through our Riverwatch settlement and through our ordinance. We're allowed to take that responsibility and then those lower laterals and the maintenance responsibility for them. through our Riverwatch settlement and through our ordinance. We're allowed to take that responsibility and then those lower laterals and the maintenance responsibility for them reverts back to the private property owner. |
| 00:14:16.07 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So a follow-up question to that answer, Jonathan. So the answer then would be yes. You're saying that if we use public funds for the Gate 5 Road and the Liberty Shipway and it intersects with the privately owned lower laterals that you said that at that point they become under the responsibility of the city or that we replace those two. So basically, the privately owned laterals are benefiting from because they're getting replaced as well. |
| 00:14:51.76 | Jonathon Goldman | Well, I wouldn't characterize it precisely that way. I would characterize it that the public benefits from the opportunity to replace those facilities at the same time and at minimal cost and restore the pavement surface, et cetera, and then the maintenance responsibility and, to some extent, the liability for those private facilities then reverts back to the private property owner once the project is complete. |
| 00:15:20.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:15:21.34 | Jonathon Goldman | You're welcome. |
| 00:15:23.63 | Councilmember Weiner | Any other questions? Excuse me, Charlie, can you flip back to the graph of the revenues? |
| 00:15:31.33 | Jeffrey Chase | Bye. Thank you. this one. |
| 00:15:33.81 | Councilmember Weiner | No, the bar graph. Yeah, that one. Bar graph. There. That's for the, that's all of the sewer fees coming in. That also part of the operating budget comes out of this too. Not all of that goes to the bond. |
| 00:15:37.91 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:15:50.97 | Councilmember Weiner | To the capital budget as well, right? |
| 00:15:52.54 | Jeffrey Chase | Correct. Yeah. |
| 00:15:57.15 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah, I didn't want people to think there's $2 million a year going to... Oh, no. |
| 00:15:59.97 | Vince Majora | Thank you. |
| 00:15:59.98 | Councilmember Leon | Well... |
| 00:16:00.34 | Vince Majora | Thank you. I think. |
| 00:16:03.34 | Councilmember Leon | Again, back on your staff report on page 4, you talk about the debt service being 360, but then when we look at the numbers, we have project funds 6,190,000, and the So it looked like it's $450,000 that we're spending on it. So I was just wondering where that extra $50,000 would be going. Thank you. Does it make sense? Where do you see the 450? OK. Let's see what we have here. |
| 00:16:30.04 | Jeffrey Chase | Where do you see the 415? |
| 00:16:36.62 | Councilmember Leon | Um, Oh, well, I mean, I'm sorry, it's 410. If you look at Project Fund, if we're looking on page three, because three of the staff report near the top, says bond amount and then project fund $6,190,000 annual debt service 360 And there's a $50,000 gap there. And I'm not sure. And I think I saw it in another place as well. Or am I not doing my Bye. |
| 00:17:05.58 | Mayor Withing | to the next. |
| 00:17:05.78 | Councilmember Leon | Charlie. |
| 00:17:06.34 | Jeffrey Chase | Let me go back. There's two. Let me go back to this one. |
| 00:17:09.64 | Councilmember Leon | So why don't you get to the place where I'm speaking of. |
| 00:17:12.43 | Jeffrey Chase | On the upper right-hand corner here, the total bond is $6,600,000. The amount of money from that bond that will go to the project fund is $6,190,000. So on page three, where you're seeing the $360,000, right above the $360,000, you see the 3.9%. And all the way over to the left is the total bond amount of $6,600,000. So the $360,000 is buying $6.6 million worth of bonds. |
| 00:17:15.46 | Councilmember Leon | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 00:17:18.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:17:24.31 | Adam Politzer | Right. |
| 00:17:32.22 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:17:36.98 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:17:41.92 | Councilmember Leon | Okay. So I guess just when I look at the math, as we have bonds of 660,000 and we end up with 6,190,000, so there's a gap of 410,000. 360 is for annual debt service. I was just wondering where the end of the year. |
| 00:17:55.34 | Jeffrey Chase | No, no, no. The gap is on this page. The $6,600,000 is the bonds. $1,190,000 goes into the project fund. $180,000 goes into the reserve fund, which is used to pay the last year's annual debt service. And then $164,000 goes into the issuance cost fund, which is $2,000. |
| 00:17:56.72 | Councilmember Leon | Yep. |
| 00:18:17.21 | Jeffrey Chase | this bottom one right over here. Mm-hmm. And that pays the bond council, the financial advisor, and then the $66,000 also goes into here to pay the underwriter. So the difference of that $410,000 are these three figures you see right here. The $360,000 is the amount that pays this off every year over time like a mortgage payment. |
| 00:18:38.40 | Councilmember Leon | So we have an initial cost of $410,000 the first year? |
| 00:18:42.37 | Jeffrey Chase | the first year. Yeah, okay. This is like paying your closing fees on a house mortgage. |
| 00:18:44.02 | John Eberle | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:18:45.71 | Scott Robinson | Yeah. |
| 00:18:51.89 | Mayor Withing | I mean more like 230, because 180 goes to the reserve funds. |
| 00:18:56.61 | Jeffrey Chase | fun. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:19:00.44 | Councilmember Weiner | And that sits there till the end of the bond and goes towards the repayment of the bond at the very end. |
| 00:19:05.03 | Jeffrey Chase | It does, yes. Actually, it goes to the Bank of New York Mellon, and it can only be used for the purposes stipulated in the covenants that you'll be approving tonight. Thank you. |
| 00:19:16.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, Charlie, getting back to the scope of what the bonds will cover, looking at this list of 27, what I heard was that we could, quote, we can only fund to the amount that, you know, that the funding lasts with regards to the project. So you're saying it's not that we would necessarily be able to cover the costs of all 27 projects listed here? |
| 00:19:40.37 | Jeffrey Chase | Or we could cover more. |
| 00:19:41.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | or we could cover more. And my next question is that, well, I presume, though, we have assessed how much it would cost to get through 1 through 27 and that the bond amount was based on that estimate. Is that correct? |
| 00:20:00.91 | Jeffrey Chase | That's good. |
| 00:20:01.16 | Bob Batha | Thank you. |
| 00:20:01.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 00:20:01.60 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. Well, it is correct. The bond amount was a combination of two factors. How much was in the rate study for the amount of debt service? And at that time, we had less than the 27 priority projects identified. But now that the interest rates have gone down, we can buy more, so we've expanded our priority calendar. I see. |
| 00:20:22.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I see. Okay, thank you. And regards to Jonathan's comment, the Public Works Director's comment about the privately owned lower level laterals being fixed as we do the public owned laterals, will the public have some sort of an estimate as to how much of the project that cost? You know, like if we go into the Marin ship and we fix, you know, the sewers at Liberty Ship Way and we include the repair of the lower level privately on laterals, will the public have an idea of what percentage of cost of that project was? |
| 00:21:02.45 | Jonathon Goldman | Yes, certainly when we bring a project to the City Council either to seek authorization to invite bids or to actually award a construction contract, all of those bid items are available components of that staff report and that package. That's part of the design process. |
| 00:21:24.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, I know we'll get bids. I just wasn't clear that council would be alerted as to the lower level privately owned laterals that were being repaired at the same time that the publicly owned laterals were being covered. So that bid will be split out. Just as Johnson. |
| 00:21:37.57 | Jonathon Goldman | So we'll see that. Just as Johnson Street and Richardson have been, yes. |
| 00:21:44.42 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:21:48.28 | Mayor Withing | Is there any other questions up here for the moment? Okay, let's open this up for public comment. Is there any member of the public who'd like to specifically address the Council on this matter? |
| 00:22:04.60 | Mayor Withing | Seeing none, we'll close public comment. I'm bringing it up here for our discussion. |
| 00:22:20.26 | Mayor Withing | So who wants to say something? I'm sorry. Thank you. If not, we can start with the motions. |
| 00:22:28.56 | Councilmember Weiner | I'll make a motion. I move that the City Council of the City of Sausalito adopt the resolution approving proceedings to finance improvements to the city's municipal sewer system, approving the issuance of sewer revenue bonds by the city financing authority for such purposes and approving related documents and official actions. Do we have to take these as separate ones, Mary? Okay. Second. Okay. |
| 00:22:52.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I will just comment that to maintain the continuity that I had concerns, and I voted against the sewer fee because I felt the rate structure was unfair. And so I'm going to continue, you know, to oppose this. |
| 00:22:54.04 | Councilmember Weiner | Please. |
| 00:23:09.45 | Mayor Withing | Okay. Several roll call, Debbie, please. |
| 00:23:15.78 | Debbie | Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 00:23:17.16 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 00:23:19.47 | Debbie | Council Member Weiner. Yes. |
| 00:23:20.59 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 00:23:21.45 | Debbie | Councilmember Leon. |
| 00:23:23.42 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 00:23:25.13 | Debbie | Vice Mayor Theodorus? Yes. |
| 00:23:26.51 | Mayor Withing | Yes. Yes. Could we have a second motion required of the City Council? |
| 00:23:34.41 | Councilmember Leon | I'll move that the City Council of the City of Sausalito adopt the resolution improving disclosure procedures for public debt issuances and related continuing disclosure obligations. Second. |
| 00:23:46.07 | Mayor Withing | Okay, roll call please, Debbie. |
| 00:23:50.12 | Debbie | Council member Pfeiffer. |
| 00:23:51.37 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 00:23:52.99 | Debbie | Councilmember Weiner. Yes. |
| 00:23:54.07 | Mayor Withing | Yes. |
| 00:23:54.51 | Debbie | Thank you. Council member Leon. |
| 00:23:56.63 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:23:56.65 | Mayor Withing | Yes. |
| 00:23:57.66 | Debbie | Vice Mayor Theodorus. Yes. Mayor Withing. |
| 00:23:59.11 | Mayor Withing | Yes. Yes. We now move into requiring two motions from the Sausalito Financing Authority. |
| 00:24:06.86 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:24:06.88 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 00:24:06.89 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. Just to make a point of clarity that, before we move into the authorities, two portions here, is that the rate structure we put in place is actually more fair to residents than it was because the businesses were being subsidized under the old rate structure, and we rectified that, and that rate structure had been in place for a long time, as well as it's now a part of the bill is based on the volume of water that you use and therefore discharge in the system, so it has a much greater sense of equity and sense of use than the old ray structure did. |
| 00:24:44.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, I will just counter on that, that the comment that businesses were being subsidized, I asked on more than one occasion for a breakdown of the manner in which we were subsidizing the larger businesses that were included in the factoring, and I have yet to see that. And I also, it really resonated to me when many of the owners, especially the duplex owners, were saying that, you know, their rates were going up, up to 99 percent, as opposed to other structures that were, you know, 23 percent or 12 percent. So, yeah, I have issues with that. |
| 00:25:27.34 | Councilmember Weiner | again, those were all dealt with in the rate structure survey that was done by our consulting firm. |
| 00:25:33.66 | Scott Robinson | Okay. |
| 00:25:33.70 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. Okay, can we have one? You can ignore facts or you can read the facts. |
| 00:25:34.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:25:34.12 | Scott Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:25:34.19 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | in the future. |
| 00:25:34.26 | Scott Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:25:34.29 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We have. |
| 00:25:35.00 | Scott Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:25:35.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:25:38.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I am reading the facts, and I'm stating the facts. |
| 00:25:40.18 | Councilmember Weiner | And I'm stating the fact you predisposed you. |
| 00:25:43.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | You have an opinion, and I do too. |
| 00:25:47.05 | Mayor Withing | Well, we had this thorough discussion during the rate-setting hearing, so... |
| 00:25:47.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:25:50.27 | Councilmember Leon | in here. Just for the public, I mean, basically, we've gone through this, and everyone is able to comment on it. Exactly. And we have that, and people can go by, and it's fully explored, and we decided to go that route, and now this is the mechanical part of implementing it. That's why we're not going through that discussion again. |
| 00:25:56.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Exactly. |
| 00:26:07.38 | Councilmember Weiner | Right. So I didn't bring that discussion back up. Council Member Pfeiffer decided to do that. |
| 00:26:07.40 | Councilmember Leon | Right. Exactly. |
| 00:26:11.31 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | As I am the only no vote, I wanted to explain my vote. |
| 00:26:15.16 | Mayor Withing | OK, I think everybody's clear on that. So could we have the first motion for the financing authority? Social leader financing authority, please. |
| 00:26:16.12 | Councilmember Weiner | Everybody. |
| 00:26:16.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:26:16.71 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:26:16.73 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:26:16.80 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:26:25.83 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 00:26:25.84 | Councilmember Weiner | I'll move that the board of directors of the Saucyuta Financing Authority approve the resolution adopting the bylaws of the authority, confirming the officers of the authority, establishing the dates, time, and place of regular meetings of the authority, and adopting a conflict of interest code. |
| 00:26:40.46 | Mayor Withing | Second. Okay. Debbie, would you call the roll on this one, please? |
| 00:26:41.64 | Councilmember Weiner | Okay. |
| 00:26:46.92 | Debbie | Member Fiver. |
| 00:26:48.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:26:51.19 | Debbie | Member Weiner. |
| 00:26:52.13 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 00:26:54.66 | Debbie | Member Leon. |
| 00:26:55.93 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 00:26:57.28 | Debbie | Vice Chair Theodorus. |
| 00:26:59.47 | Mayor Withing | Yes. |
| 00:27:00.57 | Debbie | Share with me. |
| 00:27:02.49 | Mayor Withing | Yes. And there's one final resolution for... |
| 00:27:06.04 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | the financing authority. Yeah, the board of directors of the Sausalito financing authority moved to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of sewer revenue bonds to finance the improvements to the city of Sausalito's municipal sewer enterprise in approving related documents and official actions. Second. |
| 00:27:32.85 | Debbie | Member Fiverr. |
| 00:27:33.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 00:27:35.54 | Debbie | Member Weiner. |
| 00:27:36.31 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yes. |
| 00:27:38.96 | Debbie | Member Leon? |
| 00:27:39.67 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yes. |
| 00:27:41.59 | Debbie | Vice Chair Theodoros? |
| 00:27:42.84 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yeah. |
| 00:27:42.98 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:27:44.85 | Debbie | Thank you. Chair Withy. |
| 00:27:47.72 | Mayor Withing | Yes. Okay, good. The... That matter is complete, so we'd look for a motion to adjourn the meeting of the Sausalito Financing Authority. So moved. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. It is now 6.30. We are going to reconvene as solely the Sol Solito City Council for its adjourned meeting at 7 o'clock. |
| 00:28:10.18 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Bye. |
| 00:28:32.98 | Unknown | Come on, let it fall. I'm just going to get a little bit of a little |
| 00:28:48.69 | Councilmember Weiner | whatever they're seeing and seeing it to them, |
| 00:28:49.28 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to be celebrating my heart. I'm going to be a new one, sir. Thank you. When we come and ride by myself, you want a little more. I'll make a leap I've never gone. Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na- Bye. Bye. |
| 00:29:47.97 | Unknown | you you Celebrate, celebrate |
| 00:29:52.02 | Unknown | Yes. Hey! |
| 00:29:54.74 | Unknown | Thank you. you Celebrate, celebrate Celebrating, celebrating Celebrate me home. Celebrate me home. Thank you. . Celebrate the people . I'm fine, you won't celebrate me Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Come on, celebrate me. Please celebrate me Please celebrate me Yeah. you you Oh, celebrate the people |
| 00:31:18.25 | Unknown | Oh, my God. you |
| 00:31:34.01 | Unknown | It's the only one. Thank you. Just like you, just like you Weeping smile on somebody's face. Thank you. |
| 00:31:54.97 | Unknown | Oh, I know you won't be sent by your way Oh, I know you'll receive good, good response And I can't believe When you start singing again Oh, I wish you could be spiced. you Thank you. you Let the balance be, yeah I'm a princess, I'm a princess I'm so sorry. |
| 00:32:46.81 | Unknown | Yeah. you So alive, baby, and the same synchronized |
| 00:33:10.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. . |
| 00:33:49.25 | Unknown | I appreciate it. Let's go. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 00:34:03.39 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:34:09.38 | Unknown | . I'm sorry. |
| 00:34:32.75 | Unknown | I'm a secret, I'm a secret, I'm a secret Thank you. |
| 00:34:43.23 | Unknown | you Oh, now you're laughing. Take it! you you you |
| 00:35:18.25 | Unknown | To get on. |
| 00:35:25.76 | Unknown | Thank you. Bye. you Bye. |
| 00:35:42.87 | Unknown | And the snowman means the snow. |
| 00:35:43.75 | Unknown | and this is |
| 00:35:46.24 | Unknown | May the stronger, stronger, stronger. And the storm of rings the storm When the snow happens to snow When the sun comes to the sun |
| 00:36:09.97 | Unknown | . See you next time. And surprise And it gives me the spice of a moment With you Thank you. Thank you. Drop off the slay that's written Ringing truth I'm going to go. |
| 00:36:47.15 | Unknown | . you Just a little bit. you |
| 00:36:57.52 | John Eberle | It's quite a better story to see if you're a hard time. |
| 00:37:03.97 | Unknown | When the weather is cold And the seas are the cold of salt But it's too hard. you you can leave me Spending this part of lost your heart It still hurts So that's why you probably need to You're just gonna be only one I'm going to go. you So I'm gonna try my first. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:37:45.16 | Unknown | Thank you. . Thank you. you I love you Close and leave me something You're not me I feel it's right before I walk sit down But I'm out of line and I'm like, I'm turning |
| 00:38:31.62 | Unknown | you Oh, my God. Christmas time. |
| 00:39:46.97 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm going to say that. you |
| 00:39:51.08 | Unknown | I can't wait to see those faces |
| 00:39:57.24 | Unknown | I run home for Christmas, yeah. Bye. on the line. Thank you. I've been so long. But I will be there, sing this song To pass the time away To drive on in my car Driving home from Christmas |
| 00:40:28.34 | Unknown | It's gonna take some time to go I'll get back. Thank you. Talk to joy and tell my name. Yeah. Oh |
| 00:40:45.03 | Unknown | Soon there'll be a freeway Yeah Raise your holy crown Thank you. Thank you. Oh, yeah. |
| 00:41:16.08 | Unknown | I will hold Christmas. I'm so happy. |
| 00:41:26.63 | Unknown | Take a look. I'm driving next to me It's just the same |
| 00:41:37.63 | Unknown | Just a friend. |
| 00:41:53.97 | Unknown | you |
| 00:41:59.70 | Unknown | Don't you join me? Oh, I got red lights all around |
| 00:42:10.35 | Unknown | Driving home for Christmas, yeah. Get my fate on holy ground. Thank you. So I sleep for you. |
| 00:42:32.97 | Unknown | I'm running back, mama, driving home for Christmas. |
| 00:42:41.52 | Unknown | Traveling for Christmas Oh Take a look at the trailer with nice debate. He's just... |
| 00:43:02.66 | Unknown | Driving home, driving home you Thank you. you |
| 00:43:28.33 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. Candles burning lower Lots of mistletoe. Lots of snow and ice Everywhere we go. Why are you singing carrots? I got a sign of my door All these things flow Oh, that's what Christmas means to me, my love. Oh, oh, oh, oh, I love you. And you know I need I see a smiling face Like I've never seen before You might know I love you madly It means I love you more I'm so proud to give me I'm touching my heart also All these things and more, darling. you Woo! That's what Christmas means to me, my lord. Oh, yeah! I feel like running wild This ain't just a little child To preach your need for my list, don't talk Kiss you once and dance for me And wish you a merry Christmas, baby Woo! And such happiness in the coming years Oh, baby, let's get the horse with honey. Sing sweet solid love Fill the tree with angel hair Pretty, pretty life Gonna sleep and wake up Just before daylight And all these things in the home, baby. Oh, that's what Christmas means to meet my love. But it's much too strong to take a look at me. Thank you. Thank you. We meet every day at the same cafe. Six to thirty days, and no one knows you. . |
| 00:45:52.58 | Mayor Withing | We still got the... Okay. I thought we still had the music, so... |
| 00:46:04.68 | Mayor Withing | Good evening. And welcome to the reconvened adjourned regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council. Today is Tuesday, December 2nd. We adjourned at 6.30 after discussing item number... FA1. We're now moving to item one. There is no special presentations or mayor announcements this evening. Item number two is communications, and this is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda tonight. So if anybody I would like to address the Council on any matter or not on the agenda tonight so if anybody would like to address the council on any matter not on the agenda then please come forward Kayla good evening |
| 00:47:05.65 | Kayla Conn | Hi, I'm Kayla Conn and I live on Odeo. And I have to complain about those blue things in the parking lot. three times in the last week I've been to the police station They were broken. They said, if you get a ticket, come in, we'll take care of it. They're ridiculous. I had to come downtown on the weekend. So I came downtown and there were some people that I was trying to help. They couldn't get, they couldn't fix it, they couldn't get it to work. So they said, the heck with it, we'll go to Mill Valley. I mean, that's terrible. Those things don't work. And I mean, I know how to work them and they still don't work. Do something about it, please. |
| 00:47:42.62 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to make a comment or communication on any matter that's not on tonight's agenda? Okay, seeing none, we'll close communications. Next item is action minutes of the previous meeting. First of all, the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of November 11, 2014. I have a motion to approve as submitted or any changes requested. Thank you. |
| 00:48:15.43 | Councilmember Leon | I put it. |
| 00:48:15.70 | Mayor Withing | approved. |
| 00:48:15.97 | Councilmember Leon | to I move to approve the minutes of the regular City Council meeting on November 11, 2014. |
| 00:48:22.89 | Mayor Withing | Second all in favor aye any opposed No second is the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of November 18th 2014 and Debbie. I think there's a correction |
| 00:48:25.37 | Councilmember Leon | Bye. |
| 00:48:35.57 | Debbie | Yes, it was brought to my attention that on page 3 of the November 18th minutes, there was some old language on lines 20, basically 25 through 30. And that old dead language was removed. And so now it simply reads the first paragraph, and then it reads, there were no council questions. |
| 00:49:02.51 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Could I have a motion to approve those minutes as corrected? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? |
| 00:49:10.76 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:49:13.97 | Mayor Withing | Next item, number four, is the consent calendar. Is there any questions of staff from anybody up here on the consent calendar items? Seeing none, let's open up this for public comment. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on either item of the consent calendar? Seeing none, we close public comment. Could I have a motion to approve this consent calendar, please? |
| 00:49:52.98 | Eva Bauer | summer. |
| 00:49:55.33 | Mayor Withing | Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion carries. Okay, the major topic we have for the remainder of this meeting is an update on the ferry landing rehabilitation project, in particular the waterside improvements. And we're going to start off with our administrative analyst, Lily Shinsheng. Thank you. Shinsing. Sorry, Lily. |
| 00:50:26.75 | Lily | Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Councilmembers. Tonight we have a special presentation from the Golden Gate Bridge Highway. and Transportation District on their plans to demolish the existing Sausalito ferry landing structure and replace it with a new ferry landing, or what we've been calling the waterside improvements. |
| 00:50:43.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:49.43 | Lily | This project is distinct from the grant funding that the district secured in 2012 to improve public access landward of the ferry landing site. And this is a process we've been calling the land site improvements. And that's a separate public participation track and have its own public participation process. The district has updated the council on the water site improvements at seven city council meetings since 2008. Tonight, the district will be providing another update to the council and will also be available for questions and comments from the council as well as the public here this evening. The district will begin the presentation this evening, and from the district we have in attendance Jim Swindler, who is the general manager. We also have Eva Bauer, who is the chief engineer. And we have John Eberle, who is the deputy district engineer. We will also have Mr. Bob Batha, who just arrived. He's the chief of permits with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, or BCDC. Mr. Bath, that does have another engagement this evening, and will need to leave around 8 o'clock this night. So be mindful of that and perhaps ask questions. If you have questions for BCDC, ask those first so he can address those questions. So with that, I'm going to hand it off to the district and John Eberly for the presentation. |
| 00:52:24.25 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Lily. |
| 00:52:32.11 | John Eberle | Okay, good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, Council Members. I want to thank you, first of all, for inviting us back again to give you another briefing on our project here. I also wanted to introduce two other people from the Golden Gate Bridge District staff team. One is Carolina Whalen, one of our senior engineers on the project. We also have Michael Conneran. with our legal counsel. from Handsome Bridget here. And also our consultant, project manager, Bo Jensen, is available tonight. So again, thank you, and I'll jump into the presentation. |
| 00:53:16.73 | John Eberle | So as has been discussed at our previous presentations to the Council, the District operates Golden Gate Ferry public transportation service between three facilities, one in Larkspur, one in South Salido, and one in San Francisco. We've been providing this service for the past 40-plus years, and we are actually the largest service provider, ferry service provider, on the Bay. Uh, Last year, we provided service to over 2,300,000 passengers. on the Bay and together with our Golden Gate Transit Bus Service, we take over 13,500 vehicles off of the 101 corridor each and every day. So we're a very important transportation facility and system in the Bay Area. All three of our facilities, however, are 40 plus years old. And with that, they are in need of repair. So the district determined a couple, probably about 2008, to uh, put out a project to assess all three of our facilities and look at ways to improve them so that we could continue providing service for another 40-plus years on the Bay. So the reason for the project We need to replace our H-ferry structures and to keep them structurally sound. We don't want them deteriorating to the extent where we will not be able to provide service. And also we want to when we are doing that, bring the service into compliance with ADA requirements. Currently, the facilities were not constructed to current ADA guidelines. ramps and gangways are steep and not compliant, which I'll show you a little further into the presentation. Those are the primary reasons for doing this project. There are some secondary benefits of the project. One is to improve our operational efficiencies. How will that be done? Well, we are going to standardize to main deck loading for all vessels at all facilities. Currently at South Salido we have main deck loading, but at San Francisco and Larkspur we have upper deck loading. So what this creates is if someone, say, is mobility impaired or they have a bicycle, or they have strollers, you have to transfer from one deck to another to offload at the different facilities. creates problems with turnaround times and keeping your schedule. You know, a successful public transit system is dependent upon timely service. If you don't have timely service, people aren't going to take your system. So improving operational efficiencies is very important. Better management of passenger loading and bicycle unloading. Again, as I stated, we have different levels of boarding at our current facilities. With common loading, we won't have the operational problem of moving people from one deck to another. In addition, we'll be having two loading doors at all of our facilities. Currently in South Salido, we only load from one door. and that again creates some operational inefficiencies. And then another benefit of the project is going to be upgrading for emergency preparedness. So if there is, let's say, some sort of natural disaster or let's say one of the other transit operators across the bay decides to go go on a strike or has a problem, the ferry will be one of the few transit operations that will be able to accommodate service. So we are designing our facilities. so that they will be able to accommodate other ferry providers in the case of emergency or in case of these other operational problems. So a little project background. As was stated previously, we have given briefings to the council a few times in the past, beginning in June 2008, That's where we came to the council and stated that we were going to be putting out this project. to look at all of our facilities and update all of them. 2009, we came back and stated the RFP was on the street. We would soon be retaining a consultant to do the environmental. and design for the project. In 2010, we actually presented conceptual plans. At that meeting, The conceptual plans which were presented are very similar to what is in the plans today. So the width of the pier, the length of the pier, the width of the float, all of those were in that conceptual plan. They have not really changed much. Again, in September 2010, There was another presentation which again showed those improvements. And then May 2011, we had another presentation where we had a few more details on the project. And at that meeting in May 2011, we received consensus on the conceptual design from the city council. So with that, we moved forward with the project with the council's understanding of that concept. Then in September 25, 2012, another update to the project, and we wanted to bring to everyone's attention that we had ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, of that same year. I think it's a good thing. filed our draft initial study, mitigated negative declaration project. document. So that's when It was filed with the county. It was also noted on. Uh, Marin IJ and other publications that the document was open for public review and public comment. We also stated at that time that we would be having an open public meeting in the city of South Lido on October 2nd. And then on September 23rd, 2014, there was another update on the project and there was also an update on the pass-through agreement for a grant. So in 2012, the district received a grant from the FTA for land side improvements which the district, in cooperation with the city, wanted to use for improvements on the land, not on the water side project. |
| 00:59:35.57 | John Eberle | Other meetings which took place and were noticed public notice meetings. September 2009, the Golden Gate Board authorized the award of the Environmental Studies Permitting Design Contract for the Waterside Improvement Project to Moffat Nickel. Then from October 2009 to the present, the district has monthly board meetings, at which time updates to all engineering projects are noted, and this project is noted in there monthly. February 2011, presentation to the Golden Gate Bridge Ferry Passenger Advisory Committee, since this project deals with ADA... Guidelines and compliance issues, there was a presentation to them for their comments. And then September 17th, as I noted before, that's when the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed. In September that's when the notice was published in the Marin IJ and in the MarinScope Sausalito October 2nd, public meeting. Held here in South Salido. Then in December, after all the public comments were received and addressed, by the district. Thank you. the Board took a – or the Building and Operating Committee of the District made a recommendation for the board to adopt mitigated NEDDAC. And that occurred on December 14, 2014. And then at the end of September, we filed the notice of determination and that basically completed the CEQA process for this. project. We had some further meetings with passenger advisory committees to discuss further details of the ADA details. In February 2014, FTA, who is the federal lead for the NEPA process and also the funding partner with the district for this project, concurred with the categorical exclusion for the project. And then October 6th of this year, we had a presentation to BCDC. So there have been a number of meetings on this project. So into the project itself, just a little background, local vicinity map. For those of you who are not aware, Here is the project site. It's the... historical site of the ferry terminal. As I said, we've been operating here since 1970. It's located to the east of Bridgeway here and the Central Commercial District of South Salio. Here's a closer view of the existing facility. I just wanted to go over what the different components are called so you have an understanding when I say these words later on. So first I could go back here. Here's the float. The existing float is a steel float. It's 42 feet wide by 110 feet long. And connected to the float is a gangway. This is a narrow... 75 foot by 5.5 feet approximately gangway which goes from the fixed pier down to the float. And then there's a dogleg pier section here. It's about 8 feet wide. It extends out I thought larger pier located here. And I also wanted to just note, this is an aerial photo. It's taken a long time ago, but you could see the queuing that is occurring even at that time, waiting for the vessels to come in. You have queuing on the pier, but also this queuing is overflowing into the existing parking lot, and that's been causing concerns from not just the district, but the city itself. Some further slides, close-ups of the existing facility. So here you can see the float out in the water. This is that gangway and the existing concrete pier. Just some statistical information. The district provides 22 daily trips from South Salida to San Francisco and 17 daily trips on the weekends. Typical daily use is about 1,800 passengers per day. On a busy weekend, there will be probably up to 6,000 passengers per day. |
| 01:03:44.43 | John Eberle | Here you can see the age condition of the facilities. Now this is a steel float. It's in very poor condition. We'd actually contemplated a year or two ago just replacing the float at this time because it's in such a condition that we really need to get this project going and possibly replace it ahead of the other project. But we felt that we were far enough along that we could just continue with this project and just put in the new float with the new facility. Also some things here, this is the gangplank at low tide that does not comply with ADA compliance guidelines of one until 12 maximum slope. And on the pier itself, platform from the pier to the vessel, again, it's a very steep slope and does not comply with ADA guidelines. Some other features that are of concern to the district are the pier itself. The pier is a concrete pile cap on concrete piles, timber stringers, with a concrete deck on top. unusual structure and this would be quite vulnerable in a seismic event. We really want to replace this structure. And then here again you can see just the condition of the float. I also want to note that the existing float, as you can see these are fenders, so vessels can lay up on either side of the facility. Currently they're allowed to lay up on either side. We only have one vessel lay up at a time due to the float itself. It's not stable to have vessels on both sides with people embarking and loading. The new facility will also allow that, but we'll only have vehicles lay up one at a time. |
| 01:05:25.48 | John Eberle | Here again you can see the existing conditions. You have some very narrow gangways. If you are mobility impaired or if you are walking next to someone with a bicycle, it's very uncomfortable on this. And with this narrowness it creates problems with our operations loading and unloading passengers. |
| 01:05:48.90 | John Eberle | So now that's the existing facility. I want to talk about the new facility and how we came about this design. So as I mentioned before, we're going to have two loading areas. on each side of the float so that we could load from two locations on our vessels, two eight-foot openings on each vessel. From the vessel to the float itself, in order to be ADA compliant at all tides, we need to have a gangplank, which in its fully extended length is 18 feet. It'll extend a little bit beyond the edge of the float itself, but it'll be 18 foot long. Most of the time it'll extend about 16 to 17 feet in normal conditions, but at high and low tides, it'll have to extend the full length. So if you have two 16 foot, gang planks on either side and two eight-foot doors you will then need to come onto your boarding platform. So the boarding platform needs to accommodate passengers loading and unloading into the two 8-foot doors. So that width would determine from number one, the two 8-foot openings, 16-foot. And then we're looking at a level of service for passenger flow based on the number of passengers using the facility. So a level of service is similar to a traffic operation study. You do level of flow for intersections, for new roadways, and it goes from A to F. A is great, F is not too good. So we designed this for a level C, which is just what it said, level C is average. So we're not trying to design for some facility that you'll have a level A at all times, because it would be very, very large. Right now, The facility itself, the new facility, would be a level C because the existing one, with the level of service that we have and the projected level of service over 20 years, will not meet a level C service. So that's how these lengths were determined, which is a direct correlation of how big this float is. This float is 53 feet wide by 150 feet long. So if you have the 16 foot, 17 foot on either side, then you have a 16 foot walkway, that's how you get your width. The length is determined again by ADA requirements. The vessels themselves have to lay up on the berth and the door configurations have to align here. We have seven different vessels, two different class, and of those different vessels, I think maybe two of them are exactly the same. The rest are a little different. We had to come up with a comment. location for these, these are 48 feet apart. And that's because when we looked at all of our vessels, that's where we could align the new doors on the vessels. So then you have to have a level boarding platform and then the gangway itself has to also be one in 12. The elevation here is a fixed elevation, it's 11.8 feet, and this is the same elevation as the land. From that point, you have to get down to the float. It's 90 feet in order to comply with no more than 1 in 12 at all tide levels. And then you need to have a level area and another boarding apron in order to, again, meet the slope requirements. So that's how the length and the width of the float was determined. So here you can see section view of the float itself. AND at different tides. and with different classes of vessels this gang plank. has to go up and down. but at the same time it can never exceed that one in 12. So we have a number of moving parts here, and we went through an iterative process, and this is how we came up with this size. |
| 01:09:44.64 | John Eberle | Here's the cross section of the gangway. So again. We have a 90-foot gangway. The slope at a high tide is 1 in 24, but at the low tide it's just above the 1 in 12. So that's where that length comes from, it's a direct correlation. And as I also stated, you have to have a level area once you get off of this sloped area, so you have a level platform, and then depending upon the tide and the vessel, this boarding apron will also move up and down to always be 1 in 12 or less. So that's why we came up with the lengths and the widths. Now I want to talk about what the existing looks like and some access control points that we have and then I'll show you some renderings of what the proposed project is going to look like. So here's the existing access point. Here's the existing gate. This pier right here, it's a 20 foot wide pier, and this is where it ties into the eight foot dog leg that goes to the gangplank and onto the float. |
| 01:10:45.55 | John Eberle | Here is another view if you're just getting off of the existing gangplank and you're on the pier. So as you can see here. is stopped at this location. The new facility will move this access gate way out here. foreground of the slide and you'll actually be able at all times to come out onto the bay with the new facility. You also see the queuing here, since this Access point is located here. The train backs up into the plaza and then does overflow into the city streets. You can see here the general narrowness of the existing facilities. So if you have bicycles or if you're in a wheelchair, you have a stroller, walker, and you're trying to pass people on this, it's really insufficient to do any type of passing. So this is what the existing looks like now. Again, access point is going to be moved out. Access now is constrained back at this point. So here's some renderings of what the new access point and the new peer will look like that. So you can see here we have this roll-up gauge structure. It's very similar in design to what we have in Larkspur. We have almost the exact same structure in Larkspur. That's why we selected it. These gates can either be lifted one or both at a time to allow people Uh, get on or off the vessel and then we have to have emergency access doors on either side in case there is an emergency and the gate is down people are on the vessel trying to get off they have to be able to get out so that contributed to the width of this pier. But in addition, as I said, we're going to be moving public access out to this point so people can come out. So there was a concern with the number of passengers coming on and off of the facility. that if anyone else was there who was just out enjoying the bay, that they would not have any place to be without being brushed up against with all these people. So in consultation with BCDC, we designed a bump out area Belvedere areas on either side where benches could be placed. So if you're not a passenger, you're not boarding or unboarding, you'd be able to go there and still enjoy the area without being caught up in the loading and unloading of the facility. So in addition, as I showed before, the cueing, What's back at the access point, so the queuing will be allowed to access all the way out here. That will relieve some of the overflow, which currently is overflowing into the existing parking lot, sidewalk areas on the land side. |
| 01:13:23.04 | John Eberle | Now I'll go into the stage construction. Again, I think we've presented this before, but just a to highlight it again. Here's the existing facility. The first thing that we plan to do is build a temporary pier. We do not want to impact operations greatly during this. We would like to continue to maintain operations on the bay. So we are going to actually construct a temporary pier at this location. and Then we will install a temporary fence And. during about a one week process. We will move over the existing gangplank and the existing float itself to a temporary location. recycling these, moving them over for a temporary only configuration. This will allow us to only be out of ferry operation service for a week or two, I will do a bus bridge or something. We're going to plan to do that in the wintertime. when service, passenger service is a little slower, And at that time, switch over and put everyone on the temporary facility. |
| 01:14:28.84 | John Eberle | Once a temporary facility is in place, The The float itself and the new gangway will be constructed offsite, the offsite facility in water construction will occur Once the float and the Gangway are completed. They will be floated into place. installed. utilities hooked up. Once it's all done, this will be opened up, and then the temporary facility will be removed. |
| 01:14:59.73 | John Eberle | So I'd like to show some renderings of what this is going to look like. The top shows the existing view from the plaza. You're looking north. You can see here's the dog leg. See the gangway and the float. The new facility will look very, very similar. It's going to be a very low profile. There won't be any large piling in the air. The float will be the same. It'll have fenders on the side, but it'll be very, very similar to the existing. The truss bridge itself, since it is a larger component, will be a little more visible, but it'll still be a very low profile in the water. Looking north, I'm sorry, the view from the north looking south. This is over by the Yacht Club. Again, very similar. Existing pier, existing gangway, it will be the new gangway. Here's the existing access point. We're going to move the access point out further into the bay, and we'll have a larger facility. We're going to maintain the vertical features of the guardrail, and we had anticipated painting these features white. but, We understand that there may be some concern about the color. We typically have white. We do have blue on some of our, piling out here. So we, are open to a suggestion if we want to make everything look galvanized, like the existing railings are galvanized. We could paint this existing truss galvanizing. It also seems to blend in a little better, at least on a rendering. So we are open to suggestions on that. So next steps, where are we at? We have submitted our application to BCDC for our construction permit for the project. WE HAVE A MEETING. Uh, this Thursday at one o'clock where The Commission will be hearing the application for the project. And then we hope to secure the final BCDC permit, hopefully at their later meeting in December. Once BCDC issues their permit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we need to receive their permit. And we have no problems with them. They are in concurrence with the project. They're just waiting for the BCDC determination to be made. |
| 01:17:11.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:12.54 | John Eberle | We anticipate advertising the construction project in March of 2015. that will allow us to go to construction in July of August of 2015. We really need to hold these days for a number of reasons. One of them is environmental work windows. We're only allowed to work in the water construction from July to November, so pile driving, any type of in-water construction. has to occur during that time period. with our temporary facility we need to get that in place so that we could then make a transfer to the temporary facility in the winter of 2015. So if we miss the summer window of getting in the temporary facility, we're going to wait a whole other year in order to get the new facility in operation. The reason that's a problem is because, as I mentioned earlier, FTA is our funding partner on this project. We received grants from FTA way back in 2008 and some of them sooner than that. And there's a deadline on when those funds need to be drawn down or the district may be in possibility that the FTA would take those funds back. This project is fully funded right now. To have a fully funded project for your public agency, you have 80% of the funding from someone else. You really need to get that funding secured, and you need to get working on this project. In addition, as you saw, the condition of the facility is not in good shape, so we need to get this underway as soon as possible. Back to the schedule, so the winter of 2015, transfer to temporary facilities. July of 2016, we'll perform the in-water construction for the permanent facilities because that does have some pile driving, and we hope to complete the entire construction in the fall of 2016. So that's my briefing on the project. And as was mentioned earlier, Bob Botha with BCDC is here. So I can let Bob speak a little bit about the BCDC process if that's okay. Thank you. Bob somewhere around oh there it is |
| 01:19:35.17 | Bob Batha | So this coming Thursday, the Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposal that you just had described to you. They'll have questions of both the staff and the applicant. There will be an opportunity for the public to speak and express concerns about the project. And we will take that all in. The staff at BCDC will take that all in, prepare a staff recommendation for the next commission meeting, which will either be December 18th or January 15th. And that recommendation is essentially in the form of a permit. It will have certain requirements. of the district such as work windows as to when they can actually do water, work in the water. And it will have public access requirements which we have been in discussion with the district about. There will be a number of other things, plan review, standard construction, best management practices and the like. And that will again be voted on on either December 18th or the January 15th Commission meeting. And at that point, the district essentially has a permit. We have to do a few changes to it, send it out to the district and get signatures. And once that happens, the permit would be issued. I imagine, again, at the latest it would probably be around January 20th or thereabouts. if they go to the later of those two commission meetings. That's all I have. |
| 01:21:07.44 | John Eberle | So at this time, we're either available for questions or if you want to, I don't know, if you are going to open it up to the public now. |
| 01:21:15.76 | Mayor Withing | Yeah, I think we'll start off with bringing it up here and seeing what questions we have from the City Council. Yeah, now I'm wondering whether we could also remember that our guest from BCDC has to leave, I think, at 8-ish. So if we have any sort of BCDC process questions, we might want to remember that timing. Maybe I can actually kick off with a question. and I don't know if this is who is best equipped to answer this question, whether it's our own staff, you, your attorney who's here. I'd really like to get clarification for everybody listening and everybody here about jurisdiction and about the fact that there's been a lot of concern that this waterside improvements should go through the Sausalito Planning Commission. |
| 01:21:48.12 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:22:31.80 | Mayor Withing | And I'd like someone to explain the rationale and the reasons legally why this is going through BCDC. So who might be best equipped to address that issue, first of all? |
| 01:22:51.47 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to address the question of the Planning Commission and the city's authority, and then I know that the District's Council is here as well if you have additional follow-up questions for that. The California Government Code provides that local agencies, as a defined term, are required to comply with the building and zoning ordinance of the city in which the territory of their property is located. However, the definition of local agency excludes districts such as the bridge and ferry district that are created under the streets andways Code. So it's clear from the government code that the city's building and zoning ordinances do not apply to the district's project, and that's why the Planning Commission doesn't go through the normal Planning Commission approval process that other projects would. |
| 01:23:50.00 | Mayor Withing | Anybody else like to add anything to that? Maybe counsel for... |
| 01:23:59.80 | Michael Conneran | Michael Conner from Hanson Bridget. Your city attorney stated it totally accurately. It's really just a concept of regionalism and the fact that other governmental agencies are – it's intergovernmental immunity. The county builds a facility in the city. The county has control over that. The state builds it. It's the same. So the district's a regional agency, and the way the legislature set it up is that it's very clear that we're exempt. So we certainly try to listen to the input from cities, but we, you know, in terms of jurisdiction and actual legal rights, we do not need to obtain a land use approval from the city. |
| 01:24:04.80 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:24:05.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:38.75 | Mayor Withing | Okay. So, sorry for kicking off there, but that's, I know, on everybody's mind. So, other questions? |
| 01:24:47.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I actually have a follow-up question along those lines. I understand the code with respect to the regionalism. I'd like to bring it back to the local control aspect of this. The water at the ferry landing belongs to the city of Sausalito, and the landing and its approach to the land belongs to the city of Sausalito, and in fact, the Golden Gate Bridge District leases that from the city. Correct? So... Setting aside the code, if you look at the lease, the lease states that any major alterations, improvements, additions, or utility installations, the premises, that it requires council consent. |
| 01:25:38.10 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:25:38.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And council has not approved this design. And so my question is, So if you'd like to comment on that. |
| 01:25:52.61 | Michael Conneran | Sure. I'd say two things. One, if you read the language of the lease there, it also mentions a replacement facility does not require city approval. And I think the district position is this is a replacement. We're replacing the facility that we have. The only reason it's at all different is because we're trying to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in terms of the slopes and the technical issues that John has described. But I would also say that, you know, this project was presented to the city. We did get a consensus from the council on the design. We can see. slopes and the technical issues that John has described. But I would also say that, you know, this project was presented to the city. We did get a consensus from the council on the design. We've been back before you many, many times. And so I think, you know, we've been working with your staff as well. So I think, you know, from the district's position, we have what we need. If there's a need to document that more fully, I'm sure we could do that. But I think we've complied with the terms of the work. |
| 01:26:41.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So on that answer, I have a response. |
| 01:26:42.81 | Michael Conneran | Thank you. |
| 01:26:45.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | my interpretation of the lease is different. My interpretation of your design This is very substantial You're not just replacing the existing size float. I'd like to go back to your slide, which is titled History, Project History. |
| 01:27:15.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | May 3rd, the one with it there. May 3rd, 2011, update on Waterside Project received consensus on the conceptual design. Consensus on a conceptual design is not approval. And I beg to differ respectfully with respect to how you described your presentation on May 3rd, 2011. just now you described your presentation as presenting a design that is of the same design you're presenting today. But in fact, I have a direct quote from May 3rd, 2011, where the Golden Gate Bridge District said, the float is about the same size of what you have now. So, you know, it was consensus to move forward, but it was moving forward on quote, ideas being looked at, unquote. This was, it was not approval, and I was wondering if you could comment on that. |
| 01:28:26.22 | Michael Conneran | I don't have that. Those minutes are that quote, so I'm not sure. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:28:32.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:28:33.38 | Michael Conneran | I'd also direct you, though, to something else in the city's lease in terms of the breadth of the city's right to approve Language is also very clear, the city cannot unreasonably withhold condition or delay Any approval? So, I mean, there really is a limited scope of which the city, and I think that's the idea. That the original design here was the district was going to be able to build this facility, operate this facility, maintain it, replace it when it was necessary. And while the city certainly has some control in its role as the landlord, that role is certainly circumscribed within the terms of the law. |
| 01:29:06.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I will follow up with that, but first I want to yield to the rest of the Council. |
| 01:29:09.88 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:29:09.90 | Councilmember Leon | Okay. |
| 01:29:10.15 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.16 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.18 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.23 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.42 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.45 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.59 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.64 | Councilmember Leon | while we have BCC here. The question is, |
| 01:29:10.72 | Mayor Withing | while we're in the hospital. |
| 01:29:11.06 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We have a follow-up question. |
| 01:29:16.22 | Councilmember Leon | You mentioned that you're taking public comment on Thursday. And what areas are the BCDC looking for the public comment in which in terms of are they looking for design input at this point? Are there areas that they are actually actively looking for in public comment? Or are there areas that they feel that public comment would not be worthwhile at this point can you comment that on that in general |
| 01:29:40.03 | Bob Batha | Bye. |
| 01:29:40.17 | Councilmember Leon | you |
| 01:29:40.22 | Bob Batha | Thank you. Sure, the commission reviews projects based on its policies and the law that created the commission. And we identified, I think, three major issues I have. The staff report on my chair back there. Those three that I remember have to do with the size of the structure, how much fill is involved. That's clearly something within the commission's authority. The amount of public access that the project will be providing. Thank you. And the third thing is impact on natural resources. And so those will be the primary things that the commission looks at. In terms of design, we don't get into the details of the design except to the point that they affect public access. So if there are parts of the structure that would interfere or disrupt public access, we would be concerned about that. But in terms of whether or not we think it's attractive or aesthetically pleasing, we do not look at it in that regard. |
| 01:30:45.36 | Councilmember Leon | Now on that point, if Sausalito came and we said, you know, we had filled the room with people and city council made a resolution and said, we don't like this design. We think it's ugly. And you say it's not a factor. you would approve it despite our objections to it, which would leave us with no recourse if that were the case. I'm just posing that particular scenario. |
| 01:31:10.70 | Bob Batha | Again, our ability to control aesthetics really relates specifically to the major policies that the Commission and authorities that the Commission has, and they relate to public access and amount of Bay Fill, not necessarily whether or not they're aesthetically pleasing. So now again, we have been involved and changed some projects when the Commission found that the design did interfere with public access, the ability and attractiveness of the structure for the public to use it for public access. |
| 01:31:53.26 | Mayor Withing | Questions over here? No? you |
| 01:31:55.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a question for BCDC. |
| 01:31:55.91 | Mayor Withing | I have a question for BCDC. |
| 01:31:58.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So you mentioned public access, and I guess my question is, would BCDC look at a design that pours more than 6,000 square feet of concrete into the bay to accommodate lines of rental bikes as enhancing public access? |
| 01:32:25.93 | Bob Batha | That is not how the project has been presented to us. We have asked the district to elaborate on why they are proposing the fill that they are proposing and have been satisfied with their response that they're doing it primarily to meet the ADA responsibilities of the district, to improve access to the ferry terminal itself. And there's a very modest amount for the Belvedere's with the seating. There's like 300 square feet of fill associated with that. Those are all uses that the Commission can approve fill for. It will also improve access for bikes, undoubtedly, but that That is just, we think, sort of a secondary benefit of the project. The other things, the widening it for ADA access, getting two lanes of just better access. I take that ferry on occasion, and I know how tight it is on the gangway. These all seem reasonable. Um, proposals and uses on the field that they're proposing. |
| 01:33:36.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So the ADA access, does that require a 25-foot width? |
| 01:33:43.00 | Bob Batha | I'll actually... Because I understand the incline. |
| 01:33:43.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Because I understand the incline aspect, but the 25-foot width? |
| 01:33:48.08 | Bob Batha | Do you want to take this? |
| 01:33:50.69 | John Eberle | As I mentioned before in the presentation, where the width and the lengths came from. So you're describing the 25-foot width on the access pier itself. So I'll come over to that particular location. So in here, the existing pier that touches down on land is 20 feet wide. So we are coming in on an angle at the end of the existing 20-foot pier. So we're trying to match and then extend out into the bay to this access point. As I stated before, these are roll-up doors. eight foot each, three foot doors on each end for emergency control. When you add up that plus the framing, you get approximately 25 feet. In addition, we wanted to improve access when you're boarding and unboarding. So in order to do that, you don't want to have choke points at various points along the pier because that does not allow for the smooth operation and or easy access. And then the additional belvedere, as was mentioned here, is when you have that large flow of passengers coming in and off in the central area, if you just want to be out there to enjoy the bay, you really need a refuse area so you'll be out of that flow. So the 25-foot is based on operational and access. It's not an ADA width requirement. |
| 01:35:23.73 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So the 25-foot width is not an ADA requirement. That's correct. Thank you. |
| 01:35:27.49 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:35:27.51 | John Eberle | Thank you. |
| 01:35:29.94 | Councilmember Leon | I'd like to go back to BCDC just because we know we're losing. Can you tell us what environmental studies have been done and which agencies have taken a look at it from other agencies other than BCDC in terms of the environmental impact on the bay? |
| 01:35:49.01 | John Eberle | I could probably answer that for him since the district did the consultation with the environmental agencies. So the district through FTA did a consultation with first the state historic preservation officer to confirm that this did not impact any cultural or historic resources. and the state SHPO determined that it did not and they concurred with that determination. There was also a consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that was for fish and mammal species. The determination from that was with the mitigation measures which are included in the mitigated neck declaration, which is for primarily the pile driving, that work will be done during the windows which are specified by that agency. Similarly, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was consulted. And again, they had the same similar concerns about the fish and wildlife mammal species. And they also concurred with the mitigation that is being provided for with the pile driving aspect of the project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was consulted. They again, as I said, did not have any with the mitigated deck mitigation measures, did not have any concern with the project. you NOAA NIMS was consulted, and we're actually doing a mitigation. Part of the mitigation was to create some eelgrass beds for essential fish habitat, which may be impacted by the overwater coverage. So all of those agencies were consulted. They have all given us concurrence on the project with the mitigation measures, which are outlined in the mitigated NIG deck. |
| 01:37:48.18 | Mayor Withing | Um, I... |
| 01:37:49.04 | Unknown | I miss you. |
| 01:37:50.81 | Mayor Withing | I have a question, actually. There has been some concern and a narrative among some of our residents that the design of this is driven by bicycles and is driven by the need for the ferry to be able to load the large number of bicycles, especially during the high tourist season. To what extent was this design driven by the need to accommodate bicycles? |
| 01:38:33.57 | John Eberle | As I mentioned earlier, the primary need is for replacing the age facility and then also the ADA guidelines. But we did look at level of service of operation, so level of service, as I stated, There's an analysis that's done where you look at Thank you. You don't look at whether they're bicycle passengers or non-bicycle passengers. You look at passengers. So we looked at our historical data for passengers at all of our facilities. And we took that historical data over a five-year period and then we projected a growth rate for all of our facilities of a certain percent. It happened to be 4%. And from that, you do an analysis of what level of service do you want to have. Do you want to have an A level of service, B, C, or D? So that's how the determination was made on how the facility looks. It was not a bicycle related. Bicycle improvements will be made, I believe, by this project, but it wasn't how the project was designed. |
| 01:39:34.30 | Mayor Withing | And a follow-up question related to level of service, again, to help folks understand what you mean by that. Thank you. just as you gave the example of traffic studies and traffic junctions, A, B, C, D, E, F, et cetera. So some folks are concerned that this is being designed for sort of like the peak, the absolute maximum capacity you could – and you said you've designed it to a level C service. Correct. So could you explain that a little bit more? |
| 01:40:07.56 | John Eberle | C service? Correct. So could you explain that? it more for us? Certainly. So there's in the analysis you do your historic studies of the passengers and then you look at what service you would like to have for what percentile of passengers. So what we selected was what's called the 85th percentile evaluation which is typical for facilities, which means that 15% of the time the facility will not be your level C service. It will be above that. But for 85% of the time, it will be a level C service. So you don't design for 100% always level C. So that way there it throws out the peak, peak volumes that you get during the summer months and or at the other end, at the San Francisco side, we looked at, like I said, all of our facilities when we made this determination. Yeah. |
| 01:41:07.77 | Scott Robinson | Thank you. |
| 01:41:07.81 | Mayor Withing | That's helpful. |
| 01:41:09.77 | John Eberle | And just to let you know, the level of service C is about eight to 12 people per minute per foot width. So that's what level C service is. Okay. |
| 01:41:20.57 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 01:41:21.49 | Councilmember Leon | You went through this, but I need to be clear on, I think you call it laying up boats when they come, ferries. One question is on our current Um, Very. Can you lay up two at a time? And then on the new one, of course they can, but are you proposing that they'll be able to load and unload two at a time or only that they would be there? So can you clarify that for me, please? |
| 01:41:46.08 | John Eberle | Certainly. So the facility is designed so that you may lay up on either side, and the reason for that is due to the tide, the wind conditions, the conditions on the bay, sometimes the tide and the wind are blowing a certain way You want to lay up on the south side. Sometimes you want to lay up on the north side. That's how the current facility is constructed. The new facility or is designed, the new facility will be designed the same. We currently do not lay up two vessels to unload and load at the same time. The new facility, we will not allow two vessels to lay up, load, and unload at the same time. We're not planning to increase, you know, capacity service here. We're just replacing the existing facility with similar features. |
| 01:42:27.64 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:42:31.19 | Mayor Withing | Council Member Fisher. |
| 01:42:32.27 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. So in 2009, the Golden Gate Bridge District presented Council, and this was presented as a simple replacement, same size again, not the major replacement. changes that we're seeing here in terms of size and scope. So. I recall in 2009, and I wrote this down, that the National Park Service had approached the Golden Gate Bridge District to sublease. And I noticed that in the lease that the city has with the Golden Gate Bridge District, We actually, the lease allows the Golden Gate Bridge District to sublease without city oversight or say in any of that. And so my question is that Now, have you Have you had any further conversations with the National Park Service? Because, of course, when I look at this design and it's so urban and large for our little And I look at the NPS numbers in terms of their estimates of dramatically increasing tourist population and the fact that they even refer to Sausalito as a transit hub, a tourist, you know, transit hub. And the fact that last week or two months ago I got stuck behind a couple of the Muir Woods shuttle buses coming downtown that I look at this and it looks very strategic to me and I get very concerned. So can you comment on the National Park Service plan |
| 01:44:07.58 | Unknown | So I got... |
| 01:44:23.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Any conversations you've had with regards to subleasing, given that this lease would allow you to do this without city oversight? |
| 01:44:31.51 | John Eberle | Sure. I'll start off and then I'll hand off to Jim Swindler, who is our Deputy General Manager for Ferry Operations. We have had discussions with the National Park Service and we told them that we are not interested in having them use this facility. This facility, as I said, is for our transit operation. We also have a CPUC. uh, directive to allow Blue and Gold to use the facility. Those are the only operators allowed to use it currently, and that's all we intend to do at this time. But I'll turn it over to Jim. |
| 01:45:03.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I have a follow-up confirmation after the question after this, Jim. Okay. |
| 01:45:08.29 | Jim Swindler | Hi, and pretty consistent with what John just said, we did have discussions with National Park Services probably back in 2009, 2010, at which time they approached us and wanted permission to use our facility to mention it in an RFP. that they intended to go out and issue an RFP to private operators to provide service in Sausalito. We told them that we would not allow such a thing. We told them that if there was a need for additional ferry service out of Sausalito, it would be operated by the district. And one of the reasons for that is we do share that facility or we do allow Blue and Gold to operate there. Blue and Gold does a very good job. It's very difficult for us to control another operator's operations. So we were very specific, and I think if you look at the last iteration of the RFP, it was stated in there that the district did state that, that if there was to be any additional ferry service, obviously that would have to be consistent with discussions with the city of Sausalito, but the district would operate that. We would not allow other operators to come in there. |
| 01:46:07.66 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:46:11.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So you would not object to signing an addendum to the lease, removing that stipulation that would allow you to sublease to other? |
| 01:46:25.11 | Jim Swindler | I'm sorry. |
| 01:46:26.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, if – I guess I'm concerned about the National Park Service and their plans and, you know, you |
| 01:46:36.11 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:46:36.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | basically they mentioned faxley and they mentioned scary service coming to faxley and they've |
| 01:46:36.52 | Denise Suto | Thank you. |
| 01:46:41.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Already started. Thank you. you know loading up their buses here so would you I'm looking at this lease and I'm seeing an opportunity here to tighten that up for us to prevent that from happening. So would you be amenable then, I mean, to have a discussion with us in terms of removing that clause from the lease such that there is, you know, aside from what you currently do with the Red and White Ferry, that you would not go beyond NPS? |
| 01:47:15.46 | Jim Swindler | Well, I think we'd be agreeable to have any discussions with the city, and I think Adam and other folks within the city would support me on that. We don't do too much without talking to the city about it. |
| 01:47:27.40 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I have a follow-up after your questions. |
| 01:47:28.05 | Jim Swindler | Thank you. |
| 01:47:28.10 | Mayor Withing | to the I'd like to... be able to, is Bob still here from BCDC? If there are any further questions of Bob, and then we could thank him and release him. So if there's any specific questions of Bob, let's try and do that, please. |
| 01:47:47.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:47.68 | Councilmember Leon | So if there's |
| 01:47:52.71 | Councilmember Leon | Well, You have specific, mine's actually both, so it's half. So I'd like to ask you before you leave. |
| 01:48:02.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | If the City Council tonight does not approve this design, how will that influence BCDC? |
| 01:48:12.76 | Bob Batha | I don't think it will affect the Commission's review of it other than that they'll be concerned. They'll probably talk to the district about their efforts to try to reach an accord with the city, but we recognize that the district is a special district that doesn't require local approval, similarly to Caltrans. Caltrans is much the same way, and the Commission is used to dealing in those sorts of situations. |
| 01:48:43.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Again, stepping away from the code, looking at the lease, have you read the lease? Thank you. |
| 01:48:50.06 | Bob Batha | I have not. |
| 01:48:50.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have not. Okay. So perhaps that's another discussion, because I think reading the lease In my mind, reading it, it's very clear. Any major... improvements, major alterations, requires city council approval. And we have not given that yet. |
| 01:49:10.60 | Councilmember Leon | My question, I'll start with John, but I think it may be a result of a BCDC requirement. On the benches that are there, and they're in addition, and of course, You talked about having others enjoy it, but because there's so much traffic going there and we certainly haven't looked at it. I'm talking foot traffic and bicycle traffic, but I could envision that there's – could create some possible congestion and traffic trying to get people off and on the ferries and then have others who go there to enjoy it, particularly having the gate further on Maybe you could tell us a little bit about the logic of having benches there. It's really a more utilitarian, the ferry to get people on and off. We hadn't envisioned. We certainly don't use it now to have people just go out there to enjoy the bay. |
| 01:50:03.32 | John Eberle | Well, first of all, there are, correct me if I'm wrong, there are existing benches on the existing pier, correct? |
| 01:50:10.59 | Unknown | land. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:50:14.61 | John Eberle | which are when people queue, those benches really are not very comfortable for anyone to use. So I believe those benches are primarily now used for delineation of passengers rather than people actually using them when passengers are loading and unloading. So that was the idea of the Belvedere. We initially were thinking of just putting benches along the edge of the pier, just keep it a straight linear pier without the Belvedere. allow people to sit there but in discussions with others about how the use is at this location and seeing the use of the existing with the existing benches, how they don't function very well, The bump outs are designed so that you are out of the flow of traffic. So you will be away from the flow. You'll be able to sit there without your legs getting run over by people or bicyclists or anyone else. So they're designed to be out of that flow. |
| 01:51:17.13 | Mayor Withing | Is there any other questions for Bob before we let him depart? Okay. So, Bob, thank you very much for coming. |
| 01:51:28.93 | Bob Batha | Thank you for having me. |
| 01:51:29.36 | Unknown | Thank you for having me. |
| 01:51:30.40 | Bob Batha | Thank you. |
| 01:51:30.51 | Mayor Withing | Okay. So let's carry on with questions, and maybe shortly we can open this up for public comment. But any further questions? |
| 01:51:42.53 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I do have another question. I notice in the lease it says it allows installation of passenger weather protection such that you could actually put a cover over this massive urban design here. You could put, you know, without city, you know, review. Can you comment on that in your |
| 01:51:56.90 | Leslie Hale | Bye. |
| 01:52:11.79 | John Eberle | Certainly. The lease has a number of items in it. When the lease was contemplated, I think it's a 50-year lease. You know, I wasn't around them, but there were a number of items contemplated since it was such a long lease item. However, as stated previously, we are not putting a canopy, we are not putting any enclosure, any shelters, or any structures on this replacement. It's going to be open very similar to the existing facility. |
| 01:52:12.77 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Jen. |
| 01:52:13.49 | Patty Embert | Thank you. |
| 01:52:47.11 | Mayor Withing | Okay, if there are no more questions, |
| 01:52:50.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have one last question for city staff. |
| 01:52:52.63 | Mayor Withing | please. |
| 01:52:54.65 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | This lease is very important. It provides context. It provides history. And it was not included in staff reports, and I was just curious as to why. |
| 01:53:15.05 | Adam Politzer | we staff did not include the lease in it because of previous discussions or direction from council never asked for it when council member pfeiffer asked for a copy of the lease via an email we sent it to all five council members from that correspondence there was no request to have this included in the lease we're happy to post this on the website and also attach it to the staff report so public has the opportunity to review it |
| 01:53:44.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I guess my follow-up comment is, I sent that email last week because I discovered about the lease last week. So I guess it would have been helpful to have the lease earlier in this process because it provides context. It shows this water belongs to the city of Sausalito. That's the people of Sausalito. And we do have leverage with respect to this project going forward or not, because council has not yet approved this. |
| 01:54:15.33 | Mayor Withing | um, Yeah, I think staff need to comment on that. |
| 01:54:19.06 | Adam Politzer | I think staff need to comment on that. I think that staff has a different opinion on the leverage and what the lease allows the city to do or not. I think we have a difference of opinion with Council Member Pfeiffer on that. And I think earlier when requested by the mayor on what our authority was, our city attorney weighed in on that and was reiterated by the district's attorney I think as Jim Swindler has mentioned before if the city wants to talk to and sit down and look at the lease more closely I know that none of us including Jim was here when that lease was originally drafted there's an opportunity to do that in the future. So I do want to reiterate that the staff has a different opinion on the lease but I'm happy to review it in the future. |
| 01:55:15.47 | Mayor Withing | okay why don't we open this up for public comment at this but sometimes i'm back from i'll sorry and uh... i imagine that there is a lot of you who actually want to you say something. So, could I have a show of hands, roughly how many people want to comment on this? Okay, so why don't you start sort of lining up on this side so that we're not waiting between each person who wants to comment so that there's a sort of good flow of folks. And you don't, you know. So please, we look forward to your comments. Let me remind you that you are limited to three minutes, please. Okay, so who would like to go first? |
| 01:56:09.19 | Scott Robinson | My name is Scott Robinson. I live at 625 Olima Street in the north end of town. So the ferry boat, I do use it, but it's not right on top of my house. Two questions or comments about the design. One is, the question is, is there an intent to conduct simultaneous boarding and deboarding operations? Is that the reason for the dual walkway? |
| 01:56:36.05 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:56:37.08 | Mayor Withing | If you could direct your questions to us because if we need answers, we need to hear it on the microphone. So we would ask, and this plays to anybody, if you want to ask a question, we will note the question and then ask that later on they answer it. Thank you. |
| 01:56:37.69 | Scott Robinson | If you could direct. Okay. |
| 01:56:41.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:53.59 | Scott Robinson | Okay. My next comment is looking at the elevation drawing for the ramp that goes from the land-based part to the float. I noticed that they've wisely chosen to bias it to permit water levels to be somewhat higher than they are now, and I congratulate them on their foresight. |
| 01:57:18.97 | Jeffrey Chase | in charge. Thank you. |
| 01:57:22.19 | Edward McCann | Thank you. |
| 01:57:22.96 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 01:57:23.03 | Edward McCann | shot of the three yeah that's fine Yeah, I like that. That's great. Thank you very much. Yes, hello folks. My name is Edward McCann. I live on Cloudview in Sausalito. I've been on and around the waterfront and the ferry terminal for probably the last 10 years and with a brief stint out of the state probably 20 years before that. It's very appalling to me to hear the BCDC say, gee, it wasn't presented to us as a big project. It was presented to compliance with the ADA. And no, it really wasn't for 6,000 passengers, some of which may have bicycles and some which may not have bicycles. But I really think looking at the picture of deferred maintenance on the ferry terminal as it exists for the last 20 years, I've yet to see the float taken out and put into a dry dock. You could take a look at it, and if you had a boat like that, you'd be drummed out of the core. It has not been maintained, and it looks terrible. And of course, showing us that looking terrible is a very interesting, but sort of underhanded way of presenting the material. Just as it is, the pictures that were shown of the queues going all over the parking lot and Herb Wiener out there directing traffic on a Saturday afternoon, Those were all weekend pictures, pretty much. I don't think I saw a daytime commuter of the 1,800 people who typically take the boat with raincoats, umbrellas, and lunch bags. What I saw were pictures of the place on the weekend, which is when the 6,000 passengers are doing the service. Hence, it's quite clear to me that whether there's A, B, C or whatever kind of level of service, the 6,000 Passenger number is one that the district is trying to maintain and serve in its own way. It seems somewhat deceitful, and I'm very disappointed in the presentation. |
| 01:59:18.47 | Tammy Blanchard | I'm Tammy Blanchard, and I live at 501 Humboldt. My view is the ferry dock. I have a lot of questions, so I'm going to go off and give you all of them. First, I'd like to start by saying most of us live here and love this town because of how quaint it is and how old school it is. When you look at it from the water, it looks like an Italian town with the hills and the water. You really can't put something like this in front of our waterfront. It's taller than our buildings. It's taller than all of our building. It's not like San Francisco. San Francisco right across the street, you have 20 or 30 floors of buildings. It kind of blends in. It will not do that in Sausalito, so I'm disappointed to see how huge this project really is. |
| 02:00:11.80 | Tammy Blanchard | It's disappointing. Okay. Will the facility allow for birthing overnight? Fairies. That's a huge question for me. |
| 02:00:24.22 | Unknown | Oh, sorry. You want me to keep going? Okay, I'll keep going. |
| 02:00:27.19 | Tammy Blanchard | So, |
| 02:00:27.31 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah, we'll make note of the questions. |
| 02:00:27.97 | Tammy Blanchard | Thank you. |
| 02:00:28.00 | Unknown | You know, |
| 02:00:28.34 | Tammy Blanchard | Thank you. |
| 02:00:28.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:28.39 | Tammy Blanchard | Bye. |
| 02:00:28.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:28.52 | Tammy Blanchard | Questions? San Francisco is a big ferry building, and they only have one door, and they seem to get by just fine. Why do we need two? How long are the delays? I've been on the ferry many, many times, and it's really not that big a deal to go from one floor to the other. And there are elevators, and I'm wondering, It seems like you're hiding behind ADA a lot. This whole project is about that, and the deferred maintenance that is a little shameful. How long are the delays if somebody has to go from one floor to the other in 30 minutes from Sausalito to San Francisco? If you exclude bicycles, I don't want to hear about that. Oh. Could you tell everybody when the BCDC meeting is on Thursday, when and where at the time so we don't have to go look it up? I made a lot of notes. Um... |
| 02:01:31.97 | Tammy Blanchard | It would be nice to see an elevation side by side of the project that we have now and what you're projecting. It's really hard to see. I understand it's much, much bigger and longer and wider. And I'd like to see how tall that is in comparison to what we have right now. And, um... what that's going to do to the small businesses here that rely on the waterfront view for their livelihood. the horizon, the Inn at the Tide, the Yacht Club, the Spinnaker Restaurant, these places have been here for a long time. That is their business, is they have a view. And they don't want to see a gigantic project like this. And it's not very it doesn't fit our theme. I may have about 100 more questions, but I'll come back. |
| 02:02:22.41 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 02:02:22.44 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:02:34.46 | Denise Suto | My name is Denise Suto. I live on Locust Street in Sausalito, and I support the project. Attended the meetings, read all the research. I think it's well-researched. It's common sense. It's well thought out. And also my concern was, when I was just listening now, When the issue was brought up to remove the National Park Service's addendum, that's an opportunity. That's an opportunity that we're looking for as a school district to – that would be a potential opportunity we would lose. So I'm concerned at the idea that we would just even put it out there to strip that I don't think that we should change the lease, and that's poorly thought out. So I'd like to see the plan move forward intact the way it has been researched and supported. Thank you. |
| 02:03:28.32 | Mayor Withing | Thanks, Denise. |
| 02:03:37.81 | Unknown | I need help on this. How do I get the last screen? |
| 02:03:44.17 | Lily | Thank you very much. |
| 02:03:44.76 | Unknown | Just to get out of this. |
| 02:03:47.49 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:03:49.11 | Unknown | I have something on your own. |
| 02:03:53.59 | Unknown | OK, thanks. |
| 02:03:58.13 | Vince Majora | I'm Vince Majora. I wanted to get into the history of Sausalito, but it's going to take too long. At one time, Sausalito was the transportation hub. The ferries ran from here to San Francisco, all through the Bay Area. When the ferries stopped, Sausalito became a small, quaint town again. That was in the 50s, 40s, I mean. Now we've lost it to tourists again, and now you want to make a transportation hub. I came up with a little bit of a drawing. I think it'll work. |
| 02:04:35.54 | Vince Majora | showing what the bridge district wants to do. instead of having |
| 02:04:43.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:46.24 | Vince Majora | an access pier, have the access pier near the landside pier so it won't have as much impact, have basically little smaller, Gangway, which they call a gangway because they can get away with different ADA requirements in the float a little bit smaller and closer in the shore and They can do this without making it temporary peer They can do it the way it's set up now. Just use the original peer, build the A peer, the access peer, then come in and attach their docks and gangway to it. It would save money. It would be less impact out on the bay. |
| 02:05:37.65 | Vince Majora | And... The gate they have now looks like a prison gate. They could lower the gate. They could have video and electronic monitoring. Nobody's going to go out on the pier. And if they're worried about terrorists, people can come up with a boat and put something on the pier. So just try to downsize it and make it less visible from shore. The shore side will be another issue, which is horrible what they're talking about right now. We just don't need it. Thank you. |
| 02:06:23.45 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:06:24.16 | Phil Ring | My name is Phil Ring, I live on Filbert. Some of you know me as the ex-wizard of waste, and I see a lot of it. I guess, yeah, we do have to make a gangplank that's ADA compliant and... That means the single deck access, which makes it taller, uglier. And I think I heard somewhere along the line that all the doors on the ferries aren't the same. Who wrote the specs when they bought the ferries? Okay, let's look at that access area, not on this slide. that we're talking about where we have the nice little benches. That's where everybody with their bikes and all the passengers are going to queue. Sure, in between the ferries maybe there's some value for that. But you're making it wider for really no good reason to my mind Oh. And finally, those two eight-foot wide roll-up doors That seems excessive. I would think one eight foot wide door would be plenty. I would think one eight foot wide door that is an emergency opening door would be fine and you wouldn't have to have these doors on either side further reducing the footprint of the the new project, which I think is needed. Thanks. |
| 02:07:54.95 | David Sudo | Hi, my name is David Sudo. I live on Locust Street. I fully support this project. I'm glad that the Bridge District came back today and gave us a little more engineering behind this and why they came up with the numbers that they did. I'm a frequent ferry commuter and if you go commute on a windy, wet day like today, you can see why you would want a longer gangplank that's not as steep and not as slippery, and hopefully a little more stable when the waves are out there in another month. So some of this could be made prettier, maybe, but they pretty much well laid out why they came up with the dimensions they did. If someone has some engineering skill and could show why those numbers weren't what they should be, then maybe they should look at the numbers. But I haven't seen anybody say that what they came up with wasn't a good idea. And this float that we have almost sank, what, about two years ago? The big hole was listing the sign. They managed to patch it up, but that float is ready to sink any day, so it needs to get replaced. |
| 02:09:22.77 | Patty Embert | I'm Patty Embert, I live on Lower Crescent. I've been riding the ferry since 1989, every weekday. back and forth except the occasional day when I'm sick or on vacation. People are talking about the slope in ADA. I see every day the Larkspur Ferry and sometimes it is The slope is almost as high as this room. It's at least five times higher. So I'm wondering why Sausalito is being pointed out and not Larkspur. I'm also wondering if this is a C design how large an A design would be. Would it be 50 feet wide? I mean, just for comparison. And I also thought that a lot of the pictures of the gangplank, they cut off the left side so it made it look much smaller than it is. |
| 02:10:32.78 | David Sudo | Thank you. Thank you. you |
| 02:10:49.23 | Joan Proctor | I'm Joan Proctor. I live on B Street. I am not a lawyer and I'm not an engineer, so I really can't speak to what has to be done in order to accomplish the job that needs to be done there. I certainly can see that we do need some kind of upgrading from what we have had. I am... very often using the ferry. I'm also a cyclist and I enjoy the waterfront a lot, so I have a lot of interest in what goes on down there. And I'm just pretty shocked that any agency could come in and build something in our downtown without the city having approved it. That just to me doesn't sound feasible. I see the pictures of Larkspur, San Francisco, and Sausalito. Larkspur and San Francisco are very different. Those piers are not in their downtown. they are out in somewhat industrial space and they look okay out there. I think the design we've been shown is very industrial looking, it's very functional looking, it doesn't look at all like Sausalito, and it doesn't look like it belongs in anybody's home downtown. I don't understand why we need 25 feet of space. I don't understand why we would need benches along the pier when we could have plenty of benches on the land. Anybody that really needs to sit is going to be in a chair anyway. And if we had something along the pair, I'd rather see planters or something to make it look appealing. To me, it's just completely out of scale, both for what we're trying to accomplish and for where it is sitting. I also am keeping in mind that if a lot of the impetus behind this project is the bicycles, that there are plans afoot and a lot of work going on to find a different solution for all those bikes than going through in the middle of our downtown. And I don't know if the people making these plans knew that when they put the design together. I see the bicycle congestion problem as being a, hopefully, a somewhat temporary one in case better techniques are worked out. |
| 02:13:02.07 | Joan Proctor | I guess that's... That's about all I have to say, except I would truly be horrified if this plan went through. |
| 02:13:19.46 | Peter Van Meter | Peter Van Meter, Cloud View Circle. Hard to imagine this was only three or four years old when I was on the council sitting up there with you. A lot of times gone by. Well, clearly it needs to be replaced. I think that anybody in the room can agree that the condition of the current float is unacceptable. It's old, it's deteriorated. So then the question becomes, you know, what do you do to fix that situation? I was very impressed with the engineering explanation of how they have designed this to really meet the minimum requirements of loading, offloading, ADA, those regulations. Those are rules that are not established by us or BCDC or the district or anyone else. Those are, as I understand it, federal rules basically, those requirements for the slope and how you're going to handle the tide variations, all the rest of that. So they, in my view, they've come up with a solution that really meets the minimum requirements for replacement. So in my view, it's a good thing for the City of South Salido, a good thing for the Ferry Service, a good thing for BCDC at the same time. Now, of the material. the color of the railings. the shape of the railing. Fine. Let's go to their DRV group again. and say, you know, we want a different color, we want, maybe we want a little wood railing or something, I don't know what it would be. But if you think it looks industrial, Fine. Pretty it up. Make it look funky in Old Town. But the point is, as far as the shape and the engineering of it, I think they've done a good job and they've really met the minimum requirements. Thank you. |
| 02:14:56.49 | John Kassar | Thank you. |
| 02:15:00.76 | John Kassar | Hi, my name is John Kassar. I'm a resident. And I took some notes, and I actually was at the BCDC meeting in October, whenever it And I can tell you that there was a lady from the Golden Gate Transit, a very short lady, and she said, these bikers who come in, they expect to be serviced and we need to service them. She was with the Golden Gate Transit Authority. So if you're to end, as I recall, I was just hearing there, you wanted to actually line people up on that longer gangway, the width that was there. That's what I recall from that meeting. I also recall from that meeting that the BCDC was very concerned that the city and wanted input from the city and the city's residents and potentially the city council's approval that was at that meeting and the BCDC was very concerned about the displacement of water, and they were very concerned. They said, do you have any other designs? That was at that meeting. I haven't seen any other designs. I will say I agree that we need a new dock. Do we need the size of it? I don't really know. Do we need the ADA? I get it. Do we need the size, the width of the gangway? Probably not. Do we need that entrance, which is Disneyland? I would hate it. I'd just be terrible. So as much as Mr. Mayor has said that it's not about the bikes, I can tell you at that meeting it was all about the bikes at the BCDC meeting. And what I'm probably the most upset about that I'm hearing, except from Councilmember Pfeiffer, is that This is a larger project than was initially anticipated, and yet the city and its residents have absolutely, it sounds like, no recourse at all for the transit district to do whatever they want in whatever design they want. That, I think, is terrible. And I don't know what can be done, if anything, unless we hang the shingle on it's significantly different than the original plan. because it's a lot bigger. Um, And I guess the last question or concern I would have is, so we have this single loading and unloading on this service. I'd be curious on how many times really was the ferry late because of loading and unloading of passengers, which seems to be a tenet for having the larger uh, gangway and everything else? Has it really been a problem in terms of late and service? Thank you. |
| 02:17:56.95 | Michael Racks | Michael Racks, local architect, and I'm speaking in support of the project. for a lot of reasons. First of all, in general, I support multimodal transportation solutions because it gives people an alternative to driving. And I support ferry service because it's going to provide an alternative to our automobile. Can you imagine if those 6,000 people came by car? We'd have a lot more traffic congestion than we do now. and reduces pollution and greenhouse gases when people drive less. And I would rather – I think this enhances the pedestrian activity downtown. I'd rather see people than cars. Thank you. Um, I also support this effort to upgrade the facility. We heard how it's deteriorating. We hear it's not seismically sound. And we must bring – we must comply to ADA. In fact, I would say the Bridge District has an obligation of the public to provide a safe and cold-compliant facility. and we should support that endeavor. Um, I actually like that there will be a peer that people can get further out on the water without buying a ticket. I think it enhances public access and the ability to get further out onto the water and look back to the hills is a feature we'd all enjoy, not just visitors. In general, I think this is a very well thought out and rational The boarding's going to be more efficient. It'll be safer. It'll be more pleasant. There'll be less congestion at our ferry landing. There'll be less crowding on the land side portions. And we'll be looking at the next slide. I don't share the opinion that this is a massive and urban design. It could use some refinements, though. We are in a historic district, and I think it's a bit too commercial-looking. I think it could have a friendlier look to it. Maybe there's wooden railings instead of metal. I agree with the speaker that several speakers who said the gates are too large and commercial. It could be more charming. It should be. I think it needs a little more redesign, not in terms of the layout or function. As an architect, I know how long Gangways have to be. to have access at all stages of the tide. So it is going to be bigger if it's going to be accessible at all stages of the tide, which the law requires. That is a given, but it could be more charming. Um, I think... The BCDC required benches, which the district didn't propose, BCDC proposed, are not necessary. We don't need to widen that pier to provide benches. So we can tell BCDC, sorry, that's not where it belongs. They don't like pile-supported fill, and those benches are adding significantly to pile-supported fill. We should remind them of that. On the color, white's wrong. Neutral tones, galvanized, even dark tones, dark gray, black. These are things I want you to approve this project, but ask them to go back and soften it, make it less commercial. |
| 02:21:10.42 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Michael. |
| 02:21:16.87 | Leslie Hale | I'm Leslie Hale, and I live on Cloudview, and I'm pretty appalled that the BCDC, the group, would come tonight and expect everyone to support something that's so atrocious. The ferries are old. The dock is old. Maybe the ferries pollute too much, and we should be looking at newer service with more upgraded boats and smaller boats or at a northern part of town where there's already an Army Corps of Engineers pier and other access. I don't see why such a huge structure needs to be downtown. I do like the ferry. I do want the ferry. But this is pretty atrocious. And the fact that it may have been proposed over several years – I went to a few meetings years ago. It seemed like the public didn't have input then, and we don't have input now. And it's our town. It's why we live here. We pay property taxes, we enjoy the views of the water and the access that's slowly being taken away by tourism and bicycles, and they don't really bring a lot of business to town. They bring a little business to town, but not a lot, and we'd like our town back, I think. |
| 02:22:41.53 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:22:46.32 | Stan Hales | Okay, before public comments over, I'm Stan Hales. I live on Sunshine Avenue. Take the fare occasionally, ride a bicycle occasionally. I think broadly, if you take a step back, this has been going since 2008. It's how many years now, and we still have an old pier. I like some of the comments and the ideas about, you know, going to the Bay, maybe moving it to the Bay model potentially. I mean, that's where the Army Corps is. But is that feasible? I don't know. We have, this is fully funded. So if you take a step back and you say, we're not paying for it in Sausalito. I mean, yes, it's coming out of our tax dollars via the federal government and so forth, but this is paid for and this funding expires. And if we mess around and try to fix a design, we'll get we may end up with expired funding and the pier may never get built. I know for sure, one of the commentators talked about the pier jiggling around in the waves, and that's true. I've been on it when it's been wet, and a wave comes by and the pier slams against the pilings and you almost fall over. I can imagine if you're disabled out there, it would be a disaster. We're waiting for a lawsuit to happen, and yet we're arguing about the aesthetics of the peer. I think Michael Rex is right. Change the aesthetics. Delete the prison gate that's in front of it. Hyde Street Pier is pretty charming. If you've been to Fisherman's Wharf, the old Hyde Street Pier, it's built out of wood, it's white, it's got black lettering. It looks nice. Put a little small gate underneath it and you've completely changed the way it looks and it could be very easy design change. So I guess broadly my thought is don't let this funding expire and leave us with a decrepit pier that ends up sinking into the bay in the future storm. If we need to make a few design changes, it sounds like we've got a bit of time, but approve this project with potential minor design changes. Thanks. Thanks. |
| 02:25:03.90 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Who else would like to comment? |
| 02:25:12.81 | Pat Zook | Pat Zook. I took the liberty while I was working yesterday of listening to all of the hearings back to 2009. some of which are only on audio. And it sounds impressive when you look at the resume. The fact of the matter is there were no visual presentations. They were conceptual. There was, we plan to do this. We would like to do that. In fact, at the first meeting where a visual was supposed to be presented, the computer broke and he had to wing it. the consistent statements had been from 2009, I think, to 2012, that the float would remain the same size. And yes, we needed a wider ramp. I think the ramp was initially going to be something like 16 feet. Maybe it still is. The hearings were abbreviated. They were regarded as presentations, and even though there were opportunities for public input, they were abbreviated. In fact, I remember Mayor Leone saying, let's keep this short and let's have staff gather comments and relay them to the Bridge District. So I think this is the point at which people really have a chance to see what this thing is going to look like. And in all honesty, if it wasn't for that gate, I don't think we would all be here. That is really an affront to a small town. It's something that would be more appropriate in a community of 30,000 rather than a community of seven. Whether or not the Belvederes make sense, I don't think they do. I don't think they are deal killers in either direction, but that gate's got to go. Thanks. |
| 02:27:02.43 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Pat. |
| 02:27:08.69 | Unknown | Jeff Shiroz, 100 Spinnaker Drive, Sausalito. I'm wearing two hats tonight, one, of course, for the Spinnaker, and also for the Sausalito Chamber of Commerce, both of which we are in favor of the project. Definitely there's some things that or a little scarier as far as the project goes as far as maybe the aesthetics and different things in that regard that can be changed as Peter Van Meter, Michael Rex and others have said throughout tonight. But overall, there's things that need to be done with the project to accommodate the needs we currently have and are coming up in the future. Just even for San Francisco in the last four years, 50,000 jobs in San Francisco have been added. Well, some of those jobs and some of those people are coming over to Marin. And we know that by the traffic on 101 up north now. They are moving to Sausalito. So people are moving here. By 2040, there will be another 100,000 jobs in San Francisco. So those jobs, once again, people need places to live. And they're either going to live somewhere in Marin or East Bay or, of course, San Francisco as well. But there's a limited amount of housing in San Francisco. So they are going to come over here also for the quality of life. And a great way to come to our town is the ferry. So we need to be able to accommodate those needs, accommodate people coming over to Sausalito. Definitely with the jobs and also whether it be tourism or not, we definitely need to have an infrastructure that is for today and, once again, accommodates the future itself as well. So thank you. |
| 02:28:39.21 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Jeff. Now, is there anybody else who would like to say anything? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Thank you. bring it back up here. There was a couple of questions asked. I made some notes. Perhaps we could have those questions possibly answered by staff. I may have not got them all, but let me have a go. So one question was, overnight, maybe Jim or up. You know, will you be docking fairs there overnight? Another question was about the two doors and trying to understand that. And then we'll get from staff the date of the BCDC meeting. But if you could answer that particular question, a series of questions. |
| 02:29:45.63 | Jim Swindler | Sure. With respect to the overnight birthing, we have berth boats there overnight in the past. I would say it's done on a minimal basis. We did, I think, the largest complaint we had was from the Yacht Club, where we did have a period of time where we had work going on in Locksboro. We had a major problem with one of our our primary loading pair and locks for We had to make room to berth boats, and we did have a boat berth there overnight. We got it out of there as quickly as possible. Since that time, we've established quite a nice relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers, thanks to Chris Gallagher down there. She's been very helpful. And rarely do we have a boat there. It's not our intent to have a boat there. We don't like having a boatINESS MORE COMPLICATED. WE LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF OUR VESSELS IN LOCKSBUR WHERE WE HAVE OUR STAFF. SO IT'S NOT A PRACTICE. BUT AGAIN, I CAN'T PROMISE THAT THERE WON'T COME AN OCCASION WHERE WE HAVE A PROBLEM AND WE DO HAVE TO BURN THE BOAT THERE. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S LESS THAN 2% OF THE TIME. I MEAN, VERY, VERY MINIMAL. SO THERE'S NO INTENT TO RUN AN OPERATION OUT OF THERE. And the other question had to do with the two loading doors? Yes. On the vessels? |
| 02:31:03.19 | Scott Robinson | Yeah. |
| 02:31:04.77 | Mayor Withing | And the question was, well, is there really a delay in terms of moving people up and down from one level of a boat to another? You seem to think that doing so that will streamline it. Certainly my own experience, it seems like it would streamline it, but perhaps you could comment on that. |
| 02:31:27.03 | Jim Swindler | Well, there is the loading with the two doors in Sausalito obviously will enhance the operation there. And we do experience delays trying to board through one door there. So I thought I heard the question maybe two ways, up and down and also loading and offloading. So to deal with the loading and the offloading, absolutely there are delays in Sausalito based on the fact that we can only load through one door. This will greatly enhance the loading and offloading and allow us to maintain that schedule there. With respect to... and we have to make sure that there are delays in Sausalito based on the fact that we can only load through one door. This will greatly enhance the loading and offloading and allow us to maintain that schedule there. |
| 02:31:41.50 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:31:59.64 | Jim Swindler | It delays it, but especially, I mean, you know, we're not gonna hide from the bicycle thing. It definitely delays it when you're dealing with bicycles. You know, when you have to move bicycles from one deck to another, IT'S GOING TO BE A DELAY. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT BLUE AND GOLD BOATS They don't. load on the main duct. and they get off at the main deck. But the primary purpose of this was to, one of the primary purposes of this project was to take the other two facilities, which is San Francisco and Larkspur, they load at the upper deck and bring those down to the main deck so that all of our vessels are the same. And it goes to what John mentioned earlier, the emergency preparedness part of it so that all of our facilities can accommodate pretty much any ferry on the bay if we did have a major catastrophe that we had to deal with. |
| 02:32:43.95 | Mayor Withing | Okay. Before we see if there are any more questions here before our comments, could you or maybe staff remind everybody or tell everybody when the BCDC hearing is, or the next BCDC hearing? I heard it was Thursday at 1 p.m., Thursday the 4th at 1 p.m., but I didn't catch the location. |
| 02:33:11.17 | Lily | That's correct, Mr. Mayor. It'll be this Thursday, December 4th at 1 p.m. at Pier 1 at the Port of San Francisco boardroom, the Ferry Building, second floor. It's the same location on December 18th, same time as well. |
| 02:33:25.48 | Mayor Withing | And is that- As well if we got that posted on our website |
| 02:33:32.09 | Lily | It is in the current, we can get that on our website as well. |
| 02:33:38.18 | Mayor Withing | All right. Thank you. So, um, My other question before anybody else has any questions. If, yes, Adam. |
| 02:33:47.60 | Adam Politzer | I think that staff took down the questions from the public and I don't think that they've all been |
| 02:33:52.12 | Mayor Withing | Okay, no, if you've got them, better than my miserable attempt at trying to record them. |
| 02:33:55.16 | Jim Swindler | And did we? |
| 02:33:58.94 | Jim Swindler | Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. |
| 02:34:03.78 | John Eberle | There was another question on will there be boarding unloading at the same time? I'm assuming from two different vessels, and the answer is no. One vessel will berth and load at a time. Will there be berthing overnight? Jim answered that question. San Francisco only has one door. Why does South Salido need two? As shown on this slide here, we are going to be modifying and making improvements on all of our facilities. South Salido just happens to be the first one that we're planning to work on. Consultation has begun at San Francisco, and we will have similar facilities with the boarding from the two doors at San Francisco, South Lido, and Larkspur. The other question was how long are the delays? Jim answered that, and when will the BCDC hearing |
| 02:34:56.10 | Bob Batha | Thank you. |
| 02:35:01.40 | John Eberle | Why was South Salido picked and not Larkspur? Again, we are going to be making improvements at all of our facilities. South Salido is the first one. South Salido is fully funded, and that's why we're beginning at South Salido. But we plan to make improvements at San Francisco and Larkspur also. And how would an A design differ from a C design with respect to level of service? And I don't have those numbers here, but I could, if you wish, I could get those numbers for you. |
| 02:35:27.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:32.14 | John Eberle | Okay. |
| 02:35:32.40 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:35:32.43 | John Eberle | Thank you. |
| 02:35:32.55 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Just one more set of questions, and I might have been interpreting a little bit to turn it into a question, but several of the comments from the public, is the district open to changing the color material? Question about do we need the benches or not? Is that, are some of those discretionary items, is there flexibility on the design of those discretionary items, like the gate and the color? |
| 02:36:00.51 | John Eberle | With regard to the color, as I presented earlier, we're open to suggestions on the color of the railing. And the float itself is going to be concrete, so it will not be a steel float. One of the comments was on the stability of the new facility. So we are using concrete. It's a much more robust and durable structure. So the float will be concrete, and we can paint it if I feel it doesn't blend in. We will be, the steel truss could be painted. We are showing white, but because our facilities, you know, we're looking at our existing facilities. But if there's a request for a different color, I'm sure we're open to some discussions on that and also the gate. |
| 02:36:45.53 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:36:45.57 | John Eberle | Okay. |
| 02:36:47.25 | Unknown | Good to see you. |
| 02:36:48.28 | John Eberle | The Belvediers are actually a part of the public access with BCDC, and that is going to be a requirement of the permit with BCDC, so we're going to maintain those benches. |
| 02:36:59.89 | Mayor Withing | So BCDC, if I may, BCDC has already indicated to you that they are requiring those validators. |
| 02:37:09.73 | John Eberle | That's correct. |
| 02:37:15.65 | Mayor Withing | Anybody else have any questions of our guests tonight before we bring it up here for comment and action of any kind? |
| 02:37:26.74 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:37:26.99 | Councilmember Leon | Also, following along those lines on these, let's call them discretionary items and certainly the gate being the foremost of them, is the Ferry District willing to do that and make that as part of their permit application when they go in on the 4th and others? So that would certainly take a large part of the concerns of SAUCE LITO AWAY AND MADE IT obviate the need for some of them to have to go. Certainly that would narrow the issues that we have. If we knew that going in, that would be, you would have the support, you would make that part of the application. |
| 02:38:01.33 | John Eberle | As part of the BCDC permit application, this is really something that they're not going to comment on. So it's really not a part of their permitting process. Right. They're not in the design. |
| 02:38:08.76 | Councilmember Weiner | Right, they're not in the design. As he said, the BCDC does not over say design and or structural materials. They're just concerned about environmental impact and access to the water. |
| 02:38:15.31 | John Eberle | Thank you. |
| 02:38:19.25 | John Eberle | But as I said, we are willing to definitely hear from you about colors. We're not really married to any of these particular colors. And also, if there's some modifications to the gate, that we do have time to make some modifications. |
| 02:38:42.27 | Mayor Withing | Okay, I think there are no, are there any other questions up here? No. Okay. |
| 02:38:54.42 | Mayor Withing | We've got a lot to digest. Who would like to make some initial comments? |
| 02:39:00.99 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:39:04.99 | Councilmember Weiner | I'll just say thanks to the Bridge District for coming tonight on kind of relatively short notice, I think. So that was very nice of you to do that. I think some of the comments were useful and some of the things that had gone through local review in terms of just the materials and color and the gate. There are certainly things that you have time in your construction schedule to work with city staff and the appropriate people to make some changes there, and that would be appreciated. I think you did a great job of explaining why it has to be dimensions of what it has to be. And that's just the way the world changes as we try to accommodate those who are less fortunate than ourselves. |
| 02:39:12.19 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:39:51.26 | Councilmember Weiner | in terms of their access. So I think with the, and I'm assuming the truss, you know, the curve structure is a necessity from a structural standpoint. It's not a design element. So that's kind of the more visually impactful aspect of that gangway. So I'm assuming that's a necessity rather than a design choice. So other than that, I think as far as just materials and color and working on the gate, I think that's something, and that's not a BCDC matter, that's something that we can, or the appropriate first people, can talk with you folks along the route and the design process. |
| 02:40:28.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor? |
| 02:40:29.50 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:40:30.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I think there's no question that this needs, that the ferry landing needs upgrading and the ADA compliance. The concern, though, is that Sausalito is a small town, and we have small town character, and this is an urban industrial design. Furthermore, this is city land. Citizens do have recourse. You have city leadership up here we have a lease with the Golden Gate Bridge District we can as as this is city property it should go through Planning Commission review. It's in the heart of our historic downtown district. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Historic Landmarks Board with respect to their review. And we received an email from former council member Carolyn Ford, and she quotes, I'm just reading from her letter, I seriously question the legality of moving forward without the Planning Commission's review. As a project involving both land use and design review, there is no question that this project should be vetted by the Planning Commission. I concur with that. Again, this is something that is on our waterfront. It's going to be with us for a very, very long time. And so, you know, I would ask the council to send this city property through proper vetting, allow the public to be able to weigh in on the designs and to have historic landmarks review. as is appropriate for city property, and to go through that process, and we will have a better project at the end. We will have a better outcome, and it will be more befitting our small-town character. So that's my recommendation to council, and I hope you will consider that. |
| 02:42:31.25 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Well, thank you, Golden Gate, Prairie people for coming. Jim, I think I like the project. The gate and some aesthetics I think we can work on. Let's go back 10 years ago. If you remember Sausalito Bridgeway 10 years ago, it was bumper to bumper in the summertime. You don't get that anymore because people are not coming over as much by automobiles. They're coming by other means. In fact, if you really question that, then if you're aware of downtown, when you go through in the summertime, the only thing that really held you up was the idea of people walking across the street. We have to move into a different time. All right, the automobiles we want in this town to be less. Now how do you do that? All right. Do you all of a sudden tell people, don't take the ferry? And by the way, the buses. Thank you. On a busy day here in the summertime, And I'm down there, and I'm down there every day. We have as many as 58 buses, not counting the vans, coming in. And out of that, about 30 of them are transfers, which I mean by that is they're dropped off by bus and they go into the city by ferry. This is the future to get out of the automobiles. Now, what are we supposed to do, go backwards and tell them don't come into town? go to your rentals and come into town bumper to bumper again? No, that isn't the direction that we should go. As I said before, and by the way, in the summertime, There's not room to put much more ferries in because we have a ferry coming almost every 30 minutes to be able to handle. And when someone said it's just on Saturday and it's just on Sunday, no. From June to September, late September, it's almost every day. And that's counting Monday through Friday, not just the weekends. All right. ADA. I don't think we really put our arms around it. Better go take a look at Viña del Mar. Everybody was screaming. It'll look horrible. You take away the steps. I haven't heard any complaints yet. If you want to tell me complaints on Viña del Mar since we made it ADA, then tell this All right, I haven't heard any complaints on that. So the idea is let's move into the future with less automobiles and a much, much better carbon footprint. Thank you. |
| 02:45:23.31 | Councilmember Leon | Well, I think there's major agreement that it needs to be updated. I think there's also consensus on the idea that what we're calling discretionary items or the aesthetic items need to be addressed, the gate, the paint, the benches, the railings. Benches are a BCDC issue, but that's something that people can go to BCDC and do that. talk about, but certainly other parts. We've had legal opinion on whether it should go through our planning commission, and it doesn't. The bridge district. probably not would not want to go through a process that they felt they weren't legally required to do. Certainly, we should double-check that, but we do have to find a way that the community finds their input on these issues. I mean, it's not easy. We can't just take a poll. So I would recommend that certainly, whether it's required or not, that we take this and treat it as a design review and go through it and get input. Because we do have to find a mechanism so that we get community input in there. There are a lot of different ideas what it should be. And that's, I'm sure this gate's going to take a lot of back and forth. There'll be a lot of interesting opinions on it. And we're going to have to find a way that we take the public input and come up with something that the public is satisfied with. So I think we need to explore that. But with that, I think that we will end up with a ferry terminal that people would be happy with. But it is certainly worth this extra step in the work to address many of these issues that the public has raised tonight. |
| 02:47:00.83 | Mayor Withing | the I think there's sort of, let's try and divide this up in my mind into sort of several different parts. I mean, I agree with, I can't remember which speaker, I think it was maybe Michael, Michael Rex, that, or somebody, maybe it was Peter, that the actual engineering explanation of the actual size of the gangway and the float was very well crafted, very cogent for me. It makes sense. It was obviously thought through. And it is clearly not being maximally designed. It's being, you know, I appreciate going through some of the details of the assumptions that were made, and I think that's good. You know, bikes are really, as you know, all of you know... Many of the residents are frustrated with the bike congestion, and these two narratives have somehow crossed each other. I'm convinced that this upgrade, necessary ADA upgrade, is not driven by bikes. And so that really is unfortunate that those two have been linked. It's just not the case. With regards to what we have been calling, I don't know if you've been calling it, but we call it the discretionary parts, I'm not sure there's many people in the community who actually think this gate looks good. In fact, I would say that there's almost guaranteed consensus that this gate looks hideous. So we've got to redesign it. Now, I agree with the vice mayor. There needs to be a process that we do that. And we would be looking to you guys to, as you have with, you know, as you have to date, been willing to work with us to try and figure out how to deal with the the color, the aesthetics, all of the things that need to change this from um, generic to Sausalito appropriate. That, I think, is the message, at least for me, and I think it's the message from the council that that needs to get looked at. Process-wise, well, that's, I think, a discussion item we need to have as to what's the best way to do this. And I see no reason why we wouldn't use our planning commission for that. |
| 02:49:58.59 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah, I would disagree with that in that what Herb and other people have done in certainly the last eight years is kind of reinitiate a very positive relationship with the Golden Gate Ferry and the Bridge District in general. This also had a terrible relationship with the Bridge District for a long time, confrontational. And so Jim has been a big part of this sort of bridging. Okay, sorry about the pun there. But sort of bringing two sides together in a much more cooperative and iterative way. And Herb's done a lot of that heavy lifting. So I think, you know, you're going to get asked two people, you'll get three opinions about what the gate should be. But, you know, the current one isn't a real winner either, by the way, if you check out what's actually there currently. But this one is a little bit more um out of place, let's just put it that way. So, but I think perhaps informality might be your friend here rather than a formal process at the end of the day because I think there's some very clear, they've put out their hand of we'll help work on these items and if we turn it into a real dog and pony show, it can be more confrontational than it needs to be. |
| 02:51:14.29 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. Thank you. So I recall that engineering said, made the comment that 25 feet width is not an ADA requirement. I was there at the October meeting for the BCDC Design Review Board and heard, you know, the district say that this was for expediting, you know, bike loading, et cetera. So I personally beg to differ that I think the design is definitely for expediting bikes. But I'm really so happy to hear the sense that this design would benefit from design review and our planning commission. I would encourage HLB in the mix as well because it's our historic downtown. But I also think that the district would find a much smoother process with respect to the citizens and the process and the outcome product going through that Planning Commission review. I think it would be stronger for you, and it would be much smoother. |
| 02:52:26.60 | Mayor Withing | Yeah, I'd just like to clarify what I meant by planning commission review. Legally, it is my understanding until somebody can convince me otherwise. Legally, our planning commission and the city of Sausalito does not have legal jurisdiction over these waterside improvements, period. Okay? So, if someone wants to argue with that, there's a city attorney. We can have it. You can call her up and have that discussion. But as far as I'm concerned, that's a given. Therefore, you can't go in front of our planning commission for design review because there's no jurisdiction. It wouldn't be that process. It would have to be in front of the planning commission informally to get an input onto this, what we're calling discretionary item. So I just wanted to be very clear. We have no jurisdiction to impose a design review hearing in front of it. Thank you. Period. |
| 02:53:29.95 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | If I could just respond quickly because it was my comment. I understand about the building code with respect to the California code, and I understand that. But certainly, per the lease, the council can request this, and this is city property, that the council is, does have the authority to send this to Planning Commission and HLB. Well, I just, we beg to differ. |
| 02:53:30.07 | Mayor Withing | Mr. |
| 02:54:00.63 | Councilmember Weiner | It's a very similar scenario is what's happening with the smart stations and other locations that smart is a similar entity which doesn't have to go through local design review. They propose stations in various places where other towns have said this isn't what we like exactly. It's much too spartan and or industrial, commercial. Well, it is because that's what it is. And they've had hearings at each town. They've come back with various comments. And they're going to go back to the drawing board and massage some of the more design or discretionary elements. So just like we can't. regulate what the Army Corps does and what they build on their property. It's a similar scenario or what they tip the street, unfortunately. It's a similar scenario here. So whether you want to use – there's only one design professional on the Planning Commission at the moment, and he's termed out, and he will be gone probably by the time this comes back through that process. So it's not like you're going to get but if you're looking from a purely design perspective. So, you know, I don't know what the right answer is here, but I don't think setting up a hugely formal process is going to be your friend at the end of the day. I think if it's more iterative and come back to the council, let the public come and hear what the proposals are, and in terms of some of the aesthetic treatments in terms of materials of color and the gait, that's what the other communities are doing on the smart stations as well. |
| 02:55:28.07 | Mary Wagner | MS. Mr. Mayor, if I may, I think it's important to draw the distinction between the city's authority as a landlord versus the city's authority as a regulatory agency. And we've certainly had this similar conversation in other contexts, particularly MLK comes to mind and some other instances where the city is both |
| 02:55:30.42 | Councilmember Weiner | . |
| 02:55:50.36 | Mary Wagner | the landlord and the regulator. So I think it's important to clarify that any authority or requirement to get the lessor's consent under the lease is pretty circumscribed by the lease itself and I believe that the District's Council alluded to or mentioned the fact that there's limitation language specifically that the city's authority cannot be unreasonably withheld. There are time constraints that apply to that, and in my opinion, it clearly does not Indicate that the city could require that this project be submitted to a full design review process in front of the planning commission. and or the HLB. |
| 02:56:36.47 | Councilmember Leon | Again, on this, I agree with his comment, and I think And certainly we want to keep our relationship with the Ferry District. And this is something that we'd be working toward the ends. I mean, I think the problem is we've identified some problems we have to find some design review. mechanism to get the public's comment in. I think it's the Planning Commission, we can make a joint Planning Commission and HOB, knowing that this would be an advisory opinion, but it's we're used to having design issues vetted and put through these entities, and it would just make it easy, otherwise we have to find it out ourselves. And I think when we talk about an iterative process, the problem is who's going to make the final decision? Are we going to end up with another room full of people and say, well, these two people decided what the gate looked like, we hated, and now we're going to go through this all over again. Certainly, people are used to going through the process, and then at the end of it, we're going to live with whatever that process is. But again, I would make it, I wouldn't deal with the legal issues, I think this is something that we'd volunteer. Hopefully, Fair District would cooperate with us in knowing this is the way we are coming public input into your design. |
| 02:57:47.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I've received different feedback with respect to legal opinions on the lease. So I guess when I look at other parallels, for example, the SMART, I appreciate the analogy, but I think it's different. It's city property. We have a lease. It clearly states in the lease if there are major alterations, major improvements of which, you know, they're expanding this, what, from 8 feet to 25 feet, and the float is going to be substantially larger. These are major alterations. So, again, I'm heartened to hear it sounds like a receptiveness to sending this to, you know, design review and planning commission review. or |
| 02:58:39.88 | Mayor Withing | That's a misstatement of what I said. |
| 02:58:41.29 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | advisory I guess is what you said advisory you know anything to to get this in a process where citizens can comment and that their comments and their opinions matter and can influence this to reflect the small-town character of our town. |
| 02:59:03.92 | Mayor Withing | So could I ask our staff to, I mean, I think there's no point continuing the discussion about jurisdiction. I mean, we've heard what we've heard. I'm listening to our legal counsel, and I'm satisfied that we don't have jurisdiction here. So that's fine. Strange, but fine. But it is what it is. What would some recommendations perhaps from staff as to how we could jointly work with, and I fully do agree, the relationship now established with Gongate's been fantastic, we've collaborative, and a lot of that credit goes to Jim here, and Herbie and everybody who's worked on that and the staff. So what would be some staff's thoughts, perhaps, on the process at which the public input into the discretionary, the aesthetic aspects of the discretionary stuff gets done. City Council, Planning Commission, a joint Planning Commission, HLB, a small subcommittee, I don't know, Thank you. Let's... |
| 03:00:34.56 | Adam Politzer | The short answer, I think, is you let staff go back to the district, and they've heard the public comments tonight. They've received letters. They've been copied on correspondence to BCDC in preparation of the December 4th meeting. And by the way, you had asked the question, if that was on the website, it is. It's under Hot Topics, and you can find information right there on the front page of where the meeting is and the date and time. So I wanted to make sure that the public knew that. So rather than telling you that, well, it should go to the Planning Commission, it should be advisory through HLB and planning, we should create a task force or a committee or have a public workshop and bring these designs. I think it's best that we go back, staff go back to the district, maybe wait and hear what happens on the 4th, see what additional comments. A lot of folks that may not have been able to make tonight's meeting may show up on the 4th. A lot of our residents work in the city and may take an extended lunch or change their lunch schedule and be at that meeting. So I'd like to get feedback from that meeting and sit back down with Jim and his team and bring a few members of our group together and talk about a process because what I'm hearing from the earlier statements, we have some time on the discretionary items, specifically the gate, which I think loud and clear, we want to change. I heard that the color of the material can be changed. I didn't hear that they could change it to wood because that's a different issue, but again, I'd like to understand what exactly are they willing and willing to change and then talk about the process. Lily and Mary and Jonathan Goldman, our public works director, all familiar with the planning commission and the planning process, the building code, what's discretionary, what's not. So I think we can talk to them about that. And then probably come back to the council with a recommendation and hopefully with cooperative effort from the district to how we'll proceed. But to try to wing that tonight, I don't think it's well advised. |
| 03:02:55.46 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. That makes sense to me. Does it make sense? We have staff in the district talking about that. |
| 03:03:04.90 | Councilmember Weiner | how we have been working things out with the district and i think that's going to be a fruitful way and come back to council and tell you what their the concept is and see if you guys go for it you folks go for it |
| 03:03:06.28 | Mayor Withing | AND I THINK IT'S A |
| 03:03:06.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 03:03:06.50 | Mayor Withing | I'm sorry. |
| 03:03:06.53 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:03:15.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I know I don't have a majority vote on this and probably not even a second, but on principle, I'm going to make a motion to send this our city property to the Planning Commission and Historical Landmarks Review for review. |
| 03:03:33.91 | Councilmember Leon | Well, I'm going to just state I'm not seconding it, but we went through that, so there's not formally, and we just discussed how we were going to do it. But I won't second it, but I just wanted to add that comment to your acknowledged motion that would probably not get seconded. |
| 03:03:54.29 | Mayor Withing | Okay, are we... done here with this. I think we've got an action plan. Certainly everybody is welcome to be at the December 4th BCDC meeting. There's going to be another meeting of BCDC on December 18th. you or January, depending upon their schedule, which we may hear about. And I'd just like to end by thanking, Yule for coming. the district and the engineers, attorneys, and Jim. Thank you very much, and that was an excellent presentation. Thank you. |
| 03:04:47.67 | Councilmember Weiner | If you would wait and come up to the microphone, please. |
| 03:04:51.60 | Eva Bauer | My name is Eva Bauer. I'm chief engineer for the Golden Gate Bridge District, and I won't wholeheartedly to second what Adam just described. We will certainly engage in conversation, and we'll certainly try to make our best effort to improve the look, improve the aesthetics, and come out with something that will be more pleasing and will be more agreeable to the citizens of South Salito. Um, We'll be working very closely because we are also on schedule, but we'll make every effort to make sure that we are properly considered the issue and develop the best solution possible for everybody. Thank you. |
| 03:05:34.26 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. So once again, thank you all. |
| 03:05:35.88 | Eva Bauer | again. Thank you. |
| 03:05:38.53 | Mayor Withing | And for all of you, our residents who came out tonight, thank you very much. This was an important discussion. |
| 03:05:43.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Your voice made a big difference. Thank you. |
| 03:05:55.81 | Mayor Withing | OK. |
| 03:06:01.31 | Mayor Withing | Yeah, okay. We're going to take a three-minute break. |
| 03:06:05.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:06.07 | Mayor Withing | Bye. I know she won't go out there. |
| 03:06:13.32 | Unknown | I see it, see it. |
| 03:06:17.15 | Councilmember Weiner | It is a deep learning study. |
| 03:06:22.94 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:06:22.99 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | And then there was one. |
| 03:06:24.93 | Councilmember Weiner | Oh, Dave? You're getting to be that guy. Don't become that guy. Don't become that guy. |
| 03:06:25.03 | Councilmember Leon | Yeah. |
| 03:06:25.05 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | All day. |
| 03:06:29.10 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:06:29.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:29.24 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:06:29.52 | Unknown | I believe it. |
| 03:06:29.89 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:06:30.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:30.25 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:06:31.01 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:06:31.14 | Councilmember Weiner | Who was there last night? |
| 03:06:31.19 | Councilmember Leon | He was there last night. Vicki and him were there last night. |
| 03:06:33.67 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:06:34.52 | Mayor Withing | Do we need to wait for Mary? Okay. |
| 03:06:42.91 | Mayor Withing | So the next item, 7A, City Manager Information for Council. |
| 03:06:49.28 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. As this is a special meeting, I won't give much information other than a reminder that our last council meeting of the year will be December 9th, next Tuesday. And then we'll have our council retreat on Saturday, December 13th at 9 a.m. And then we'll adjourn for the rest of the year and enjoy the holidays. That ends my report. Happy to answer any questions of the council. |
| 03:07:20.05 | Mayor Withing | Thanks, Adam. Any questions of Adam? Okay. Any public comment on City Manager information for Council? Okay, seeing none, council member committee reports. Anybody have any reports? |
| 03:07:40.58 | Michael Racks | Well... |
| 03:07:41.23 | Councilmember Leon | The only report was the bike and pet committee met last night. Nothing special on business, but I guess the news is that they've moved into the chambers because they're getting a bigger following, so they'll be in here. And I think their meetings are moving to the third Mondays of the month. And are those recorded, Tony? Well, they haven't been to this point. But they will be. That's one of the advantages to moving to this room. So we'll be recording them. And would we only record them a week? Not stream them, but they'd be on the website, correct? As opposed to council meetings, which are on TV. |
| 03:08:16.46 | Adam Politzer | If it's a slow night with the media center in Marin, we could probably get live video. But it just depends on who else you're competing with and what programming they already have. |
| 03:08:19.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:08:28.20 | Adam Politzer | but they're always looking for content, and I am sure that they will replay your items. They just won't be live. Okay, that's fine. |
| 03:08:36.91 | Councilmember Weiner | You need somebody who's doing the camera stuff, so that's, you gotta make sure you have. Is that you? |
| 03:08:44.41 | Unknown | You're volunteering. I try. |
| 03:08:49.20 | Councilmember Weiner | out of the vault. Thank you. |
| 03:08:52.45 | Mayor Withing | Any public comment on committee reports? Nope, see none. Future agenda items. This is where we sort of tally our list of future agenda items for future agenda committee setting committees to review. Anybody? Anybody? |
| 03:09:10.49 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have raised this in the past, but not lately. |
| 03:09:11.37 | Mayor Withing | Yes. |
| 03:09:19.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Future agenda item would be pros and cons of ABAC membership. We know Corte Madera has withdrawn from ABAC for some good reasons. It seems to me that it would be of benefit for the Council and benefit for the citizens to agendize just the topic so that the council could be educated as to the pros and cons, perhaps even invite a member of the Corte Madera Council to speak to their decision-making process. So, thank you. |
| 03:09:55.28 | Mayor Withing | Thanks. I would actually like to suggest that we actually agendize ABAG as well. And we actually invite someone from ABAC here to actually talk about what they do and to actually talk about their various processes. I certainly do not think anybody from the town of Cordo Madera we should invite. By the way, I heard they're going to reconsider their decision anyway. So any other agenda items? But I think having an ABAC and rep come. In in fact I know there's the person who's the deputy director of ABAC who's for this area is very willing to come here and give a presentation and have a discussion about any aspect of what they do that you want |
| 03:10:47.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, so that's a good idea. With ABAG, perhaps we could ask him to speak to Plan Bay Area 2. Thank you. |
| 03:10:56.65 | Mayor Withing | Sure, we'd love to. |
| 03:10:59.00 | Councilmember Weiner | We have in common. Twice. more or less. |
| 03:11:04.75 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. and Enrique. |
| 03:11:06.42 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:11:06.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:06.49 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:11:06.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:06.90 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. number of times over the years. And they've been happy to talk to whatever we want them to talk about. |
| 03:11:07.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. you I'm just concerned about have a lot of concerns about Plan Bay area too. So I'd like to be able to hear. |
| 03:11:16.94 | Mayor Withing | Well, I saw future council member committee reports. Assuming I remain as the ABAG delegate, then as I mentioned last time, we're having periodic meetings at the eight Marin ABAG delegates. A member of ABAG, the Deputy Director in particular, is there at every one of these meetings. And I think we need to give you an update on the whole process sometime in the first quarter, I would suggest. Okay. Any other future agenda items? Any public comment on future agenda items okay seeing none move on to appointments to boards and commissions we have the opportunity tonight to consider the nomination to the historic landmarks boards. Let me open that part. And... |
| 03:11:34.34 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:12:14.43 | Mayor Withing | I would like to nominate Aldo Mercado to be considered for the Historic Landmarks Board. Is there anybody, any other nomination? |
| 03:12:31.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I can't locate the – who was the other person who was – The other person – |
| 03:12:40.54 | Mayor Withing | The other person was Sue Southerty. Stuckvich? Sorry, Susan, I've mispronounced your name. |
| 03:12:48.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:12:52.47 | Councilmember Leon | Okay. and we interviewed them both. Thank you. |
| 03:12:59.45 | Mayor Withing | So my nomination is Aldo Mercado. Unless there's any other, do we need to vote? |
| 03:13:11.55 | Mayor Withing | So, so, okay. Anybody object? No. Okay. That's done. Other reports of significance. Any public comment on anything else? Okay. In that case, I will seek a motion to adjourn. We are adjourned. Thank you. |